This is one of the oft argued topics in riflery related to hunting, so it's always worth one more round, right?

My own experience includes "autopsying" well over 300 deer. Nobody seems to resist when you volunteer for that duty, and for many years, I was so fascinated with the results that I'd almost always volunteer for that duty. I hunt the south, where our average whitetails run from 120-180 lbs. AVERAGE, so my comments will apply specifically to them, and NOT to the larger 200+ pounders typically found in other regions.

In my experience, the thread on Rem. Core Lokt bullets, and more particularly MD and others' assertion that up to 2800 fps. (and on SMALLER, under 200-250 lb. whitetails, etc. up to 3100 fps. or so), conventional cup and core bullets work very well. I don't shoot deer in the butt, so disregard these comments in regard to that type of shot.

My experience and observation indicates that there's nothing that really surpasses the traditional "soft" cup and core bullets on whitetails, and I'd include velocities up to 3100 fps. I shoot Nosler Ballistic Tips a lot, and they're devastating on our southern whitetails. I should also note that I usually hunt from tree stands, and that this (in part) allows me to wait for good broadside or shallow angled shots.

These factors combine so that, to date, I've rarely had to track any of my own deer. I've had to track some that others have shot, and I don't like it. I like my deer to drop at the shot, and I like to find it right where it stood when I pulled the trigger.

To date, NOTHING works as well as a "soft" traditional cup and core bullet, or the Nosler BT's for accomplishing just that.
Now I realize that not ALL of us hae the luxury of being able to wait for a broadside or near broadside shot, of course, so those who "must," for whatever reason, take other type shots may want to seek advice elsewhere on THAT subject. However, it's also been my experience that most deer WILL give us a good profile for a shot IF we can just show a little patience.

I trained myself early on, because I got so excited when a deer would appear, to just FREEZE on my initial sighting of a deer. Then I'd force myself to actually THINK for a second, and determine just how much time I had to make the shot - which usually turned out to be plenty enough to wait for a good profile for the shot. This helped me place my shots, and no doubt saved me some "lost" evenings out in the woods with a flashlight - something I do NOT like when I could be back home swapping lies about the hunt and frying up some backstrap with some onions, Worstershire and whatever else seems appealing at the moment. I love venison as much as I abhor tracking! Learning to freeze at the first appearance of a deer eliminates the adrenaline response that so often leads us to hasty mistakes.

Anyway, I also learned that if I move the rifle v-e-r-y
s-l-o-w-l-y, I could bring the rifle to shoulder with a deer right UNDER me. This wasn't a small finding! It's enabled me to eliminate virtually all need for shooting running deer, which all too often results in tracking - did I mention I just HATE doing that? After all, a deer lives in the woods, and the tree branches are nearly always moving, even if moderately, and birds fly, etc., so deer mainly notice only movement that is too fast, and thus seems threatening to them. They don't notice very slow movement at all, typically.

Combining these two simpe principles - freezing to calm down before the shot (which allows waiting for a broadside or nearly broadside shot) and moving the rifle very slowly so as not to be noticed by the deer - I've been able to compile a record of one shot in-the-tracks kills that would at first seem impressive. However, it's really not anything that most all of us can't do, if you think about it a minute. Think about it a second. Freezing initially gets us past the adrenal rush and allows us to THINK instead of merely react. Deer aren't dangerous, so this is good here. Then, moving slowly won't scare the deer into forcing us to make a running shot, or worse, pulling the trigger just as it moves. Simple. Effective. Reliable.

Now comes the in-the-tracks part of the "secret." I've shot the bulk of these little whitetails with .270's, '06's, .308's and a 6mm. Rem. Deer are big targets, really. A lot bigger than the 8" paper plate many use to check their sights! Standing deer are actually pretty easy to hit, and hit well - IF they're standing and unalarmed. The meat may taste a mite better if they're not pumping adrenaline as well, so there are many reasons to seek a standing broadside shot. The "trick" is to put them down right where they stand, and that's where "hydrostatic shock" comes into play.

In my experience, a standing broadside deer shot in the forward part of the lungs in the high heart area, will typically fall at the shot and not move from that shot if shot with the typical .270/'06/.308 with the lighter (130 gr. .270 or 250 gr. '06/.308's) cup and core or BT bullets, or some similar caliber and load. At the shot, they'll typically act as if a strong electrical current had hit them suddenly, sometimes will stiffen (if there's time to notice) and just collapse. THIS is what we all seek! If the heart is hit, they'll usually make a mad dash for some 25-40 yds. and then collapse. Scares me near to death, so I try to avoid an actual heart shot!

However, though I've never hunted with them, I've noticed a clear trend among the stories I regard as "reliable" from those who shoot our little whitetails with the newer homogeneous bullets, like the X and TSX. They'll typically brag about hitting it "right in the heart" and wind up saying "... and it only went 50 (to 75 yds.) before piling up dead!" That's a good job, of course, and a clean kill - something we all seek - but for me, I'll take the traditional cup and core bullets or a BT ANY day over the harder, more limited expansion types, regardless of construction ... on whitetails, anyway. I've got some 250 gr. Nosler Partitions in case I get to make that elk hunt some day, but Jack O'Connor's comments about the fast/light bullets has proven itself on whitetails almost unerringly.

I HAVE found that the .30/30 and .270 are two of the most reliable calibers around, and one reason for this is that almost all bullets for them are designed specifically for these calibers, almost exclusively, and therefore the bullets used for them can be more nearly a "tailored fit" for their use. The .30/30 clearly doesn't kill QUITE as quickly, but with a good shot, it's often an in-the-tracks killer.

I have concluded that - FOR WHITETAILS SPECIFICALLY - hydrostatic shock DOES exist, and not only that, but it WORKS, and it works RELIABLY and WELL, but it works only by far better with the "softer" and quickly expanding bullets and velocities over about 2700 fps or so, on up to maybe 3100 fps.

WITHIN THESE SPECIFIC LIMITS, AND ON WHITETAILS, I believe hydrostatic shock is possibly one of a hunter's best freinds, and if one has the discipline and wherewithall to wait for a good shot, and place the bullet well, killing whitetails in their tracks is not only easy, it's really sort of our obligation as a good hunter.

Use a magnum and the above often doesn't apply. A buddy has lost some deer with 100 gr. .264's and 140 gr. BT's in the 7 mag., so the above isn't a genarality, it's a specific. However, it's the "secret" I've used for many years to avoid the dreaded and hated duty of tracking.

Does anyone else here use these little "tricks" to avoid having to track deer? I nearly lost one once, that went only 30 yds. It fell into a stump hole that was surrounded by briars, and nothing white showed, so it was very hard to see. I was about to abandon the search when I came back by it, and leaned over and shined the flashlight and found it. DARN! Over 1 1/2 hours of good cookin' time wasted!

How about tying your necropsy experiences to the thesis that hydrostatic shock exists?

I don't think it does, but the temporary bullet cavity can have an impressive effect.

jim

Jim, I'm mainly going on what I've seen. When most of my whitetails have been hit, they just crumple and fall as fast as gravity will take them to earth. I can't imagine anything but the total overwhelming of their electrical system doing this. I've heard the theories about the shock being transmitted to the brain via the major blood vessels. Maybe that's what we call hydrostatic shock, but I am not of that opinion, unless someone can provide better evidence.

Hydrostatic shock is simply the high pressure compression and "shock wave" that happens when a high speed expanding bullet hits highly aqueous tissue. Lung tissue is mighty light, and thus not of high water density, but it's very soft and easily compressed. I think this compressibility, combined with the high pressure of the "shock wave," really DOES do something. The evidence I'd cite in support of this can be seen when one shoots a whitetail with something like a .270 with the 130 gr. bullets. The lung tissue becomes a singular mass of blood clot, virtually. SOMETHING is happening to create that, and it's surely not the path cut by the bullet. It has to be that compression wave that does it.

I've also noted that whitetails shot with the slower .30/30 don't succumb to this effect nearly as often or dramatically as those shot with faster bullets.

I do think that adequate penetration is ALSO necessary for clean one-shot in-the-tracks kills on whitetails. Based on what I've observed from kills and autopsies, I'd say that near full penetration is essential, though maybe 3/4 full penetration will suffice if the shock effect is great enough.

Again, I'm speaking only of whitetails here, and NOT of the 250 and up pounders.

Good shooting is the most reliable thing in getting venison, and many old African hunters used what they could get, which was often pointed or RN FMJ's, and they still ate well. They just had to be really sure of placing the bullet well.

I also know from many conversations with game wardens and a few others that pointed FMJ's do a lot better job than most folks would give them credit for. Darned dangerous downrange beyond the deer, though, and not as effective as a proper expanding bullet, but still better than most would give them credit for. I think hydrostatic shock plays a part in that effectiveness as well. It would have to, I think, since a pointed FMJ isn't noted for large wound channels, but still will bloodshot significant amounts of meat. I'm thinking here of the '06, and maybe 8x57's in African use, and maybe others.

I hear hydrostatic shock poo-pooed so often, and it just doesn't jive with what I've observed, that I simply can't imagine how people think those massive blood clots get there.
I've even seen a couple of deer hit in the paunch that fell instantly and never got up - both with .22/.250's which I'd tried to talk a couple of buddies out of using. They DID in fact quit them later on, after some equally dramatic failures, however, which I think supports my contention about the necessity of adequate penetration in addition to velocity and expansion. Another one I didn't observe is a buddy whose word I trust completely in these matters. He lost not one but TWO whitetails with the 7 mag and 140 gr. Nos. BT's. Both due to inadequate penetration. He's the same guy who lost the deer with the 100 gr. .264's. With the .264, he'd been set up to shoot very long distances (300+) with that rifle, and the 100 grainers worked beautifully out where the velocity had dropped off significantly, just as they do from single shot pistols at comparable velocity. The biggest buck of his life stepped out at 60 yds. and the bullet blew up on his shoulder, making a horrible looking wound. He got down and went to it, and it got up. Not wanting to mangle the cape up any more, he held his shot, just "knowing" it would drop. One quick turn and leap, however, and it was gone back into the woods, and he heard it running for quite a ways. He searched for that deer for several days, but it was never found. Bad judgment and bad bullets costs deer! A lesson learned, to be sure!

I just don't think that hydrostatic shock gets a fair shake these days, and again, that's based on my observations and from what I've seen doing those autopsies, and after checking out many of the stories associated with each of the kills. I don't think negating or denying the usefulness of hydrostatic shock is doing our game much service. That's just MHO, of course, but I've got a pretty fair amount of reason for believing that.

Why don't you think hydrostatic shock exists?

I've got a little story that relates to this subject. About 20 years ago my dad shot a mature whitetail in the Texas hill country. He was using a 300 win mag handloaded with a Hornady 150gr spire point at a range of 75yds, deer broadside and looking at us. At the shot the deer drops, flipping on his back, gives a brief flail or two and then all is still. My dad immediately approaches the deer, recieving compliments from the guide for nice shot and all then they start field-dressing the deer. They were about 2/3 finished when they realized the bullet never penatrated the ribcage! The bullet hit the shoulder dead-on, it was bloodshot to hell, but it dissentegrated there. A rib was cracked and the inside of the ribcage was bruised. The heart and lungs appeared intact. They were also "clean", like dressing out a head or neck-shot deer. What killed this deer? Was it "hydrostatic shock" or the field-dressing?

I have found very similar reactions when using ballistic tips at very high velocity on our much larger(some well over 300lbs) canadian bucks.

� "Hydrostatic shock" is a misnomer but not a fallacy. It's a fact of physics that any pressure that's applied (in the case of a speeding bullet, dynamically, not statically) to an incompressible liquid is transferred undiminished to all surfaces of that liquid. This is what "explodes" a water-filled can or jar that's hit by a high-speed bullet. Static application of moderate pressure gives us the useful hydraulics of automobile jacks, garage lifts, front-end loaders, dump trucks, etc.

� This dynamic hydraulic shock does have an important role in killing game � but it's not always on-stage with the rest of the cast. A bullet that strikes an empty, flaccid chamber of the heart, for example, can just poke a bullet-diameter hole in it. If the same bullet hits a heart chamber that's turgid with blood, the dynamic hydraulic effect occurs and devastates that heart chamber. The same effect would result from impact with a bladder turgid with urine. Apparently, the blood and other fluids within the smaller vessels throughout the animal's flesh don't "explode" with as much dramatic effect as a blood-filled chamber of the heart.

� The lethal effects of bullets � like those of arrows, spears, and lances � include the results of other mechanisms of impact (great and immediate hemorrhaging, for example), not just "shock."

Mr. Howell,

That makes tons of sense. I always wondered about the terminology(sp?) and for some reason hydrostatic didn't sound right. Oh well, I'm not a scientist though.

On the subject of hydro (whatever) shock I have witnesses very rapid kills with my 243 and 100gr. core-lokts(handloaded). So impressed was my Dad(Dave in WV) that he bought a 243 for himself. Both of us have had favorable results in pushing 100gr. core-lokts at a guesstimated 2900fps.

Ken, thanks for the comments but what do we actually call this effect, based upon your well written definition, hydraulic shock?

It's dynamic hydraulic impact � why not call it that?

We still know 'way too little about what kills game, why some critters die so easily, why other critters absorb so much and take so long to die.

� In 1956, I shot a spike bull elk broadside with a 180-grain Bronze Point from a .30-06 Ackley Improved. The entry and exit holes were about 0.308 inch in diameter. The elk turned and ran down-hill until his hind legs out-ran his front legs and he tumbled into a heap and couldn't get up. I finished him with a brain shot from an S&W .22 Kit Gun.

� In 1957, I shot a six-point bull elk broadside with a 220-grain Core Lokt (same .30-06 AI) and blew the top half of a vertebra away. The bull just ran off. I tracked him until I couldn't. I ran across his trail again three days later and tracked him until I got another broadside shot that blew the top of another vertebra away. Down he went but struggled to get up. He continued trying to get up while I brain-shot him twice with a Ruger .357 Magnum � once in the back of his head, once from the side, both from within two yards. As I stood amazed, he slowly died.

� That same year, using my 220-grain Core Lokts and IMR-4350 in his .30-06, my partner Loren Netzloff blew the entire front quarter off the far side of a mule-deer doe, making a huge fan of blood and lung tissue in the snow and leaving the heart exposed to the air. The doe ran off up-hill and over the ridge. Confident that she wouldn't go far, Loren brushed snow off a stump and sat down to enjoy a smoke. Then he took-up her blood trail and followed it for two or three miles across one ridge after another. When he caught-up to her, she was lying in the snow but alert. She jumped up as he approached, ran a few steps, then stopped to look back at him. He shot her in the head, and she dropped � finally dead.

� In 1959, a friend of mine brought a mule-deer doe through the F&G checking station where I was working. His first shot had blown away the entire off-side front leg, from the shoulder blade down. The doe had hobbled away so fast that he was amazed. His hasty second shot blew away the entire off-side hind leg. The doe continued to run, alternately bouncing off trees along her right side. Finally, with nothing further to bounce-off, she fell.

Experiences like these � not the more-frequent immediately successful kills � are why old-timers like Keith prefer super-whompers to the merely adequate killers. Any cartridge that usually kills well also fails occasionally. Some fail less often than others.

� And let's not forget that in World War Two, a Zero pilot flew for hours and safely landed his aircraft with a .50 Browning bullet in his brain (and survived the war, IIRC).

Here are the damage mechanisms I know bullets deliver:

1. Physical destruction of tissue in the bullets path; and
2. Temporary deformation of tissue from tissue damaged by #1 and impelled radially from the bullet's path.

The first is what forms the permanent wound cavity. The second is what forms the temporary wound cavity.

For rifle bullets we use, the bullet is flying supersonic in air when it strikes the animal. The bullet is immediately subsonic within the tissue of the animal. We are talking a big difference here by the way. There isn't any "energy dumping" in the animal either. The bullet is slowed down by all this activity. Some are still moving fast enough to stretch the off-side hide until it ruptures and they leave the animal.

Water is an incompressible fluid, which is why a bullet shot into it can exert pressure on the container -- often enough to blow the container apert, i.e. exceed its yield strength. Tissue has water in it, but it is compartmented in very small compartments.

You can knock animals unconscious when the bullet hits a spinal process or the temporary cavity impacts the spine. Some animals go down immediately, and then bleed to death while unconscious.

Unfortunately videos of bullets hitting jugs of water are very dramatic, and many believe they are seeing "hydorstatic shock" in action -- this is why the myth persists.

jim

I am not sure that this phenom exists consistently enough to count on. Of the deer I have personally killed only three would be descrribed as Bang Flop and one nicked the spine. The other two were lung hits and it looked like thor smacked them down, one didn't even twitch, both were under 100 yards with 165 gr bullets from a 30-06(corelokt and spper hot cor). All the others did the less than 100 yard dash before skidding to a halt. The other side of the coin on this is a doe my son shot last year at about 150 yards with a 270 with sierra prohunter 130. A solid lung hit, above the heart, clear through both lungs, no bone she went about 400 yeards through the bush before tipping. I am amzed when the Bang Flop thing happens, but I was shocked when we had to go so far for that doe.

I read somewhere that the reaction is directly tied to the heart pulse. I.E. when the heart is applying maximum pressure, the effect is magnified. When the pressure is lowest, it is reduced.



Seem to recall this in a journal of medicine re: combat wounds.

David,

I have worried this bone with a professor of vet medicine who is also a dedicated hunter. His informed opinion is the circulatory system has developed to contain pressure, and not to for example allow a heart shot to result in a stroke in the brain.

Since I shoot most of my animals in Africa I try to break bones up front to knock them down Right There. Sometimes they will go far enough to surprise me though.

jim

HunterJim - Agreed.



see http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm for a reasonable discussion of wounding.

David,

I have seen part of that before. Here is my contribution.

http://civic.bev.net/shawnee/digress.html

It debunks two myths (hydrostatic shock & bullet induced stroke).

jim

It's a lot of reading, but some of you may find this very interesting... http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html



Back a number of years ago when I first started deer hunting, I was convinced that hydrostatic shock existed, mostly because I listened to what everyone else had to say and most people said that it existed. Now, after using a lot of calibers and bullet types for whitetail, I'm convinced that it doesn't exist. I could go on and on about why I don't believe it exists, but I'm sure everyone already has their mind made up just as I did, and of course me telling you what I think won't change your mind until you've seen it for yourself. So, I'll save myself and everyone else a lot of time and just say to hunt a lot and make up your own mind <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Ah, thanks for posting tkhat link. I am glad to see the author has found a server to host his material, which is really excellent.

jim

That is a great link.

I'm a mechanical engineer by profession. I don't know what is supposed to kill 'em fast. I just know what works.

EVERYTHING I've hit with my 35 Whelen is hanging on the wall. Why? Not 100% sure. Just know it works.

dww

The ONLY rifle I have that stops deer "in their tracks" has been my 338WM with 200 or 225 grain bullets.
The farthest I've had a deer go after being hit in the chest was shot with my 30-06 and a Hornady 150 grain Interlock "cup & core" bullet.
The vast majority of my deer hunting has been with my "lucky rifle", a 257 Roberts. With 100 grain bullets, it's been as effective as the 30-06, and it's done it a lot more often.
This year, I'll be using my new Tikka T3 6.5X55. The bullet will be either a 140 grain Hornady SST or a Hornady 129 Interlock. It shoots both bullets very well.

Very interesting responses, and to tell you the truth, I didn't really expect the quality of answers posted here.

FWIW, I DO think that SOMEthing is bloodshoting all that meat, and I'm not averse at all to calling it by whatever term most appropriately fits. Hydrostatic shock has become the term used to describe it through the years, but like many terms, may more of a cause for confusion and dissent itself, than a term that helps us understand better what it is that really happens.

I limited my question to smaller whitetails, since I have nearly no experience with larger game, and thus can't speak to it with any authority at all. I built that .35 Whelen Ackley on the basis of what I've read that I trust, and because I've always wanted a bigger caliber of some sort.

I DO think that SOMETHING is causing all that bloodshot meat, though, and the more bloodshot meat I see, and given near full penetration simultaneously, the more bang-flops I see result. Using stuff like 130 gr. .270's on whitetails is one of the reasons I try to avoid the shoulder shot. I really like venison. Yes, I've lost a smidge of meat a time or two, but soaking it well and doing my own butchering allows me to clean up the meat very nicely, in fact, and the loss of lower ribs and what little meat there is between them is not much of a "loss."

My meager two whitetail does I shot with the Whelen, both with very mild loads with the 225 gr. BT's, both full facing frontal shots hit in the high heart area, showed dust on impact that looked just like granny beating a rug thrown over a clothesline, whereupon both deer stood nearly straight up on their hind legs, and crumpled over to their sides. Both were one shot kills - bang-flops, if you will - but both seemed to twitch for a longer duration than I typically see with something like a .270.

Thanks for the input, and particularly yours Ken Howell - very good, detailed and easily understood examples. I still think that there's something - call it whatever we can all agree on, that makes the light/fast bullet take out whitetails with more in-the-tracks bang-flops than slower calibers. I think the more compact size of the whitetail, compared to say an elk, along with the elasticity of flesh of the various types (lung, heart, blood vessels, etc.) allows "hydrostatic shock" or whatever, to work its "magic" at least MUCH of the time (nothing's 100% in the field). After all, what else does a .220 Swift have to offer BUT velocity, and the resulting "hydrostatic shock?" That HS isn't "magic" is well illustrated by my buddies who were enamored of the .22/.250 UNTIL a couple of dramatic failures. I think the .270's so good (or whatever you have that's similar in performance) at killiing whitetails is that it offers enough velocity to get good HS (or whatever) AND enough bullet weight and penetration to kill more conventionally from blood loss and damage to major organs. I think the HS has great impact on putting them down initially, whilst the other killing factors take it the final portion of the way. Just MHO, of course, but when I've seen the combination of those two - HS and penetration/destruction of vital organs - I've seen mostly one shot in the tracks kills - given proper bullet placement, always.

Now I DO also have to admit that I haven't taken a deer yet with one of my .45/70's yet, so .... I guess I'm still learning ...
and I guess that's what it's really all about. I think the fact that we're constantly learning and trying to unravel all these "secrets" of hunting is one of the reasons it's such a fascinating pursuit. Maybe there are some things we're just never INTENDED to figure out fully and completely???

The old cave men probably just surmised the gods of the hunt weren't favorable that day. Maybe they had something there?
Sure makes a fine campfire subject, though, and I think I learn a tiny little bit every time I hear it discussed amongst really good and experienced hunters. I doubt it'll ever be ENOUGH, though, and I guess that's why the subject continually reappears.

Can't help but wonder that if we ever DID get to "understand it all," would it still be such a fascinating pastime?

"It's dynamic hydraulic impact � why not call it that?"

Bernoulli went with "hydrodynamic" - that works for me <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />.

I guess my experience is a little different. I tend to use 180 gr in my 30.06, that gives me an exit and a blood trail. Where I live, there is normally snow on the ground, and a 100 yard run is no big deal.

I guess I'll ring in here.

First, I'd like to say that this has been one of the most in depth and interesting threads I've run across. Blackwater, thanks for taking time out to share. It would take me 4 days to type what you did. I'm SLOOOWWW.

I'm going to skip out on the intellectual side of this conversation, because I'm obviously outgunned, but I do want to address it on a more practical level. Whether we call it hydrostatic shock or hydraulic shock (I've always called it energy transfer) I'm 100% certain it exists in principal. Here's why.

Would you rather have your hand on top of an empty or a full soda can when it gets shot. I'd really prefer to avoid both, but if forced to take a pick I would opt for the empty, as I suspect the rest of the readership would. Not exactly apples to oranges here. Now reflect on the amount of damage to that full soda can with solids and expanding bullets. I equate the energy transfer of an expanding bullet to the concussion of an explosive. Even if the shrapnel doen't get you, the concussion can kill you. There is a shock wave in both cases. In the case of bullets, the more rapidly expanding bullets impart a more pronounced shock wave.

Trying to explain this reminds me of why I'm not an engineer or physical scientist!

Paul

Ed Matunas wrote many years ago the reason he used mostly a 270 Win or a 338WM was that bullets of those diameters were essentially custom designed for the velocity of those two cartridges. At the time, the only commercially significant cartridge that used a .277 cal bullet was the 270 Win, same for the 338WM. That's why your 270 works so well. Contrast that with .308 bullets that are supposed to work at any velocity from a 300 Savage to a 300 Weatherby. A similar problem occurs at .284 caliber.
Of course, he worked for Winchester and Lyman during his career, so may have been a bit predjudiced in favor of Winchester factory loadings.
Your 35Whelan kills quickly and ruins little meat for the same reason my 338WM does the same. Moderate velocity and relatively large bullets produce a little hole in/modest hole out, and a liquified chest cavity in between. You can "eat right up to the bullet hole."

Check out this web-site. If not already posted.

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html

This is the most extensive collection of terminal ballistics I have ever seen and is written by a person who's career is related to bullet and projectiles.

One of the topics is hydrostaic shock.

After reading make your own conclusions.

I can't intelligently comment on whether hydrostatic shock actually exists. I just don't know. But I am convinced that relatively soft, cup and core bullets fired at a muzzle velocity THAT THE BULLET WAS DESIGNED is more than adequate for any whitetail. I have only limited experience with the super premium bullets, but from what I've seen they're no better or perhaps not as good as "normal" bullets. And the cup and core bullets are generally more accurate and definitely cheaper. Happy hunting! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Thinking like that Arns9 will keep your game locker full and your bank account flush. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Safe Shooting! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Steve Redgwell
303british.com

I'm in the camp that needs a lot more convincing. Others have already posted about the various types of bullet damage, but in a "hydro" sense there are only two - hydrostatic and hydrodynamic.

Maybe a more accurate question is, "How much shock is caused by a hydrostatic wave?" My answer - Very little.

With all respect to Mr. Howell, I believe "hydrostatic" is the correct term for the energy wave that results in water-based tissue upon bullet impact - correct in that the water doesn't move (remains static). The wave is a result of the elasticity of water.

Body tissue, be it man or beast, is able to absorb this type of energy by not cotaining it - we stretch. This is why the "pop can" analogy doesn't fit.

Hydrodynamic damage is very real, and based on high velocity fluids ripping into adjacent tissue. While this damage can be extreme it's very localized.

JOG
"Hydrodynamic damage is very real, and based on high velocity fluids ripping into adjacent tissue. While this damage can be extreme it's very localized. "

You hit the nail on the head and to extend that may I ask why accuracy would make any difference? If that shock wave goes all through the connected tissue in the entire body (it must) and because of the basic characteristics of wave energy including minmal energy loss in subsequent waveform energy transfer (hence radio waves that go forever into space) and repeated reflection through the body that means every area would be hit repeatedly.

And therein lies the essential rub. Wave energy is extremely efficient in transfering energy with minimal loss (that would be "dumping") and any bullet anywhere in the body would kill as efficiently any other... IF "hydrostatic shock" actually kills...
art

Art,

You have two waves going in your argument: electromagnetic waves in free space (i.e. a vacuum with no material present); and longitudinal waves propagating in a physical medium.

The EM waves can go a long ways, but the pressure waves attenuate and disappear very quickly.

Ulf's paper emphasizes that the bullet damage is only due to the physical passage of the bullet.

In any case you need to shoot the bullet into the animal in a place where the damage kills quickly. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

jim

Jim
I understand the difference and knew the stretch I was making. Did so for clarity with mud? (grin) The point I was heading for though was the attenuation is not fast in terms of energy lost to the medium. The waves attenuate as a function of changing media and refractions and reflections from those changes. All of which takes time.

Look at ocean waves for a more valid example with little loss in energy when traveling completely across an ocean even when traveling across the paths of other wave trains.

And we agree completely on the need to shoot the bullet in a place where the damage kills quickly.
art

FWIW Dept., I don't subscribe to the theory myself. The various densities found in tissue complicate a thoroughly complicated environment when dealing with terminal ballistics. Yes, energy is transfered, but I cannot accept that the wave forms in and of themselves do all of this dastardly damage. I believe wave energy dissipates by the third power as a function of radius from origin. It is at best a precipitous decline, and at any point where a bullet is administering energy, the localized tranfer is a small portion of what is available. And as to what is available, there is this problem of "equal and opposite reaction" . Is not the energy at the buttplate equal to that at the muzzle? Yes, one is heavy and slow, the other light and fast, but still...speed does not, in and of itself, kill things. You may call one "apples" and the other "oranges" if it suits you.

It is, in any case something that will not be resolved in my lifetime. If perchance it is, and I'm full of hooey, so be it. Drinks will be on me at The Grizzly Bar. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Dang, I believe you boys are a bit ahead of me on this whole thang! But I think I got it. If you put a decent bullet at a sufficient speed into vital spots on an animal, you should be able to find it where you shot it or someplace reasonably close. Sound about right?

Hell you'd have to know shock don't kill..... would'nt the world have been rid of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton when that little blue dress with the mayonaise stain was found? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> 1ak

DigitalDan
I believe the formula for energy dissipation is the reciprocal of the radius squared, rather than the third power...
art

1ak
Yup!
art

Art,

� If that shock wave goes all through the connected tissue in the entire body (it must)��

Okay, the Campfire can invite Boddington, but we gotta draw the line somewhere � No Pascal <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />.

JOG
You know, I have always been more impressed with his early work on conic sections, pasrticularly as they relate to vacuum, a theory he fought all sorts of smart dudes over (like Descartes)...

Wish there were an evil-reprobate-leering-wink icon to install there! It would express my mood perfectly! LOL
art

Art,

I was barely treading water as it was and you tossed me an anchor <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" />.

I'll get back to you on the subject of conic sections...but don't wait up <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />.

I really didn't know I was as dumb as I apparently am until I read this thread.

DigitalDan
Forgot to mention the cube function is true of a single point, but the bullet path creates an axis and actually the difference between the axis and the projectile diameter requires factoring in the bullet diameter, so I cheated...
art

I think this is why Elmer just said, ....."use enough gun".

This is the best discussion of this subject that I've seen in a long, long time, and thanks to each of you for sharing your experience, knowledge and observations. Personally, I've never learned much from those who agree with me, and that's the reason I posted this here. With all the good and extensive experience, as well as particular knowledge beyond my own, I hoped I'd get a good discussion going, and I definitely did that, in spades.

Let me just note a few things here, FWIW. The article cited on wound ballistics referred to Whelen's experience as being late 19th century. That's when Whelen STARTED, but he did much work with the '06 and .270 and others, so I think that comment was less apt than it could have been.

Secondly, the author (dang it, forgot his name) stated in one place that despite his agnosticism regarding "shock" (call it whatever you wish) "MAY" apply in SOME instances, though he states it is "unreliable" in his experience and view. He also goes on to state, "On the other hand, as I have alluded to previously, some contemporary bullet designs (Nosler Ballistic Tip and Remington Bronze Point) as well as some renowned performers from years past (e.g., the original 130 gr. load of the .270 Winchester) achieve a high percentage of instantaneous kills by blowing to bits and never exiting the game. I find this interesting in view of the current obsession with avoiding bullets in which the lead cores separate from the jacket. There are few situations in which simple slip separation (core and jacket traveling forward together) would be disadvantageous, although complete separation invariably leaves the jacket behind and makes the core vulnerable to premature fragmentation. But returning to the issue, the successful frangible bullet designs nevertheless always penetrate to the vitals and have never been regarded as reliable for rear raking shots requiring deep penetration or against very tough heavy game and most knowledgeable authorities prefer bullets which exhibit modest cavitation with deep penetration because of their flexibility in the field."

When I started this thread, I tried to narrow it down to high velocity bullets that achieve near full to full penetration, and to whitetails only, since this is where my experience lies. I'd be very foolish, I think, to try to expand that to elk or moose, etc., and sought to eliminate that part of the discussion. After all, I DID build that Ackley Whelen for elk, remember?

I also tried to relate my experience to bullets that hit the vitals - most particularly, the heart-lung area, since that's what my post originally referred to. I think the article's quote above regarding Ballistic Tips, etc. on "deer" tends to support what I've seen in the real world, and that's that "shock" (let me use that term in effort to avoid the secondary question of what the proper term is, please) DOES exist on whitetails with the above cited high velocity, rapid expanding (I wouldn't use the term "explosive" since I also specified penetration) and a good shot. The increasing bloodshot tissue that comes with increased velocity, and my own observed TENDENCY (not "certainty") for the faster bullets (UP TO A POINT OF MAYBE 3100-3200 fps.) seems to kill quicker and more certainly in the tracks than slower bullets.

Now I'm not trying to be bull-headed about this, and evidence of that is my 3 .45/70's and the Whelen, which ALSO do a great job on the very same deer as the .270, et al.

Someone noted that if "shock" existed at all, it would be present with ANY bullet. Well, I'd have to note that a lot of good game was killed in Africa with FMJ's back "in the day" and they did a pretty workable job when placed correctly, though many noted that if bone was hit they'd often tumble on impact, and otherwise yaw or expand and change course. The FMJ's, though, don't "dump" their so-called "energy" potential into the tissue, and thus, the radial damage is minimized from what it COULD have been, had the bullet expanded.

I tried to limit the discussion to deer, and the other specs I provided, but we always seem to expand the subject, which isn't necessarily a "bad" thing at all. In this specific instance, however, and after much investigation (and washing blood out of my clothes!), I've concluded that "shock" DOES indeed exist, and IS a factor, but ONLY ONE FACTOR when it comes to whitetails. The jacklighters and game wardens I've known and talked to who I trust to tell me the absolute Truth (one warden said he didn't want to admit it) have said that the .22 LR is effective all out of proportion to what most would give it credit for, and I for one am of the opinion that a GOOD hunter SHOULD be able to take deer quickly and cleanly with a .22 LR IF HE HAD TO FOR SOME REASON. With a "big gun," it would SEEM so much easier, but as we all know, sometimes deer and other game just does "funny things." Heart shot deer typically take off in a mad dash, often showing no reaction to the bullet - a darn scary thing for them to do for some of us - so that little anomaly IMO creates just ONE of maybe several exceptions to my generality about "shock."

We have the best bullets today, of all types, the best barrels, actions and stocks, that have ever existed in history. It isn't uncommon to have an off the shelf rifle do 1" or better with tailored loads, and even more common if you do a trigger and bedding job on them. "Shock" may not be THE factor in ALL cases (what is in the field?), but I do believe that within the parameters originally set, it IS a significant potential factor when it's time to take the shot. I've been very impressed with what little experience I and friends have had with the Whelen and .45/70's, though, and am learning to regard them highly as well. They're just "different" from the little speedster calibers. To this day, if I had to bet my life on being able to put a deer down in its tracks, I'd take a .270 with the 130 gr. bullet (or something very similar) along for the job, and hope my shooting was good. I'd avoid a heart shot, and try to place the bullet just over the heart, taking out the forward half or so of the lungs and the aorta. I'd try to get a broadside or gentle angle for the shot, and I'd keep very still and move very slowly so as to make that much more likely. Not every hunting style allows all that, of course, and that's why we have different bullets and calibers, or at least that's ONE reason for it.

I just hate to see "shock" poo-pooed COMPLETELY when I think that it DOES constitute ONE (THOUGH NOT all) factor in the efficient taking of whitetails. All the guys I trust tell me that elk, moose and bear don't succumb nearly so readily to this "shock," and that's probably the primary reason I built my Whelen - for just those type larger animals. My thinking is that, as someone noted, shock waves dissipate very rapidly with the cube of the radius of the wound, so that MAY (???) be ONE factor in the larger game's increased resistance to "shock," in addition to another poster's comment about the elasticity of tissue, which decreases quickly the efficiency of the "energy transfer," or whatever the proper term might be, scientifically.

What one sees is what one sees, and the above represents my own experience.

Oh yeah, and to whoever noted the "tailored" bullets in the .270 and .338 (I added the .30/30 but left out the .338, I think), that's a great observation. A buddy has taken one with his, and it killed it grave-yard dead. Wonder of wonders, eh? ;^) I do believe that a lot of deer are shot with bullets that I'd consider both too "soft" and too "hard," and STILL they fall, when the bullet's placed well. Not too much noteworthy about that except that I want mine to be right where I shot it, and what I have seen and experienced indicates that the bang-flop is a BIT more likely with a fast, fairly quick opening bullet at high velocity, and when I see lots of red goo inside the body cavity when I dress it out, I just HAVE to believe that SOME sort of "shock" has compressed the tissues into a pulpy substance. There's just nothing else I can think of that'll do that. It may not be ALL that brought that deer to the ground so quickly, but I definitely think it HELPED. Can't believe otherwise based on what I've seen. Iguess it's mostly a matter of perspective, and of understanding that it's DEFINITELY not the ONLY factor in getting venison to the tabe - not by a LONG shot. That's why I just can't get excited about all the "premium" or "controlled expansion" bullets - at least in most standard calibers. I won't use BT's in a 7 mag., nor Trophy Bondeds in my .30/30, but somewhere in the speedy softER bullet range is a bullet that I for one think will take deer with a significantly increased PROBABILITY (not CERTAINTY) of a bang-flop. Whitetails just aren't that hard to kill, if you place a good bullet right - ANY good bullet.

Hope you all get bang-flops regardless of what you use! Good hunting to you all, and thanks for a darn good discussion. I'm not sure I learned anything new, really, but I sure as heck have enjoyed it.

Well, alrighty then! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I skipped high school math myself and went right into grad school. Didn't set the world on fire there either. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Blackwater,
I agree with your basic premise that standard bullets at standard velocities (3,000 and below -- except for the 25-06 and 270 which have standard bullets designed for their greater velocitiy) kill deer more quickly than premium bullets at standard velocities. With magnums I would simply go to a premium bullet or go up in traditional softpoint weight to obtain a similar result.

I think the following points can be made beyond reasonable debate:

1. The only sure kill comes from a sufficient "permanent" wound channel.

2. If you can obtain more bullet expansion and still have sufficient penetration (traditional softpoints) the deer kills will usually be much quicker.

3. Hydraulic shock and the temporary wound cavity are a bit unpredictable in their results and hard to quantify, but they are more likely to occur with more rapidly expanding bullets.

4. When a bullet ceases to expand (like a premium with a bulkhead) and shed a certain amount of weight, the wound channel also starts to narrow down.

5. The difference in wound channels of traditional softpoints and premiums on deer are similar to the differences between big game soft points and varmint bullets on small game.

Anyway that is the way I see it based upon my experience.