This post is not intended to start WWIII or to try and convert anyone from using the type of bullet they like but I've seen physics misquoted and used in a way not relevant to the applied physics of terminal ballistics.

First off you need to start by understanding the Law of Conservation of Energy which states That " Energy cannot be created or destroyed but only transferred".

This post is primarily concerned with the difference of using expanding jacketed ammo as opposed to hard cast. The first thing to consider is whether or not the jacketed bullet used is proper for the application, in other words will it expand as it's supposed to at the impact velocity and yet maintain enough wait for penetration. I've read the term energy "dump" and that is a slang phrase which has no real meaning. As for the law of conservation this is where it comes into play. Pulling the trigger on a firearm starts a sequence of events that all pertain to and are governed by this law.

First is the fact that you are transferring energy from your finger to the trigger, this allows the stored energy in the hammer spring to release and allows the hammer to strike the primer. All of the above are examples of mechanical transfer of energy.

Second, once the primer is struck the chemical energy stored in it converts to heat which ignites the powder (also chemical) and then transfers it's energy to the bullet which becomes a form of mechanical energy again. So we've seen energy not only transfer several times but convert twice.

This last one is where the point of contention comes in. The reason for this post was another post showing a pendulum being hit by a bullet, this is irrelevant. Unless your shooting squirrels with a centerfire the animal your shooting is stationary. The pendulum does have meaning in the way that it is also accepting the transferred energy from the bullet but since it's swinging it has also become the projectile. A good example of this is to shoot a chunk of 4x4 or 6x6 that is squared and most likely the block will blow off and the bullet may or may not penetrate completely. If you shoot a post buried in the ground with the same gun odds are it will go straight through.

The last part of this is basicly two parts, first is energy transfer, which in this case is mechanical to bilogical/chemical. If you shoot an animal with a .475 cal handgun using a 400gr hardcast and the impact velocity is 1200fps your energy will be roughly 1300ftlb's. If this bullet blows straight through and exits at 1100fps then you have only transferred a little over 100ftlb's of energy. If you shoot the same animal with a 400gr jacketed and it opens correcly and exits at 400fps you have tranferred a little over 800ftlb's of energy into the animal. So what do you gain from the jacketed that you didn't from the hardcast? More energy tranferred means a more massive shock wave going through the animal and this is why alot of times they drop in there tracks or stop after being hit. The second part of this pertains to the shock factor and wound channel. I've heard countless times that if a bullet is close to a half inch going in why do I need more coming out? The answer is you don't, but if a expanding bullet works correctly it will gain roughly 1/3rd in diameter so if 1/2" is good 3/4" is better. Now for the shock factor, when the bullet opens up in a body you need to remember that all living things are made mostly of water. When the bullet encounters these fluid and expands it rapidly slows not only cutting a larger wound channel but also creating a shock wave just like an earthquake makes a tsunami except more violent. I've seen many animals that have been hit in places other than the spine or vitals go straight down and when gutted the vitals and any other soft organ tissue in the area were jello.

Whether you put any weight into what I said is up to you but next time your in a swimming pull try this, first throw a jab under water with a closed fist, next do it with an open hand and last cup your hand. If you do this close to the surface or in a bath tub you'll not only feel the resistance but you'll see the difference in water displaced. The first would be equal to a hardcast, second an open jacketed bullet and third the cup of a hollow point.

This is not to say hardcast are not effective since they obviously can be but with everything there advantages and disadvantages. If you use the wrong jacketed bullet for animal type or velocity you may have a bullet failure or you may pencil hole it. The hardcast will penetrate deeper and can be usefull for heavy bones and awkward angles. The final decision is up to each shooter but all I'm trying to do here is provide information to allow for informed decisions. The jacketed bullets we have today are far superior to what we had even ten or twenty years ago this is why many African PH's have changed on buffalo from strictly using solids to using a soft point followed by solids or just soft points.

Are you serious? Transfered 100-ft lbs? So according to this, a 100 fps translates to 100-ft-lbs? Where did this come from?

Yes indeed physics does apply, unfortunately you have missed the mark in applying physics. A perfect inelastic collision the colliding bodies stick together.
A bullet strike is an inelastic collision and energy is not conserved in inelastic collisions. A elastic collision the colliding bodies remain in motion after the collision and energy is conserved in this type collision

Momentum is conserved in all collisions. The type of bullet used has nothing whatsoever to do with energy conservation or energy transfer.

MacPherson spends an entire chapter explaining this.




This is a diagram of a ballistics pendulum and it shows conclusively that energy is not conserved but momentum is conserved. Energy mostly transforms (not transferring) into other forms of energy, mostly thermal, some to sound, etc.



Kinetic energy is not the primary factor in creating a wound channel as these picture clearly demonstrate

This one is of the exit in the offside rib cage of a 6X7 bull Elk. I am holding a loaded 300 win mag for size comparison. The impact velocity was about 2600 FPS calculating to 2700 FPE at impact




This is the exit of a 440 grain flat point hard cast at an advertised velocity of 950 FPS for a calculated 888 FPE
Again the loaded 300 win for size comparison
This is the same elk as the picture above



The pictures clearly show that the bullet with the most energy created the smaller wound

JWP,

Interesting data - I have been looking for MacPherson's book (at reasonable prices, but have not been able to find it yet).

I agree that KE is not a reliable indicator of terminal performance, but your picture evidence is not as clear cut as you would portray it...you show exit wounds only, and not the wound channel through the organ system. Are we to assume that bullet path was the same and encountered the same structures (bone, cartilage, etc)? Also, my intuition suggests that the elk was shot with the rifle cartridge first, rendering the internals into soup - and then a follow-up shot was taken with the HC bullet, either as a finisher, or as a ballistic test...in either case, the "test" medium was drastically different from one shot to the next.

No real dog in this fight - I think both jacketed and cast have their places and best use, given the game, conditions, caliber, and weapon used.

I can assure you that the damage through out was larger with the handgun wound, unfortunately I was unable to get more photgrapghs, because the animal was gutted in the field

Energy is "never lost" is a true statement, by stating that energy"" is only "transfered" makes this an inaccurate statement. There are different types of energy and energy can be transformed other forms of energy and does not "only transfer"

ME has little to do with it. It always comes down to the bullet or boolit and where and when energy is applied INSIDE the animal.
Take 3 bullets of different construction, all with the exact same ME. One explodes on the skin, another does all damage inside and another pokes a hole.
You need energy with any gun but it is how and where it is applied. It is false to assume energy is lost when a good boolit exits an animal because if it did the work in the animal, you need no more. A bad boolit is another story if nothing is done to the animal in passage. A boolit that stops has no such thing as DUMP. It can fail for a lot of reasons and can lose all energy applied by breaking up or stopping on bone.
Bullet construction is always what makes them work FOR THE VELOCITY SHOT. Even a large bore rifle can fail with the wrong bullet with tons of energy on the wrong animal. Hit a deer with it and it is mush, hit a buf and he will stomp you into the ground.
Shoot a deer with a .50 caliber revolver and some do not even flinch. You will destroy their insides but you do not blow them like a pendulum. Yes, you can use such extreme energy that an animal will blow into mist but none get knocked over or pushed across the ground. Even a tank hit with the best does not get knocked over.
Exit holes and internal damage is based on the boolit used and the velocity shot and where energy is used.
A larger hole from a revolver means nothing compared to a rifle because the rifle might have done twice the internal damage from energy applied then the revolver boolit. The revolver boolit is larger on exit because it was soft enough to expand. It was larger to start with.
Junk science, pendulums, steel plates, water bottles, jello.
Real science is an animal on the ground fast with a huge blood trail.
Inelastic collisions and elastic collisions means bone or lungs. Your boolit must weather both.

430Man:"It is false to assume energy is lost when a good boolit exits an animal because if it did the work in the animal, you need no more. A bad boolit is another story if nothing is done to the animal in passage."

To me that wraps it up.

To utilize which ever mathematical jargon you are fond of, you have to first match the bullet to the game species.

That's the problem with almost any formula.
Numbers are thrown out, but no real effort was used to quantify the bullet or the use of the bullet.


A 30-06 with 150gr FMJ spitzers, for example isn't a hunting bullet like a 30-06 with 150-165gr Core-lokts.
It isn't designed to be.

When used on deer, the FMJ probably will just squirt on through, with little overall damage, compared to a 150gr Core-lokt.

Did the FMJ "waste" its energy in passing?.
If the animal is still running, yes.
Due to poor bullet choice for the task at hand.

Did the Core-lokt waste it's energy when it expanded and past through?
No, not if the animal is dead.

Did the Core-lokt then have MORE THAN ENOUGH energy to kill the deer since it expanded and still past through?
Yes, but the deer is dead, and that is what we are after.
The more dead the better.

If the Core-lokt '06 passed through, thus probably having MORE than enough "whatever" to kill the deer, could a similarly constructed, but less powerfull round kill a deer?

Yes. That is where handguns come in.
Although less "powerfull", with properly constructed bullets,
in a proper loading, they generate ENOUGH "oomph", to cleanly kill a given game species.

Could a .357 make a nastier wound than a .30-06?
It could within different designs of bullets.

Does that mean the .357 kills better?
Of course not.
Equally as well?
Sure within it's limitations, with properly designed bullets.

Here's why in my opinion ft/lbs of energy is bunk.A 22-250 with a 60gr projectile @ 3500ft/s produces 1741 ft/lbs of energy while the load you speak of .475 @ 1200ft/s with a 400 gr projectile produces only 1300 ft/lbs of energy.It is what it is but I'd rather face critters with the .475,again just my opinion.

But if energy is the way you have written wouldn't any projectile that does more than just fall out the off side be a waste?

LOL, I really don't care about the book my thought is based on one of the most basics laws of physics which I was schooled in thoroughly and backed up by ballisiticians and accomplished hunters. As far as the amount of a little over 100ftlbs if you look again the velocity was 1200fps and the energy 1300ftlbs so if you drop 100fps of velocity and extrapolate you get roughly 108ftlbs of energy loss if your run it through a ballistics program it shows 222ftlbs but for purposes of keeping things simple I just extrapolated. I love how bent out of shape you guys get when someone threatens your way of thinking. Why do you suppose the Geneva convention outlawed the use of expanding projectiles in all of our conventional ammo and use only fmj? Survivability, you have a better chance of surviving a hit from a non expanding bullet than an expanding.

Mark Hampton said it best in his book when he said:

"Let me point out that big cast bullets in a revolver essentially leave a half-inch diameter holes in animals but in most cases they don't kill quickly. I(Mark) have seen more than 100 head of medium-sized game shot multiple times, in the right spot, with these big, hard cast bullets, in both .44 and .45 caliber revolvers, and it never ceases to amaze me by how far the game will go afterward. Unless a shoulder or spine is broken, or a brain shot is made, the chase will be on. Honestly, a good broadhead from an arrow will kill game more quickly. All of you guys who are emotionally attached to your cast bullets for hunting, please save the phone calls, emails, and letters. A good expanding jacketed bullet such as the Hornady XTP and Winchester's Partition Gold causes more damage to vital organs and simply kills faster"
Handgun Hunting pg.15 by Mark Hampton

I also showed some of the posts from the last time we had this arguement to the ballistician at Nosler and he laughed, he is the gentleman that heads their Custom Ammo dept.

Another friend of mine that was with Leupold at the time had the same reaction. He also couldn't believe the emotional attachment to cast bullets and the inability to be open minded and civil enough to see there is more than one option and some may actually be better.

As for this McPherson guy I don't really care. I haven't read his stuff and I don't intend too. I have a strong enough applied physics background to walk on my own feet and I am more than aware that scientist seem to forget the most basic laws and tweak things to fit their agenda. Case and point global warming, you have some scientist saying it's real and man made, some say it's real but a natural cycle of the planet and others say it does not exist at all.

I started this post as an educational post but it amazes me how you guys circle the wagons when someone has a line of thought different from your own. I even acknowledged that I wasn't trying to sway you from your opinion but rather offer the counter point of view for everyone to take the way they wish. I have a very strong math and science background and I believe if you follow the numbers and the basic laws of science it's a realisitic value of the truth.

As far as KE it's only one part of the equation, I believe I mentioned the bullet had to match the load or it would fail to work properly.

430 Man - I agree with the 50 caliber revolver statement. I would think a 90 to 120MM shell would probably knock them over.

I've seen a big man (6'3" 270#s) take a blast from a 12 gauge at about 15' that knocked him to the ground – another fellow was on a dead run and took a 9mm in the butt cheek and it spun him 180* and down he went. If these guys would have had 4 legs they might have been able to take the hit and still stand - that's probably the biggest reason a fairly small 4 legged animal can take a hit from a large caliber revolver using a large metplat – they have 4 legs, not 2.

I like JWP475’s explanation – If you ever are so unfortunate as to take a round, you might think you just got a hot branding iron put to ya.

all i know is using a handgun i may hunt big enough stuff that i want to use a non expandable but in a hunt that expensive i'll use something more reliable than a hardcast, that said, i've killed well more than enough animals in the 500 to 2000 lb range to know that i really prefer an expandable round if at all possible. heck, my son's bearhunt which may end up being televised on one of the outdoors shows on sportsmans channel illustrates this clearly and is yet one more of the quick DRT type kills i've gotten with good expandables. i've just gotten more of them with this than hardcasts.

which is very different than saying that hardcasts don't work.

"I love how bent out of shape you guys get when someone threatens your way of thinking","I even acknowledged that I wasn't trying to sway you from your opinion but rather offer the counter point of view for everyone to take the way they wish" so who says we weren't offering a counterpoint to your statement?

But here's one question I would like to know how you came up with the numbers for,"If you shoot an animal with a .475 cal handgun using a 400gr hardcast and the impact velocity is 1200fps your energy will be roughly 1300ftlb's. If this bullet blows straight through and exits at 1100fps then you have only transferred a little over 100ftlb's of energy. If you shoot the same animal with a 400gr jacketed and it opens correcly and exits at 400fps you have tranferred a little over 800ftlb's of energy into the animal." I would be curious to know if anyone has ever clocked the ft/s of a projectile coming out of an animal.

Damn, that must have been a big dude and heavy loaded shotgun. Another basic law of physics is that "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" so either a much bigger guy shot him or the guy shooting hit the ground too. It could also be that since people are the weakest of all animals with the lowest pain tolerance these guys were reacting to the mental shock and pain of being hit as much as anything.

Why limit yourself? MacPhersen is the real deal with regards to terminal ballistics and is certainly not lightly regarded.

With the length of your diatribe, I would say you are the one is a bit bent out of shape. You're cherry picking your research material. I would seriously suggest reading MacPhersen.

Not trying to be argumentative, but you really are presenting only one side of the debate here. I don't know many in the know who put much stock in energy as a way of rating lethality.

I have nothing against expanding bullets, my only issue with them are their unreliability at the limited velocities we can attain with our revolvers (this obviously doesn't apply to single shot "pistols" chambered in rifle cartridges). They don't always expand, and when they don't they make a poor solid. If I am starting at a half-inch in diameter, I see no benefit to expansion, especially when a heavy bullet with a large meplat does considerable damage to flesh.

I'm not bent out of shape I'm actually laughing along with the others I mentioned. There are many more of the accomplished hunters on here that feel the same as I do but they know where the conversation will lead so they figure why bother, but for me I figure both sides need to be told. I know your feelings on jacketed bullets and I have no issue with that and I even stated both types of bullets have their pro's and cons but somewhere along the line that was missed. What brought this on was the post on the hunting forum about the 357 and then the picture of a swinging pendulum and I understand perfectly where he's coming from as I've studied physics quite a bit in the past but animals don't swing and don't get knocked over just from being hit by a bullet unless you hit the sping or a major bone that stops them from being able to stand. What generally puts them down is the internal shock wave from a bullet and different bullets produce different shock waves and if you take it step further you get into the frequency of the shock wave which is determined in this case by bullet design and shape and velocity as well as placement. A higher frequency shock wave will do more internal damage than a low frequency wave which is why a small caliber high velocity rifle round will do more internal damage than a slower larger projectile.

How much "shock" do you think a revolver is imparting to an animal? At the subdued (relatively speaking) velocities we are able to achieve, I don't think much shock is being imparted.

"...Now for the shock factor, when the bullet opens up in a body you need to remember that all living things are made mostly of water. When the bullet encounters these fluid and expands it rapidly slows not only cutting a larger wound channel but also creating a shock wave..... "


Once expansion has been achieved, the bullet is now in effect, a "solid". It is now frozen in that caliber.
SUDDENLY you have a larger caliber traveling through space.
If it happens INSTANTLY, like an explosion, then there may be some shock damage, like with a ballistic tip.
Most hunting rounds appear to be a "controlled expansion" design that spreads this expansion over a longer period.

If you start with that "larger caliber" already, and drive it to the same velocity (that is key), damage should be very similar.

In my experience it IS very similar, at least when comparing large solids, to small expanding.
A .480 Ruger shooting WFN solids, equals the damage caused by a .357 Mag with a quality JSP that has expanded. (Through a deers lungs).
WHEN both are traveling at the SAME velocity.


Now the .480 Solid has enough "beans", to penetrate the deer from any angle nature supplies me.
The .357 JSP, while more than adequate on SOME shots, is NOT suitable for ALL shots.
That is why many hunters carry solids.

Now you are comparing a 400gr .475 solid, and a.400gr .475 JHP, traveling at the same velocity.
And the .475 JHP expands, and exits at .50cal, then of course it "should" kill quicker.
It is now a larger caliber, and should let more blood out.


If you took a .50 cal bullet, and drove it to the EXACT same velocity that the .475 cal bullet was traveling, when it expanded, then the damage SHOULD be the same, assuming frontal area had the same shape.

I can't help but think you are mixing rifle bullet and handgun bullet science here(maybe I should specify revolver bullet).
From my experience, handgun ammo(except contender type semi-rifle ammo) rarely achieves the kind of velocity, to have any real arguement towards "Shockwave".

well, there's not if you're using hardcasts, they do kill and kill reliably but i've seen many a large animal hit with an expandable show a much larger reaction to an expandable than a hardcast and if my son's bearhunt is any indication a handgun imparts a large amount of shock at 1800fps with a barnes xbp bullet.

i would argue that there's no difference b/w rifle and handgun science, there's just simply potential energy and the need for an appropriate bullet to "channel" or "change" the potential energy into tissue damage. it's no more complicated than that. wound channel is also determined by velocity, like it or not, and that doesn't matter if it's a rifle or a pistol. it's just a question of which projectile is appropriate for which game animal.

whats funny is the hard cast folks never say jacketed don't work the just say they are unreliable,i.e.have failures to open,fragment or penetrate deep enough.I have shot enough jacketed to have witnessed all three and yes I know all jacketed are not created equal.

the jacketed posse claims every animal shot with a hard cast must be tracked and most are never recovered.

I have lost animals to both due to shot placement or other unknown reasons,since if you don't recover the animal,you truly don't know.

In any case I am glad animals can't read because if they could they'd be laughing at all of us.

"a small caliber high velocity rifle round will do more internal damage than a slower larger projectile"that may be so but it doesn't mean that the damage will be in the vitals.A 60gr @ 3500 will never equal a 180gr @ 2650.

The velocity potential is MUCH greater with rifles and this is a pretty significant factor IMO.

That's what I meant by the "difference in science".
Velocity difference between rifle and handgun can be well over 1000fps plus on impact.
Comparing JHP handgun to solid handgun is one thing,
but comparing JSP Rifle to solid handgun is another.

At least when trying to quantify "shockwave" damage.
Thats what I was getting at.

Amen

No doubt the only absolute truth in this whole post!

Whether shooting cast or jacketed, the bullet specs need to be up for job - meplat, profile, bullet hardness, expansion stability, and velocity of impact. That's why we shoot in the offseason, test in media/varmints, and share our experiences. So that the data we compile collectively is not just "I shot this deer one time and it ______"

Horse crap, that's what started all this, is the hard cast elite's putting down the jacketed bullets everytime they are brought up. I've always said I feel there is a place for both bullets and I even load both types of bullets. I've never said I would feel defensless with hard cast but at the same time not all jacketed bullets are equal and they don't all just fold up like they did in the days of Keith or Capstick. They both have pros and cons as I've said a hundred times but no one wants to read that part it's just the fact that I've offered an alternate way of thinking that has threatened them.

I even stated last week I'd be loading some 255gr CP's for my 44spcl and some 265's for my Walker conversion because at lower velocities they will penetrate further and whereas the 44 will be a back up gun I want that. The Walker I'm going with lead because they recommend not using jacketed because of possible pressure spikes from different copper alloys and wall thickness.

I could care less if someone hunts with cast but my point has always been that there is more options than just them out there in many cases if the bullet is selected properly and is constructed properly it can outperform hard cast when it comes to terminal ballistics. I remember one jab I took from you guys when I said I wouldn't have had a problem going after grizzly with my 460 S&W and 260gr Partitions running 2000fps even though those ballistics match some big bore carbines used for the same. But yet I was chastized for such a thought.

I think you should re read what I and others have said when this subject has come up before and see who's only seeing things one way. Whitworth said I should read McPhersons book maybe you guys should read Marks, I tend to think he's a much more accomplished handgun hunter than McPherson although I could be wrong. But the bottom line is I don't need a book to tell me what is fact, and if I were going to read a book it would be a text book to refresh my memory but I would still make my own judgments as I have.

This has been an entertaining read. Still, you won't talk me into shooting naked boolits and I won't convince those who do to do otherwise. One thing that just plain pisses me off though are those who would look down upon me merely because I won't use their boolit. I've butchered enough critters to know that my choices work, and my choice is jacketed PERIOD. If I feel the need for less expansion I will use the XTP MAG rather than the XTP. As said, I would rather be shot with a hard cast than an XTP any day.

Let me just be clear I would rather not be shot with anything---

But I will say I have seen Hornady XTP bullets do very bad things to critters.

Second they don't leave that wax stuff in my barrel and all that smoke in my face.

If you like cast bullets choot-em

For me I will stick with the XTP in the wheel guns.

The bottom line to this post is to make people stop and think. Don't choose a bullet style because I like it or because another hunter or gunsmith likes it. Think about which bullet makes sense in your situation, and this is especially directed to newcomers of the sport. When you start using something just because someone else says so your a sheep. Think things through and try different things at the range, see what's accurate in your gun, shoot into different media and think about what the animals you hunt are really built like.

All too often some of the ego's in this sport and actually in all parts of life try to impose their beliefs and thinking on others. It happens in archery with Traditional vs Compound, light fast arrows vs slow heavy ones. Rifle hunters vs Handgun hunters, Traditional vs modern muzzleloaders. Everyone has an opinion and is entitled to that opinion but they aren't entitled to shove that on others or to be critical of others for chosing differently.

God gave you a brain so use it, collect information from many sources then go back to basics and figure for yourself and then decide what you think will work best for you. I have no problems with guys that hunt with cast if that's their thing but at the same time I don't expect to get a raft of crap as I have on this site because I point out the downfalls of a particular item or because I point out my personal experiences.

In this case I pointed out two of the most basic laws of physics and they are what they are, they don't change and they aren't negotiable. If you use common sense and really think things through the science behind what I've said is sound but as I've said more times than I can count everything no matter what it is has it's pro's and cons there is nothing in this world is perfect and that especially goes for anything man made.

And the jacketed folks don't slam the hardcast folks?

Dead is dead reguardless of projectile.I'm with the others I don't want to be shot if I can help it.

It's always this topic that causes debate,lets find a new one say specialtys and bottle neck cartridge "handguns" v/s revolvers and straightwall cartridge handguns.

Ah yes what an example we've set for the new comers.

Well I started this post out saying I wasn't trying to start a fight and I've been fair right down the line with everything and just wrote the facts as they are. I you doubt my science print it out and take it to the local college physics dept and ask them or even a HS physics teacher, If I got something wrong I'm a big enough man to admit so but I don't see where I did. I figured out a long time ago no one knows it all and if you allow yourself you'll learn something new every day and sometimes you'll learn from the most least likely source, the greenest guy or by accident but you have to be open minded which all I've seen on the majority of replies to this post is closed mindedness and irrational statements.

I flat said I didn't have a problem with those that used cast nor was I trying to convert them. I honestly can't remember one of these debates that got heated that didn't start because someone became defensive because someone actually had a different opinion to offer. I got a phone call this morning telling me to check this out because the buzzards were circling and they were right. These fights didn't even occur until a couple years ago, for the 4yrs before that I don't remember anything other than respectful conversation with one exception that was stupid when a member was singled out and attacked for his personality. I figured we might have a good debate but I wasn't looking for a fight but I never have and never will back away from one. If you look at the immediate replies to my post that set the tone for this thread and it's a tone present on one active and one recent thread. As far as I'm concerned Gregg or Gary can lock this because it's useless to try and have an adult lively debate about any subject that may be the least bit touchy without it going to hell.

Aww, hell. It's the Hatfields and McCoys part deux...

Dang Cotton, don't start a new feud - especially one where I'm gonna be split down the middle! Yep - the single shot SP's have their place in my heart and safe as well - 'Tenders, Encores, XP's, oh yes. But there's something magical about that wheelgun. See what you started!

As for the newcomers (or anyone else), find the most accurate load in your gun, place the bullet of whichever composition you choose through the vitals, and go collect your game.

Good advice and I think I mentioned the same thing in so many words. Come to think of it my family is from KY, WV, and TN. Maybe there is a relation in my ancestory to the Hatfields or McCoys.

I agree, this has been a relatively civilized exchange of differences of opinion on what often can be a very hot topic. Kudos to all involved.

I consider this book a test book, since it explains in detail how Duncan developed the ONLY ballistics math model that has been proven to be 100 % accurate in predicting the penetration and wound channel in ballistics media

This is not some hunters view, it is completely scientific and scientificaly correct





Inelastic Collisions

Yes, it has been fairly civil, although the base premise is seriously flawed right out the gate.

Energy is defined as the capacity of a physical system to do work. Energy is transferred from one form to another, i.e. potential, kinetic, light, thermal(heat), mechanical, etc. Energy IS NOT transferred from one body to another. This is where the Law of Conservation of MOMENTUM comes into play. And yes, the ballistic pendulum has EVERYTHING to do with it. In your example, the hammer is considered a physical system, which at rest under the sear has its energy as potential. The spring is an external force which acts on the hammer once the sear is released. The hammer's potential energy is transferred to mechanical and kinetic energy for the duration of the angular travel around the hammer pin. Once the hammer strikes the firing pin or primer, momentum is transferred to the the object being struck and once again, the hammer's energy is potential. Now, the mass of most firearms is significantly greater than the hammer, so the velocity component is negligible; and frankly is quite rapidly overcome by the thrust of the weapon rearwards in response of the gas and projectile exiting the muzzle. I'm trying to keep this as simple as possible, but the spring is also considered a physical system.

The point of contention as you put it Rod, is when the projectile arrives at the intended target. The kinetic energy of the projectile, which is usually increased to promote sales of newer and "better" cartridges, is transferred to various other FORMS OF ENERGY, such as the above mentioned heat, sound, and potential if the projectile does come to rest in the body of the game. The MOMENTUM of the projectile is transferred to the game; again most game animals are significantly greater in mass than the projectiles used to bring them to bag. Therefore, the velocity after the collision does not tend to "move" them. Over-matching bullets for game animals rarely occurs, but makes for some spectacular kills on varmints. One case in point was when I applied about 1,700 ft-lbs of kinetic energy (a calculated number) to a cow elk with a 400 grain Speer Gold Dot from my .475 Linebaugh. The bullet broke the left femur and was recovered under the hide of the right shoulder. If there was a shred of truth (which there is not) of energy transfer between bodies; I hit that girl with about three horsepower. One unit of horsepower is equal to the power needed to lift 550 pounds one foot in one second. I should have moved that 500 pound cow at least three feet by increasing her potential energy by converting it from kinetic energy. Your wooden block analogy is misunderstood in that the mass of the blocks is not proportionately large enough to negated the velocity following the collision. Although they do move, the relative velocity is much slower. Setting the post in the ground allows transfer of momentum to the ground which as everyone should know by now has the mass necessary to negate the after collision velocity.

Now regarding the cast versus jacketed bullet discussion. Yes, one needs to match the bullet to the game and cast bullets are wonderful if used properly. Show me someone who complains about smoke and leading and I will show you someone who has most likely not taken the time or doesn't know how to properly use cast bullets. I think both types have their place and use them as I see fit. However, any situation I need penetration, the cast (solid) is going to win out over jacketed. Large flat meplats create tremendous wound channels for their size; but that is a topic for another thread.

Elastic And Inelastic Collisions

I appreciate your tone about this Hitman and this is where I wanted this to go in the first place. I'm not saying the energy it's self is the killer but I have to disagree on the energy transfer. It's no different than if you get hit by a car or a person, the energy from the car or the person is transferred to you but even that is splitting hairs on what I was getting at and is only a portion of the issue. I contend that the more energy is transferred if the bullet opens correctly and thus the internal shockwave will be greater. This dosn't even have much to do with wound channels although the wound channel will be larger if the bullet works properly.

What I and others are looking at is that when the bullet opens and deceleration is increased the internal shock wave is much greater and I have on a first hand basis seen vitals in tact but turned to mush from the internal shock wave. This is more prevalent in rifle kills but also applies to handguns. I know there are two lines of thinking on this but I think I'm right on this one.

As far as cast goes I never said they wouldn't kill which is why I do have some loaded but figure that even in a general sense if a .500" hole is good a 3/4" hole is better. I also acknowledged that cast will generally out penetrate most jacketed bullets especially at slower velocities. I will not and have not denied that hard cast are more predictable in their behaviour from some jacketed but jacketed bullet technology is not what it was and that is one of the thing I'm trying to show.

In Peter Capsticks books I read about bullets "cratering", basicly expanding and coming apart on animals such as lions without so much as penetrating the hide or if they did then barely. I've shot three large animals with an average soft point bullet from Hornady, nothing special but these bullets doubled in size and penetrated like there was no tomorrow.

First was an Aisian water buffalo weighing in at about 2K. I was shooting a 458 Lott running a 500gr rnsp at about 2300fps and this was before the interlock design. I shot the bull uphill at about 60yds and the bullet penetrated almost 3 feet before shattering the spine. I still have the bullet and it's in suprisingly good condition. It stayed in tact for the most part but doubled in diameter. The second was the same load on a 700lb Feral hog and this time it was a hard quarting shot that penetrated from just in front of the left hind leg and was found in the shield in front of the right front leg.

The last was a couple years ago when I shot a Roosevelt bull, about 800-900lbs with a mild 45-70 load out of my Marlin 1895. The load was a 350gr Hornady rnsp running about 1850-1900fps. I blew the first shot while he was moving and blew a hole through his mid section, the exit hole was about 1.5" and it turned the liver to jello, the shock of the shot put him down but when I got up on him he gimped into some heavy brush so I took a texas heart shot, the bullet penetrated the widest part of the hip which was about 8" of bone and it looked like someone drilled a hole through it. I found the jacket in the guts but core was in the brisket. The next shot was as he turned quartering away and it went through a rib, destroyed the heart, went through another rib and then embedded itself about 1.5" into the ball of the opposite shoulder. I had to use a chisel to get it out. This was within the capabilities of single shot pistols and not far from some revolvers.

If these had been the bullets of yesteryear I would not have had the results I did. I'll say it again both bullets have their pro's and cons. I was just reading the post on the 357 bullets and Doc Rogers was talking about the shock value of the hollow and soft points and he probably has more game with a handgun than any of us. Hard Cast work but so do jacketed and if the topics on the other posts would stay with "I used this and this happened" or "I like this one because of this" and not criticize eachothers posts it would be different. I will always tell people about my experiences with Hard Cast which to date are negative, jwp apparently had some XTP's not work properly so he's within his rights to say so but when you start attacking someone elses post it's not right.

As for my science I don't believe it is flawed and like I said I've had alot of book and practical application of applied physics so I think I'm right on but if it can be disproved then fine I'm big enough to admit it. As for McPhersons book jwp said it, it's the only book with these studies which means it hasn't been confirmed by follow up studies by independent physicist or ballisticians which in the scientific world makes it incomplete at best. I also look at the books title which is still off topic, we aren't talking about penetration, maybe there is more in this book and maybe I will read it but it dosn't change the basic principles I brought up.

Once again I'm not trying to convert anyone but just to get people to think for themselves. Just because I say or one of the other guys says it or one scientist says something it dosn't make it so. If you look at anything in the scientific world you will find differing views between scientist and the only constants are the basics laws of Physics, two of which I quoted.

I've seen way too much idol worship going on and just because someone has made a name for themselves in one part or another of this business does not mean they are right about everything and to follow them blindly is insanity but yet it happens on a regular basis. I may not yet be as recognized as most in the world of gun building as I'm a relative new comer but that dosn't mean I now or ever will always have the right answer. We are all human which means we are all foulable by nature, the difference is whether someone is open minded enough to learn and big enough to admit they are wrong if it comes to it and I am both.

In my prior occupations I managed people and trained apprentices and there were times I would learn from the apprentices but only because I was willing to listen and be open minded. Just because I was in the top tier in my field didn't mean I knew it all and the only way to get to and stay at the top of anything is to continue to learn and stay open minded to where that knowledge comes from.

I have posted links to physics sites that clearly show that "ENERGY" does not transfer in and inelastic collision, but transforms into other forms of energy. How can you disagree? It is a fact that 'energy' doesn't transfer form body to body.

I guess another way of looking at then is the animal has potential energy that becomes kinetic energy when struck by the bullet which is probably the more accurate way of putting it, which means the larger the mass and higher the velocity the greater the effect on the potential energy stored in the flesh and fluids of the animal. How can you say that an expanding bullet dosn't create a larger shock wave when it expands. It is true that energy just changes forms and that it is constant in any object but changes from potential to kinetic and in this case actually also heat. Like I said earlier run your fist through water or stick it out the window at 65mph and then open it up and see how much the resistance increases. The fact is still no matter how you word it that an expanding bullet has a higher shock value if it works properly which is why all true man stoppers are hollow points. My wording may be off from being rusty but the principle is the same, when a bullet hits an animal there is an internal shock wave and the frequency and amplitude of that shock wave are determined by the bullet that strikes the animal. I also guess a better way of putting one of my earlier statements is that the bullet is expending it's energy inside the animal as it returns to a static or potential state and the more energy expended inside the animal as it passes through the better as long as penetration is there. No different than hitting a sink full of water lightly with your fist or slapping the surface of the water as hard as you can with your palm. Because of the makeup of an animal we are basicly dealing with hydraulics which also brings in cavitation which all involves the displacement of fluid which can be violent enough to destroy organ tissue.

Although I remember being told hydrostatic shock wasn't even a real term a while back by someone on this forum here is some reading that all backs what I have said. Up until now I was operating off memory from many years ago but since I used incorrect wording I did a simple search of Hydrostatic Shock which is what we have been talking about and here is what Wikipedia has on it.


Hydrostatic shock


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia








Average time until incapacitation decreases rapidly with pressure wave magnitude as magnitudes approach 500 psi (3,400 kPa). See: Links between traumatic brain injury and ballistic pressure waves originating in the thoracic cavity and extremities. Brain Injury 21(7): 657–662, 2007.
Hydrostatic shock or hydraulic shock describes the observation that a penetrating projectile can produce remote wounding and incapacitating effects in living targets through a hydraulic effect in their liquid-filled tissues, in addition to local effects in tissue caused by direct impact. [1][2] There is scientific evidence that hydrostatic shock can produce remote neural damage and produce incapacitation more quickly than blood loss effects.[3] Proponents of cartridges that are "light and fast" such as the 9x19mm Parabellum versus cartridges that are "slow and heavy" such as the .45 ACP round often refer to this phenomenon.

Human autopsy results have demonstrated brain hemorrhaging from fatal hits to the chest, including cases with handgun bullets.[4] Thirty-three cases of fatal penetrating chest wounds by a single bullet were selected from a much larger set by excluding all other traumatic factors, including past history.


In such meticulously selected cases brain tissue was examined histologically; samples were taken from brain hemispheres, basal ganglia, the pons, the oblongate and from the cerebellum. Cufflike pattern haemorrhages around small brain vessels were found in all specimens. These haemorrhages are caused by sudden changes of the intravascular blood pressure as a result of a compression of intrathoracic great vessels by a shock wave caused by a penetrating bullet.

— J. Krajsa[5]

It has often been asserted that hydrostatic shock and other descriptions of remote wounding effects are nothing but myths. A recent article in the journal, Neurosurgery, reviews the published evidence and concludes that the phenomenon is well-established.


A myth is an assertion which has either been disproven by careful experiment or for which there is no historical or scientific evidence in cases where it is reasonably expected. Belief in remote effects of penetrating projectiles may have originated with hunters and soldiers, but their reality is now well established in a broad body of scientific literature...

— Neurosurgery[6]





Contents
[hide] 1 Origin of the theory
2 Fackler's contra-claim
3 Distant injuries in the WDMET data
4 Inferences from blast pressure wave observations
5 Physics of ballistic pressure waves
6 Remote cerebral effects of ballistic pressure waves
7 Remote pressure wave effects in the spine and internal organs
8 Energy transfer required for remote neural effects
9 Other scientific findings
10 Recommendations
11 Hydrostatic shock as a factor in selection of ammunition 11.1 Ammunition selection for self-defense, military, and law enforcement
11.2 Ammunition selection for hunting

12 See also
13 References


[edit] Origin of the theory

In the scientific literature, the first discussion of pressure waves created when a bullet hits a living target is presented by E. Harvey Newton and his research group at Princeton University in 1947:[7][8]


It is not generally recognized that when a high velocity missile strikes the body and moves through soft tissues, pressures develop which are measured in thousands of atmospheres. Actually, three different types of pressure change appear: (1) shock wave pressures or sharp, high pressure pulses, formed when the missile hits the body surface; (2) very high pressure regions immediately in front and to each side of the moving missile; (3) relatively slow, low pressure changes connected with the behavior of the large explosive temporary cavity, formed behind the missile. Such pressure changes appear to be responsible for what is known to hunters as hydraulic shock—a hydraulic transmission of energy which is believed to cause instant death of animals hit by high velocity bullets (Powell (1)).

— An Experimental Study of shock waves resulting from the impact of high velocity missiles on animal tissues[7][9]

Frank Chamberlin, a World War II trauma surgeon and ballistics researcher, also noted remote pressure wave effects. Col. Chamberlin described what he called “explosive effects” and “hydraulic reaction” of bullets in tissue. ...liquids are put in motion by ‘shock waves’ or hydraulic effects... with liquid filled tissues, the effects and destruction of tissues extend in all directions far beyond the wound axis.[10] He avoided the ambiguous use of the term “shock” because it can refer to either a specific kind of pressure wave associated with explosions and supersonic projectiles or to a medical condition in the body.

Col. Chamberlin recognized that many theories have been advanced in wound ballistics. During World War II he commanded an 8,500 bed hospital center that treated over 67,000 patients during the fourteen months that he operated it. P.O. Ackley estimates that 85% of the patients were suffering from gunshot wounds.[11] Col. Chamberlin spent many hours interviewing patients as to their reactions to bullet wounds. He also conducted many live animal experiments after his tour of duty. On the subject of wound ballistics theories, he wrote:


If I had to pick one of these theories as gospel, I’d still go along with the Hydraulic Reaction of the Body Fluids plus the reactions on the Central Nervous System.

— Col. Frank Chamberlin, M.D.[10]

Other World War II era scientists noted remote pressure wave effects in the peripheral nerves.[12][13] There was support for the idea of remote neural effects of ballistic pressure waves in the medical and scientific communities, but the phrase "’hydrostatic shock’" and similar phrases including “shock” were used mainly by gunwriters (such as Jack O'Conner[14]) and the small arms industry (such as Roy Weatherby,[15] and Federal “Hydrashock.”)

[edit] Fackler's contra-claim

Dr. Martin Fackler, a Vietnam-era trauma surgeon and wound ballistics researcher, claimed that hydrostatic shock had been disproved and that the assertion that a pressure wave plays a role in injury or incapacitation is a myth.[16] Others expressed similar views.[17][18]

Dr. Fackler based his argument on the lithotriptor, a tool commonly used to break up kidney stones. The lithotriptor uses sonic pressure waves which are stronger than those caused by most handgun bullets,[citation needed] yet it produces no damage to soft tissues whatsoever. Hence, Fackler argued, ballistic pressure waves cannot damage tissue either.[19]

Dr. Fackler also claimed that a study of rifle bullet wounds in Vietnam (Wound Data and Munitions Effectiveness Team) found “no cases of bones being broken, or major vessels torn, that were not hit by the penetrating bullet. In only two cases, an organ that was not hit (but was within a few cm of the projectile path), suffered some disruption.” Dr. Fackler cited a personal communication with R. F. Bellamy.[16] However, Bellamy’s published findings the following year[20] estimated that 10% of fractures in the data set might be due to indirect injuries, and one specific case is described in detail (pp. 153–154). In addition, the published analysis documents five instances of abdominal wounding in cases where the bullet did not penetrate the abdominal cavity (pp. 149–152), a case of lung contusion resulting from a hit to the shoulder (pp. 146–149), and a case of indirect effects on the central nervous system (p. 155). Fackler's critics argue that Fackler's evidence does not contradict distant injuries, as Fackler claimed, but the WDMET data from Vietnam actually provides supporting evidence for it.[20][21]

A summary of the debate was published in 2009 as part of a Historical Overview of Wound Ballistics Research.


Fackler [10, 13] however, disputed the shock wave theory, claiming there is no physical evidence to support it, although some support for this theory had already been provided by Harvey [20, 21], Kolsky [31], Suneson et. al. [42, 43], and Crucq [5]. Since that time, other authors also suggest there is increasing evidence to support the theory that shock waves from high velocity bullets can cause tissue related damage and damage to the nervous system. This has been shown in various experiments using simulant models [24, 48]. One of the most interesting is a study by Courtney and Courtney [4] who showed a link between traumatic brain injury and pressure waves originating in the thoracic cavity and extremities.

— Historical Overview of Wound Ballistics Research[22]

[edit] Distant injuries in the WDMET data

The Wound Data and Munitions Effectiveness Team (WDMET) gathered data on wounds sustained during the Vietnam War. In their analysis of this data published in the Textbook of Military Medicine, Ronald Bellamy and Russ Zajtchuck point out a number of cases which seem to be examples of distant injuries. Bellamy and Zajtchuck describe three mechanisms of distant wounding due to pressure transients: 1) stress waves 2) shear waves and 3) a vascular pressure impulse.

After citing Harvey's conclusion that “stress waves probably do not cause any tissue damage” (p. 136), Bellamy and Zajtchuck express their view that Harvey's interpretation might not be definitive because they also write “the possibility that stress waves from a penetrating projectile might also cause tissue damage cannot be ruled out.” (p. 136) The WDMET data includes a case of a lung contusion resulting from a hit to the shoulder. The caption to Figure 4-40 (p. 149) says, “The pulmonary injury may be the result of a stress wave.” They also describe the possibility that a hit to a soldier's trapezius muscle caused temporary paralysis due to “the stress wave passing through the soldier's neck indirectly [causing] cervical cord dysfunction.” (p. 155)

In addition to stress waves, Bellamy and Zajtchuck also describe shear waves as a possible mechanism of indirect injuries in the WDMET data. They estimate that 10% of bone fractures in the data may be the result of indirect injuries, that is, bones fractured by the bullet passing close to the bone without a direct impact. A Chinese experiment is cited which provides a formula estimating how pressure magnitude decreases with distance. Together with the difference between strength of human bones and strength of the animal bones in the Chinese experiment, Bellamy and Zajtchuck use this formula to estimate that assault rifle rounds “passing within a centimeter of a long bone might very well be capable of causing an indirect fracture.” (p. 153) Bellamy and Zajtchuck suggest the fracture in Figures 4-46 and 4-47 is likely an indirect fracture of this type. Damage due to shear waves extends to even greater distances in abdominal injuries in the WDMET data. Bellamy and Zajtchuck write, “The abdomen is one body region in which damage from indirect effects may be common.” (p. 150) Injuries to the liver and bowel shown in Figures 4-42 and 4-43 are described, “The damage shown in these examples extends far beyond the tissue that is likely to direct contact with the projectile.” (p. 150)

In addition to providing examples from the WDMET data for indirect injury due to propagating shear and stress waves, Bellamy and Zajtchuck also expresses an openness to the idea of pressure transients propagating via blood vessels can cause indirect injuries. “For example, pressure transients arising from an abdominal gunshot wound might propagate through the vena cavae and jugular venous system into the cranial cavity and cause a precipitous rise in intracranial pressure there, with attendant transient neurological dysfunction.” (p. 154) However, no examples of this injury mechanism are presented from the WDMET data. However, the authors suggest the need for additional studies writing, “Clinical and experimental data need to be gathered before such indirect injuries can be confirmed.” Distant injuries of this nature were later confirmed in the experimental data of Swedish and Chinese researchers,[23][24] and in the clinical findings of Krajsa.[5]

[edit] Inferences from blast pressure wave observations





Ballistic pressure waves believed to be the mechanism of hydrostatic shock that were measured with a high speed pressure transducer for the specified loads.
A shock wave can be created when fluid is rapidly displaced by an explosive or projectile. Tissue behaves similarly enough to water that a sonic pressure wave can be created by a bullet impact, generating pressures in excess of 1,500 psi (10,000 kPa).[25]

Duncan McPherson, a former member of the International Wound Ballistics Association and author of the book, Bullet Penetration, claimed that shock waves cannot result from bullet impacts with tissue.[18] In contrast, Brad Sturtevant, a leading researcher in shock wave physics at Caltech for many decades, found that shock waves can result from handgun bullet impacts in tissue.[26] Other sources also indicate that ballistic impacts can create shock waves in tissue.[23][27][28]

Blast and ballistic pressure waves have physical similarities. Prior to wave reflection, they both are characterized by a steep wave front followed by a nearly exponential decay at close distances. They also have similarities in how they cause neural effects in the brain. In tissue, both types of pressure waves have similar magnitudes, duration, and frequency characteristics. Both have been shown to cause damage in the hippocampus.[24][29][30] It has been hypothesized that both reach the brain from the thoracic cavity via major blood vessels.

For example, Ibolja Cernak, a leading researcher in blast wave injury at the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University, hypothesized, "alterations in brain function following blast exposure are induced by kinetic energy transfer of blast overpressure via great blood vessels in abdomen and thorax to the central nervous system."[31] This hypothesis is supported by observations of neural effects in the brain from localized blast exposure focused on the lungs in experiments in animals.[29]

“Hydrostatic shock” expresses the idea that organs can be damaged by the pressure wave in addition to damage from direct contact with the penetrating projectile. If one interprets the "shock" in the term "hydrostatic shock" to refer to the physiological effects rather than the physical wave characteristics, the question of whether the pressure waves satisfy the definition of “shock wave” is unimportant, and one can consider the weight of scientific evidence and various claims regarding the possibility of a ballistic pressure wave to create tissue damage and incapacitation in living targets.

[edit] Physics of ballistic pressure waves





World War II era ballistic pressure wave measurement. Peak is 600 psi (4,100 kPa), duration is 0.12 ms.[32]
A number of papers describe the physics of ballistic pressure waves created when a high-speed projectile enters a viscous medium.[33][34][35] These results show that ballistic impacts produce pressure waves that propagate at close to the speed of sound.

Lee et al. present an analytical model showing that unreflected ballistic pressure waves are well approximated by an exponential decay, which is similar to blast pressure waves.[33] Lee et al. also note the importance of the energy transfer:


As would be expected, an accurate estimation of the kinetic energy loss by a projectile is always important in determining the ballistic waves.

— Lee, Longoria, and Wilson

The rigorous calculations of Lee et al. require knowing the drag coefficient and frontal area of the penetrating projectile at every instant of the penetration. Since this is not generally possible with expanding handgun bullets, Courtney and Courtney developed a model for estimating the peak pressure waves of handgun bullets from the impact energy and penetration depth in ballistic gelatin.[36] This model agrees with the more rigorous approach of Lee et al. for projectiles where they can both be applied. For expanding handgun bullets, the peak pressure wave magnitude is proportional to the bullet’s kinetic energy divided by the penetration depth.

[edit] Remote cerebral effects of ballistic pressure waves

Goransson et al. were the first contemporary researchers to present compelling evidence for remote cerebral effects of extremity bullet impact.[37] They observed changes in EEG readings from pigs shot in the thigh. A follow-up experiment by Suneson et al. implanted high-speed pressure transducers into the brain of pigs and demonstrated that a significant pressure wave reaches the brain of pigs shot in the thigh.[23][38] These scientists observed apnea, depressed EEG readings, and neural damage in the brain caused by the distant effects of the ballistic pressure wave originating in the thigh.

The results of Suneson et al. were confirmed and expanded upon by a later experiment in dogs[24] which "confirmed that distant effect exists in the central nervous system after a high-energy missile impact to an extremity. A high-frequency oscillating pressure wave with large amplitude and short duration was found in the brain after the extremity impact of a high-energy missile . . ." Wang et al. observed significant damage in both the hypothalamus and hippocampus regions of the brain due to remote effects of the ballistic pressure wave.

[edit] Remote pressure wave effects in the spine and internal organs

In a study of a handgun injury, Sturtevant found that pressure waves from a bullet impact in the torso can reach the spine and that a focusing effect from concave surfaces can concentrate the pressure wave on the spinal cord producing significant injury.[26] This is consistent with other work showing remote spinal cord injuries from ballistic impacts.[39][40]

Roberts et al. present both experimental work and finite element modeling showing that there can be considerable pressure wave magnitudes in the thoracic cavity for handgun projectiles stopped by a Kevlar vest.[27][28] For example, an 8 gram projectile at 360 m/s impacting a NIJ level II vest over the sternum can produce an estimated pressure wave level of nearly 2.0 MPa (280 psi) in the heart and a pressure wave level of nearly 1.5 MPa (210 psi) in the lungs. Impacting over the liver can also produce an estimated pressure wave level of 2.0 MPa (280 psi) in the liver.

[edit] Energy transfer required for remote neural effects

The work of Courtney et al. also supports the role of a ballistic pressure wave in incapacitation and injury.[36][41][42][43][44] The work of Suneson et al. and Courtney et al. suggest that remote neural effects can occur with levels of energy transfer possible with handguns, about 500 ft·lbf (680 J). Using sensitive biochemical techniques, the work of Wang et al. suggests even lower impact energy thresholds for remote neural injury to the brain. In analysis of experiments of dogs shot in the thigh they report highly significant (p < 0.01), easily detectable neural effects in the hypothalamus and hippocampus with energy transfer levels close to 550 ft·lbf (750 J). Wang et al. reports less significant (p < 0.05) remote effects in the hypothalamus with energy transfer just under 100 ft·lbf (140 J).[24]

Even though Wang et al. document remote neural damage for low levels of energy transfer, roughly 100 ft·lbf (140 J), these levels of neural damage are probably too small to contribute to rapid incapacitation. Courtney and Courtney believe that remote neural effects only begin to make significant contributions to rapid incapacitation for ballistic pressure wave levels above 500 psi (3,400 kPa) (corresponds to transferring roughly 300 ft·lbf (410 J) in 12 inches (30 cm) of penetration) and become easily observable above 1,000 psi (6,900 kPa) (corresponds to transferring roughly 600 ft·lbf (810 J) in 12 inches (0.30 m) of penetration).[41] Incapacitating effects in this range of energy transfer are consistent with observations of remote spinal injuries,[26] observations of suppressed EEGs and apnea in pigs[37][45] and with observations of incapacitating effects of ballistic pressure waves without a wound channel.[46]

[edit] Other scientific findings

The scientific literature contains significant other findings regarding injury mechanisms of ballistic pressure waves. Ming et al. found that ballistic pressure waves can break bones.[47] Tikka et al. reports abdominal pressure changes produced in pigs hit in one thigh.[48] Akimov et al. report on injuries to the nerve trunk from gunshot wounds to the extremities.[49]

[edit] Recommendations

The FBI recommends that loads intended for self-defense and law enforcement applications meet a minimum penetration requirement of 12 inches (300 mm) in ballistic gelatin and explicitly advises against selecting rounds based on hydrostatic shock effects.[17]

[edit] Hydrostatic shock as a factor in selection of ammunition

Various terms are used to refer to the potential for hydrostatic shock effects: energy transfer, temporary cavitation, shock wave, hydrodynamic shock, ballistic pressure wave, etc. A number of ammunition designers and suppliers mention ideas related to hydrostatic shock in their patents and marketing literature: Charlie Kelsey (radially dynamic bullets),[50][51] David Harris,[52] Tom Burczynski (Quik-Shok, Hydra Shok),[53] Bruce McArthur,[54] Federal Cartridge (Hydra Shok),[55] American Ammunition (Quik-Shok),[56] the THV bullet,[57][58] Hornady (Super Shock Tip, SST),[59] Barnes Bullets (Triple Shock),[60] TC Arms (Shock Wave),[61] and Elite Ammunition.[62] One handgun manufacturer has a video showing exploding watermelon heads.[63]

A number of bullet companies appeal to ideas related to hydraulic shock in their marketing materials. For example, Berger Bullets advertises that hydraulic shock is enhanced by penetrating several inches prior to expanding and fragmenting.


The VLD design is different, penetration before expansion, and as it expands [the bullet] fragments to enhance the wound cavity for massive tissue damage. The VLD will penetrate several inches of hide, muscle, and bone before expanding and fragmenting, causing tremendous hydraulic shock and fragments that wreck the vitals and drops the animal in its tracks.

— Berger Bullets[64]

Barnes bullets advertises that their triple shock bullet has superior incapacitation because it expands quickly and produces hydraulic shock.


Hydraulic shock disrupts vital organs, short-circuiting the nervous system for clean, quick kills.

— Barnes Catalog[65]

The importance of hydraulic shock in the performance of their bullet designs is reiterated in their "Performance vs. Deformance" video.


The bullet expands immediately on impact, immense hydraulic pressure swells the deer's chest, forcing the front legs apart ... death is instantaneous ... The bullet has expended almost all its energy inside the animal.

— Barnes Bullets[66]

In their "Bullet Myths Busted Choosing the Right Bullet: II" DVD, Chuck Yeager explains how hydrostatic shock improves the performance of Barnes Bullets.


The triple shock bullet ... When it hits an animal [creates] a hydrostatic shock wave ... it's a shaped charge...

— Chuck Yeager[67]

Hornady Manufacturing discusses the advantages of remote neurological effects of their law enforcement line of ammunition in their "Hornady Tactical Application Police Ammunition Test Report and Application Guide."


Possibly even more significant is that a study conducted in North Carolina involving shooting large goats in the lungs with high velocity high energy frangible projectiles indicates that the large temporary cavity created by such a projectile can cause a severe blood pressure spike to the animal's brain causing instant incapacitation. In effect it is an artificially induced massive stroke. The test animals had special blood pressure monitoring probes surgically inserted into one of the animal's major neck arteries to the brain well prior to the shooting. When the projectile had a large and violent enough temporary cavity to cause a severe blood pressure spike, the animal was instantly incapacitated. The Hornady TAP rounds have energies and temporary cavity sizes well beyond those shown to cause instant incapacitation in the tests.

— Chuck Karwan[68]

[edit] Ammunition selection for self-defense, military, and law enforcement

In self-defense, military, and law enforcement communities, opinions vary regarding the importance of remote wounding effects in ammunition design and selection. In his book on hostage rescuers, Leroy Thompson discusses the importance of hydrostatic shock in choosing a specific design of .357 Magnum and 9x19mm Parabellum bullets.[69] In Armed and Female, Paxton Quigley explains that hydrostatic shock is the real source of “stopping power.”[70] Jim Carmichael, who served as shooting editor for Outdoor Life magazine for 25 years, also believes that hydrostatic shock is important to “a more immediate disabling effect” and is a key difference in the performance of .38 Special and .357 Magnum hollow point bullets.[71] In “The search for an effective police handgun,” Allen Bristow describes that police departments recognize the importance of hydrostatic shock when choosing ammunition.[72] A research group at West Point suggests handgun loads with at least 500 ft·lbf (680 J) of energy and 12 inches (300 mm) of penetration and recommends:[73]


One should not be overly impressed by the propensity for shallow penetrating loads to produce larger pressure waves. Selection criteria should first determine the required penetration depth for the given risk assessment and application, and only use pressure wave magnitude as a selection criterion for loads meeting minimum penetration requirements. Reliable expansion, penetration, feeding, and functioning are all important aspects of load testing and selection. We do not advocate abandoning long-held aspects of the load testing and selection process, but it seems prudent to consider the pressure wave magnitude along with other factors.

— Courtney and Courtney

A number of law enforcement and military agencies have adopted the 5.7x28mm cartridge, which is reputed to cause considerable hydrostatic shock.[62][74] These agencies include the Navy SEALs[75] and the Federal Protective Service branch of the ICE.[76][77] In contrast, some defense contractors, law enforcement analysts, and military analysts say that hydrostatic shock is an unimportant factor when selecting cartridges for a particular use because any incapacitating effect it may have on a target is difficult to measure and inconsistent from one individual to the next[citation needed]. This is in contrast to factors such as proper shot placement and massive blood loss which are almost always eventually incapacitating for nearly every individual.[78]

[edit] Ammunition selection for hunting

Hydrostatic shock is commonly considered as a factor in the selection of hunting ammunition. Peter Capstick explains that hydrostatic shock may have value for animals up to the size of white-tailed deer, but the ratio of energy transfer to animal weight is an important consideration for larger animals. If the animal’s weight exceeds the bullet’s energy transfer, penetration in an undeviating line to a vital organ is a much more important consideration than energy transfer and hydrostatic shock.[79] Jim Carmichael, in contrast, describes evidence that hydrostatic shock can affect animals as large as Cape Buffalo in the results of a carefully controlled study carried out by veterinarians in a buffalo culling operation.


Whereas virtually all of our opinions about knockdown power are based on isolated examples, the data gathered during the culling operation was taken from a number of animals. Even more important, the animals were then examined and dissected in a scientific manner by professionals. Predictably, some of the buffalo dropped where they were shot and some didn't, even though all received near-identical hits in the vital heart-lung area. When the brains of all the buffalo were removed, the researchers discovered that those that had been knocked down instantly had suffered massive rupturing of blood vessels in the brain. The brains of animals that hadn't fallen instantly showed no such damage.

— Jim Carmichael[80]

Dr. Randall Gilbert describes hydrostatic shock as an important factor in bullet performance on whitetail deer, “When it [a bullet] enters a whitetail’s body, huge accompanying shock waves send vast amounts of energy through nearby organs, sending them into arrest or shut down.”[81] Dave Ehrig expresses the view that hydrostatic shock depends on impact velocities above 1,100 ft (340 m) per second.[82] Sid Evans explains the performance of the Nosler Partition bullet and Federal Cartridge Company’s decision to load this bullet in terms of the large tissue cavitation and hydrostatic shock produced from the frontal diameter of the expanded bullet.[83] The North American Hunting Club also suggests big game cartridges that create enough hydrostatic shock to quickly bring animals down.[84

Rod,

As long as you continue to accept energy is transferred between bodies you will continue to base all your argument on a gross misunderstanding of physics. I don't know where you got your book and practical application of physics; I got mine while obtaining an engineering degree and am licensed in six states as a Professional Engineer. The point is you are wrong and with your mindset while never accept this fact regardless of what anyone says.

Please bear in mind the energy has been used for decades as a way to sell newer cartridges. Pondoro Taylor stated this in "African Game and Cartridges". Momentum just doesn't sound as exotic I guess.

WOW, actual science is ignored while laymen terms and incorrect analysis is accepted as fact

WOW just WOW

That's correct jwp. The vast majority of people have not had the necessary technical training. Not only have I had the physics, but the thermodynamics, hydraulics, fluids, statics and dynamics classes to go along with it. It never ceases to amaze me how many people think they are know more than the guy with license.

thats exactly what i say.

i always just shot my deer....it died....waited for the crowd to stop clapping

....field dressed it....n went home.

it's NOT rocket science. it is just hunting and TRYING to enjoy it.

kyode,

field dressing is a good way to clear out a crowd in my experience. No one wants to stick around to help.

They are correct, the proper term is "hydraulic pressure"

Sooooo..... Moral of the story is shoot whatever bullet you want to shoot, but be sure ya put it in the vitals.

Can we all go home now??

LOL! Yes indeed!

All true except cast boolits work when applied properly. That is the problem most don't understand. For those that don't jacketed bullets will save you. Be aware, they also have shortcomings.
I have knocked a deer sideways off its feet, flat on it's side, with an arrow that went through the shoulder, spine and cut the ball joint in half in the other shoulder. Energy was 80 fp!
Never have I moved a deer with any bullet.

Well I guess all the sources that use it are wrong, the two are the same.

As for the energy transfer I already corrected that unless your saying that when a bullet impacts a medium the potential energy in that medium dosn't become kinetic which is why you see a shock wave go through a gelatin block when it's hit by a projectile. This is the same thing that kills animals quicker

As far as my background it's interesting. I turned down opportunities to attend engineering school as well as law school, and med school. I don't like egotistical .jackasses and I don't think enough of mankind to want to help it and I couldn't pick and choose who I helped unlike my business I have now if I don't like someone I won't build or sell them a gun. I guess you could say I'm a relic that stands on principle, honor and integrity and money dosn't mean enough to compromise my beliefs. My father and Grandfather were engineers, most of the technology you use on a daily basis when you use a ATM or a card reading machine of any type was engineered in whole or part by my father. I bucked the system and decided money wasn't worth living like a lab rat or being answerable to corporate bs.

Who said anything about compromising beliefs? Your original post and the entire "energy dump" myth is fundamentally and by definition, incorrect. Where and how does this tie into principle, honor, and integrity? Are you suggesting I have sold out to the conservation of momentum camp, or do you assume that just because I am a professional engineer I work in a lab or for a corporation? This is ridiculous!

Hydraulics is a whole other discussion we can get off into, especially when working with both compressible and incompressible fluids. One can kill much quicker with a shot to the central nervous system or by causing an animal to hemmorage to death, than trying to "jelly" the innards with hydrostatic shockwaves or hydraulic pressure.

Let's not start going off on tangents to deflect attention from the original post based on a faulty understanding of physics. We have far too much smoke and mirrors going on from the current administration.

If "hydro static shock" is a correct term, then define it in scientific terms.

As to the transfer of energy, remember Newtons 3 laws of motion which deal with acceleration, momentum and momentum transfers and does not deal with energy relationships. Kinetic Energy is a calculation of mass in motion, since the colliding bodies in an inelastic collision are not in motion after the collision then there can not be any energy thus no transfer.

The highest point of the hydrulic pressure that a bullet strike can cause will be at the point of collision, the second highest amount will be along the path of penetration and not at some remote location in the body

Thermo dynamics also must be understood to understand the force that create the wound channel. The circulatory system is a closed system just as is a piping system. The greatest pressure in the system will be at the point that the pressure is being induced into the system. If the system ruptures at the highest point of pressure then the pressure subsides in the rest of the system and in no way can it produce a rupture at a remote location


By shooting a "ballistics pendulum" one is able to measure the amount of momentum transfer. If energy transferred then one could measure the energy transfered, but one cannot.

Myself and majority of people I know think alot of you have drank the Kool Aid and so far you guys haven't done anything but talk in circles you haven't done anything but show that I was incorrect in my wording. I notice none of you have any comebacks for Marks book or Doc Rogers posts or the last time there was a similiar arguement and I brought in the thoughts of the professional ballisticians that read your statements although part of what they said wasn't printable. You keep bringing up "a" book but if you want I can flood this site with the same info I showed earlier which talks about shock waves and hydrostatic shock. The funny thing is you two are primarily alone except for a straggling groupie here or there. I've received many pm's, emails and phone calls from members telling me they can't believe you two and I already know that the majority of members including the most prominent and accomplished hunters follow the line of thought I've put forth. The ones that don't know the science know what they have seen including many that use hard cast because they like them.

The fact is Hydrostatic shock or hydraulic pressure is real and it does impact the terminal effects of a bullet and a bullet that expands creates a higher frequency and higher amplitude shock wave. This shock wave will destroy tissue or cause life ending results faster than the lower frequency and lower amplitude wave of a non expanding bullet. Many on here have told me they what is science they always just figured was common sense.

As far as me bringing up personal traits it's because titles (which were not brought up by me) don't impress me. I spent a good part of my life correcting problems engineers created and the traits I mentioned are what I respect in people not titles or egos. I didn't list my resume because it's irrelevant and I don't need to list it to massage my ego or to validate my statements.

I haven't changed my arguement at all it's just gone deeper into the cause and effect than I initially took it. You can't go further into this without considering hydraulics since all living creatures are made primarily of water.

Talking in circles, are you kidding me????


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/elacol.html




Are we talking about revolver bullet here are or we talking about rifles bullets? A huge difference in velocity and amount of "hydraulic pressure created. The higher the velocity the higher the hydraulic pressure.

Enough hydraulic pressure can stretch surrounding tissue past its elastic limits and increase the wound channel, but not at some remote location as you posted earlier

We are talking about both, but the science is the same and what you showed there is correct. A perfect example would be two of my kills with rifles. I hit one with a 300RUM and a 200gr Accubond Running 3200fps. I made a perfect lung shot but even the heart was jello and the blood shot on the offside which is the direction the shockwave was going was bad and took up the majority of the rib cage. The next would be the example I used earlier of the Roosevelt I shot with a 45-70 running slower. I had excellent penetration and on the first shot the shock wave as well as the bullet impact destroyed the liver but I had much less blood shot, probably the size of a grapefruit or softball on the off side.

Now go to my deer and elk I killed last year with a handgun. I shot the elk with my Encore in 300Win using 180gr Accubonds with a mv of 2600fps. The Elk was at 253 yds which means impact velocity was about 2031 impact energy of 1649. I pulled the shot through a comedy of errors and hit high but although the bullet had slowed down it still doubled in diameter and retained 99% of it's weight. I had missed the spine by roughly two or three inches but it bloodshot the area around the spine and literally stunned the elk keeping him from being able to run and allowing the finishing shot. I have no doubt that had I been using a tougher bullet that failed to expand I would not have had enough shock value to stun the elks spine and stopping him from running off. The last example was my deer, shot off hand at about 15yds with a 3" 44spcl and 200gr nosler sporting handgun bullets. I again hit the deer in the lungs and the damage was devastating, the deer dropped within 20yds but I could actually see the her body flex like jello kind of like watching a kill shot on tv in slow motion, again there was blood shot on the far side where the bullet was recovered and it was probably a softball sized area.

I've only butchered one animal I killed with hard cast and the blood shot which again is caused by the shock wave was almost non existent and the other animals I've seen and pics I've seen including yours as well as the statements I've heard from others all show this to be consistent with hard cast bullets because the shock wave isn't as large or destructive. I've also noticed the organs seem to survive hard cast better as far as the condition of the surrounding tissue, obviously a hole is a hole but things don't always work perfect.

Just like in my cases, I don't care what they show on TV, if you hunt public land on a regular basis your going to eventually stretch shots or shoot moving animals because if you wait for the "perfect scenario" your out of luck. The animals are under heavy pressure and they are moving and jumpy and there may be someone a hundred or so yards from you without even knowing it and that guy is liable to dump that animal if you don't. I used to try and hike into the back country to get away from that and then I realized there were almost as many people there as there was back closer to town.

The effect of the shock wave goes up with frequency and amplitude which means it is more noticeable with high velocity rifle rounds but it exists to an extent in everything including an arrow. That reminds of something I was told by a bowhunter years ago and it may be another way to look at this. He was talking about the grief he got from gun hunters but he said it makes no sense because all these weapons have one thing in common the kill from causing an animal to hemorrhage.

Broadheads do it by cutting but generally have a larger cutting diameter, solids and hard cast do it by cutting vital organs or artery's but are held to the diameter the bullet started out but they are more efficient at breaking bone than arrows, next you have the softest jacketed bullets which kill by cutting but the diameter is greatly increased although penetration suffers but then you get into the shock wave which is almost like a secondary killing device. To me the best is in between whether talking rifles or handguns and as I've said many times you have to chose the right bullet for the right application. I prefer controlled expansion bullets for most hunting such as bonded or segmented bullets like the partition and A-frame, here you have the cutting effect that is enhanced by the larger cutting diameter, most will break bone and you have created a larger shock wave than a solid and regardless of how minimal the shockwave the larger the better.

The principal holds true regardless of the weapon the only difference is the intensity.

Damage from a wide meplat hard cast



Maybe you are not use the correct hard cast

That's an impressive wound channel and consistent with what I've seen but I guess I'm spoiled from what I've seen with my jacketed bullets. I think we have beat this till it's as dead as that critter and I think my carpal tunnel is back.

Your ignorance and lack of experience sure is showing Rod. MAYBE, if we ever get your physics straightened out, we start working on your geography. You are a long way from Dixie and along way from right. Just like those recessed chambers on the revolver cylinders.

More damage from a flat point wide meplat hard cast




Proper meplat size is key to a large wound channel

This doesn't even dignify a response, it just shows your true colors.

I believe you just like to argue Rod.

When the ecco people have their way it will not be jacketed it will copper or brass mono metal, no lead at all


This thread is not about jacketed VS hard cast, it is about what cause the wound channel (how energy is used, etc)


Facts are what counts and energy doesn't transfer, rather it transforms into other forms of energy

I don't know who you are, but I do know what you are. RUDE is what you are. I think we need to start another forum here just for cast boolits so you leadbellies can all get together and circle jerk each other to a raging climax. Bullet design has come a long way since the 50's, perhaps you all should go back to school. Personal attacks usually come from a lack of intelligent contribution and I have yet to read anything intelligent from you. Flame on.

Pot calling the Kettle black

I prefer stainless steel. Your comments have been on par with his, and the others. Why do you guys get so childish when someone challenges your way of thinking. If you wish to live in the past, sobeit, but why be so quick to criticize the present and future. You are ignored.

No where is this thread can you quote any where that I posted anything other than factual points and made nothing personal

You folks are way above my head. I have various degrees, but none in the physical sciences. Therefore, I think it is time for me to speak.

None of you are going to convince the other. The rest of us do not care.

Man eating grizzly bears have been killed with 22 LR (accidently hit in the ear). If you hit a whitetail deer in the foot with a cannon ball, he will get away.

Let us agree to disagree and drop the personal attacks.

My opinion is that it is much more important "where you hit them" than "what you hit them with."

My father, a rifle hunter, did not think that he needed anything but a Winchester model 94. He did not. If I described the shots that I have witnessed, most on this forum would question my veracity. I have had many tell me that no one could reliably hit a deer through the heart area off-hand with an open sighted 30-30 at 250-300 yds. Guess my father was just a lucky man, because I have seen it on more than one occasion. He was a very good shot & he knew his gun.

My point is each of us are individuals with our own limitations and abilities. Likewise, we each have our own belief's (pet theories, etc.) and we each make it work for us. I personally prefer jacketed handgun bullets. I can cite situations when I saw cast bullets used that caused me to lean the other way. I have also had jacketed bullets that did not do exactly what I expected them to do. INMO, the problem with applying physical science to hunting situations is that nothing is static. I know enough about the physical sciences to be dangerous, but I recall all of the assumptions than must be made.

If what you are doing works for you, keep it up. If not, look at some alternatives. But always remember, "It is more important where you hit them than what you hit them with."

I'll admit you really didn't get personal, until now it was alot of bantering and rib poking but I was laughing most of the time. The post by hitman went way overboard and for anyone that knows me or my history "ignorant" is the last word they would use about me. s4s4su and others are understandably irritated by what was said. As far as I'm concerned I'm out of this because it's a stand off and it went way too far with those comments. The funny thing is comments like those are easy to make with a computer screen to hide behind but not so much face to face.

that about sums it up.

This is a good time to lock this post so that no more personal name calling and other little ego revealing innuendos are shown to the entire world.

Hit 'em with what works for you but don't knock the others if it doesn't agree with you.

enuff allreddie!