yes -- it means temp wound and shockwaves ...
fortunately, it doesn't matter in big bores

quote:

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.

Yes, and that's part of why I LOVE my 336/.35 Rem for deer. I can eat the bullet hole and the deer is just as dead as he would have been with a .270.

Hydrostatic shock, no.
Secondary projectiles, yes.

I've posted on this topic before and my position is that I can find no evidence that some magical and mysterious force is a reliable mechanism for killing large game. I don't dispute that occasionally deer drop to the shot but it is also the case that sometimes deer that you might expect to drop run 100 yards giving no hint they are hit.

My position is also that there is not a single other person on this board, no matter what they say, that honestly believes that the magic rays of the hydrostatic force are a reliable way to kill, say, a deer. My basis for this statement is that everyone on this board spends time discussing where best to shoot a deer and what is the best type of bullet to use to achieve a clean kill. If the magical shocking force were reliable and true then it would be sufficient to shoot deer in the leg, or ear, and they would drop dead to the shot.

So, you can say what you like but until you agree to start shooting your deer in the ear, or left leg, letting the magic of hydrostatic shock kill them you are just like me and don't believe a word of it.

quote:

Originally posted by WhatThe:

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:

quote:

Originally posted by WhatThe:

quote:

Originally posted by boltshooter:
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).

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....

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.

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.

Thank you for taking the trouble to reply WT, much appreciated.

I'm not sure who you the worthy Doctor is you refer to either but can well imagine the Guillotine causing the sort of pre-event physiological shock you talk about but also not the instant "lights out" of the sort of shot on deer we are talking about.

Pysician's notes from an examination of a freshly decapitated head from the guillotine

So it seems that a clean and efficient decapitation, ie traumatic detachment of the CNS and cardiac systems from the brain and the body, does not cause what we call in the UK "spark out", or perhaps that it does not do so reliably even though whatever our definition of death may be decapitation is as close to actually dead as makes no odds.

This does play into our favour because we are contending that the effect is a function of high velocity expanding projectiles rather than slow, high integrity ones.

The question of what actually is death is a good one, the answers can range between no pulse to end of residual cellular activity ie. post rigor mortis. For my purposes I want no heart activity and no eye blink reaction.

I think that what we do know is this:

1. Animals are killed either by loss of BP leading to unconciousness and death or interruption of fundamental CNS function ie a brain or high neck shot.

2. High velocity and frangibility are characteristics that predicate towards the effect we are talking about, low velocity and projectile integrity predicate against it.

Until we know what the effect is, I'm not sure we cab go about using it, one way or another.

I am wondering that in the same way a sharp blow to the jaw can knock a man unconscious a sharp blow to the upper spine may just transmit enough energy to the brain stem to cause unconsciousness, with the intrinsic damage to the vascular system in the chest cavity to ensure it never wakes up. However, I have anecdotal data that does not fit this model.

Two examples and inspired by Geedubya's noble example of telling it how it is two deer stick out in my mind.

One was a completely unsuspecting Fallow buck badly shot ( through the liver ) with a 308 150 grain spitzer bullet at about 2800 at 70 yards. I was in complete cover and shooting a moderated rifle the deer remained completely oblivious of what had happened. That deer's back end dropped to the ground at the shot but it struggled back up and staggered about for a minute or two until I was able to get a second shot into the back of his neck and finish the job.

Gutting him revealed utter destruction of the liver and kidneys, together with visible damage to the vertebra and spinal cord above them. That deer was going nowhere but despite looking like raspberry trifle on the inside did not DRT, as you guys say.

The second was a muntjac buck ( a very small but actually quite tough deer weighing up to let's say thirty pounds or so ) at 210 yards with a controlled expansion flat point 180 grain bullet started at about 2500 fps. This deer was hit also in the liver, ie a bit too far back, but did one circle on the spot and dropped. Through the binos I saw it give one twitch and then relax. Post mortem revealed a big hole in the liver ( and unfortunately the guts ) but none of the skeletal damage of the previous shot.

Now the point of illustrating these opposite ends of the spectrum is that the effect seems to be able to occour sometimes anyway, despite low velocity and hard bullets, and not when one would expect it too!

I think we are on the right path but need to consider, or perhaps more accurately determine, the variables at work. Some of it is certainly a function of variability in organisms in the first place but I suspect that there is more to be learned from more careful observation.

If a physician with access to a PET scanner could scan the brain stem of a deer that has happened to drop to the shot in the manner we describe, that would be an excellent start.

quote:

Originally posted by scottfromdallas:

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

or merely a result of ancillary items that comes from using modern centerfore rifles?

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.

My thoughts run along the same line as yours, Could it be that the large temporary cavity caused by such bullets and velocities could extend onto the spinal region and cause incapacitation that way in big game?

This is leaving aside the question of secondary projectiles for the moment.

quote:

Originally posted by KHH:
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

+1, From a practical hunter's point of view your post about sums it up for me.

quote:

Originally posted by 33806whelen:
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

I understand what you are saying but disagree with your fundamental ssumption. The body is not analogous to a bag of water with 20% solids distributed about it. The body is more accurately described as million and millions of tiny bags of fluid bound by cell, tissue and organ membranes, all within each other. this is why ballistic gel, which is used only to simulate muscle is not simply a bag of water.

You'll end up making rather strange and false inferences if you simplify the model to the point where it is invalid in my view.

quote:

Originally posted by someoldguy:

quote:

Of course it's real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock

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.

Oh it's interesting but not very scientific. Whatthe will know what I mean but basically it appears to be written from an assumption of existence rather than as a summary of the state of the art. Compare it to this article on say, Special Relativity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity to see what the difference in style and appropriate scientific reserve is usually expected.

Rathcoombe is quite good but on the other side of the fence, so to speak.

quote:

Originally posted by WhatThe:

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
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!

Perhaps a defensive mechanism?

more likely to be a case of comparing apples to 17th century porcelain figurines.

This is an example of simplifying the model until it no longer applies in any way meaningful to the discussion.

To wit; the fish and the river are not a contiguous body the projectile is not the high velocity type we are talking about and the water unlike any conditions in vivo that we are talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by butchloc:
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

I feel terrible for asking this, and I hope you are fully recovered from the wound by the way sir, but what were you shot and where, if you don't mind me asking.

By all means tell me to bugger off if you feel it's not relevant.

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:

quote:

Originally posted by WhatThe:

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
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!

Perhaps a defensive mechanism?

more likely to be a case of comparing apples to 17th century porcelain figurines.

This is an example of simplifying the model until it no longer applies in any way meaningful to the discussion.To wit; the fish and the river are not a contiguous body the projectile is not the high velocity type we are talking about and the water unlike any conditions in vivo that we are talking about.

I don't think he intened to compare the situation directly to an animal hit, I think he was probably using it to get the point across that hydrostatic or dynamic or mechnical
shock is indeed a real result when disturbing any liquid, be it blood and fluid inside an animal, or a pool with a penny dropped in it, or a fish in a brook or a barrel. The fish have a very sensitive sensory orrgan that runs along their sides called the lateral line. I don't doubt for a minute that a sensory overload like that hydraulic wake indeed stunned the bejesus out of them. Although the bullet never touched the fish the powerful disturbance around them probably cleaned their clock for a few minutes.

It could probably be argued further that the fish and the river are a contiguous body, in that they are both contained by the river banks.

I hear you but if anything the fish in the river story is more analogous to blast type injuries than projectile injuries and as you recognise fish are very sensitive to vibration as a primary means of sensation. It therefore follows that the reaction observed above, whilst a valid observation of events, perhaps not be as helpful to the discussion at hand as first thought as it introduces spurious data into the remit.

A red herring, if you'll pardon the pun.

As for the fish and the river being part of a contiguous system, I'll accept what you say from the view that the fish is in the river but not from the view that it is analogous to wounding in a multicellular organism unless we are talking about a gun shot to the body effecting whatever happens to be swimming around independently in another part of the body.

Another part of the body I don't want to mention as I think it would be the last place most folk would go looking for remote damage!

Thank you for reply, this is an interesting discussion.

it was along time ago in a far away land that i would like to totally forget

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:

Oh it's interesting but not very scientific. Whatthe will know what I mean but basically it appears to be written from an assumption

IMO, that's a pretty good description of parctically everything written on this forum. Of course the interesting part varies a lot.

I happen to like well written articles, not filled with abstract scientific mumbo-jumbo, and I don't mind an assumption or two, (if clear) backed up by reference, especially if it agrees with me. It merely adds validity to what I already thought. On the other hand, likewise, a similar article to the contrary, on the same subject, gives an opportunity to learn something new, and weigh it out against what I thought I knew.

Talking about the author, and comparing it to another writing style, and unassociated subject, is merely a distraction.

What you did was show a fine example of diffusing, distracting and doubt to the original notion, with something that's not relevant.

Here's an example of how that's done, everyday, and all day, in real life. Some people are better at it than others.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Wher...te_What_does_it_mean

Two possible answers to the origin, but the second possibility, of the salted fish, doesn't really refute the notion that the shock wave would kill fish in a barrel of water. Therefore, in addressing the question of shock, it's a distraction.

This short article does a better job, especially about whether the shock will kill the fish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...ing_fish_in_a_barrel


When I was in high school, a neighbor boy, Rodney, would take his father's Springfield to a bridge over a shallow creek. It was not a main road. There was a pool on one side of the bridge, a little deeper than the regular creek bed. I think it was a spring outlet. When the water was clear, we could see bass and bluegill, and sometimes other fish in the pool.

More than once I saw Rodney stunn (or kill) fish with that 30-06, and at least once, on a warm summer day, he fetched the fish from the hole and those that washed out. I don't remember if the fish left in the water later recovered. Hopefully so, but I do remember that they didn't look very alive, and those he fetched didn't flop around.

It was the origin of the old saying - "like shooting fish in a barrel". Or at least my understanding of the saying.

How's that for science?

BTW, what we need is real science. We need to compare how many fish in a pool (or barrel) are stunned or killed with a 223, compared to a 30-06. Then we'll have something to debate. I think it's called Empirical Evidence, in scientific terms. Heck, it doesn't take much imagination to think that such a test could entirely replace the kinetic energy, momentum, and knock-out formulas forever. I can see Barnes advertising their products as such-and-such fish in a barrel kill or stunn ratio.

But, in reality, there would then ensue the argument that African fish are tougher than N.A. fish, or perhaps that Southern USA whitetail fish are realy easy to kill, especially when the shooter is sitting in the proper stand, and can pick his shots, and use all his skill as a marksman and hunter, and harvester of the whitetail fish. It's a matter of shot placment, after all. Gotta shoot straingt down into the barrel. Etc. Etc.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by butchloc:
it was along time ago in a far away land that i would like to totally forget

I understand completely and apologise for asking sir.

Regards,

Amir

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:

Oh it's interesting but not very scientific. Whatthe will know what I mean but basically it appears to be written from an assumption

IMO, that's a pretty good description of parctically everything written on this forum. Of course the interesting part varies a lot.

I happen to like well written articles, not filled with abstract scientific mumbo-jumbo, and I don't mind an assumption or two, (if clear) backed up by reference, especially if it agrees with me. It merely adds validity to what I already thought. On the other hand, likewise, a similar article to the contrary, on the same subject, gives an opportunity to learn something new, and weigh it out against what I thought I knew.

Talking about the author, and comparing it to another writing style, and unassociated subject, is merely a distraction.

What you did was show a fine example of diffusing, distracting and doubt to the original notion, with something that's not relevant.

Here's an example of how that's done, everyday, and all day, in real life. Some people are better at it than others.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Wher...te_What_does_it_mean

Two possible answers to the origin, but the second possibility, of the salted fish, doesn't really refute the notion that the shock wave would kill fish in a barrel of water. Therefore, in addressing the question of shock, it's a distraction.

This short article does a better job, especially about whether the shock will kill the fish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...ing_fish_in_a_barrel


When I was in high school, a neighbor boy, Rodney, would take his father's Springfield to a bridge over a shallow creek. It was not a main road. There was a pool on one side of the bridge, a little deeper than the regular creek bed. I think it was a spring outlet. When the water was clear, we could see bass and bluegill, and sometimes other fish in the pool.

More than once I saw Rodney stunn (or kill) fish with that 30-06, and at least once, on a warm summer day, he fetched the fish from the hole and those that washed out. I don't remember if the fish left in the water later recovered. Hopefully so, but I do remember that they didn't look very alive, and those he fetched didn't flop around.

It was the origin of the old saying - "like shooting fish in a barrel". Or at least my understanding of the saying.

How's that for science?

KB

No arguments here KB,

Shock waves killing people from blast type effects are well documented, in that Wiki link for example, it's the effects in vivo that we're interested in of projectile injuries we are concerned with.

I promise I am not attempting any smoke and mirrors, I'm just trying to be reasonably precise.

It also likely that the stunning is not caused by the same phenomenon as in the shooting of deer as fish have a well documented sensitivity to vibrations. It would be like chucking a flashbang grenade into the water. Is it unconsciousness or is it sensory overload?

quote:

But, in reality, there would then ensue the argument that African fish are tougher than N.A. fish, or perhaps that Southern USA whitetail fish are realy easy to kill, especially when the shooter is sitting in the proper stand, and can pick his shots, and use all his skill as a marksman and hunter, and harvester of the whitetail fish. It's a matter of shot placment, after all. Gotta shoot straingt down into the barrel. Etc. Etc.

I added the above paragraph after you quoted my previous post.


It's my understanding that we are talking about Hydrostatic shock or pressure wave generated by a projectile moving through a hydro medium at high speed. We are not talking about a blast type effect of a secondary explosion, such as a flash bang grenade.

Perhaps we are both trying to be reasonable and precise. I'm poking a little fun at some here. In your case, I do see smoke and mirrors. Introducing the grenade is a distraction.

Both deer and fish have a well documented sensitivity to shock or disruption of the hydro medium inside or around the critter.

I can't think of a better test of the hydrostatic shock than in hydro, or perhaps in a ballistic gel, precisely formulated. After all, it wouldn't be much of a test if fish were insensitive - now would it?

Talk about flash bang - in Alaska sometimes seal and sea lions steal a hooked fish. They follow the boat around. We have seal bombs for them. It's like a large firecracker, that sinks. The fuse continues to burn underwater. Seals will definately leave the area if one of those goes off, and I suppose fish too. Seals and sea lions learn to not follow certain boats, and give unfamiliar boats a try. One time, I threw a seal bomb off the stern, and the sea lion that had been following went straight up. It was completely out of the water when the cracker went off. Could have been luck, but I don't think so. It did leave, and didn't return, and we boated the fish that was on the line. BTW, those seal bombs are dangerous. They are powerful enough to blow your hand off, if not thrown in time.

But still, the seal bomb is a secondary explosion, and may cause hydrostatic shock wave, but we are talking mostly about bullets making a pressure wave.

KB

I'm not for sure, but I'm listening to these accounts of fish being stunned and knocked out from the impact of the .44 Magnum in water. I would guess that the same principle as so-called dynamite fishing. (Which is every kind of illegal, of course.) I don't quite know what that principle might be, but I would suspect it's from some kind of shockwave.

Once in a while I attend a cannon shoot.....some of these black powder cannoners shoot some awesome charges and when they do. I can feel the shockwave hit me when I'm standing behind the cannon.....but it takes a helluva shot to make such a wave.

If I can feel a definite and strong shock wave from the air surrounding a cannon shot then I might be able to feel a severe shock wave from a severe disturbance such as a rifle bullet impacting the water assuming I'm in the water at the time......and from this I fully believe a brain might be severely impacted by transmission of shock waves from hitting the animal in such a place as to cause enormous energy transfer to the (mostly liquid) animal.....

In this manner I suspect that at least in some cases the idea of hydrostatic shock plays (or can play) a role in killing some types of game.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
If I can feel a definite and strong shock wave from the air surrounding a cannon shot then I might be able to feel a severe shock wave from a severe disturbance such as a rifle bullet impacting the water assuming I'm in the water at the time......

At the range, I can feel the shock wave all the time from adjacent shooters, especially magnums. Once, back when I was in the navy, the blast from the big guns blew the wood railing off the wings of the bridge. The muzzel was turned as close as it could get to the bridge.

I want to point out to you that in your example of the cannon, and my examples of the magnum at the range and the navy guns, the shock wave isn't caused by the bullet, but by the blast of the powders, at the muzzel, and perhaps by the supersonic shock wave of the explosion, but not the bullet itself.

The hydorstatic shock or pressure wave that I'm thnking we are talking about has little to do with the blast of the powder as it and the gasses and the bullet leave the muzzel. I'm thinking that we are talking about what happens when the bullet enters a hydro medium at high velocity, having long left the muzzel blast behind.

It's two completely different things, insofar as the effect on the animal, or fish. Do you think that somehow the muzzel blast from your 44 had anything to do with those fish that went tits up? You can shoot blanks that have as much muzzel blast as a loaded round, but a blank would have no effect on the fish, regardless of the blast.

KB

It's solely my point that clearly we are aware that fluids can and do transmit shock! And this regardless of what causes said shock!

Well, then is hydrostatic shock real, and what causes it? We all most likely agree that a secondary explosion causes it, but does a bullet all by itself cause it?

KB

General point first then a specific answer to KB's points.

Of course a given medium transmits pressure waves, water better than air, steel better than water.

What I am saying is this:

Ignoring the physiology of the thing we are interested in is not the correct approach, I do not believe it is valid to think of a game animal or any higher multicellular organism as a bag of water. My reason for this is simply that higher multicellular animals do not behave like bags of water when shot. Fill up a plastic bag of approximate toughness to human skin with 70 kgs of water excluding air, chuck in a mix of leftovers and cow thighs if you like and shoot it with a 30.06. I bet it shows violent surface effects from the unencumbered pressure waves resultant and probably explodes. Now do the same but instead fill the big bag with lots of little bags of water and shoot.

I predict the second experiment will no explode for the reasons I have tried to make above.

We are not monolithic entities made up of homogeneous material.

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

quote:

But, in reality, there would then ensue the argument that African fish are tougher than N.A. fish, or perhaps that Southern USA whitetail fish are realy easy to kill, especially when the shooter is sitting in the proper stand, and can pick his shots, and use all his skill as a marksman and hunter, and harvester of the whitetail fish. It's a matter of shot placment, after all. Gotta shoot straingt down into the barrel. Etc. Etc.

I added the above paragraph after you quoted my previous post.


It's my understanding that we are talking about Hydrostatic shock or pressure wave generated by a projectile moving through a hydro medium at high speed. We are not talking about a blast type effect of a secondary explosion, such as a flash bang grenade.

Perhaps we are both trying to be reasonable and precise. I'm poking a little fun at some here. In your case, I do see smoke and mirrors. Introducing the grenade is a distraction.

Both deer and fish have a well documented sensitivity to shock or disruption of the hydro medium inside or around the critter.

I can't think of a better test of the hydrostatic shock than in hydro, or perhaps in a ballistic gel, precisely formulated. After all, it wouldn't be much of a test if fish were insensitive - now would it?

Talk about flash bang - in Alaska sometimes seal and sea lions steal a hooked fish. They follow the boat around. We have seal bombs for them. It's like a large firecracker, that sinks. The fuse continues to burn underwater. Seals will definately leave the area if one of those goes off, and I suppose fish too. Seals and sea lions learn to not follow certain boats, and give unfamiliar boats a try. One time, I threw a seal bomb off the stern, and the sea lion that had been following went straight up. It was completely out of the water when the cracker went off. Could have been luck, but I don't think so. It did leave, and didn't return, and we boated the fish that was on the line. BTW, those seal bombs are dangerous. They are powerful enough to blow your hand off, if not thrown in time.

But still, the seal bomb is a secondary explosion, and may cause hydrostatic shock wave, but we are talking mostly about bullets making a pressure wave.

KB

I'm hoping we can leave the damned fish out it from now on so here goes!

the fish and the seal would be sensitive to shock waves in the water for two reasons. the first is their sensory organs are attuned to vibration, sensory pits in the case of the fish, whiskers and ears in the case of the seal. They like to protect their assets as those assets keep them alive and fed. The second is that water transmits vibrations much better than say air and so a grenade that would be lethal due to blast at say 5 metres would be lethal due to blast much further away under water.

The reason that I say the whole thing is a red herring is because nowhere in the body is this unencumbered working fluid ready and able to transmit pressure waves around the body because everything is either membrane or organelle or organ bound. The damping effect is visible in the graphs given in the wiki link you posted and even appears to be following an inverse square law in decay!

This is all consistent with accepted physical theory and so I accept it.

Above I also say that I accept that there is some sort of phenomenon but that it only seems to happen on shots that would be lethal rather quickly anyway.

In the circumstances I am interested but think that until the physiology of the mechanism in vivo is elucidated, it is difficult to talk about the ballistic perspective beyond what we already empirically know.

No smoke and mirrors, you see!

If you don't mind me saying you've been rather jaundiced by arguing with your compatriots too much!

quote:

If you don't mind me saying you've been rather jaundiced by arguing with your compatriots too much!

Yeah. I do know that I'm tired of arguing!
So does anybody wanna go dynamite fishing with me?



(Not really, folks!)

This is supposed to be an entry wound - it looks like a surface impact wound. Similar to an impact crater. If one brightens the image one can make out the interior of the wound and it appears very shallow without breaking bone. This animal is said to have staggard into another hunters zone and he finished it off with a pistol or revolver. The animal was said to have been shot with a high velocity bullet. There was a lot of flesh displacement (hydrostatic shock?) permanent as well as temporary, but no DRT! I'm not sure how much flesh there was in the 'hit' zone - it would take a fair depth of flesh to create a surface impact would like that. The story could be BS. Then again, there was a lot of bleading from the wound so maybe it's a true story.

One possibility no one has mentioned at all with regard to the "non-neuro hit but dropped to the shot" is a cardiac arrythmia. Potentially the deer or other animal had pressure waves set of an arrythmia and that dropped and killed it.

This situation has unfortunately killed humans when hit in the chest with baseballs and softballs.

quote:

Originally posted by cable68:
One possibility no one has mentioned at all with regard to the "non-neuro hit but dropped to the shot" is a cardiac arrythmia. Potentially the deer or other animal had pressure waves set of an arrythmia and that dropped and killed it.

This situation has unfortunately killed humans when hit in the chest with baseballs and softballs.

I have heard this before but always discounted it on the basis that whatever the effect of the bullet hitting the rib cage is, it is rendered deeply secondary to the the effect that bullet then goes on to have inside the chest cavity.

I think that might explain the picture 303guy posted above if indeed the bullet didn't penetrate into the cavity as it appears but doesn't help, I think and only in my opinion, in cases where the bullet goes through and exits.

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:
If you don't mind me saying you've been rather jaundiced by arguing with your compatriots too much!

This reminds me of an old saying about overeducation, and overthinking something. Churn it long enough, and the smoke and mirrors prevent the obvious from being recognized.

If you were a real scientist, or even thought like one, sorting out the uncontrol variables would be important to you rather than accumulating them.

The physiology of the animal is a variable, of course. However, it can be eliminated from the test quite effectively, by using the appropriate test medium. Foremost, the test is not about the physiology of animals, or the variation, it's about whether the shock wave or pressure can be seen and measured. Of course the effect on different animals wil be different. Allowing that fact to defeat the question is pure smoke and mirrors.

I have seen slow motion vidios of cape buff shot with rifles like the 470 Mbogo, and you can actually see the shock wave in the animal's hide, run from the point of impact.

Sometimes they drop, sometimes they run, nevertheless, the shock wave exists.

I don't feel the need to quantify it. I'm sorta interested in it from the perspective of meat damage, and failure. It is already obvious that the tissue damage is in direct relation to the speed and size and construction of the bullet. The first and clear evidence of hydrostatic shock is blood shot meat. That's basically all I need to know.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:


This is supposed to be an entry wound - it looks like a surface impact wound. Similar to an impact crater. If one brightens the image one can make out the interior of the wound and it appears very shallow without breaking bone. This animal is said to have staggard into another hunters zone and he finished it off with a pistol or revolver. The animal was said to have been shot with a high velocity bullet. There was a lot of flesh displacement (hydrostatic shock?) permanent as well as temporary, but no DRT! I'm not sure how much flesh there was in the 'hit' zone - it would take a fair depth of flesh to create a surface impact would like that. The story could be BS. Then again, there was a lot of bleading from the wound so maybe it's a true story.

Good post mate, very interesting.

I think that pic is of a road kill hit by a car.

It was posted on another of our forums a while back and the rear legs were included in the pic. They were broken and twisted.

quote:

Is hydrostatic shock for real?

The more correct term is "hydrolic pressure" that is created by velocity. The higher the velocity the higher the "hydrulic pressure". The pressure can be high enough to rip the tissue creating a larger permenent wound channel

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:
If you don't mind me saying you've been rather jaundiced by arguing with your compatriots too much!

This reminds me of an old saying about overeducation, and overthinking something. Churn it long enough, and the smoke and mirrors prevent the obvious from being recognized.

If you were a real scientist, or even thought like one, sorting out the uncontrol variables would be important to you rather than accumulating them.

The physiology of the animal is a variable, of course. However, it can be eliminated from the test quite effectively, by using the appropriate test medium. Foremost, the test is not about the physiology of animals, or the variation, it's about whether the shock wave or pressure can be seen and measured. Of course the effect on different animals wil be different. Allowing that fact to defeat the question is pure smoke and mirrors.

I have seen slow motion vidios of cape buff shot with rifles like the 470 Mbogo, and you can actually see the shock wave in the animal's hide, run from the point of impact.

Sometimes they drop, sometimes they run, nevertheless, the shock wave exists.

KB

I'm not a real scientist, I only did a science degree and didn't stay in science because I had trouble "thinking" like a scientist, well guessed!

Nevertheless I'm fairly sure variables need to be identified before being declared negligible, especially in circumstances where the contention is that the physiology of a given animal can be ignored if an appropriate test medium is selected. The only real exception I can see is if the test medium were in fact another example of the given animal....

I have also seen the effect you talk about above, what I am wanting to know is what it goes on to do, where it does it and how does it get there? a lung hit for example, the lungs are mostly air, what transmits the shock to what in those cases where they just drop?

I confess that I am frankly baffled by your repeated use of the phrase "smoke and mirrors", what exactly do you say is therefore my agenda?

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:
If you don't mind me saying you've been rather jaundiced by arguing with your compatriots too much!

The purpose of the above was to try and say with a bit of humour that I don't see an argument here just an exchange of ideas and some very interesting contributions, if it gave some other impression I apologise and will withdraw it.

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
I think that pic is of a road kill hit by a car.

It was posted on another of our forums a while back and the rear legs were included in the pic. They were broken and twisted.

Also a good post, very interesting!

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:
Nevertheless I'm fairly sure variables need to be identified before being declared negligible, especially in circumstances where the contention is that the physiology of a given animal can be ignored if an appropriate test medium is selected.

I confess that I am frankly baffled by your repeated use of the phrase "smoke and mirrors", what exactly do you say is therefore my agenda?

There is no need to withdraw your statment, as I did not find it offensive. I can see your point about that, so I'll try to be careful with my wording.

On the smoke and mirrors, it was a term mentioned by you and I thought it descriptive of my perception of what you are saying in some cases. It's not intended to be offensive, but to make a point. Also, I don't think you do it intentionally, as a ploy, or anything like that.

I think identifying variables is indeed important, not to declare them negligible, but to test one thing at a time. In measuring the degree of hydrostatic shock, whether it's some kind of inverse equasion, to the ten squared, is a seperate test from the test of the physiology of an animal. Somehow they need to be seperated to be meaningful.

Once it is clear that hydrostatic shock has some bearing, then one may try to test it on animals, however I would find that very frustrating indeed. So, that's why I say that all we really need to know, as hunters, is that it exists, and the prime variables are the size and speed of the bullet, as well as the way it's constructed. Those are controllable variables. The physiology of the animal is not controllable, it just is.

KB

Good call, RC. I noticed some kind of wound or patch of blood on the inside of the back left thigh. I also noticed the fur on the right side of the wound appears to be pushed inward, while the fur on the right seems to be mostly outward. Of course, I guess it's possible there could have been some tampering with the fur as they were checking the wound.

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
I think that pic is of a road kill hit by a car.

It was posted on another of our forums a while back and the rear legs were included in the pic. They were broken and twisted.

I think you're thinking about this one

Vapo, don't deny them of the love affair with speculation.

KB

FYI I just now saw the antelope. About two hours ago I was on the phone talking to an AR poster about a horrible entry wound on a large mule deer buck caused by a commercial 25-06, 120 grain bullet. I explained how it took us 6 to 8 hrs finding the deer. The wound was located near to that of the antelope. I doubt if it went much more than 1 1/2" deep. The appearance of the cratered wound looked almost identical.
Had almost an identical incident with a western 6 point and a Speer 105 grain bullet from my 6mm-270 IMP. As the deer got up to run a 14 year old cowboy hit him with his 30-30 in the neck. The 6mm wound was damn close in appearance to that of the antelope, but not quite.
Some of the deer that were killed with really hivelocity projectiles droped right now and upon opening them it was found that everything in their cast cavity had turned to Jelly. I always considered this to be the effect of hyraulic shock or call it what you may( A rose by any other name ***) roger