Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 11 of 16 1 2 9 10 11 12 13 15 16
#12203408 - 08/12/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Angus1895]  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,812
Mule Deer Online content
Campfire Oracle
Mule Deer  Online Content
Campfire Oracle

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,812
Banana Belt, Montana
Angus,

Congratulations on your Googling. I read everything you've so far quoted previously, often several years ago, including some that have never appeared on the Internet, because they the results of field experiments performed by bullet companies that have never been made public. There are many contradictions in Nathan Foster's writing on "hydrostatic shock," including more formal studies that have found physical evidence of such damage with bullets at much lower velocities than he cites. Then, of course, there's always the definition of "hydrostatic shock," which varies considerably, depending on who's talking or writing. I have read and heard several definitions, but juice flying out of the far side of a tomato can is a first.

I have seen lung tissue "blown" out the far side of Cape buffalo with solids bullets at very moderate muzzle velocities. Is that evidence of hydrostatic shock, or just a big bullet pushing stuff in front of it?


John

"Gunwriters, as you know, aren't as informed as their readers are and if it wasn't for the readers, there would be no need for writers..."--Shrapnel, May 2015
CMG 300 BP

#12203414 - 08/12/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Angus1895]  
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 21,265
jwp475 Offline
Campfire Kahuna
jwp475  Offline
Campfire Kahuna

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 21,265
USA
Originally Posted by Angus1895
[img]http://Ammunition selection for hunting Edit Hydrostatic shock is commonly considered as a factor in the selection of hunting ammunition. Peter Capstick explains that hydrostatic shock may have value for animals up to the size of white-tailed deer, but the ratio of energy transfer to animal weight is an important consideration for larger animals. If the animal’s weight exceeds the bullet’s energy transfer, penetration in an undeviating line to a vital organ is a much more important consideration than energy transfer and hydrostatic shock.[60] Jim Carmichael, in contrast, describes evidence that hydrostatic shock can affect animals as large as Cape Buffalo in the results of a carefully controlled study carried out by veterinarians in a buffalo culling operation. Whereas virtually all of our opinions about knockdown power are based on isolated examples, the data gathered during the culling operation was taken from a number of animals. Even more important, the animals were then examined and dissected in a scientific manner by professionals. Predictably, some of the buffalo dropped where they were shot and some didn't, even though all received near-identical hits in the vital heart-lung area. When the brains of all the buffalo were removed, the researchers discovered that those that had been knocked down instantly had suffered massive rupturing of blood vessels in the brain. The brains of animals that hadn't fallen instantly showed no such damage. — Jim Carmichael[61][/img]

This is from the same thread.



A bullet strike is an inelastic collision, in this type of collision momentum is conserved, energy is not. Therefore the talk of energy transfer is ridiculous. There are many forms of energy, here the energy discussed is kinetic which is a calculation of mass in motion. Momentum can be measured, kinetic energy is calculated not measured.

Last edited by jwp475; 08/12/17.


I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
#12203445 - 08/12/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Jim in Idaho]  
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,040
Angus1895 Online content
Campfire Guide
Angus1895  Online Content
Campfire Guide

Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,040
Idaho
Mule Deer
Is it blown out? Or sucked or pulled with?
Like I said earlier I was not talking about hydrostatic shock.But I was honest in answering you I learned the phenomenon in Armor School at Ft. Knox. I honestly don't know wtf it should be called. I am trying to learn and be able to comprehend these things. And knowing what to call it or what not to is appreciated.

I am a Dumd Ass Tanker

I collect thurty thurtys, And like to hunt with 45/70 s.

But I get asked about this kind of stuff a lot, and would like to know these things. I have no dog in this hunt, and I appreciate you trying to learn me up.

Last edited by Angus1895; 08/12/17.

"Shoot low sheriff, I think he's riding a shetland!" B. Wills












#12203465 - 08/12/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Jim in Idaho]  
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,040
Angus1895 Online content
Campfire Guide
Angus1895  Online Content
Campfire Guide

Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,040
Idaho
Jwp475 I am sorry, what do you mean?

I thought the study showed two groups of buffalo.

One group exhibited signs of Shock

One group did not.

The group showing the signs of shock also had pathological changes in the brain, away from the wound channel.
The other group did not.


"Shoot low sheriff, I think he's riding a shetland!" B. Wills












#12203632 - 08/12/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Angus1895]  
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 21,265
jwp475 Offline
Campfire Kahuna
jwp475  Offline
Campfire Kahuna

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 21,265
USA
Originally Posted by Angus1895
Jwp475 I am sorry, what do you mean?

I thought the study showed two groups of buffalo.

One group exhibited signs of Shock

One group did not.

The group showing the signs of shock also had pathological changes in the brain, away from the wound channel.
The other group did not.


I was quite clear.



I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Alpha

#12203649 - 08/12/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Jim in Idaho]  
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,040
Angus1895 Online content
Campfire Guide
Angus1895  Online Content
Campfire Guide

Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,040
Idaho
So buying a Mazda does not conserve energy?


"Shoot low sheriff, I think he's riding a shetland!" B. Wills












#12203674 - 08/12/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Jim in Idaho]  
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,805
akjeff Offline
Campfire Guide
akjeff  Offline
Campfire Guide

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,805
Alaska
I don't see how in the hell you can compare a sabot round penetrating a tank and a rifle bullet going through a critter??? When the penetrator goes through the armor, the friction and heat generated is incredible. The pressure inside the tank would have to go up considerably, given that interior volume remains the same but temperature rises. Obviously, things are going to fly out any holes in the armor. That ain't happening in a critter.

Jeff

#12203729 - 08/12/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Angus1895]  
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 53,303
crossfireoops Offline
Campfire Oracle
crossfireoops  Offline
Campfire Oracle

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 53,303
Southeastern AZ
Originally Posted by Angus1895
Jwp475 I am sorry, what do you mean?

I thought the study showed two groups of buffalo.

One group exhibited signs of Shock

One group did not.

The group showing the signs of shock also had pathological changes in the brain, away from the wound channel.
The other group did not
.


Exactly,......, and the theories presented at the time (VERY credible IMHO) as relates to this revolved around whether the Animal's hearts were in full contraction, or totally relaxed, at the moment of impact / expansion .....we're going back a LONG ways in American Gun writing here,.....but it made perfect sense to me then, and still does today.

I've been watching this thread carefully, and not without a lot of interest,.......see little or no common ground, or even REMOTE similarity between killing an armored turret full of men with a sabot penetrator to dropping an expanding OR SOLID hunting bullet into the space above a game animal's diaphragm.

no offense.....but have found it kinda' weird , actually.

Luck,

GTC


Member, Clan of the Border Rats
-- “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”- Mark Twain





#12203777 - 08/12/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: crossfireoops]  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,812
Mule Deer Online content
Campfire Oracle
Mule Deer  Online Content
Campfire Oracle

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,812
Banana Belt, Montana
Well, it really got going after Angus posted this three days ago:

I have not read all the posts yet on this thread, but while working to day I thought of this explanation. We have two ways to express energy .....as measured as foot pounds, Or the other as a vacuum inducing " hydrostatic " shock. Hydrostatic shock relies on an exit hole to in essence " suck " or aspirated vascular tissue into non viability. Hydrostatic shock not only requires full penetration, it need velocity. These two requirements demand both shot placement, adequate barrel length, and cartridge powder capacity.

Foot pounds of energy are only felt by an animal if the projectile does not fully penetrate the beast. Once it fully penetrates the energy is still in the bullet wasted on the impact of wherever the bullet goes and hits next.

Using a heavy bullet with a large meplat helps ensure maximum foot pounds of energy are utilized in the process of shooting into an animal. The larger meplat lowers the sectional density limiting penetration, but the heavier bullet " stores" energy as it is sent down range. This energy will transfer into the beast as the bullet sheds its weight while going through the tissues.Thus reducing the need for precise, shot placement, barrel length . One could also employ a smaller cartridge length.....for faster actions.
Makes this approach perhaps a better compromise in point blank situations.

Just my thoughts.


John

"Gunwriters, as you know, aren't as informed as their readers are and if it wasn't for the readers, there would be no need for writers..."--Shrapnel, May 2015
#12203789 - 08/12/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Jim in Idaho]  
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 53,303
crossfireoops Offline
Campfire Oracle
crossfireoops  Offline
Campfire Oracle

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 53,303
Southeastern AZ
John,....I just read the latest postings over there as well,......and can only reflect that WEIRDNESS is loose, and running freely there, now.
Oh well,.....
It is good to know that they still die the way they've always done, though,....

GTC


Member, Clan of the Border Rats
-- “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”- Mark Twain





Bravo

#12204011 - 08/12/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Jim in Idaho]  
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,040
Angus1895 Online content
Campfire Guide
Angus1895  Online Content
Campfire Guide

Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,040
Idaho
Both groups were shot in the same place.

Now remember I have not read the entire study nor is the study my own.

But this is what was published in 2015 ? By Jim Carmichael not me.

Very weird for something professed to be debunked.

No one has shown when, how , or why it was debunked.

But I also do not know how credible the study I posted is.

I call that beyond weird.........perhaps self serving marketing.

I have no idea from who or what.

Just my opinion by a Dumd ass Tanker, that happens to be a Bovine Doctor.

Why are there no comments on the 2010 Iraq study?

Granted tanks are not large dangerous animals, but I do not use them as a study, just an analogy of a personal experience. If we must debate by attacking personal analogies I feel sorry for the campfire.

But who freaking cares.......I got no bullets to sell you.

I would just like to be presented the evidence of the debunking! And or criticism of the published recent studies and or both. Thanks.

Last edited by Angus1895; 08/12/17.

"Shoot low sheriff, I think he's riding a shetland!" B. Wills












#12204682 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Jim in Idaho]  
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,987
HuntnShoot Offline
Campfire Ranger
HuntnShoot  Offline
Campfire Ranger

Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,987
15 min from elk, MT
I believe I understand the point you are making, Angus.

My older brother was a tanker, stuck in Death Valley for his stint in the army. He first told me about the sabot rounds and their function when I was a teen, and yet had little knowledge of physics, but the concept fascinated me, as he said they did as claimed, both in the test videos he watched and then in the live fire exercises of which he was part. The pressure differential within the turret caused by the projectile did indeed suck all kinds of stuff through the tiny exit hole created by the projectile.

The confusions here are manifold though. First of all is the confusion of air vs fluids. Air IS a fluid. So fluid dynamics play a part. And what you describe, Angus, is a vacuum force which happens within the enclosed space of a tank turret when the mile-per-second depleted uranium projectile strikes and passes through the turret. The vacuum force created can easily be demonstrated in the fluid media of air or water as slow or rapid differentiations in pressure causing fluid movement. Drag a boat oar through water and watch what happens. Variations in pressure at the front and back of the oar cause fluid flow. Get on a plane, and the wings do the same thing, where the air over the top of the wing causes such a difference in pressure that the whole plane is lifted. Or my first real-world example of this on the scale of big things: in my girlfriend's crappy jeep driving down an interstate with a strong headwind that kept us from going over 60, until a passing semi swung into our lane nearly cutting me off, and the semi ended up dragging us about 80 miles, more or less, while I barely used the gas pedal.

These are the same forces that bullets cause in various fluids.


I belong on eroding granite, among the pines.
#12204726 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Jim in Idaho]  
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,040
Angus1895 Online content
Campfire Guide
Angus1895  Online Content
Campfire Guide

Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,040
Idaho
Thank you hunt n shoot. I know in the savage group there is a retired Tank Comander. I am just leery as to how much to discuss and share on a public forum about Army Training.

However I am fascinated by the science of debunking studies without articles or references to rely on for evidence to support positions.
But what ever, I know personally I have learned a bunch of things during this debate and find the whole concept of hydrostatic shock fascinating. I wonder where one could apply to help the lovely lady shooter go over her " figures."


"Shoot low sheriff, I think he's riding a shetland!" B. Wills












#12204834 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Angus1895]  
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 6,283
bwinters Offline
Campfire Tracker
bwinters  Offline
Campfire Tracker

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 6,283
Smoky Mountains, TN
I'll take a bullet through the lungs for $500 Alex......................


Adversity doesn't build character, it reveals it.
#12204846 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: HuntnShoot]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 22,312
smokepole Online content
Campfire Kahuna
smokepole  Online Content
Campfire Kahuna

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 22,312
Colorado
Originally Posted by HuntnShoot
These are the same forces that bullets cause in various fluids.


I think the term for what you're describing is cavitation. Already mentioned by MD, Jordan, and possibly a few others.

As far as "hydrostatic shock" or better yet, "remote wounding and incapacitating effects in living targets through a hydraulic effect in their liquid-filled tissues," I don't have the background or time to research or de-bunk it. Or the inclination. I'll leave that to people who've studied it like doc rocket and MD.

All I can offer is a few observations. They certainly don't "de-bunk" it using science but they tell me all I need to know to satisfy my own curiosity. Most of the animals I've shot through the ribs (and lungs) have run a fair distance. I didn't measure the distance or keep notes on it but I'd say 40-100 yards is a good average, some a little more, some less. So they were not "incapacitated" by a shock wave; they were incapacitated by massive blood loss, drop in blood pressure, and being unable to breathe. One mule deer buck was standing in sage broadside at 30 yards. The bullet blew a huge hole through the rib cage with blood and lung tissue splattered on the sage 20 yards behind him. Yet he ran about 150 yards. Definitely not "incapacitated." He finally ran head-on into a tree and collapsed.

Some others dropped on the spot, but that number is about 10% of the total or maybe a little more. I didn't perform an autopsy so I don't know the precise cause of death. It could be some remote hemorrhaging of blood vessels in the CNS. But if so, it only happens 10 or 20% of the time based on my observations so IME it's not a very reliable or predictable phenomenon. If it was a simple matter of physics as its proponents believe, it seems they'd all drop on the spot.

High shoulder shots that hit bone and neck shots are a different story.



A wise man is frequently humbled.

#12204905 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Jim in Idaho]  
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 31,265
jorgeI Offline
Campfire Oracle
jorgeI  Offline
Campfire Oracle

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 31,265
Orange Park, Florida
Wow, first the earth cooled...
Anyway, after all you forty-pound head guys introduced all of your theories, data etc., I thought I'd post a few more comments on the "speed kills" side of things from a purely empirical perspective. I don't have the hunting experience of a few of you guys, but from personal experience and what I've gathered from speaking to various gents with lots of experience, I offer the following:

American PH Mark Sullivan, whom I have met several times and my friend Allen Day (RIP) hunted with him, in his opinion the most dramatic DRT kills on the big cats has been with super-high velocity cartridges. If some of you have watched any of his videos, there are quite a few cat kills and without question the quickest kills have been with the 30-378, 378 Weatherby (gasp) calibers. There are also quite a bit shot with the 416 Rigby, 458 Winchester Mag etc. If you get the chance to watch these, the difference speed makes is very obvious. Further, Ross Seyfried in his writings has also opined (and observed ) the most dramatic kills on Cape Buffalo have been with the 416 Weatherby @2700 fps. Lastly, I have personally spoken with Connie Brooks and both her and her husband when testing the TSX on Buffalo, also related Buffalo reacted more when shot with the 350 TSX than the 400. All of this is empirical of course, but I can tell you from personal experience, not a SINGLE deer I've ever shot wit the 257 Weatherby and 100gr Hornady Spire Points has EVER taken a step and that over fifty deer. And of course I still maintain that while shot placement is paramount, there are sensible minimums when dealing with dangerous game.


Teddy Roosevelt, John Wayne, Winston Churchill paid to hunt...
#12204944 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Jim in Idaho]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 22,312
smokepole Online content
Campfire Kahuna
smokepole  Online Content
Campfire Kahuna

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 22,312
Colorado
Yes, speed kills. There's no doubt that monometal bullets work best at high velocities. One reason is that they don't open as well at slower velocities and don't cause as big a wound. That would be the simplest explanation.






A wise man is frequently humbled.

#12205004 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: smokepole]  
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 6,283
bwinters Offline
Campfire Tracker
bwinters  Offline
Campfire Tracker

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 6,283
Smoky Mountains, TN
Originally Posted by smokepole
Yes, speed kills. There's no doubt that monometal bullets work best at high velocities. One reason is that they don't open as well at slower velocities and don't cause as big a wound. That would be the simplest explanation.





I'm here on the speed kills subject. Might also be a good bit of shrapnel effect from high velocity bullet/bone chunks wink

Last edited by bwinters; 08/13/17.

Adversity doesn't build character, it reveals it.
#12205079 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Jim in Idaho]  
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,987
HuntnShoot Offline
Campfire Ranger
HuntnShoot  Offline
Campfire Ranger

Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,987
15 min from elk, MT
Originally Posted by Angus1895
Thank you hunt n shoot. I know in the savage group there is a retired Tank Comander. I am just leery as to how much to discuss and share on a public forum about Army Training.

However I am fascinated by the science of debunking studies without articles or references to rely on for evidence to support positions.
But what ever, I know personally I have learned a bunch of things during this debate and find the whole concept of hydrostatic shock fascinating. I wonder where one could apply to help the lovely lady shooter go over her " figures."


As others have pointed out, the term "hydrostatic shock" is self-contradictory at worst and a misnomer at best. What I was hoping to explain a bit in my post is why the fluid dynamics of a bullet through the rib cage/lungs can at least parallel some of the effects of a sabot round through a tank turret, including drawing tissue and fluids out the exit.

And smokepole, speaking of cavitation, once the bullet strikes the medium of the target, high-speed camera shows that the bullet doesn't seem to actually contact the fluid much within the medium. The compressed fluid (shock wave) in front of (and to the sides of) the bullet is the thing that does the damage through the fluid, if the projectile is travelling fast enough. Thus the holes through things that are far bigger than the actual projectile used. I don't understand all the physics involved, but I have seen the effect.

I'm really in the "Who cares?" camp though. I shoot stuff in specific places, and that stuff dies. If I screw up badly, the clowns may come out, and a rodeo ensues. I prefer bullets that start off heavy for caliber and lose weight within the animal, because they seem to do a better job of putting stuff down, regardless of whether there are clowns involved. I've not had any luck getting monos to shoot well for me, or else I'd likely have tried them on animals by now, to do some high speed, small projectile testing.

This year, most of my hunting will be done with cast WFN, unless some distance shooting (over 300) ends up being necessary. The elk seem to be in the high, thick timber th last two years. Speaking of "stoppers", I think a hardcast 44 cal 310 at 2150 qualities.

Last edited by HuntnShoot; 08/13/17.

I belong on eroding granite, among the pines.
#12205164 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: HuntnShoot]  
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 9,557
jwall Online content
Campfire Outfitter
jwall  Online Content
Campfire Outfitter

Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 9,557
Southern Arkansas
Originally Posted by HuntnShoot


B...... once the bullet strikes the medium of the target, [/b]high-speed camera shows that the bullet doesn't seem to actually contact the fluid much within the medium. The compressed fluid (shock wave) in front of (and to the sides of) the bullet is the thing that does the damage through the fluid, if the projectile is travelling fast enough. Thus the holes through things that are far bigger than the actual projectile used.[b]

A I'm really in the "Who cares?" camp though. I shoot stuff in specific places, and that stuff dies.


A I'm not in the Who Cares camp but I'm interested enuff to follow the discussion. I also have seen the 'hydraulic' effect and IMHO think that has been termed "Hydrostatic shock". I see how the term may very well be a contradiction or enigma. Regardless..

B I have NOT seen the effects on 'tanks' as you two have described but HAVE seen the 'internal' damage inside deer MUCH larger than the projectile (bullet). Obviously the bullet didn't EXPAND then retract in size. Sometimes one organ's or muscle's destruction causes damage to another.

Sometimes IMObservation the bullet has ONLY contacted thin meat and lungs YET the resultant damage can be awesome.

I'm NOT entering this debate, just making my observations. I 'think' Hydraulic Shock is more appropriate or descriptive. No one else has to agree with me. REDUX, I'm not entering this debate. grin

Jerry


jwall- *** 3100 guy***

Slow bullets don't impress me.

A Flat Trajectory is NEVER a handicap.


#12205867 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Jim in Idaho]  
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,040
Angus1895 Online content
Campfire Guide
Angus1895  Online Content
Campfire Guide

Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,040
Idaho
[img]http://Direct contact refers to a bullet directly striking and destroying one of the major nerve centers, including the thoracic and cervical vertebrae, the brain or the autonomic plexus, regardless of velocity, this will result in instant death.

Indirect contact refers to the effects of a high velocity bullet imparting its energy, creating a hydrostatic shock wave. In terminal ballistics, the terms hydraulic shock and hydrostatic shock both refer to kinetic energy transferred as shock waves through flesh, however, each term describes different results.

Hydraulic shock is the civil engineers term also known as water hammer but in terminal ballistics context refers to the pressure of accelerated fluid particles that create the temporary wound channel.

Hydrostatic shock transfer refers to the effect when shock waves travel through flesh to distant nerve centers, disrupting their ability to emit electrical impulses. Be very much aware that the terms hydraulic and hydrostatic shock are quite often misused by both hunters and professionals - including ballisticians working for bullet making companies.[/img]

Definitions from the Terminal Ballistic research web sight. New Zealand I believe

Last edited by Angus1895; 08/13/17.

"Shoot low sheriff, I think he's riding a shetland!" B. Wills












Page 11 of 16 1 2 9 10 11 12 13 15 16

Moderated by  RickBin, SYSOP 

AIH 160 1
Who's Online Now
755 registered members (10gaugemag, 12344mag, 01Foreman400, 117LBS, 007FJ, 70 invisible), 1,931 guests, and 611 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod









Copyright © 2000-2018 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.080s Queries: 15 (0.007s) Memory: 1.0704 MB (Peak: 1.3957 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-12-18 03:25:25 UTC