I just responded to another post titled "slow or fast moving bullet" debate.

I think anyone with an IQ over 80 would agree that what kills a deer has nothing to do with "how much time a bullet spends inside a deer" but rather....what that bullet does WHILE INSIDE the deer.

Then...someone responded with the idea that a fast moving bullet creates a "hydrostatic shock" to the CNS. Terrific. The theory of hydrostatic shock is not a new one. Roy Weatherby has sold thousands if not hundreds of thousands of rifles on this theory. It is (in a nutshell) that the tremendous displacement of water in the tissue creates a wave that overloads the CNS and shuts the animal down.

I have had one experience where I shot a smallish whitetail deer with a very fast moving and very frangible .30 caliber bullet. I hit him right in the heart/lung area with the 150 grn bullet arriving at just over 3,000 fps. After the shot...the deer stood there for a second looking around...and then nearly went back to eating before it lifted up his head and started to run. He ran well over 100 yards before he fell over dead.

Needless to say...damage to the deer's lungs were massive. If there was any credibility to the "Hydrostatic Shock" theory...then he'd have fallen over as soon as this massive shock wave was set up in his body.

Bunk.

Here is my theory:

Bullet technology has advanced over the last 15 years and has given us some fantastic bullets that can be pushed to ultra velocities and keep together.

But in the 50's, 60's and 70's....the same bullet being used in a 30-40 Krag was being used in the .300 Magnums of the day. The bullet the manufactures loaded the .257 Roberts with were also finding their way into the chamber of a .257 Weatherby. Same for other hot rod numbers of the day.

The very fast driven velocities as in the .257 Weatherby and others could produce some spectacular one-shot kills. Roy Weatherby called this phenomena "Hydrostatic shock". The same thing that would instantly stop deer and antelope in their tracks would frequently fail to penetrate larger, heavier game because the bullets would blow up on a shoulder. Hence the need for premium bullets that would stay together at even the fastest velocity.

A non-premium fast moving bullet is likely to fragment when it hits anything solid and often times will fragment on muscle tissue itself. Bone that is hit will also fragment, flying off in all directions. If any of these fragments hits the spinal column....you could get the same results as a true neck shot. I have yet to see anyone with this theory...so it might also be bunk....but it would seem to make as much sense as anything else to explain these dramatic lightening fast kills on a heart/lung shot deer.

Thoughts?

I think there is something to the theory, but I can't explain it. I do know that I went from a .243/95gr as a kid to a .270/130gr as a teenager to a 300WinMag/150gr in college and the 150 Ballistic Tip at high velocity put many deer on the ground with straight-up lung shots. It was something like a dozen in a row, in their tracks. The ones that did run did not make it more than 10-15yds and I didn't always get exit holes. Couldn't say the same with the 243 and 270 using similar bullets.

Fill a large can (3 lb. coffee can or #10 can) with water and sit it on a post, stump, box or similar flat, level surface. Place a similar can empty on top of the water-filled can. Now, shoot the bottom can dead center from 50 yds. with your favorite deer load.......What happens to the top can?

Couple of thoughts...

1.) 3,000 fps I would not consider a good example to debunk or bunk the hydro-shock theory. Bullet is too slow and LOTS of calibers/cartridges can push a bullet this fast. Roy Weatherby, who you cite, especially with his signature cartridges would not consider this "fast". You cite a .257 Roy, which is probably a great example of this theory, that can push a 85-100 grain waaaayyy fast yet you debunk the hydrostatic shock theory with 3,000 on one deer fps?

2.) One example of one deer proves nothing. Too small a sample size my friend.

I do believe, and I have seen it many, many times in small bores (read .224 bores specifically as it relates to your post in the .223 deer thread below) in which the animal dies so quick they bounce. There is magic, irregardless of bullet diameter, in pills, irregardless of weight, that are pushed very fast.

I'll leave it up to ya'll to determine the how and the whats, all I know is what I've seen in the field...

OK, let's throw this in also. I shot a deer in the neck one time and the shot missed the bone and hit an artery. The deer fell at once and lay there frozen. I knew that it wasn't good but his rear end was toward me and I did not have a good angle for a follow up shot. I tried to watch and shoot again when he got up, but it was too fast and I missed. He ran into the woods for about a hundred yards but died from blood loss. There was enough shock to his spine to paralize him for a little while even though the bullet was far enough away that it did no damage to it. I looked close when butchering him and there was no bruising or blood spots from bullet fragments near his spine. When he fell he was drawn up in a knot like a beef when you shoot him in the brain with a 22 rifle. miles

Not sure how to say what I want to. I think there is a shock wave created. Otherwise a bullet that holds together would simply punch a hole in a deer. If this were the case, the deer would need to die from blood loss. If we were looking for deer to die from blood loss, I do not know that an arrow would not be a more appropriate tool. Do I believe that it is this shock that kills the animal; no. The wound created by the bullet is much larger than the bullet diameter at recovery because, I believe, the shock wave helps �tear� the meat. I also believe that there is a wave created that may do some additional damage, but not enough to kill the deer. If the shock wave alone was enough to kill a deer, bullet placement would not matter.

That being said, I am not opposed to the magic theory and would love a more scientific explanation.

You guys keep it up and Dober is going to get on you for talking ballistic gak this close to deer season.

I wish I could go back in time with an Uzi and prevent the term 'Hydrostatic Shock' from being thrust upon the world. You just can't have a shock wave in an incompressible fluid... water, blood, whiskey (Kool-Aid anyone) are all ineligible.

I'm not denying that you can get damage far from the bullet path. I don't know but what the difference between bullet construction or speed might cross a line in the amplitude or frequency of the wave that is generated and cause instantaneous death from a thigh wound. Who knows?

But we do know that this wave that is generated will not be a shock wave.

Don't take my word for it read for yourself. Google up 'normal shock wave relations' and go to any reputable fluid dynamicist and they will tell you exactly what I have.

I vote we coin a new term for this phenomena: High Amplitude Hydrodynamic Wave... which is exactly what we are talking about here. Aside from that I have no problems with any argument one way or the other.

Will

I will not get sucked into an argument... I will not get sucked into an argument... I will not get sucked into an argument.

PD

I've been in on a few kills over the years, generally speaking many more than average folk IMHO.

A local older fellow shot 4 or 5 deer each year on the lease. He shot only a 220 swift with 50 grain HPs. He shot each deer in the flank. Flank as in between the last rib and the hindquarter, mid ways up. Every last one was an instant bang flop. Never saw an exit. MV was reported over 4000 fps according to their old chrono. They did not load mild rounds.

Was also my first exposure to the gutless cleaning method... thats been over 20 years ago.

There is some theory thats valid about a fast frangible bullet and some type of shock.

Jeff

I think hydrostatic shock has some merit for anchoring-stopping dangerous game or close in self defense..BUT...........
on deer?

Sheesh..Just get the bullet in the heart lungs or CNS and it can even be a .22 caliber one doing 1400 FPS at muzzle and they die pretty fast..unless you can't track more than ten yards..or move the quad a bit closer..:)

Less meat damage with the smaller slow moving calibers too..:)Jim

Oh goody, hydrostatic shock! Now I will get a 300 RUM, shoot 130's as fast as I can, and put a bullet hole through their ears! It might not kill, but hey, all that shock will a least knock them to the ground!
I'm with jim in oregon. What makes them drop from a 260 gr. 45 cal. at 800 fps?

Penatrate vital organs and shut down CNS and you will have a dead deer or what ever your shooting at. Heavy caibler and moderate speed+ good bullet proformace= dead animal.

Ed

if you have not personally tried a 80 gr projectile @3700 fps, then how can you comment with wisdom?

Does it have to be 3,700, or is 3,450 close enough? Ok, how about 55grs. at 3,700? Yes, I have done it, they worked, but I saw no magic since the bullets hit the right place. Have you personally used a wide meplat handgun bullet or deer slug? I think you can get the tissue spray (permanant wound channel) and temporary wound channel (count the elastic nature of offside skin as well) more ways than high speed alone, and there is less clotting around the PW channel. Just throw a boulder into water, then a rock as fast as you can throw it, same crap, two different ways. Please shoot everything with the highest speed/ highest shock loads you can up the keister and report on how they have their azzes shocked to death. The rest of us will use crap from bows to 3,000 ft loads and try to put holes where we're supposed to.
Oh yeah, Roy said you could hit them anywhere too.
Another thing, any of you who have shot PD's have probably seen them literally in half, yet make the "crawl" back to the mound, and they were not shot with a 22RF!
Enough of arguing, good luck hunting everyone, regardless of what you use!

You and Penguin can both be right! Roy never said that high
volocity compressed that which is incompressible; he said that
the very high velocity actually caused the blood to run backward in an animal's veins (because blood won't compress
so it has to run backward from the 'shock'). He's probably only
talking about a quarter-inch or less, who knows, but that's his
version of hydrostatic shock, rightly or wrongly.

Your thoughts, guys?

Could care less about hydrostatic shock. I shoot em in the lungs and they die, then the family eats em.

Yeah, but how far you gotta chase 'em? I'll bet they don't
usually end up DRT when you lung-shoot 'em, right?

Hey, can you use .223 for deer in PA?

I don't know if it's hydrostatic shock or something else, but a fast moving projectile causes a big hole through vital tissue. I have killed or seen killed a bunch of critters with slow moving large diameter projectiles such as shotgun slugs and 50 cal muzzleloaders and the wound cavity is typically larger by a high velocity centerfire of even relatively small diameter such as 24 or 25 cal. Doesn't necessarily always result in drop at teh shot results, but I don't buy the argument that velocity doesn't buy you anything other than trajectory.

Lou

Yes a 223 is legal ( 22 cal centerfire) in PA.

Gotta truly admit ain't never had to "chase" one. Found all of em dead within 40 yrds of so.

RE: Above-mentioned can experiment -- Have done it many times: Shoot the bottom can that is full of water, and the empty top can flies several feet into the air. Why? It was not hit.....What provided the force to propel it into the air?

Magic, I bet!

I've seen more "bang flops" from mid-range 45-70 loads than anything else.

Roy Weatherby's orignal experiments on hydrostatic shock theory used the .270 Winchester loaded with 110 grain bullet. He compared this to a range of usual loads including the .30/06 and 180 grainers. The results shooting water containers was not surprising.

When he went ot Africa to test this theory, he took a .30/06 and a .308 with his .300.

When you read the log, if I remember correctly, the .308 dropped more consistently than the others.

I have always believed that velocity was only part of the equasion. The bullet construction at point of impact, the size of the game, distance of the shot, temperament of the animal and the shot placement, are all other factors that can cancel out any single factor an individual is trying to "sell".


I once compared a 7x57 side by side against a 7mm Remington for culling work. The Mauser had the highest DRT's

I also compared the .270 against the .30/06. The '06 won no matter what bullet I tried with up to 300fps velocity variations.

I compared the .30/06 against the .300 Winchester, Weatherby and RUM. The magnums offered advantage in trajectory for shots across valleys but the .30/06 still performed along side out to 400 yards. After this range, I found the magnums killed with the same efficency as for closer shots, so it in effect, maintained .30/06 performance over greater distances, which is what you would expect.

AGW

Interesting on the 4570... I"m digressing a bit, I shoot 50 beowulf, 275 X driven as hard as I can... I've shot about 4 deer so far, I don't shoot bones, but I"ve yet to see one do anything but run like crazy about 30 yards... Have yet to see the bangflop from that round which is very similar to a 4570.

Jeff

AGW, I agree, and thank you for clarification.
I was ready to get out the chicken bones and tarot cards!
There are a passel of ways to get game. Pick one and go foreward.

A compilation of much of the latest science on terminal ballistics.
http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/myths.html#energy
http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html

It is all about the wound channel and there are various ways to create one that kills.

I think that my statement and my conclusion has been mischaracterized. Maybe it is time to reset both.

I DO NOT subscribe to the theory of "hydrostatic shock" as I had a perfect example of it NOT working.

As far as 3,000 fps not being fast enough....please remember that Weatherby's loads were not designed for use at 40 yards but rather at 200 yards and beyond. This is the reason why he figured he had to get them going at 3,500 fps at the muzzle so that they'd arrive going close to 3,000 fps. Get it?

No one has yet comment on the fragmentation theory yet. You see....a small bullet (or a large one for that matter) which fragments or starts bone fragmentation moving through the deer's body at high speed will likely hit many organs well away from the initial bullet's path.

It is one of those accelerated fragments hitting the spine that I say causes the sudden "bang-flop" effect on heart/lung shot deer.

As a side note: For the record...this theory assumes that heart/lung shot deer generally run some distance on the oxygen left in their system where as a neck/CNS shot deer goes down immediately due to the sudden loss of signals from the brain to the rest of the muscles.

Okay....now, continue with the debate.

When every anyone brings up that subject I just refer them to the history of the Bison and how it was reduced from herds of millions to a mere few thousand by the use of BP firearms shooting big hunks of pure lead at about 1400fps. What most "hunters" seem to conveniently forget is about the guys like me who kill great big animals shooting big lead bullets from revolvers rarely at speeds of 1500 fps. I my case at less than 1300fps. The only place where hydrostatic effect comes into play is when you are shooting very small animals as in PD, GH, squirrels, or something the size of a dik dik. IMHO of course!!!

I dont' think anyone is arguing that big hunks of lead, slow, kill. Or that regular rounds kill...

But there is no denying that a hyper fast bullet explodes inside an animal, there is some kind of super shock that goes on.... the 220 swift deal convinced me of that, and had I not seen it, I would not have believed it, but since I've known that fellow, I"d say that conservatively he has killed probably at least 100 plus deer that way....

Jeff

I have no doubt that many have had "super quick kills" with the .220 Swift, .257 Weatherby, .223 Remington and other fast moving smaller caliber bullets.

We can agree that these bullets when they can penetrate into the vitals will kill as good (or better) than any of them.

The theory shared by many is that the killing power is the "hydrostatic shock" that fast moving bullets create.

Whereas I REJECT this theory and surmise that it is the FRAGMENTATION OF THE BULLET OR BONE THAT THEN HITS THE SPINE THAT CAUSES THESE SPECTACULAR SUPER QUICK KILLS.

Does this mean that the .22-250 or the .220 Swift will ALWAYS create "super-quick kills"? No. However, because the bullets they use tend to fragment and that these fragmentations act like a sort of shot-gun inside of the deer....my guess is that there is more of a chance that some of these fragmentations will find the neck or spine and shut a deer down "super-quick".

Does that make sense?

I am not a expert on anything im just a dumb ole ag teacher but i believe just my theory that they are more variables than speed and bullet wieght that make a good deer round good. However i pay more attention to the speed to bullet weight ratio when searching for a load less sppeed more weight more speed less weight but it may be different foor different with different bullets I shoot lilobitty alabama white tails with gamekings with all my rifles that i hunt with

I am a believer, roy weatherby built his reputation on the theory. I think hydro shock is one reason deer shot head-on in the chest tend to drop on the spot more often than those shot broadside. I have three deer on the wall at home, make that four, that did not take a step after being shot in the chest, straight-on. my son has killed four that way, not a one taking a step. i think there is definetly something to it.

sure, big slugs make big holes and critters take a few steps and die but I think jack oconner was right (in support of the 270 win) and ten gallon hat elmer was wrong (big bore only)

257Bob:

Roy Weatherby was great at marketing his product....simple as that.

Those at Reminging who think every hunter needs a "Remington Ultra Magnum" are marketing their products, too.

Gun writers tend to have a degree in marketing as well. When the manufacturer of Winchester gives a writer two hand engraved Model 70's to test and to write about.....you can be sure that the endorsement of that rifle has been bought and paid for. No doubt...the writer can send the rifle back with a note saying "I don't like it and can't endorse it...." but really....how often does that happen?

All marketing aside now:

I believe you when you say that your deer drop like stones with frontal shots with ultra-fast loads.

I am simply saying that the REASON why they are dropping so quickly is because a FRAGMENT of the bullet or perhaps a FRAGMENT of bone chipped off and injured or severed the spine or neck.

You and I agree that there is something to this myth....but I believe that the mystery does not reside in "hydrostatic shock" rather instant "bang-flop" was because a bullet or a fragment HIT the spine, the neck or injured the spinal column.

Simple enough?

Simple enough? yes indeed. Certainly, some of the bang-flops were central nervous system kills but that does not mean that I do not subscribe to the hydro shock theory.

big and fast is deadly, no doubt about it and I am not a "magnum" fan by the modern definition mainly because I simply don't like recoil. however, based on my personal observation (non-scientific), the 270 win with a 130 gr pill at 3050 fps is a real deer killer and I believe that there is a hydro element in its effectiveness.

my experience is that big bodied deer offer more resistance than their younger/smaller counterparts and absorb more energy and often succumb faster, I think hydro shock plays a part of this.

there must be a reason the 257 mag is so popular because so many campfire ranger like it, me included.

I think a lot of roy weatherbys legend is marketing but there is certainly something to his related experiences with speedy projectiles and impact on big game.

Personally....I like the .257 Weatherby round. Aside from all the other Ultra-Super Magnum-Blast-em-up magnums being toted for chipmunks to Grizzly Bears...the .257 Weatherby is by far the most impressive and most needed.

If you have ever seen gelatin tests done with super high velocity rounds vs regular velocity rounds...the high-vel really impress.

Varmint rounds I totally believe in the hydrostatic shock theory when shot at varmints under 15 lbs simply because they are torn to pieces by it. Consider this...a 55 grn bullet is .0078 of a pound (as 7000 grn equal 1 lb)
Move a .0078 pound bullet 4000 fps and you have a 10 pound varmint blow to bits. In order to get the same explosive force on a 200 pound deer you'd have to find a bullet that weighs 200 times heavier with a similiar sectional density. Try 1100 grn bullet of about .75 caliber moving at 4,000 fps and you might be on to something. Of course, you'd have to shoulder a rifle that would be producing about 39,076 foot lbs.

Nope.....not likely.

I totally believe that you can push a large enough bullet, fast enough to deliver enough energy so as to blow any animal up...but when dealing with an animal the size of a deer...the hydrostatic shock theory leaves me searching for a more plausible explanation because the round that it would require to do this only exists in the form of a field gun owned by the military.

I like your theory.

I think hydraulic shock is what causes the damage, but there is no electrical impact on the CNS.

The reason big, slow, flat-nose bullets produce wound channels similar to small, high velocity expanding bullts is becasue the slow-flat nose bullets displace about the same amount of water as the small fast exapnding bullets.