Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters How is Optimum Game Weight Calculation done?

We seem to have gotten of the track of big nasty cartridges and bullets killing animals with gut shots......


How'd that happen? Where are we now?

Gath...my post about the "lights out" effect implies good placement....other than on woodchucks and crows,I have not seen it with lousy shot placement on larger animals.

Edited to Add: I take that back....I had it happen once.I was the perp,and a doe antelope was killed so instantly from a gut shot,behind the diaphragm, I only heard the bullet hit,losing her in recoil.I considered it an anomoly then, as I do now.

I doubt I could make it happen again at will.Not a good bet.

You're Google FU is weak today and you are grasping at straws, broken straws at best
Soft tissue damage is not incapacitation unless the damage is sever enough to vitals and that is something that you fail to realize.
Geneva convention, REALLY

A pressure wave can cause localized damage not remote damage and that is what Fackler states, of course you miss the details

The higher the velocity the more the so called pressure wave, which is "hydraulic presssure"

[quote=Gath_Sten}

Apparently you missed all the published papers dealing with injury and trauma caused by pressure waves. [/quote]

No, I didn't. I simply didn't mention it. But as long as you have, did you actually look at the reference section? I did, and I saw that almost half of them were unpublished, or references to lay literature - not exactly standard for "scientific" literature. Second, the papers you cite seem to set up a false straw man saying that Fackler and his colleagues don't believe that the "shock effect" exists as a physical phenomena or that it can cause injury. But that isn't really the issue. Anyone who has seen videos, or even still pictures, of bullets impacting ballistic gelatin (which I believe was developed by Fackler) can see that there is a shock wave that travels through gelatin. The physical phenomena is not at issue, the clinical effect IS. What Fackler is really saying is that, at handgun velocities the shock effect is negligible. So, the real issue, as jwp475 astutely points out, is whether shock effect can cause instant incapacitation. And in terms of that, all the cited genuine scientific literature in both papers is beside the point, because all the literature is addressing injury and NOT incapacitation. If you get shot in the finger you're injured, but are you incapacitated?

SPOT ON!!!!!!!

Of course, but it�s Fackler who based his argument on the idea that the lithotriptor produces pressure waves larger than those caused by most handgun bullets, yet cause no damage to soft tissues whatsoever.

�A PHD is not a Dr. or biologist�, REALLY



That�s not what Fackler states concerning the lithotriptor. Look it up (Fackler ML: What's Wrong With the Wound Ballistics Literature and Why. Letterman Army Institute of Research, Division of Military Trauma Research.)



It�s more than just velocity. The formula is given in this paper under the heading �II. Method�. Any pressure wave traveling through a liquid is hydraulic pressure. It�s the difference between the crest and trough of the wave that�s important.

Ignorance is correctable, but you can't fix stupid

If you go back to near the start of this thread you'll see others using populist books as the basis for their augment against incapacitation from ballistic pressure waves. If you want to pretend to be the judge of the quality of what�s being linked, comment on that. Also, you�ll see that much of what Fackler has published has not been peer reviewed either. How about providing a link to the pear reviewed studies you claimed you published.



It would be easy to establish the "shock effect" exists as a physical phenomena without shooting animals under controlled conditions. Just put your hand on one side of a pig and have someone hit it with a 2x4 on the other side and see if you can feel anything. Really, what did you think the studies were about?



So you only looked at the two papers I gave you links to. If you had been following this thread you would have seen I linked to this paper as well. Note under section III. Results - Load 3: Where is says �One test subject was immediately deceased. Two out of four incapacitated test subjects were deceased within 24 hours.� In case you don�t remember, peer reviewed is not the gold standard of scientific inquire, it�s publishing the details of experiments so that others can duplicate or refute your findings. This paper meets that standard.

Maybe you should go watch the Berger video I linked to that shows two animals drop in their tracks and read what Mule Deer has to say about animals having a minimum of 10 seconds to run even with a shot that takes out the vitals. Is the video wrong, is Mule Deer wrong, or is it possible that the effect of the ballistic pressure wave is real, just not predictable?

Yet you like to point out minor mistakes as if they disqualify the larger argument. Now that�s stupid.

A medical doctor is more qualified to know what is incapacitating and what is not and that is not "minor". You fail to realize that wrong is wrong.... NOW that is stupid