The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Medium Bore Rifles Is hydrostatic shock for real?Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Is hydrostatic shock for real? | Login/Join |
One of Us |
The term comes up regularly.....I've seen deer knocked down immediately and after a few seconds get up and run off....is this from hydrostatic shock temporarily blocking out the brain? Does Hydrostatic shock play a roll in very large game such as ele? Is it important or merely a result of ancillary items that comes from using modern centerfore rifles? /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." Winston Churchill | ||
|
| One of Us |
All that blood shot, shredded flesh around the bullet's path is from "hydrostatic" impact. How much "shock" it causes depends on the nerves involved and the individual critter's reaction to it. But, the "shock" of the impact itself won't "knock 'em down", it's much too briefly applied for that. | |||
|
one of us |
It is what makes a milk jug full of water blow up when you shoot it. If you are hunting milk jugs it is of critical importance. If you are hunting game, not so much. That being said IMHO it is much more of a factor at high velocity, say 3000fps and above but adds very little to lethality and just spoils meat. Have gun- Will travel The value of a trophy is computed directly in terms of personal investment in its acquisition. Robert Ruark | |||
|
One of Us |
There is no relationship between "hydrostatic shock" and "shock". Hydrostatic shock is the measurement of liquid filled soft tissue damage while shock or system shock is an acute stress event triggered by a single or multi "system" event i.e. the nervous and/or circulatory system. So to answer your question I believe there is a correlation of the two dissimilar terms in that; a bullet/projectile that causes hydrostatic shock will certainly trigger system shock" Animals unlike humans have no idea what happened when they have been shot other than danger has been thrust upon them. Unless drug filled i.e. PCP, humans simply drop regardless of hydrostatic shock or wound damage and will enter system shock primarily due to physiological effects while In the other hand instincts take over in animals triggering a fleeing response. should the hydrostatic shock or wound damage be so severe the animal may jump in the air, take a few steps or simply drop on the spot. In some cases an animal may flee and die days later or even survive the wound. To me this proves the absence of system shock. Disclaimer: In case some of or SD friends are here, I'm sure SD plays the major part herein. | |||
|
one of us |
Cartridges reputed to cause "hydrostatic shock" tend to blow the bee-gee-zuss out of good eatin' venison. A good bullet passing cleanly through the vitals is proven reliable. | |||
|
| One of Us |
"Is hydrostatic shock for real?" Ask a prairie dog. Yes, it's real. The question should be, "Is it good on anything rated as big game?" Only for head/neck shots on game 300lb and smaller, otherwise no, hydrostatic shock is not really good for anything. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have seen very large exit holes--lets say 6" or approaching that from a 30-06. If you took a hammer and anvil to a 30-06 bullet you would have a hard time flattening it out to 6". Even if flattened to 6" it would be so flimsy it would not exit. What caused the large wound? One theory is that liquids cant be compressed and an animal is 90% or so liquid. The pressure from a bullet against that liquid trying to compress it--but cant forces the high pressure liquid to explode out the path of least resistance (off side) from the shot????? I guess that would be hydro shock?? | |||
|
| One of Us |
  | |||
|
One of Us |
Before someone posts the Rathcombe link and a huge argument breaks out, would people mind defining exactly what they mean by Hydrostatic shock. A starter for ten might be that the phrase is a nonsense, if anything we are talking about hydrodynamic something, not hydrostatic anything and secondly we do not mean shock in the sense a physician would understand it rather a "knockdown" effect. My question is what is that physiological effect, before what causes it. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Check out Woodleigh bullets web site; they describe their "Hydrostatically Stabilised" bullets and their effect on game. "WhatThe" you seem to have a scientific grasp of these things. How much veracity in the Woodleigh pitch? (Hunters who have used these bullets say they are very effective). | |||
|
| One of Us |
I've never touted my credentials and came here to offer what I know and learn what I don't. But yes I do have a grasp of many of these issues having done it for a living for over 30 years as an Independent ballistics engineer providing design support, testing, proving and terminal analysis. A slight suspicion but not completely sure what is meant by "the Woodleigh pitch" But if has to do with SD, I'm done,turned over twice, boiled, broiled and twice baked with that subject.... | |||
|
| One of Us |
Actually they aren't normally very talkative after a proper introduction to a 50 grain TNT! /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
I promise I won't mention S.D...... May I ask you, what do think the physiological phenomenon is that results in chest shot deer occasionally dropping to the shot? I have a biological sciences background myself and have talked about this with physician friends at length. Like yourself I don't accept a fluid dynamics based model based on looking at the animal as incompressible bag of water but I can't deny that sometimes deer drop to a chest without so much as a twitch and in those cases I can't see any CNS damage. I also note that this happens more often with higher velocity and more frangible bullets. I cannot explain it myself, but personally suspect it to be no more than violent tissue displacement on to the vertebra from the inside leading to stunning followed by rapid death from loss of blood pressure. From the outside it looks like the animals drops and dies without a twitch. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The "hydrostatic shock" that we as hunters know was invented by Roy Weatherby on the theory that if you push a bullet fast enough, you don't have to be able to figure distances, nor trajectory, nor have to make a reasonably letal hit as the "hydrostatic shock" would blow the animals heart apart. One of the often touted advantages of a Weatherby was that it would shoot flat out to 500 yards; in fact, it would actually rise over the first couple of hundred yards so you had to aim under the animal. And, of course, because of the "hydrostatic shock any hit was sufficent to bring the animal to bag. Some folks still believe that. Aim for the exit hole | |||
|
| One of Us |
By "Woodleigh pitch" I mean their description of their hydrostatically stabilised bullets on their web site. My question has absolutely nothing to do with SD. | |||
|
One of Us |
Food for thought from Rathcoombe
____________________________________ There are those who would misteach us that to stick in a rut is consistency - and a virtue, and that to climb out of the rut is inconsistency - and a vice. - Mark Twain | Chinese Proverb: When someone shares something of value with you and you benefit from it, you have a moral obligation to share it with others. ___________________________________ | |||
|
One of Us |
Is hydrostatic shock for real?  yes although it may be a misnomer. But what the heck.  rogerOld age is a high price to pay for maturity!!! Some never pay and some pay and never reap the reward. Wisdom comes with age! Sometimes age comes alone.. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Whether real, oxymoron, or imagined I have always preferred heavy-for-caliber bullets moving at 2500 to 2900 fps with a reasonable expansion and "two" holes to kill game. If I put enough mass into an animal inside 400 yards it normally dies. My minimum bullet weights per caliber (for rifles) are: 224 - (I only shoot varmits with these things) 6mm - 100 to 105gr jacketed 257 - 117 to 120gr jacketed 6.5 - 129 to 140gr jacketed 270 - 150gr jacketed 308 - 165 to 180gr jacketed / 210gr cast/GC 338 - 225gr jacketed / 250gr cast/GC 358 - 250gr jacketed / 285gr cast/GC 375 - 286 to 300gr jacketed / 335gr cast/GC I try and keep my cast bullets at between 1800 to 2000 fps using straight linotype and out to 200+ yards they will also produce two holes and kill anything. The only thing I shoot over 3000fps is a 22-250 so I really don't pay attention to trying to use "hydro static shock" to kill. I do know that I have seen too many deer killed by 300 Win Mags, where you had to just leave a front quarter in field because of the blood shot. Sorry all you 300 WM fans, but just my observation. Just color me Elmer Keith! Barstooler | |||
|
One of Us |
Yes. Hydrostatic shock is bunk. Prairie dogs blow up because varmint bullets fragment causing giant shallow wound channels that blow the animal apart. Many deer bullets cause excessing wound channels because they expand and usually shed 40% of their weight through fragments. This is why many people love barnes bullets. "kills them dead and doesn't waste any meat". No fragmentation. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Scott, I don't know whether it's hydrostatic shock or what. But if you shoot an animal such as a pig or a white-tail deer with a 257 weatherby mag using a 100 grain partition traveling at +/-3650 fps, you are going to have jelly for about a foot diameter around the bullet hole. Same thing with a 180 gr ballistic tip out of a 338 rum, or just about anything else traveling in excess of 3,000 fps. One of the reasons I've started shooting rounds that have muzzle velocity of 2800 fps or less. At least things I plan to eat and not shoot in the head (heaven forbid). just sayin' GWB | |||
|
| One of Us |
Forensic analysis provides some clues but complete and instantaneous sequential system shut down has always been a bit of a mystery. As you indicated, high velocity fragmenting projectiles appear to be more effective or rather supports a higher percentage of instance. It's almost impossible to describe the damage a high velocity fragmenting projectile does on soft tissue. The destruction is simply devastating. My belief falls in line with your theory and has for many years. We know and understand both the mechanics and dynamics of wounds based on data that can assist in the requirements for lethality in terminal performance. But with any biologic study, there is always a margin of error based on the fact that "not all are the same". We have always called this a "variable influence" and allowed a +/- margin based on statistical data. But to add some light to your inquiry, I also believe that such a violent event that distorts and displaces tissue, bones and whole organs that it must trigger a rapid and sequential system shut down rendering the animal with an immediate fatal event with only post cellular activity to non disrupted nerve cells and nerve receptors. Off the top of my head I can't remember the book or author but in any event, there was an English physician that studied those doomed to the guillotine. Without a doubt biologic shock set in immediately and in many cases, signs of biologic shock were present prior to execution of the doomed. However, the heart continued to pump while the lungs expanded for several seconds which discounted post biologic shock. The severed head on the other hand showed the eyes twitching/rolling and nostril flaring on some victims. Now there's one for you, what is the biological cause of death? This was his point, we don't know. Sure we know he bled to death, but with shock not being present and neural receptors being severed, what are the mechanics of failure? Even though no anatomical disruption accrued instant death was a result of dismemberment regardless of the systems ability to maintain function (at least longer than a few seconds). We know that cerebral transmission from the brain is not required to maintain life support as evidence in brain damaged, coma stricken and newborns without a brain. I'm glad I don't need to write a report on that! In my belief, God wrote and holds the schematic as well as publishing rights to everything biologic. Medical sciences have only statistics and is not nor ever will be an "exact science" Hence term "practice". Why does aspirin work for some and not others? This is really the question. | |||
|
| new member |
Not sure about the animal jumping up and running off part that may be a temporary disruption of the nervous system. When I think of hydrostatic shock I think of instantaneous kills and I do think it makes a difference up to a point. To me 4 things factor in . Body weight, bullet velocity, bullet weight and bullet structure . On a larger animal say 500+ lbs you would see much less effect than on a 100 lbs whitetail.I doubt you would see any effect at all on a moose. The higher the velocity the more likely you would see the result of it. If you shot 10 deer ( without hitting supporting structure) with a 150 gr serria bullet in a 30-06 and a 10 with a 150 gr serria in a 300 RUM. I would expect you would see a higher percentage of instantaneous kills with the RUM. If you used a solid or a 220 gr in both guns I doubt you would see much if any difference at all. I know for me it was very obvious after years of shooting 7mm rem mag , 30-06 , and 30-30 as my whitetail guns. I got a 300 Weatherby I crammed as much 4350 as I dared under a 150 gr. serria the results were quite impressive. Not a good comb for the meat hunter. Above a certain weight say 600 or 700 hundred pounds then , to me , bullet frontal area comes much more into play than hydrostatic shock.good hunting KH | |||
|
| One of Us |
Bullet design-construction is the problem,not the high vel. The NP fragments in an disorganised way, compared to monometals designed to create a more orderly predetermined number of petals. Shooting meat for the freezer at 4700fps | |||
|
| One of Us |
So you're telling me that a 100 gr Barnes TSX at 3650 fps. or a 185 gr 338 TSX at 3,400 fps, at 50 yds ain't gonna yield blood shot meat. I'd be a bettin' man on that one. GWB | |||
|
| One of Us |
Hydrostatic would indicate not moving. I guess technically they are not moving until you push a pill through them. Then they could be deemed Hydrodynamic. If you think this isn't real drop a penny in a pool and watch the ripples. If a penny can do that and water is not compressible, I think we can surmise that the shockwave effect does occur. If the fagmenting bullet would just cut through flesh, bone etc, it would just pass through and either exit or stop in the body after slicing its way in. However I have seen prairie dogs expolde when struck with a 140 grain speer PSP. What I witnessed was dfeinitely a hydro dynamic shock. We're all composed largely of liquid, 80 to 90% by most estimates. When you shoot a prairie dog you see it more visibly than you do in a larger game animal. Make no mistake it is having an effect on the CNS and tissue around the wound channel. In larger animals you just don't see the effect as much as you do in smaller critters. If you shot a whitetail with a 50 bmg, using a soft bullet you would probably see it on the same level as you do a prairie dog with a 22-250 or big game bullet. You just have to picture it in scale. Throw the penny in the pool harder or use a quarter and the ripples get bigger. In a pool the water has more places to go. In an animals body, not so much. You start hitting tissue, organs etc, which kind of hold it in and contains it for a bit, before they start popping like a water balloon. hydrodynamics (ˌhaɪdrəʊdaɪˈnæmɪks, -dɪ-) — n 1. ( functioning as singular ) hydrokinetics See also hydrostatics Also called: hydromechanics the branch of science concerned with the mechanical properties of fluids, esp liquids | |||
|
One of Us |
Of course it's real. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock KB ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ | |||
|
| One of Us |
I'll give another example, and one that I'm not particularly proud of, but what the heck. Last season I was sitting in a tripod in an area where I could see from close up out to about 450 yds. I have a very accurate rem 700 sendero w/brake chambered in 7STW. With 140 gr acubonds it shoots 1/moa out to 300 yds. I zero it at 200 and know my drops out to 500 or so. I don't typically shoot long range, but I can do Ok if I need to. Anyway it was one of those crisp mornings here and it was colder than a witches tit. I had on a heavy parka and wool mittens. My rifle somehow slipped off my shoulder and dropped dead on to a big ass rock, right on the scope. First time I've dropped one of my guns in I can't remember. Well, it was a beautiful morning to be in the stand. So I climbed on up and got set. Dawn had not struck so I got to sit there for 45 minutes or so just enjoyin' being there and being alive and in the deer stand. Just after daybreak a doe comes out of the woods about 600 yds away. I watch her come to within 200 yds (I ranged her on my range finder). Well its the Middle of December and I've held my trigger for over a month and hadn't taken a deer yet. I wanted venison in the worst sort of way. I knew that I'd bounced my scope off a pretty good rock. I said what the heck. I was watchin' this old gal through my scope when her flag went up. I knew she was fixin' to take off. I made a fist with my left hand, on top to the rail, and balanced the rifle on it. I drew a fine bead as she was facing almost straight at me. I fired and she dropped. I waited a couple minutes and got down and walked over to where she was. Yup, dead as a mackerel. I loaded her up on my four wheeler and took her back to camp to skin. Once I got the skin off, what a mess. A couple days later I took the rifle to the range. At 200 yds my POI was 12" to the right of my POA. I knew I wasn't that bad a shot, even freehand. Anyway, that 140 gr accubond at 3400 fps, at 200 yds entered on her left ribcage and exited about 2" from the anus on her right ham. It totally destroyed the ham and every thing in between the entry wound, absolute purple jelly. I don't care what anyone says, that's more than bullet fragmentation. GWB | |||
|
| One of Us |
To all, This is a subjective issue. Your experience provides you with the data you need to make a clean kill. At the same time there will be others that may challenge your data and what you consider adequate. The science part of this issue provides terminal data on X or anything in specific. The mechanics of a biologic shut-down are very interesting and indeed dynamic. But as mentioned above where exterior influences are involved with biologic subjects, the issue does become subjective as I said above. Why does a 100 pound deer shot at 200 feet away with a 30-06 run 400 feet before it drops while an Elk of 400 pounds takes the same shot and drops to the ground before you lower your rifle? We all know that higher velocities with heavier expanding bullets will kill faster than a low velocity non expanding bullet. This is practical experience that can be explained. What is subjective is, that with the same internal wound cavity why did the deer of smaller mass out-live the Elk? This can be argued to death but will always remain subjective regardless of the debate. | |||
|
One of Us |
That article is inconclusive at best. But it's a good one. Sometimes inconclusive is good. Makes you think. Me, I don't know what to think. It's above my pay grade. _________________________ Glenn | |||
|
| One of Us |
I'd say yes, depending on the impact velocity. I have hit Rockchucks at high speeds, and had them fly 6-8 feet off the ground. There are also miscellaneous body parts separating and going in different directions with a center mass hit. Rich | |||
|
| One of Us |
Never said monometals would not produce blood shot meat, but will certainly produce less than a 12" zone of bloodshot meat around the bullet hole. Try some mono bullets that are more appropriate for the HV 257wm and 7mmSTW that you operate. | |||
|
| One of Us |
same story with 50cal. and Taliban.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2kNeNd0Qj8&NR=1 | |||
|
| One of Us |
One of the things I like about my 45-70 guide gun shooting 400 gr. Speers at 1700 fps. You can eat right up to the bullet hole Best GWB PS: Trax, It is my understanding that Clint was using a 41 mag,(my cal.) model 57 not a 44 in model 29 during that scene. | |||
|
| One of Us |
It's interesting that Barnes promotes their bullets as producing massive hydrostatic shock for quick kills. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Let me try to show another type of hydrostatic shock.......when I was a teenager I took my .44 mag revolver to the creek where there was a superstructure bridge and would shoot carp in the river. In most cases the carp turned belly up for several minutes even though they were never actually hit with the bullet. The shock of the bullet hitting the water (less than two feet deep) literally turned the carp up and they floated sometimes but usually sank to the bottom for a while....then regained consciousness and swam away! These were carp less than five pounds BTW! /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
Perhaps a defensive mechanism? | |||
|
One of Us |
My reading indicates that early scenes were filmed with a .41 because for some reason they couldn't immediately get a .44. No one could tell the difference on film anyway. Heck, I think some of the promotional shots/ posters were done with an 8-3/8" to make the barrel look REALLY dramatic in 3/4 shots! NRA Endowment Life member CZ 550 American 9.3 X 62 Mauser/ Leupold VX-3 2.5-8 x 36 CZ 550 Safari Classic .458 Lott | |||
|
| One of Us |
yeah, looking into the "eye" of a big bore Smith, can definately get your attention,  Even if its only a 44 mag in a model 29 classic rather than a .41 in a model 57.  Best GWB | |||
|
| one of us |
 | |||
|
| One of Us |
speaking from experience - yes it is real. not long lasting thing, but the shock pretty well closes off the body for a couple of minutes, then it hurts like hell | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Medium Bore Rifles Is hydrostatic shock for real?
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia