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!