When I was a youth reading and rereading every gun and hunting related magazine I could get my hands on I believed the way to kill a deer was to put a fast enough bullet into a deer that would expand and dump all it's energy without exiting ideally so there was maximum energy transfer. Now I read all this about how good Barnes bullets are and I wonder if all that was bunk. I've killed deer that died like they had been hit by lightening with an expanding bullet and I thought that might be why. On the other hand I've hit and killed others that acted like they didn't even feel the shot. Is hydrostatic shock real or a myth?
In the beginning (meaning in the days when Roy Weatherby started out) "hydrostatic shock" was claimed to push blood throughout an animal, like brake fluid being pushed throughout the brake system in a vehicle, which supposedly severely damaged all the organs from the heart to the brain. According to some advocates (including Roy) this meant it didn't matter where you hit an animal, because the sudden blood-pressure rise would kill it immediately,
Roy didn't have much experience shooting game at that point, and later, on his first African safari, found it didn't work nearly as neatly as he expected and claimed. Since then some have claimed that the way a "high velocity rifles bullet" explodes an apple, can of beans or even a gallon jug of water is evidence of hydrostatic shock. And there's no doubt high impact velocity does more damage than lower velocities with the same bullets.
But the hydrostatic shock theory as promoted by early high-velocity advocates is BS, primarily because internal organs of big game (which include the veins and arteries of the circulatory system) are far more flexible than brake lines, and vary far more in diameter. Which means that shooting even a deer in the butt with a super high-velocity bullet has no effect on the brain, or any other major organs.
The major factor in "killing power," however it's defined, is not the mythical hydrostatic shock, but how much damage a bullet does to vital organs, which is why fragmenting bullets often kill game quicker. But sometimes non-fragmenting bullets kill just as quickly, or at least drop them as quickly, especially if the bullets pass close to major nerve systems.
Hydrostatic shock is an oxymoron. Hydro means water, (or other liquids) and static means at rest. The phrase literally means the shock of water at rest.
If you want to talk about hydrodynamic shock, at least the terminology makes sense.
Animals mainly die from a central nervous system hit, or from a big enough hole in the right place to let the blood out or scramble gas exchange in the lungs.
I'm sure the shockwave that propagates through animal flesh doesn't do them any good, but I'm very skeptical about it killing anything.
When I was a youth reading and rereading every gun and hunting related magazine I could get my hands on I believed the way to kill a deer was to put a fast enough bullet into a deer that would expand and dump all it's energy without exiting ideally so there was maximum energy transfer. Now I read all this about how good Barnes bullets are and I wonder if all that was bunk. I've killed deer that died like they had been hit by lightening with an expanding bullet and I thought that might be why. On the other hand I've hit and killed others that acted like they didn't even feel the shot. Is hydrostatic shock real or a myth?
I grew up with the exact same theory....until one day I hit a small buck with a ballistic tip from my .270 and the deer ran off. I finally found it in some bushes and it was hit fairly well. The range was about 25 yards and the deer should have dropped instantly.....
I decided that from that day forward, I wanted an exit hole to create a better blood trail to follow. I didn't dismiss the hydrostatic shock theory but was willing to sacrifice some of the bullet's energy to create an exit hole. That was 40 years back and since then have never regretted that decision. The hydrostatic shock theory has come up several times since then and always been dismissed as of little importance or non existent (even with good bullet placement. Today I look for 1. Sufficient accuracy to yield good placement 2. A tough enough bullet to exit 3. cartridge with enough energy capability to force the exit....(most modern rifles are capable of that) 4. sufficient bench time to keep my shooting skills in reasonable shape
Bear in mind.....there is no bullet that will always exit.....even the Barnes that I like to shoot will not always exit.....nor will the Nosler Partition.....but your chances are better. It's been said thousands of times.....Placement is the key! .
In the beginning (meaning in the days when Roy Weatherby started out) "hydrostatic shock" was claimed to push blood throughout an animal, like brake fluid being pushed throughout the brake system in a vehicle, which supposedly severely damaged all the organs from the heart to the brain. According to some advocates (including Roy) this meant it didn't matter where you hit an animal, because the sudden blood-pressure rise would kill it immediately,
Roy didn't have much experience shooting game at that point, and later, on his first African safari, found it didn't work nearly as neatly as he expected and claimed. Since then some have claimed that the way a "high velocity rifles bullet" explodes an apple, can of beans or even a gallon jug of water is evidence of hydrostatic shock. And there's no doubt high impact velocity does more damage than lower velocities with the same bullets.
But the hydrostatic shock theory as promoted by early high-velocity advocates is BS, primarily because internal organs of big game (which include the veins and arteries of the circulatory system) are far more flexible than brake lines, and vary far more in diameter. Which means that shooting even a deer in the butt with a super high-velocity bullet has no effect on the brain, or any other major organs.
The major factor in "killing power," however it's defined, is not the mythical hydrostatic shock, but how much damage a bullet does to vital organs, which is why fragmenting bullets often kill game quicker. But sometimes non-fragmenting bullets kill just as quickly, or at least drop them as quickly, especially if the bullets pass close to major nerve systems.
I'm sure most of us have had a common situation where they double lunged a deer and the deer went 75 yards and dropped. but we've also made the same shot and the deer fell in it's tracks instantly. If you don't hit the spine or the brain what causes this lights out effect sometimes?
Imagine the complexity of the CNS, respiratory and circulatory systems and explain how two animals shot with similar placement and aspect will have the same reaction.
I shot a deer years ago with a .30-30 and among other things cut the heart completely in half. Spewed blood like a fire hydrant and it was easy to track...for over 200 yards. Uphill.
Different year, same result, boom-flop....with a .44 Mag. No hydro-whatzit involved.
In my youth, I read Wby's theories and somewhat subscribed but never had the funds to buy his rifles nor ammo.
I pushed his theory to the side as I gained hunting experience but have always wondered about a few kills I've witnessed where an animal was hit high in the neck with smaller high velocity bullets that dropped the critter instantly. Could the hydroshock that close to the brain have caused the critter to blackout and drop?
To take it a step further it is cessation of organ function and oxygen flowing to the brain which results in dead animals. Just like dead humans. Damage the system, shut it down, and creatures die.
In the beginning (meaning in the days when Roy Weatherby started out) "hydrostatic shock" was claimed to push blood throughout an animal, like brake fluid being pushed throughout the brake system in a vehicle, which supposedly severely damaged all the organs from the heart to the brain. According to some advocates (including Roy) this meant it didn't matter where you hit an animal, because the sudden blood-pressure rise would kill it immediately,
Roy didn't have much experience shooting game at that point, and later, on his first African safari, found it didn't work nearly as neatly as he expected and claimed. Since then some have claimed that the way a "high velocity rifles bullet" explodes an apple, can of beans or even a gallon jug of water is evidence of hydrostatic shock. And there's no doubt high impact velocity does more damage than lower velocities with the same bullets.
But the hydrostatic shock theory as promoted by early high-velocity advocates is BS, primarily because internal organs of big game (which include the veins and arteries of the circulatory system) are far more flexible than brake lines, and vary far more in diameter. Which means that shooting even a deer in the butt with a super high-velocity bullet has no effect on the brain, or any other major organs.
The major factor in "killing power," however it's defined, is not the mythical hydrostatic shock, but how much damage a bullet does to vital organs, which is why fragmenting bullets often kill game quicker. But sometimes non-fragmenting bullets kill just as quickly, or at least drop them as quickly, especially if the bullets pass close to major nerve systems.
I'm sure most of us have had a common situation where they double lunged a deer and the deer went 75 yards and dropped. but we've also made the same shot and the deer fell in it's tracks instantly. If you don't hit the spine or the brain what causes this lights out effect sometimes?
I suspect that some of the so-called “evidence” of HSS, such as ruptured arteries far from the POI are actually caused by bullet or bone fragments that aren’t found in the “post-mortem”.
I also think that there are factors involved, invisible to the hunter, that affect how an animal reacts to being shot; such as its emotional state, how full its stomach is, if the heart is between beats or compressing, if it’s inhaling or exhaling, and its stance- how its weight is distributed on its feet when the bullet hits. No way to know most or even any of that, so make a good shot with a good bullet and hope for the best.
What I want to know is how to get a deer to run towards my car when shot, instead of invariably the other way.
I just Googled "Hydrostatic shock" and there was some very interesting studies , the first by e. Harvey Newton at Princeton University. There was also reference done during WW2 on it by a Dr. Chamberlain who commanded a very large military hospital , interviewing patients of gunshot wounds.He steered away from the " shock" aspect because it aluded to some sort of pressure wave, but did acknowledge that the nervous system could be disrupted and that it was a real thing. There are a few others who disputed his findings as well. Quite interesting . Personally speaking, I strive for big holes properly placed in the lungs. :>) Cat
It's pretty simple.....you need to break bone and get to the main vitals. I have shot heavy for calibre lead and copper all with the same positive effect. I am a a Whitetail and Black Bear hunter and break the shoulder(s) on both.
When I was a youth reading and rereading every gun and hunting related magazine I could get my hands on I believed the way to kill a deer was to put a fast enough bullet into a deer that would expand and dump all it's energy without exiting ideally so there was maximum energy transfer. Now I read all this about how good Barnes bullets are and I wonder if all that was bunk. I've killed deer that died like they had been hit by lightening with an expanding bullet and I thought that might be why. On the other hand I've hit and killed others that acted like they didn't even feel the shot. Is hydrostatic shock real or a myth?
I grew up with the exact same theory....until one day I hit a small buck with a ballistic tip from my .270 and the deer ran off. I finally found it in some bushes and it was hit fairly well. The range was about 25 yards and the deer should have dropped instantly.....
I decided that from that day forward, I wanted an exit hole to create a better blood trail to follow. I didn't dismiss the hydrostatic shock theory but was willing to sacrifice some of the bullet's energy to create an exit hole. That was 40 years back and since then have never regretted that decision. The hydrostatic shock theory has come up several times since then and always been dismissed as of little importance or non existent (even with good bullet placement. Today I look for 1. Sufficient accuracy to yield good placement 2. A tough enough bullet to exit 3. cartridge with enough energy capability to force the exit....(most modern rifles are capable of that) 4. sufficient bench time to keep my shooting skills in reasonable shape
Bear in mind.....there is no bullet that will always exit.....even the Barnes that I like to shoot will not always exit.....nor will the Nosler Partition.....but your chances are better. It's been said thousands of times.....Placement is the key! .
Well said, that is my theory as well. I am willing to "waste some energy" in order to get an exit, thereby making tracking much easier. Where I hunt, a blood trail is pretty much a necessity. On thing I have done, and plan to try again is the "high shoulder shot" recommended by Barseness. I accidently shot a buck there 2 yrs ago, and he immediately dropped, kicked a few times, and quickly expired. Shot placement was directly in line with the front leg, and maybe a strong half ways up the body. Did not hit the shoulder bone, and ruined very little meat. I want to try that shot again as a sample size of 1 is pretty small:)
I don't have a valid opinion on this one way or 'tother, but I recall reading that the German military did some exhaustive testing of what translated to "pressure wave theory" and concluded that a projectile impact in excess of 800 m/s caused unexplained lethality. Knowing the thoroughness of the German engineering mind, one can only wonder if they did their testing on human subjects. So maybe we can't totally discount the possibility that a higher impact velocity creates some effect that is lethal but, is as yet unexplained.
In the beginning (meaning in the days when Roy Weatherby started out) "hydrostatic shock" was claimed to push blood throughout an animal, like brake fluid being pushed throughout the brake system in a vehicle, which supposedly severely damaged all the organs from the heart to the brain. According to some advocates (including Roy) this meant it didn't matter where you hit an animal, because the sudden blood-pressure rise would kill it immediately,
Roy didn't have much experience shooting game at that point, and later, on his first African safari, found it didn't work nearly as neatly as he expected and claimed. Since then some have claimed that the way a "high velocity rifles bullet" explodes an apple, can of beans or even a gallon jug of water is evidence of hydrostatic shock. And there's no doubt high impact velocity does more damage than lower velocities with the same bullets.
But the hydrostatic shock theory as promoted by early high-velocity advocates is BS, primarily because internal organs of big game (which include the veins and arteries of the circulatory system) are far more flexible than brake lines, and vary far more in diameter. Which means that shooting even a deer in the butt with a super high-velocity bullet has no effect on the brain, or any other major organs.
The major factor in "killing power," however it's defined, is not the mythical hydrostatic shock, but how much damage a bullet does to vital organs, which is why fragmenting bullets often kill game quicker. But sometimes non-fragmenting bullets kill just as quickly, or at least drop them as quickly, especially if the bullets pass close to major nerve systems.
I'm sure most of us have had a common situation where they double lunged a deer and the deer went 75 yards and dropped. but we've also made the same shot and the deer fell in it's tracks instantly. If you don't hit the spine or the brain what causes this lights out effect sometimes?
I've killed over 100 whitetails using a 30-06 and 150 SST. I've also killed nearly 50 deer using a 7mm-08 and 120 TTSX. Both very different bullets have muzzle velocity of approximately 3100fps, but I can say that the difference in performance and deer reaction is stark. With the SST, I could basically hit a deer anywhere in the front half, from any angle, and it would drop 90% of the time. When I started using the smaller TTSX, I realized my shot placement had become sloppy and the idea of "just hit the deer somewhere in the front half" wasn't a good plan any more. They both kill quite effectively and I honestly don't have a preference, but I understand and acknowledge the difference and take my shots accordingly when I can. My general rule now (after years of learning) is to break shoulders with the TTSX when I can and try for double lungs with the SST.
All that being said, my theory on why the SST or other soft bullets (and hard bullets to an extent) kill so effectively when pushed fast is that the shrapnel and/or the temp cavity created by the bullet passing through, can and does crack the spine and tear other nerves, even though it may be several inches away. We've all see the ballistic gel videos showing the cavity created several inches wide rippling through the gel block. This temp cavity effect can destroy delicate nerves and I assume it can crack the spinal column. I've got no proof of this, but I've got a little experience......
Hydrostatic shock is an oxymoron. Hydro means water, (or other liquids) and static means at rest. The phrase literally means the shock of water at rest.
If you want to talk about hydrodynamic shock, at least the terminology makes sense.
Animals mainly die from a central nervous system hit, or from a big enough hole in the right place to let the blood out or scramble gas exchange in the lungs.
I'm sure the shockwave that propagates through animal flesh doesn't do them any good, but I'm very skeptical about it killing anything.
Finally! Someone gets the physics right!
{quote=cra1948]Someone here stated it very well a couple of years ago: kinetic energy doesn’t kill stuff, holes in vital organs kill stuff [/quote]
The cells that make up an animals organs contain liquid. Liquid is not compressible.
The holes in vital organs are caused by two things: Mechanically by the bullet actually tearing up the organ cells, and Hydraulically by the energy from the bullet transferred to the liquid in the organ cells that causes enough pressure that exceeds the flexibility of the cell walls and the cells rupture.
Look at the damage around the wound channel that the bullet made in the animal's tissues. The damage in and around the wound channel increases with the diameter of the bullet AND with the kinetic energy of the bullet.
I have recovered solid copper Barnes bullets from animals where the bullet did not hit a bone and the recovered bullet weighed within a grain or two of it's original weight so the only mechanical damage was the bullet itself, and the bullet expanded to two or three times it's original diameter, yet the wound channel in the animal's tissues was 10 or more times the diameter of the expanded bullet. Animal tissues and organs are flexible. When a bullet passes through the tissues of an animal the mechanical damage to the tissues occurs where the bullet contacts the tissues, and the hydraulic damage radiates out from the bullet path and damages those tissues out to the point where the cell walls are not ruptured. Like a stretched rubber band, after all of the energy has been transferred and dissipated, the undamaged tissues move back to their original place.
This hydraulic tissue displacement shows very well on a slow motion video of a bullet passing through ballistic gelatin.
Put another way think of a gopher shot with a 22-250 or other fast moving bullet. The damage far exceeds the bullet hole damage itself even when accounting for shrapnel.
Hydrostatic shock is an oxymoron. Hydro means water, (or other liquids) and static means at rest. The phrase literally means the shock of water at rest.
If you want to talk about hydrodynamic shock, at least the terminology makes sense.
Finally! Someone gets the physics right!
I've been preaching that very thing on this site for years. It's a misnomer, to be sure, but even the concept that it espouses is physically incorrect.
Originally Posted by buffybr
The cells that make up an animals organs contain liquid. Liquid is not compressible.
Just because the cells contain liquid does not mean that they are entirely liquid, or that the organs behave as an incompressible liquid. Can you take the lungs or heart in your hands and compress/squish them? If you put the organs in a bucket, do they flow to fill the container? The organs behave like a solid, not an incompressible liquid.
Originally Posted by buffybr
The holes in vital organs are caused by two things: Mechanically by the bullet actually tearing up the organ cells, and Hydraulically by the energy from the bullet transferred to the liquid in the organ cells that causes enough pressure that exceeds the flexibility of the cell walls and the cells rupture.
The holes in vital organs are caused by mechanical displacement. Cellular damage can occur by cells rupturing from pressure or mechanical disruption (on a slightly larger scale this can be seen as bruising), but the macroscopic holes you see are caused by mechanical displacement.
Originally Posted by buffybr
Look at the damage around the wound channel that the bullet made in the animal's tissues. The damage in and around the wound channel increases with the diameter of the bullet AND with the kinetic energy of the bullet.
That is largely due to velocity being correlated with primary and secondary fragmentation, and the impulse of the interaction between the bullet and the flesh.
Originally Posted by buffybr
I have recovered solid copper Barnes bullets from animals where the bullet did not hit a bone and the recovered bullet weighed within a grain or two of it's original weight so the only mechanical damage was the bullet itself, and the bullet expanded to two or three times it's original diameter, yet the wound channel in the animal's tissues was 10 or more times the diameter of the expanded bullet. Animal tissues and organs are flexible. When a bullet passes through the tissues of an animal the mechanical damage to the tissues occurs where the bullet contacts the tissues, and the hydraulic damage radiates out from the bullet path and damages those tissues out to the point where the cell walls are not ruptured. Like a stretched rubber band, after all of the energy has been transferred and dissipated, the undamaged tissues move back to their original place.
This hydraulic tissue displacement shows very well on a slow motion video of a bullet passing through ballistic gelatin.
Secondary fragmentation doesn't have to be comprised of bone, it can also be made up of other tissue that gets dispersed very quickly as it is pushed out of the bullet's path.
There is some degree of hydraulic pressure in the organs when the bullet passes through, but it's not as large an effect as seen in a homogeneous fluid or semi-fluid medium like water or ballistic gel, due to the multiple boundary conditions in the animal's chest (hide transitions to muscle which transitions to bone, and then there is a transition to some air space, which transitions to lung and heart tissue, which transitions to more muscle and bone and hide before exiting) that don't exist in the homogeneous medium.
I spent a couple of years researching quantum neuroscience as related to consciousness, and during that time I had the opportunity to study and model neuronal networks somewhat extensively. I have come to believe that a bullet passing sufficiently close to the CNS can cause enough mechanical disruption to send an electrical signal (similar to the "shock wave" explanation) that over-stimulates the brain and causes a loss of nervous control of the muscles (animal falls down) or even a loss of consciousness. This would be similar to a boxer getting hit on the jaw and being knocked down or knocked unconscious.
In my mind, there are two ways animals die via bullets: either the vital organs that supply the brain with oxygen are disrupted and the brain runs out of oxygen, or the CNS is disrupted and the brain is "short-circuited". Sometimes both take place, where the CNS is disrupted and the brain loses control of the body or loses consciousness, followed by being starved of oxygen due to damage to the heart/lungs.
Put another way think of a gopher shot with a 22-250 or other fast moving bullet. The damage far exceeds the bullet hole damage itself even when accounting for shrapnel.
No, that is mainly due to primary and secondary fragmentation.
You're leaving out the effects of cavitation, which definitely adds to the wound channel in soft tissue, since it helps create the temporary cavity. It's why flat-nosed "solids" (especially cup-points) tend to kill quicker than round-nosed solids--and it's also why expanding bullets that end up with a flat "mushroom" tend to kill quicker than those with a rounded mushroom--which would include most monolithics and some others, such as Nosler Partitions that lose their front cores.
In fact cavitation may what some people actually conflated with "hydrostatic shock." But neither is capable of, say, stopping a deer's heart with a shot in the rump.
It's also sometimes difficult to sort cavitation damage from fragment damage, because they can be mixed together.
The cells that make up an animals organs contain liquid. Liquid is not compressible.
The holes in vital organs are caused by two things: Mechanically by the bullet actually tearing up the organ cells, and Hydraulically by the energy from the bullet transferred to the liquid in the organ cells that causes enough pressure that exceeds the flexibility of the cell walls and the cells rupture.
Look at the damage around the wound channel that the bullet made in the animal's tissues. The damage in and around the wound channel increases with the diameter of the bullet AND with the kinetic energy of the bullet.
I have recovered solid copper Barnes bullets from animals where the bullet did not hit a bone and the recovered bullet weighed within a grain or two of it's original weight so the only mechanical damage was the bullet itself, and the bullet expanded to two or three times it's original diameter, yet the wound channel in the animal's tissues was 10 or more times the diameter of the expanded bullet. Animal tissues and organs are flexible. When a bullet passes through the tissues of an animal the mechanical damage to the tissues occurs where the bullet contacts the tissues, and the hydraulic damage radiates out from the bullet path and damages those tissues out to the point where the cell walls are not ruptured. Like a stretched rubber band, after all of the energy has been transferred and dissipated, the undamaged tissues move back to their original place.
This hydraulic tissue displacement shows very well on a slow motion video of a bullet passing through ballistic gelatin.
There are bundles of nerves in several places in the human body that can cause unconsciousness or death when struck by a punch, without anything penetrating the body.
I can imagine that a bullet's impact next to one of those bundles in an animal could explain why some animals drop immediately - even without a direct hit to the spine or brain - and even without hitting an area normally thought of as a "killing shot".
It could also explain why some animals, after dropping, suddenly jump up and take off, apparently unhurt, while the hunter is walking up to examine his "kill".
You're leaving out the effects of cavitation, which definitely adds to the wound channel in soft tissue, since it helps create the temporary cavity. It's why flat-nosed "solids" (especially cup-points) tend to kill quicker than round-nosed solids--and it's also why expanding bullets that end up with a flat "mushroom" tend to kill quicker than those with a rounded mushroom--which would include most monolithics and some others, such as Nosler Partitions that lose their front cores.
In fact cavitation may what some people actually conflated with "hydrostatic shock." But neither is capable of, say, stopping a deer's heart with a shot in the rump.
It's also sometimes difficult to sort cavitation damage from fragment damage, because they can be mixed together.
John,
Well, cavitation isn't really the correct term, IMO. Cavitation refers to the vapour that trails an accelerated liquid, and is caused by the pressure dropping below the vapour pressure of the liquid in the location where the accelerated liquid used to be (you can imagine the bubbles behind a boat motor propeller). But I understand what you're referring to: the pressure wave in the soft tissue that results from the bullet displacing the tissue immediately in its path. This wave causes expansion in the surrounding tissue, and what is called the temporary wound cavity. I agree that this pressure wave is perhaps conflated with the misnomer "hydrostatic shock", and could arguably be included in the secondary fragmentation category.
Shock wave. That’s what produces the temporary wound cavity.
Well yes, assuming the bullet impacts at well above the speed of sound, the pressure wave in soft tissue caused by the bullet is, indeed, a shock wave.
You might read my chapter on "solid" bullets in Gun Gack II before we start discussing this further. If you don't have a copy, I can probably e-mail the chapter.
Looks like someone is quickly doing online research....
Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
Originally Posted by navlav8r
Shock wave. That’s what produces the temporary wound cavity.
Well yes, assuming the bullet impacts at well above the speed of sound, the pressure wave in soft tissue caused by the bullet is, indeed, a shock wave.
Looks like someone is quickly doing online research....
Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
Originally Posted by navlav8r
Shock wave. That’s what produces the temporary wound cavity.
Well yes, assuming the bullet impacts at well above the speed of sound, the pressure wave in soft tissue caused by the bullet is, indeed, a shock wave.
Oh, brother. Crawl back under your bridge and let the adults talk.
You might read my chapter on "solid" bullets in Gun Gack II before we start discussing this further. If you don't have a copy, I can probably e-mail the chapter.
While I'm somewhat familiar with fluid dynamics, I would be interested to see how you're explaining the temporary wound cavity with the concept of cavitation. PM inbound.
Looks like someone is quickly doing online research....
Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
Originally Posted by navlav8r
Shock wave. That’s what produces the temporary wound cavity.
Well yes, assuming the bullet impacts at well above the speed of sound, the pressure wave in soft tissue caused by the bullet is, indeed, a shock wave.
Oh, brother. Crawl back under your bridge and let the adults talk.
You might read my chapter on "solid" bullets in Gun Gack II before we start discussing this further. If you don't have a copy, I can probably e-mail the chapter.
While I'm somewhat familiar with fluid dynamics, I would be interested to see how you're explaining the temporary wound cavity with the concept of cavitation. PM inbound.
I can imagine cavitation occurring upon the collapse of the temporary cavity, if the medium is sufficiently fluid, but I'm not seeing how cavitation relates to the formation of the cavity.
You might read my chapter on "solid" bullets in Gun Gack II before we start discussing this further. If you don't have a copy, I can probably e-mail the chapter.
While I'm somewhat familiar with fluid dynamics, I would be interested to see how you're explaining the temporary wound cavity with the concept of cavitation. PM inbound.
I can imagine cavitation occurring upon the collapse of the temporary cavity, if the medium is sufficiently fluid, but I'm not seeing how cavitation relates to the formation of the cavity.
Cavitation is moving a liquid fast enough that the pressure is low enough to cause vapor bubbles (cavities) to form. It's a major factor in propeller noise in ships and submarines.
Similarly, the Russian Skvall torpedo has a flat plate on its nose, to form a vapor cavity in the water. The torpedo then moves through the vapor rather than water. The power demand must be enormous, but the net result is a super fast torpedo.
You might read my chapter on "solid" bullets in Gun Gack II before we start discussing this further. If you don't have a copy, I can probably e-mail the chapter.
While I'm somewhat familiar with fluid dynamics, I would be interested to see how you're explaining the temporary wound cavity with the concept of cavitation. PM inbound.
I can imagine cavitation occurring upon the collapse of the temporary cavity, if the medium is sufficiently fluid, but I'm not seeing how cavitation relates to the formation of the cavity.
I've never claimed to know everything, and recognize that I have a LOT left to learn about the universe and how it works.
Not surprising that the sum total of your contribution to this forum is ankle-biting. Go away.
Cavitation is moving a liquid fast enough that the pressure is low enough to cause vapor bubbles (cavities) to form. It's a major factor in propeller noise in ships and submarines.
Exactly, but I think what MD is referring to is the shockwave that can result from the rapid collapse of the cavity. Though I don't see that playing a significant role in the tissue damage we see in the heterogeneous medium that makes up an animal's chest.
Jordan, I’ve been reading Hunting, Shooting rags and books since the early 70s. I’ve never heard of “secondary fragmentation” applied to flesh, blood, & bones ? ? ?
If a bullet is moving faster than the speed of sound in the given medium a shockwave will be formed. I think that is what forms the temporary cavity. If you look at the shock wave in a photo of a supersonic bullet, you can calculate the velocity of the bullet by the angle of the shock wave relative to the flight path. You know, sin, cosine all that neat Trig stuff. 😁
MD can make his own point, but I think what he may be referring to is the temporary wound cavity caused on entry by a high speed projectile. Too late at night for my foggy noggin to generate much more on the topic. I'll have to go back and re-read the auld knowledge about wounding dymanics.
Jordan, I’ve been reading Hunting, Shooting rags and books since the early 70s. I’ve never heard of “secondary fragmentation” applied to flesh, blood, & bones ? ? ?
Jerry
Just because you haven't heard of it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
That's what I'm referring to, also, but I guess the term "cavitation" causes me to think of the vapour caused by sudden regions of low pressure in liquid, and the sudden collapse of those cavities that leads to the generation of shockwaves and heat, etc. May just be a semantic issue.
On topic, who really cares? if you know where the bullet needs to go, and how much bullet you need for the job...
In the military, in the Medical Corps, we were trained a lot on what bullets do when they hit the human body....
you are taught what type of wounds are made, so you know how to treat the wound at the first Triage point, even if that may be on the spot where the subject was shot....
but since your job isn't to save the deer's life, why worry? put a bullet up to the job in the right spot, at distance within its parameters & capability, you should be packing home venison...
Jordan, I’ve been reading Hunting, Shooting rags and books since the early 70s. I’ve never heard of “secondary fragmentation” applied to flesh, blood, & bones ? ? ?
Jerry
Just because you haven't heard of it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I didn’t say it did NOT exist.... I never heard it applied to flesh, blood, & bones.
I'm sure most of us have had a common situation where they double lunged a deer and the deer went 75 yards and dropped. but we've also made the same shot and the deer fell in it's tracks instantly. If you don't hit the spine or the brain what causes this lights out effect sometimes?
Yes, of course!
The reason is that two apparently equal shots might not be that equal after all. Apparently placed in the same spot ne could break tha aorta, or the pulmonar artery or the vagus nerve or ... and produce a fall-in-his-tracks while a shot with a similar placement might not touch any main pipe and take some time for the animal to die of lack of oxygen supply to the brain.
A deer will run faster than the fastest human, and if the latter can make 200 meters or 220 yards in 20 seconds imagine where can a deer go in that time.
I was on the bullet speed one year.. I loaded up some 125 gr bullets at max velocity to deer hunt for my 30/06.. I shot a nice buck in the heart lung area about 50 yds away. it knocked him down. he struggled and got up and ran toward me, passed me by about 5 feet. I could not see any wound or blood when he passed me at full speed, I was not sure he was the same deer I shot. he ran about 50 more yards past me and fell over dead.. the bullet had blew up his heart and lungs like a bomb was inside him.. no exit wound and no bleeding at the entry wound.. I decided that hydrostatic worked ok, but was not what I wanted for deer hunting.. I went back to my 180 gr round nose bullets and never had any more trouble where I hunt here in PA.
Hydrostatic shock is real. The real question is, in a particular kill is, was it achieved, and how much of an affect in killing the animal did it have?
HS isn't magic, doesn't cause damage at extreme distances from the bullet's path (except for unusually favorable conditions), and a bullet must still be placed somewhere in, or close to, the vitals for HS to kill. Killing by the traditional temporary and permanent wound channel mechanics is still just as good as ever, HS is just frosting on the cake for those who load to achieve it. The benefits of HS, when achieved are: 1) a little more room for aiming error; 2) the animal dies quickly with no tracking required; and 3) there is no bitter-tasting adrenaline pumped into the muscle tissue while the animal attempts to run off.
For HS to have an affect, muzzle velocity must be upwards of 3500fps or above (and the bullet still has comparatively high velocity when it hits the target), and the terminal shape of the bullet includes a flat front profile to launch the HS pressure wave into the tissue. Conversely, a bullet that "mushrooms nicely" launched at sub-3500 velocities won't produce HS. In other words, there are relatively few hunting cartridges with the velocity potential to achieve HS, and even then, the user must produce his own handloads tailored for the extreme upper end of the velocity window, and then must use one of the few bullets with a flat terminal profile. Hardly anyone does this, which is why so many people say HS is not real.
I cannot explain any of this in scientific terms. Take a look at a bullet's effect on gelatin. Even a solid damages gel beyond its diameter. I have no idea what you might call the forces that cause the damage, but that damage has incapacitation value. That stands to reason. I suspect that's what people mean when they use the term hydrostatic shock. There is a relationship between the bullet's construction and the amount of damage beyond that damage imparted by the bullet proper and the pieces of the bullet. Let me just throw another term out here to touch on the value of that damage. Bloodshot meat. Likewise there is a relationship between a bullet's construction and penetration.
Spectacular DRT kills seem to happen more often with bullets that expand violently and shed their weight, provided that the bullet penetrates sufficiently to reach the organs that contain a lot of blood. There are always anomalies. I have peeled deer that DRT and seen heart damage that was very similar to deer that ran a 40 yard death dash. Deer are individuals and will have individual reactions to the damage.
It's fun to dabble in differences over what to call the various scientific factors at play, but none of the terms, or misuse of the terms, changes the science. Bullets damage beyond their diameter. Bullets need to penetrate deeply enough to damage the organs that pump a lot of blood. There are a lot of bullets that hit that sweet spot and a lot of velocities at which they hit that sweet spot.
You also might shoot more bullets into various kinds of test media.
I'm in total agreement bullets definitely cavitate
As I said in a previous post after thinking about it a bit, I don’t dispute that inertial cavitation may occur at the pressure front of a bullet moving fast enough, I just have a hard time believing that the heat and acoustic shockwaves associated with the collapse phase of cavitation contributes significantly to the damage done by the bullet. I could see it producing some of what we call “bloodshot” tissue. But again, I may be wrong about that. The question is not whether or not cavitation takes place, but what causes the damage to the tissue that we observe when shooting a critter with a rifle bullet.
To be clear, I’m making a distinction between the pressure wave that pushes tissue away from the bullet’s path, and the cavitation (vaporization, collapse of cavity, and resulting shockwave/heat) of fluid immediately in front of the bullet.
You also might shoot more bullets into various kinds of test media.
I'm in total agreement bullets definitely cavitate
As I said in a previous post after thinking about it a bit, I don’t dispute that inertial cavitation may occur at the pressure front of a bullet moving fast enough, I just have a hard time believing that the heat and acoustic shockwaves associated with the collapse phase of cavitation contributes significantly to the damage done by the bullet. I could see it producing some of what we call “bloodshot” tissue. But again, I may be wrong about that.
To be clear, I’m making a distinction between the pressure wave that pushes tissue away from the bullet’s path, and the cavitation (vaporization, collapse of cavity, and resulting shockwave/heat) of fluid immediately in front of the bullet.
With enough hydraulic pressure the tissue is stretched beyond its elasticity and creates a large wound channel. The larger the animal the less effects of the hydraulic pressure
You also might shoot more bullets into various kinds of test media.
I'm in total agreement bullets definitely cavitate
As I said in a previous post after thinking about it a bit, I don’t dispute that inertial cavitation may occur at the pressure front of a bullet moving fast enough, I just have a hard time believing that the heat and acoustic shockwaves associated with the collapse phase of cavitation contributes significantly to the damage done by the bullet. I could see it producing some of what we call “bloodshot” tissue. But again, I may be wrong about that.
To be clear, I’m making a distinction between the pressure wave that pushes tissue away from the bullet’s path, and the cavitation (vaporization, collapse of cavity, and resulting shockwave/heat) of fluid immediately in front of the bullet.
With enough hydraulic pressure the tissue is stretched beyond its elasticity and creates a large wound channel. The larger the animal the less effects of the hydraulic pressure
I agree, but cavitation describes more than just hydraulic pressure.
You also might shoot more bullets into various kinds of test media.
I'm in total agreement bullets definitely cavitate
As I said in a previous post after thinking about it a bit, I don’t dispute that inertial cavitation may occur at the pressure front of a bullet moving fast enough, I just have a hard time believing that the heat and acoustic shockwaves associated with the collapse phase of cavitation contributes significantly to the damage done by the bullet. I could see it producing some of what we call “bloodshot” tissue. But again, I may be wrong about that.
To be clear, I’m making a distinction between the pressure wave that pushes tissue away from the bullet’s path, and the cavitation (vaporization, collapse of cavity, and resulting shockwave/heat) of fluid immediately in front of the bullet.
With enough hydraulic pressure the tissue is stretched beyond its elasticity and creates a large wound channel. The larger the animal the less effects of the hydraulic pressure
I agree, but cavitation describes more than just hydraulic pressure.
They definitely cavitate, it can be seen in high speed videos. I'm a bit confused on your position.
Jordan, I’ve been reading Hunting, Shooting rags and books since the early 70s. I’ve never heard of “secondary fragmentation” applied to flesh, blood, & bones ? ? ?
Jerry
Just because you haven't heard of it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I didn’t say it did NOT exist.... I never heard it applied to flesh, blood, & bones.
Jerry
Jerry,
I’ve seen the term used commonly in reference to bone fragments, etc., but I admit I may have used the term “secondary fragmentation” a little bit liberally when I included the blood and soft tissue that is rapidly pushed away from the bullet’s path (though I still think it’s not incorrect to do so, arguably).
Well, if you want a long thread, start one on wounding dynamics......
When a bullet strikes flesh, two things happen. A permanent wound channel is created, and so also is a temporary channel.
The permanent channel is formed by crushing and tearing the tissue ahead of the bullet. The temporary channel is formed by elastically stretching and bruising the tissue around the permanent channel (bloodshot). The balance between the two channels depends on the speed of the bullet. Big, slow bullets expend most of their energy on the permanent channel, and little fast bullets are balanced more toward the temporary channel.
The force trying to stop a bullet in flesh is the pressure exerted against the flesh times frontal area. Force is equal to change of momentum. The bullet comes to rest when it has shed so much momentum that it can no longer exert a crushing level of pressure on the tissue ahead of it.
The question in my mind is whether it is correct to call the temporary wound channel the result of cavitation. Yes, the bullet is moving through a gaseous cavity created by stretching tissue. But that seems to me to be the opposite of cavitation. Cavitation happens when something like a propeller creates an area of very low pressure that causes the liquid to vaporize (boil) in little bubbles. That doesn't seem to me to describe the temporary wound cavity. But I'm not done thinking about the issue.
You also might shoot more bullets into various kinds of test media.
I'm in total agreement bullets definitely cavitate
As I said in a previous post after thinking about it a bit, I don’t dispute that inertial cavitation may occur at the pressure front of a bullet moving fast enough, I just have a hard time believing that the heat and acoustic shockwaves associated with the collapse phase of cavitation contributes significantly to the damage done by the bullet. I could see it producing some of what we call “bloodshot” tissue. But again, I may be wrong about that.
To be clear, I’m making a distinction between the pressure wave that pushes tissue away from the bullet’s path, and the cavitation (vaporization, collapse of cavity, and resulting shockwave/heat) of fluid immediately in front of the bullet.
With enough hydraulic pressure the tissue is stretched beyond its elasticity and creates a large wound channel. The larger the animal the less effects of the hydraulic pressure
I agree, but cavitation describes more than just hydraulic pressure.
They definitely cavitate, it can be seen in high speed videos. I'm a bit confused on your position.
Yes, I’ve seen such videos in the past. This thread was about the mechanisms that cause tissue damage, not the mechanics of the process of the bullet traversing through an animal. My position is this: I believe that the damage is done mainly by mechanisms other than the shockwave/heat resulting from cavitation. Would you agree that the wound channel is caused by the pressure wave produced by the bullet?
Here’s an illustration of cavitation. I saw this video a year or two ago.
I think Mule Deer has a most excellent grasp of how bullets work and how to use them.
Animals contain a lot of fluid, central nervous system insult can cause a profound collapse, the rumen can be full and turgid and other times loose and flaccid. So can the lung field.
Kinetic energy in my mind is an important element in the indice of a bullet cartridge capabilities. They wouldn’t be called a kinetic ordinance if it wasn’t an element to monitor.
Kinetic energy in my mind is an important element in the indice of a bullet cartridge capabilities. They wouldn’t be called a kinetic ordinance if it wasn’t an element to monitor.
Well, it is the very basis of being able to do "work."
I think you are calling hydraulic pressure a pressure wave. Either way that is a part of the of the case of the wound channel the other part is the amount of direct crushed tissue. The factors that create a wound channel are the amount of direct applied force, the amount of momentum transfered, the amount hydraulic pressure.
I'm not exactly sure of what I was seeing one time when I shot a snowshoe hare with my .308 with a 180 grain Remington round nose Core-Lokt. The range was maybe 30 yards and at the shot there were bunny parts everywhere, even hanging in the bushes nearby. I'd shot a lot of deer with that bullet and it always worked well, but not overly well like on that four pound hare. I surmise that the same kind of trauma was happening inside of a deer, but that it's larger mass was able to contain the temporary cavity where as the smaller frame of the hare was not. I wouldn't have thought that a 180 grain bullet would expand much in a rabbit size target.
Hydrostatic shock is the controversial concept that a penetrating projectile (such as a bullet) can produce a pressure wave that causes "remote neural damage", "subtle damage in neural tissues" and/or "rapid incapacitating effects" in living targets. It has also been suggested that pressure wave effects can cause indirect bone fractures at a distance from the projectile path, although it was later demonstrated that indirect bone fractures are caused by temporary cavity effects (strain placed on the bone by the radial tissue displacement produced by the temporary cavity formation).
Proponents of the concept argue that hydrostatic shock can produce remote neural damage and produce incapacitation more quickly than blood loss effects. In arguments about the differences in stopping power between calibers and between cartridge models, proponents of cartridges that are "light and fast" (such as the 9×19mm Parabellum) versus cartridges that are "slow and heavy" (such as the .45 ACP) often refer to this phenomenon.
Martin Fackler has argued that sonic pressure waves do not cause tissue disruption and that temporary cavity formation is the actual cause of tissue disruption mistakenly ascribed to sonic pressure waves. One review noted that strong opinion divided papers on whether the pressure wave contributes to wound injury. It ultimately concluded that no "conclusive evidence could be found for permanent pathological effects produced by the pressure wave".
Hydrostatic shock is the controversial concept that a penetrating projectile (such as a bullet) can produce a pressure wave that causes "remote neural damage", "subtle damage in neural tissues" and/or "rapid incapacitating effects" in living targets. It has also been suggested that pressure wave effects can cause indirect bone fractures at a distance from the projectile path, although it was later demonstrated that indirect bone fractures are caused by temporary cavity effects (strain placed on the bone by the radial tissue displacement produced by the temporary cavity formation).
Proponents of the concept argue that hydrostatic shock can produce remote neural damage and produce incapacitation more quickly than blood loss effects. In arguments about the differences in stopping power between calibers and between cartridge models, proponents of cartridges that are "light and fast" (such as the 9×19mm Parabellum) versus cartridges that are "slow and heavy" (such as the .45 ACP) often refer to this phenomenon.
Martin Fackler has argued that sonic pressure waves do not cause tissue disruption and that temporary cavity formation is the actual cause of tissue disruption mistakenly ascribed to sonic pressure waves. One review noted that strong opinion divided papers on whether the pressure wave contributes to wound injury. It ultimately concluded that no "conclusive evidence could be found for permanent pathological effects produced by the pressure wave".
I am now retired, and these are my credentials: - Mechanical Engineering, MS - Agronomy, BS
I find this thread...... amusing.
What is noteworthy is that terminal ballistics, as it relates to tissue damage, lacks a generally accepted Body Of Knowledge. I find here an interesting meld of fluid mechanics, mechanics of materials, kinetics, zoology, anatomy, and good ol' wisdom gained through experience in the field.
I think you are calling hydraulic pressure a pressure wave. Either way that is a part of the of the case of the wound channel the other part is the amount of direct crushed tissue. The factors that create a wound channel are the amount of direct applied force, the amount of momentum transfered, the amount hydraulic pressure.
A pressure wave is a more precise description. It's a sudden increase in pressure in the tissue, not just the water content of the tissue, and this pressure increase propagates through the tissue. Direct applied force and momentum transfer are redundant, as force is equal to the rate of momentum transfer, but I agree that the wound channel is determined by the amount of applied force and the extent to which that force propagates through the tissue as a pressure wave.
Hydrostatic shock is the controversial concept that a penetrating projectile (such as a bullet) can produce a pressure wave that causes "remote neural damage", "subtle damage in neural tissues" and/or "rapid incapacitating effects" in living targets. It has also been suggested that pressure wave effects can cause indirect bone fractures at a distance from the projectile path, although it was later demonstrated that indirect bone fractures are caused by temporary cavity effects (strain placed on the bone by the radial tissue displacement produced by the temporary cavity formation).
Proponents of the concept argue that hydrostatic shock can produce remote neural damage and produce incapacitation more quickly than blood loss effects. In arguments about the differences in stopping power between calibers and between cartridge models, proponents of cartridges that are "light and fast" (such as the 9×19mm Parabellum) versus cartridges that are "slow and heavy" (such as the .45 ACP) often refer to this phenomenon.
Martin Fackler has argued that sonic pressure waves do not cause tissue disruption and that temporary cavity formation is the actual cause of tissue disruption mistakenly ascribed to sonic pressure waves. One review noted that strong opinion divided papers on whether the pressure wave contributes to wound injury. It ultimately concluded that no "conclusive evidence could be found for permanent pathological effects produced by the pressure wave".
Good summary. I agree for the most part, but would argue that the temporary cavity is the result of a pressure wave caused by the bullet rapidly displacing tissue.
I think you are calling hydraulic pressure a pressure wave. Either way that is a part of the of the case of the wound channel the other part is the amount of direct crushed tissue. The factors that create a wound channel are the amount of direct applied force, the amount of momentum transfered, the amount hydraulic pressure.
A pressure wave is a more precise description. It's a sudden increase in pressure in the tissue, not just the water content of the tissue, and this pressure increase propagates through the tissue. Direct applied force and momentum transfer are redundant, as force is equal to the rate of momentum transfer, but I agree that the wound channel is determined by the amount of applied force and the extent to which that force propagates through the tissue as a pressure wave.
Momentum is mass x velocity, whereas kinetic energy uses the square of velocity.
Seems to me killing power is a rather complicated mix of forces.
I think you are calling hydraulic pressure a pressure wave. Either way that is a part of the of the case of the wound channel the other part is the amount of direct crushed tissue. The factors that create a wound channel are the amount of direct applied force, the amount of momentum transfered, the amount hydraulic pressure.
A pressure wave is a more precise description. It's a sudden increase in pressure in the tissue, not just the water content of the tissue, and this pressure increase propagates through the tissue. Direct applied force and momentum transfer are redundant, as force is equal to the rate of momentum transfer, but I agree that the wound channel is determined by the amount of applied force and the extent to which that force propagates through the tissue as a pressure wave.
Momentum is mass x velocity, whereas kinetic energy uses the square of velocity.
Seems to me killing power is a rather complicated mix of forces.
DF
Momentum = mv Net force = ma
So force is equal to the time derivative of momentum, or in other words, the time rate of change of momentum.
My 3 year old grandson has greater application skills.
Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
Originally Posted by Dirtfarmer
Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
Originally Posted by jwp475
I think you are calling hydraulic pressure a pressure wave. Either way that is a part of the of the case of the wound channel the other part is the amount of direct crushed tissue. The factors that create a wound channel are the amount of direct applied force, the amount of momentum transfered, the amount hydraulic pressure.
A pressure wave is a more precise description. It's a sudden increase in pressure in the tissue, not just the water content of the tissue, and this pressure increase propagates through the tissue. Direct applied force and momentum transfer are redundant, as force is equal to the rate of momentum transfer, but I agree that the wound channel is determined by the amount of applied force and the extent to which that force propagates through the tissue as a pressure wave.
Momentum is mass x velocity, whereas kinetic energy uses the square of velocity.
Seems to me killing power is a rather complicated mix of forces.
DF
Momentum = mv Net force = ma
So force is equal to the time derivative of momentum, or in other words, the time rate of change of momentum.
My 3 year old grandson has greater application skills.
Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
Originally Posted by Dirtfarmer
Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
Originally Posted by jwp475
I think you are calling hydraulic pressure a pressure wave. Either way that is a part of the of the case of the wound channel the other part is the amount of direct crushed tissue. The factors that create a wound channel are the amount of direct applied force, the amount of momentum transfered, the amount hydraulic pressure.
A pressure wave is a more precise description. It's a sudden increase in pressure in the tissue, not just the water content of the tissue, and this pressure increase propagates through the tissue. Direct applied force and momentum transfer are redundant, as force is equal to the rate of momentum transfer, but I agree that the wound channel is determined by the amount of applied force and the extent to which that force propagates through the tissue as a pressure wave.
Momentum is mass x velocity, whereas kinetic energy uses the square of velocity.
Seems to me killing power is a rather complicated mix of forces.
DF
Momentum = mv Net force = ma
So force is equal to the time derivative of momentum, or in other words, the time rate of change of momentum.
Feel free to dispute my statements with rational arguments. Otherwise, quit your ankle-biting.
I'm sincere ! FIRST - I have no doubt the hi level math jargon you have used IS correct.
I don't have to tell you or mathman that I have NOT studied above Alg I II and Geometry. I did not take trig or calculus......
So many of the terms y'all have used are ABOVE my head....I suspect others don't understand too.
IF we don't understand your terminology in real life then how are we supposed to apply it to the killing "mechanics" of hunting ? NO criticism nor sarcasm. For Real.
I'm familiar with a FEW terms y'all have used but in hunting....??..I can't understand how they apply to FLESH, BLOOD, & BONES -- not yelling just emphasis.
WE all have heard of "apples vs oranges" -------> that's how I see (understand) the comparisons using sand, wood, dirt, --- vs Animals (flesh, blood, bones, hide). I honestly don't see how an accurate comparative result can be had.
Now, (honestly) when you, mathman, a surgeon, or astrologer talk OVER our heads-- we don't understand. No criticism.
I have dealt with people who don't understand auto mechanics or maintainance and they don't understand the terminology.
It's not that I think you are wrong on all of this....I can't see how you can deduce the amount of force used, transferred, or wasted on an animal.
The mediums are SO diff it doesn't make sense how the math formulas (formuli) really apply.
That's the best I can describe it and I don't want to EXTEND my math level. LOL
Hydrostatic shock is real. The real question is, in a particular kill is, was it achieved, and how much of an affect in killing the animal did it have?
HS isn't magic, doesn't cause damage at extreme distances from the bullet's path (except for unusually favorable conditions), and a bullet must still be placed somewhere in, or close to, the vitals for HS to kill. Killing by the traditional temporary and permanent wound channel mechanics is still just as good as ever, HS is just frosting on the cake for those who load to achieve it. The benefits of HS, when achieved are: 1) a little more room for aiming error; 2) the animal dies quickly with no tracking required; and 3) there is no bitter-tasting adrenaline pumped into the muscle tissue while the animal attempts to run off.
For HS to have an affect, muzzle velocity must be upwards of 3500fps or above (and the bullet still has comparatively high velocity when it hits the target), and the terminal shape of the bullet includes a flat front profile to launch the HS pressure wave into the tissue. Conversely, a bullet that "mushrooms nicely" launched at sub-3500 velocities won't produce HS. In other words, there are relatively few hunting cartridges with the velocity potential to achieve HS, and even then, the user must produce his own handloads tailored for the extreme upper end of the velocity window, and then must use one of the few bullets with a flat terminal profile. Hardly anyone does this, which is why so many people say HS is not real.
I'm sincere ! FIRST - I have no doubt the hi level math jargon you have used IS correct.
I don't have to tell you or mathman that I have NOT studied above Alg I II and Geometry. I did not take trig or calculus......
So many of the terms y'all have used are ABOVE my head....I suspect others don't understand too.
IF we don't understand your terminology in real life then how are we supposed to apply it to the killing "mechanics" of hunting ? NO criticism nor sarcasm. For Real.
I'm familiar with a FEW terms y'all have used but in hunting....??..I can't understand how they apply to FLESH, BLOOD, & BONES -- not yelling just emphasis.
WE all have heard of "apples vs oranges" -------> that's how I see (understand) the comparisons using sand, wood, dirt, --- vs Animals (flesh, blood, bones, hide). I honestly don't see how an accurate comparative result can be had.
Now, (honestly) when you, mathman, a surgeon, or astrologer talk OVER our heads-- we don't understand. No criticism.
I have dealt with people who don't understand auto mechanics or maintainance and they don't understand the terminology.
It's not that I think you are wrong on all of this....I can't see how you can deduce the amount of force used, transferred, or wasted on an animal.
The mediums are SO diff it doesn't make sense how the math formulas (formuli) really apply.
That's the best I can describe it and I don't want to EXTEND my math level. LOL
No Harm, No Foul
Jerry
One way to measure force is Newtons Force which is 2.2 pounds times 1 meter per second. Turn bullet weight in grains to killigrams and FPS to meters per second and multiply the two together. Now you have the amount of Newtons force the bullet produces
It seems to me that killing of animals comes from damaging vital organs ,blood loss , and disrupting the central nervous system . Infant one or two of these and you get a very dead critter very quickly. I don't see a difference how these happen ( big slow bullet plowing through tissue and arteries etc, smaller faster bullets that may cheerleader area damage ) both work well as long as they penetrate vital organs and both fail when they dont
I'm sincere ! FIRST - I have no doubt the hi level math jargon you have used IS correct.
I don't have to tell you or mathman that I have NOT studied above Alg I II and Geometry. I did not take trig or calculus......
So many of the terms y'all have used are ABOVE my head....I suspect others don't understand too.
IF we don't understand your terminology in real life then how are we supposed to apply it to the killing "mechanics" of hunting ? NO criticism nor sarcasm. For Real.
I'm familiar with a FEW terms y'all have used but in hunting....??..I can't understand how they apply to FLESH, BLOOD, & BONES -- not yelling just emphasis.
WE all have heard of "apples vs oranges" -------> that's how I see (understand) the comparisons using sand, wood, dirt, --- vs Animals (flesh, blood, bones, hide). I honestly don't see how an accurate comparative result can be had.
Now, (honestly) when you, mathman, a surgeon, or astrologer talk OVER our heads-- we don't understand. No criticism.
I have dealt with people who don't understand auto mechanics or maintainance and they don't understand the terminology.
It's not that I think you are wrong on all of this....I can't see how you can deduce the amount of force used, transferred, or wasted on an animal.
The mediums are SO diff it doesn't make sense how the math formulas (formuli) really apply.
That's the best I can describe it and I don't want to EXTEND my math level. LOL
No Harm, No Foul
Jerry
One way to measure force is Newtons Force which is 2.2 pounds times 1 meter per second. Turn bullet weight in grains to killigrams and FPS to meters per second and multiply the two together. Now you have the amount of Newtons force the bullet produces
I can do mathematics also, I also keep tons of data. Although, measuring and comparing performance is a bit of a compulsion, most of it is nearly useless to me as a hunter. What really happens with the bullet on flesh and bone is predictable but cannot be verified by all this data we gather. The most excellent rifle, with the greatest handloads you can muster helps little if your hunting skills are from a textbook or a YouTube video. Kinetic energy, Hydrostatic shock, knockdown power etc are fun to assess but unless you can spot game, close in on it and shoot under less than ideal conditions ...you are not hunting, imo. Yup, reciting biased opinions, cutting and pasting supporting info means zero . It is only an opinion . One of many.
I'm sincere ! FIRST - I have no doubt the hi level math jargon you have used IS correct.
I don't have to tell you or mathman that I have NOT studied above Alg I II and Geometry. I did not take trig or calculus......
So many of the terms y'all have used are ABOVE my head....I suspect others don't understand too.
IF we don't understand your terminology in real life then how are we supposed to apply it to the killing "mechanics" of hunting ? NO criticism nor sarcasm. For Real.
I'm familiar with a FEW terms y'all have used but in hunting....??..I can't understand how they apply to FLESH, BLOOD, & BONES -- not yelling just emphasis.
WE all have heard of "apples vs oranges" -------> that's how I see (understand) the comparisons using sand, wood, dirt, --- vs Animals (flesh, blood, bones, hide). I honestly don't see how an accurate comparative result can be had.
Now, (honestly) when you, mathman, a surgeon, or astrologer talk OVER our heads-- we don't understand. No criticism.
I have dealt with people who don't understand auto mechanics or maintainance and they don't understand the terminology.
It's not that I think you are wrong on all of this....I can't see how you can deduce the amount of force used, transferred, or wasted on an animal.
The mediums are SO diff it doesn't make sense how the math formulas (formuli) really apply.
That's the best I can describe it and I don't want to EXTEND my math level. LOL
No Harm, No Foul
Jerry
One way to measure force is Newtons Force which is 2.2 pounds times 1 meter per second. Turn bullet weight in grains to killigrams and FPS to meters per second and multiply the two together. Now you have the amount of Newtons force the bullet produces
How does that relate to Fig Newtons?
DF
DF it does, fig newton's are made of low density components and so they are not to heavy. If you walk up to that package of fig newton's s on the counter top pull one out and accidentally drop it on your bare toes it won't hurt to bad but you will notice it. If you had been wearing your steel toe work boots you ll barely notice the impact. So in effect of you give a fig about it then the newton force is applicable. But I digress and have just enough physics to go along with Jordan as he does know what he is talking about. You can tell that when he tells Mike wormer to stop ankle biting. Mb
now let`s throw in deer size with bullet speed and bullet caliber sizes, bullet grains ,weather conditions . and then we all have a favorite caliber/cartridge mine is a fast 257 Weatherby mag. this cartridge does smack bucks dang hard out too 500 yards sometimes farther. i am not sure what or why my 257 Weatherby mag. and few other cartridges cause but when i use a 100 gr. Nosler Partition at 3800FPS the bucks either go down or might make 20 - 40 yards and are stone dead, never had that happen with a 30-30 , 30-06 ,243 , 270 , 7mm-08 , 308 , 300 WSM. , 7 mag when i shot a buck at these lower bullet speeds ?
Sett aside the internal physics of how a bullet causes damage for a moment. Just review some of the observations made by big game hunters at the time of adoption of smokeless powders. High velocity (relatively) full metal bullets were observed to sometimes “knock out” game in a way not associated with black powder rounds. And also observed that some of those animals would subsequently pop up and head for the horizon. Or, just continue on as though not hit. Big cat hunters learned that bullets with an impact velocity somewhere north of 2100 FPS were better at stopping a well hit big cat. The same was not true with truly large game. Energy and extent of a wound are not closely related. A spearhead will do extensive damage with little energy expended. The same is true of an archery broadhead. Keith showed us that big slow hard cast bullets expend very little energy to cause long wound channels.
I'm sincere ! FIRST - I have no doubt the hi level math jargon you have used IS correct.
I don't have to tell you or mathman that I have NOT studied above Alg I II and Geometry. I did not take trig or calculus......
So many of the terms y'all have used are ABOVE my head....I suspect others don't understand too.
IF we don't understand your terminology in real life then how are we supposed to apply it to the killing "mechanics" of hunting ? NO criticism nor sarcasm. For Real.
I'm familiar with a FEW terms y'all have used but in hunting....??..I can't understand how they apply to FLESH, BLOOD, & BONES -- not yelling just emphasis.
WE all have heard of "apples vs oranges" -------> that's how I see (understand) the comparisons using sand, wood, dirt, --- vs Animals (flesh, blood, bones, hide). I honestly don't see how an accurate comparative result can be had.
Now, (honestly) when you, mathman, a surgeon, or astrologer talk OVER our heads-- we don't understand. No criticism.
I have dealt with people who don't understand auto mechanics or maintainance and they don't understand the terminology.
It's not that I think you are wrong on all of this....I can't see how you can deduce the amount of force used, transferred, or wasted on an animal.
The mediums are SO diff it doesn't make sense how the math formulas (formuli) really apply.
That's the best I can describe it and I don't want to EXTEND my math level. LOL
No Harm, No Foul
Jerry
One way to measure force is Newtons Force which is 2.2 pounds times 1 meter per second. Turn bullet weight in grains to killigrams and FPS to meters per second and multiply the two together. Now you have the amount of Newtons force the bullet produces
How does that relate to Fig Newtons?
DF
DF it does, fig newton's are made of low density components and so they are not to heavy. If you walk up to that package of fig newton's s on the counter top pull one out and accidentally drop it on your bare toes it won't hurt to bad but you will notice it. If you had been wearing your steel toe work boots you ll barely notice the impact. So in effect of you give a fig about it then the newton force is applicable. But I digress and have just enough physics to go along with Jordan as he does know what he is talking about. You can tell that when he tells Mike wormer to stop ankle biting. Mb
I agree that Jordan knows his stuff. I did study physics in college, know about Newtons other than the fig variety.
Was just messing with him....
I'm not big on the German (Euro) system of metric measurements, Joules, Newtons, meters, etc. but understand they do have certain advantages in scientific endeavors. Besides, they sound sophisticated....
[/quote] I'm not big on the German (Euro) system of metric measurements, Joules, Newtons, meters, etc. but understand they do have certain advantages in scientific endeavors. Besides, they sound sophisticated....
I'm sincere ! FIRST - I have no doubt the hi level math jargon you have used IS correct.
I don't have to tell you or mathman that I have NOT studied above Alg I II and Geometry. I did not take trig or calculus......
So many of the terms y'all have used are ABOVE my head....I suspect others don't understand too.
IF we don't understand your terminology in real life then how are we supposed to apply it to the killing "mechanics" of hunting ? NO criticism nor sarcasm. For Real.
I'm familiar with a FEW terms y'all have used but in hunting....??..I can't understand how they apply to FLESH, BLOOD, & BONES -- not yelling just emphasis.
WE all have heard of "apples vs oranges" -------> that's how I see (understand) the comparisons using sand, wood, dirt, --- vs Animals (flesh, blood, bones, hide). I honestly don't see how an accurate comparative result can be had.
Now, (honestly) when you, mathman, a surgeon, or astrologer talk OVER our heads-- we don't understand. No criticism.
I have dealt with people who don't understand auto mechanics or maintainance and they don't understand the terminology.
It's not that I think you are wrong on all of this....I can't see how you can deduce the amount of force used, transferred, or wasted on an animal.
The mediums are SO diff it doesn't make sense how the math formulas (formuli) really apply.
That's the best I can describe it and I don't want to EXTEND my math level. LOL
No Harm, No Foul
Jerry
Jerry,
Our conversation was over in the "knockdown power" thread but since you brought up this aspect here I'll answer here. Please rest assured that my use of terms like impulse, momentum and whatever math may arise is not to talk over anybody's head. These ideas are quite elementary in a careful discussion of collisions including the collision of a bullet with a deer.
I'm sincere ! FIRST - I have no doubt the hi level math jargon you have used IS correct.
I don't have to tell you or mathman that I have NOT studied above Alg I II and Geometry. I did not take trig or calculus......
So many of the terms y'all have used are ABOVE my head....I suspect others don't understand too.
IF we don't understand your terminology in real life then how are we supposed to apply it to the killing "mechanics" of hunting ? NO criticism nor sarcasm. For Real.
I'm familiar with a FEW terms y'all have used but in hunting....??..I can't understand how they apply to FLESH, BLOOD, & BONES -- not yelling just emphasis.
WE all have heard of "apples vs oranges" -------> that's how I see (understand) the comparisons using sand, wood, dirt, --- vs Animals (flesh, blood, bones, hide). I honestly don't see how an accurate comparative result can be had.
Now, (honestly) when you, mathman, a surgeon, or astrologer talk OVER our heads-- we don't understand. No criticism.
I have dealt with people who don't understand auto mechanics or maintainance and they don't understand the terminology.
It's not that I think you are wrong on all of this....I can't see how you can deduce the amount of force used, transferred, or wasted on an animal.
The mediums are SO diff it doesn't make sense how the math formulas (formuli) really apply.
That's the best I can describe it and I don't want to EXTEND my math level. LOL
No Harm, No Foul
Jerry
Jerry,
I understand your point. I'm trained to use precise language so as to try to make correct statements. When I know I'm explaining something to a person with a non-technical background, I try to use more accessible language. I'll try to make my posts more generally accessible in the future.
In terms of the different media (sand versus flesh), we're not trying to make quantitative calculations, meaning calculating numbers, which would not be feasible based on the complexity of the living system and the lack of good data, but we are trying to discuss the qualitative principles (how the physical concepts relate to the situation at hand).
Let's try this for a non brain hurting take on the knockdown aspect: The deer can't acquire more momentum from its collision with the bullet than the bullet brings into the collision. The bullet can't bring any more momentum into the collision with the deer than there was in the recoil of the rifle into the shooter's shoulder. Therefore, if the recoil didn't/couldn't bodily throw the shooter to the ground the bullet in and of itself didn't/couldn't throw the lengthwise shot deer end over end. Any acrobatics on the part of the deer result from the deer's own nervous/muscular reaction to being hit, not from the "physics reaction" of the mass of the deer's body to the momentum gained in the collision.
I apologize in advance for my inability to make it any more plain.
Not scientifically sure, but to achieve instant hydrostatic incapacitation, a big game animal would have to be hit with something far larger in diameter than a hunter can fire from a shoulder. Again, to me, it all comes down to bullet placement and if that wasn’t the case then nobody would talk about how important placement is.
I did see something that has always stuck in my head. Back about 1977 or 78 I was watching over the shoulder of my best HS buddy and he hit a doe at about 80 yards with a 220 grain round nose factory Remington load out of his 740 Remington 30-06 The doe was standing broadside in a soy bean field in pouring down rain. What was remarkable was at the moment of impact the entire deer went white from all the rain soaked fur as it expanded out into the surrounding air. It was a very astonishing sight and the rain in her fur went in every direction over every inch of her body at least two feet. The shocking force to basically dry that deer out in a millisecond was awe inspiring. Not sure what force caused that but it sure looked like it would have scrambled a lot of nerves well before the deer bleed out. She dropped in her tracks
Hydrostatic shock is an oxymoron. Hydro means water, (or other liquids) and static means at rest. The phrase literally means the shock of water at rest.
If you want to talk about hydrodynamic shock, at least the terminology makes sense.
Finally! Someone gets the physics right!
I've been preaching that very thing on this site for years. It's a misnomer, to be sure, but even the concept that it espouses is physically incorrect.
Originally Posted by buffybr
The cells that make up an animals organs contain liquid. Liquid is not compressible.
Just because the cells contain liquid does not mean that they are entirely liquid, or that the organs behave as an incompressible liquid. Can you take the lungs or heart in your hands and compress/squish them? If you put the organs in a bucket, do they flow to fill the container? The organs behave like a solid, not an incompressible liquid.
Originally Posted by buffybr
The holes in vital organs are caused by two things: Mechanically by the bullet actually tearing up the organ cells, and Hydraulically by the energy from the bullet transferred to the liquid in the organ cells that causes enough pressure that exceeds the flexibility of the cell walls and the cells rupture.
The holes in vital organs are caused by mechanical displacement. Cellular damage can occur by cells rupturing from pressure or mechanical disruption (on a slightly larger scale this can be seen as bruising), but the macroscopic holes you see are caused by mechanical displacement.
Originally Posted by buffybr
Look at the damage around the wound channel that the bullet made in the animal's tissues. The damage in and around the wound channel increases with the diameter of the bullet AND with the kinetic energy of the bullet.
That is largely due to velocity being correlated with primary and secondary fragmentation, and the impulse of the interaction between the bullet and the flesh.
Originally Posted by buffybr
I have recovered solid copper Barnes bullets from animals where the bullet did not hit a bone and the recovered bullet weighed within a grain or two of it's original weight so the only mechanical damage was the bullet itself, and the bullet expanded to two or three times it's original diameter, yet the wound channel in the animal's tissues was 10 or more times the diameter of the expanded bullet. Animal tissues and organs are flexible. When a bullet passes through the tissues of an animal the mechanical damage to the tissues occurs where the bullet contacts the tissues, and the hydraulic damage radiates out from the bullet path and damages those tissues out to the point where the cell walls are not ruptured. Like a stretched rubber band, after all of the energy has been transferred and dissipated, the undamaged tissues move back to their original place.
This hydraulic tissue displacement shows very well on a slow motion video of a bullet passing through ballistic gelatin.
Secondary fragmentation doesn't have to be comprised of bone, it can also be made up of other tissue that gets dispersed very quickly as it is pushed out of the bullet's path.
There is some degree of hydraulic pressure in the organs when the bullet passes through, but it's not as large an effect as seen in a homogeneous fluid or semi-fluid medium like water or ballistic gel, due to the multiple boundary conditions in the animal's chest (hide transitions to muscle which transitions to bone, and then there is a transition to some air space, which transitions to lung and heart tissue, which transitions to more muscle and bone and hide before exiting) that don't exist in the homogeneous medium.
I spent a couple of years researching quantum neuroscience as related to consciousness, and during that time I had the opportunity to study and model neuronal networks somewhat extensively. I have come to believe that a bullet
passing sufficiently close to the CNS can cause enough mechanical disruption to send an electrical signal (similar to the "shock wave" explanation) that over-stimulates the brain and causes a loss of nervous control of the muscles (animal falls down) or even a loss of consciousness. This would be similar to a boxer getting hit on the jaw and being knocked down or knocked unconscious.
In my mind, there are two ways animals die via bullets: either the vital organs that supply the brain with oxygen are disrupted and the brain runs out of oxygen, or the CNS is disrupted and the brain is "short-circuited". Sometimes both take place, where the CNS is disrupted and the brain loses control of the body or loses consciousness, followed by being starved of oxygen due to damage to the heart/lungs.
I think a bullet can also dispatch a game animal ( ruminant etc)
Via peritonitis…..sepsis in the abdominal cavity.
And clostridium in the muscle tissue I.e. the muscle is non viable due to [ shock] oops
Goes anaerobic and rots……
Arrows can cause peritonitis but with such little kinetic energy , arrow shot animals will not very often have a clostridium demise.
All concious and free willed systems are despised by the idiot tick-tocks that drive the pulsations of the universal quantum probability field. Hydraulic shock, suspending conciousness, can let in enough order to drown out the glorious disorder of the living mind.
I did see something that has always stuck in my head. Back about 1977 or 78 I was watching over the shoulder of my best HS buddy and he hit a doe at about 80 yards with a 220 grain round nose factory Remington load out of his 740 Remington 30-06 The doe was standing broadside in a soy bean field in pouring down rain. What was remarkable was at the moment of impact the entire deer went white from all the rain soaked fur as it expanded out into the surrounding air. It was a very astonishing sight and the rain in her fur went in every direction over every inch of her body at least two feet. The shocking force to basically dry that deer out in a millisecond was awe inspiring. Not sure what force caused that but it sure looked like it would have scrambled a lot of nerves well before the deer bleed out. She dropped in her tracks
Indeed, About 1964 I fired a full metal jacket round from a 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano downwards at a 45 degree angle into a frozen pool in the river. The ice shot straight up about 20 feet, leaving a bowl-shaped hole about 16 inches across and 16 inches deep. After the ice fell back down and the woods went quiet again I could hear a hissing sound coming from the hole...at the bottom was the totally non-deformed bullet laying in a little melted spot...still spinning at terrific rpm's! .
I saw that visual phenomena of hair turning white or maybe reflecting light, on a cloudy misty morning, on a cow elk hit broadside about 75 yards away after a night of pouring rain. The cow was soaked, outer guard hair anyway, and at the bullet impact her dark brown flank turned white and down she went. Getting ready to gut her after the adrenaline rush, I asked my buddy, did you see her hide flash white after you fired? He replied that he did see that and wondered if it was water mist. Sounded reasonable, since she was obviously brown when we started gutting.
I did see something that has always stuck in my head. Back about 1977 or 78 I was watching over the shoulder of my best HS buddy and he hit a doe at about 80 yards with a 220 grain round nose factory Remington load out of his 740 Remington 30-06 The doe was standing broadside in a soy bean field in pouring down rain. What was remarkable was at the moment of impact the entire deer went white from all the rain soaked fur as it expanded out into the surrounding air. It was a very astonishing sight and the rain in her fur went in every direction over every inch of her body at least two feet. The shocking force to basically dry that deer out in a millisecond was awe inspiring. Not sure what force caused that but it sure looked like it would have scrambled a lot of nerves well before the deer bleed out. She dropped in her tracks
Naw man, you didn't see nothing. That couldn't have possibly have happened. That 'would' defy all laws of nature and mathematics!
That had to be something like a minute' flash of lightning or something similar.
In 49 yrs of deer hunting I've seen things happen that I have absolutely NO explanation for. We hunters ?may? use a wrong term or 2 but summin! happened.
