Is there such a thing as a hydrostatic kill?

What I mean by that is say you shoot a caribou or something of similar size with a 165 grain bullet out of a 308 win. The bullet enters between two ribs hits the vitals and exits through the ribs again.

Now make the same shot with a 165 grain out of a 300RUM, 30-378, 300 Warbird or other super mag. The bullet once again goes between 2 ribs hits the vitals and exits through the ribs.

Will the faster bullet cause more damage and result in a faster kill?

Won't the animal absorb the exact same amount of energy?

Does the higher speeds result in a shock wave through the vitals that pulverizes them to a larger degree?

The reason I ask is out of interest mostly but I also remember reading a posting here about a 17 remington that caused massive damage to coyote pelts to the point they were nearly destroyed.

I see it most often when shooting groundhogs and usually with higher velocity loads. Seems as if the shock from the bullet just short circuts the CNS.

It is possible for the shock wave created by the passing, expanding bullet to disrupt the function of vital organs, and even tear tissue.

What is not possible is for that to be "hydrostatic" shock. The proper term would be hydroDYNAMIC shock. But then, I'm an engineer, so correct terminology is one of our pet peeves.

Don Martin posted an excellent link in my thread about "pistol calibers in carbines". It has some interesting things to say about this, including clarification of hydrodynamic shock and instances where it can have effects on the CNS.

Had a pet peeve once. Fed it a democrat and it turned into a regular kind of pet.

Bullets kill by creating a wound channel due to caliber or expansion of the projectile as it passes through. For a specific bullet you will ALMOST always create a larger expansion at higher velocity. In some cases you may see a bigger initial channel then smaller when, as an example, an 'X' bullet sheds its front petals. To a degree a bullet also transmits energy to surrounding tissue, the denser the tissue the more transfer, such as heart vs. lung. Of the two, the wound channel is far more damaging than energy transfer and that is why high velocity small bores and/or highly frangible bullets sometimes lead to lost game. It is the reality that debunks the value 'ft. lbs.energy'.It also explains why the thru and thru is more reliable in downing big game.

While on the subject, the only thing FT LBS tells you is how much powder you used and how well your bullet flies down range(BC) when you look at the tables. As it has always been, what matters is where you hit them and that you hit them with a bullet appropriate to the task.

Markus,

I would choose yet another term to describe this phenomenon, "Hydraulic" shock. When a bullet suddenly slams into a living body composed largley of fluids, the energy that the animal DOES absorb and does not leave the other side with the bullet, is transfered to the animal in the form of pressure. Hence larger exit holes than entry even with a non expanding bullet and even when it misses bone.

Howdy:
If you want to see this effect in action, just take a gallon milk or bleach bottle, fill it up with water and put the lid on. Step back and let fly with whatever high powered artillery you have. Pretty spectacular and since tissue is mostly H2O, will give you some idea of what happens when a bullet strikes. Then for comparison try the .22 RF.
Griz

I've done that with milk cartons before. when we are way out in the middle of no where for work I have taken milk cartons and layed them on there sides and put an orange or grapefruit on the top side and shot the bottom of the carton. It blows the carton to pieces and launches the orange into the air for a good moving target to try and hit with the old 30-30

I shot a deer this morning at 50 yds with a 7mm Rem and 140gr sierra pro hunters at 3200fps. The bullet entered between two ribs and exited between two ribs without hitting any bone at all. The exit hole was smaller than the size of a quarter. It took two steps and dropped. Both lungs and the heart poured out of the chest cavity in a liquid state.
It must have taken severe hydrodynamic shock to have done this much damage.

Yes, and it works on small antelope and deer, but not on the larger animals, at least not normally...

Velocity can kill like the hammer of Thor or it can cause a mirade of problems and long tracking jobs..It is impressive and makes belivers out of the less experienced hunter..The older hunters, after an ocassional failure, seem to prefer a slower positive kill and a good blood trail and a 50 yard run.

Shoot a deer in the chest cavity with a 22-250 and 99% of the time you will witness an electricution of sorts....

Shoot a moose with Hi-vel and you may not see him again, shoot a Cape Buffalo with hi-vel and you may see him again, real soon, and up close and personal...

That's how I feel personally....

Markus, Grizzly Adams,

Some hydrodynamic fun in action...

Some real bucket blasting

500 grain bullet at 2530 fps. 5 gallon pails of water. Shot at an East Kootenay rifle range near you.

Canuck

For the best real research, go to Google, and look up Facklers Wound Ballistics.

Hydrodynamic shock can kill, but will it reliably?

No.

A large deep wound chanel is the most reliable way to take an animal and make sure that you'll be able to follow a blood trail.

An example of this is NATO's adoption of light fast bullets. Yes a .223 will kill but the military is much more interested in severly wounding people for the reason that it takes people to attend to the wounded so that you effectively incapacitate 2-3 people for every 1 that you wound severly.

Large heavy bullets are more predictable for hunting (killing quickly and cleanly) and light fast bullets are better suited to wounding severly.

Hydrostatic, hydraulic, shock, energy transfer, call it what you will. An expanding bullet from a modern high power rifle kills in the exact manner as an arrow. It creates a wound channel (through vital tissue) thereby causing hemoraging. The bigger the wound channel the faster and more massive the hemoraging. In my experience, N. American animals well hit with arrows and big slow bullets die at the same rate, in the same manner, with the same blood trails, and run about the same distances. At higher velocities though, expanding bullets seem to have the ability to creat a wound channel much larger than their mushroomed diameter. Why is this? That's the question, is it not?

Quick phisiology lesson: lung tissue on the cellular level is highly vascularized in a configuration of small, fragile, membraneous "sacks" called alveoli. This is where the blood is oxygenated.

Here's my opinion: I don't buy that the "shock" disrupts the nervous system. What I do speculate is that rapid expantion in the lungs-- a (hydrostastic/hydraulic/whatever) transfer of energy (shock wave)-- will rupture the alveoli outside of the bullet's actual wound channel. Hence, more hemmoraging = quicker death. But I can't imagine how a similar situation would occurr outside the lungs or in a marginally vital scenario. And this is when and where basic penetration and large wound channel is especially important.

I might also add that my opinions and experience are based upon N. American animals such as mulies, whitetail, and elk. Beyond these critters I would greatly evaluate my gun/bullet choices.


Canuck,

Those looked like 5gal pails to me. That's a lot of water! ! I'm impressed! I've discovered that if you put the lids on cans and set them upside down it usually adds to the effect.... but with that 470 you might not notice a differance.

Ray,

By comparison, N.American "big game" isn't really that BIG compared to Cape Buffalo and other African critters, is it? I've never hunted in Africa, but it seems like that is a different ball game than deer/elk, right? Someone once said african buffalo/lion hunting is comparable to hunting deer with a rimfire .22. Only the deer won't get mad and try to kill you! Is that a resonable comparison?

[ 11-24-2002, 23:23: Message edited by: waldog ]

Wow Canuck thats a pretty impressive show.

I'm a west kootney boy myself but I have spent alot of summers camping around conors and abruzzi lakes in the elk valley. If I ever get the chance I would love to live in that part of the world.

Waldog what you describe sounds to me like the most resonable explaination of what happens.

Waldog, Markus,

The Perfect Shot by Kevin Robertson does have an interesting discussion on the merits of hydrodynamic shock on the CNS. Kevin R. writes that it is his experience that a high heart shot, if timed right (which can only be a fluke), can cause a surge of blood to the brain and that the extreme blood pressure increase can cause a massive stroke.

I was fortunate enough to hit a high heart shot on a zebra in RSA this May, and the result was just as Kevin R. predicted. The zebra folded in its tracks and expired without a twitch. I am a believer!!

The pressure that must develop in those 5 gallon pails a millisecond before they blow makes it easy to imagine it happening in game, too!

FWIW, African plains game "shooting" is not much different than shooting deer (eg. impala), elk (eg. kudu, wildebeeste, gemsbok, zebra) or moose (eg. eland). In my limited experience I did not see any difference in difficulty to kill, although I am told by those with greater experience that the African game is on average a little tougher.

I would have to bet that both the Cape buffalo and American Bison are probably capable of sucking up similar quantities of lead. The major difference seems to be that the Bison react (or don't react) like moose, but Cape buffalo get angry. Kinda like the difference between swatting a horse fly and a hornet.

Lions don't seem to have a very good comparison in NA.

Canuck

ps: I will try the buckets upside down next time!

pps: Markus, East or West, the Kootenays are a great place to live. I spend a lot of time "up the valley" myself. Just can't get enough of it, although the winters are a little on the long side.

Surely anything that travells supersonic will have a pressure wave in front and behind.
Also after hittng a target if the bullet decelerates below the speed of sound there is another shock wave. I dont know if this has any bearing on this topic or not, but the energy has to go somewhere?

griff

Waldog,
I have a theory, that African game tends to be tougher all around than N. American game only if it lives in a predatory area where it is constantly on the alert for Lions,Leopard, Hyenas, etc..Probably pumped with adrenaline constantly.....I know Cape Buffalo, when hunted hard and constantly are harder to kill and meaner n snot!!

I think the plainsgame in the Eastern cape kill about like our elk and deer, as they are not in a preditory area...

I think Lions are tougher and meaner than bears..I see bears as pretty soft, but when wounded are a force to be delt with...

I think "wild buffalo" (bison) and cape buffalo are equal in terms of what it takes to kill them, but Bison are somewhat more "laid back" and tend to give up quicker, but they are not adrenlined up by Lions every nite otherwise they would be a real force to deal with...When a Bison gets his dander up, apparantly he can be a real tornado on four legs, and very hard to kill indeed.

Now that is, like I said, my theory based on my years of hunting big game, and it may be totally wrong, but it seems to make since, at least to me......

I would tend to believe about any thing Doctori (Kevin Robertson) said about killing power as he has been a PH for a good long time and he is also a full fledged veterinarian...I read his words about a sudden rush of blood to the brain causeing a stroke, and I have no doubt that is why a high velocity bullet kills...I have also noticed buffalo when shot with a flat nose solid such as the GS Custom, expell a gusher of blood out both exit and entrance holes each time their front feet hit the ground..This is an awsome sight to behold...With conventional solids the entrance hole seems to close up and this omits air from entering the wound, so mostly you get blood from the nose and exit wound...again my theroy only....

I got a world of theories, little fact...

Fellow hunters,

Theories are fun but they need to be backed up by experimentation. Both "hydrostatic shock" and Kevin Robertson's theory that you can induce a brain aneurism with a bullet to the heart are not true.

Sometimes an animal goes down fast from the spinal cord being "tweaked" by the temporary wound cavity, and then bleeds to death while it is still unconscious.

The first link is to an article written by a friend who is a professor of veterinary medecine, and also a hunter.

http://civic.bev.net/SHAWNEE/digress.html

My friend Tom also says:

"There are only two mechanisms of traumatic death: nervous system damage
and/or anoxia resulting from low blood perfusion.

There's an excellent article on this subject by Martin Fackler that is
online, and it's the most convincing piece ever written on the subject. It's at:"

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4848/terminal/fackler.html

Jim,

Thanks for the links. I had not read them before.

No offence to your friend, but I do not see any compelling scientific evidence to believe his theory any more than Kevin Robertson's as it relates to disruption of the brain by massive increases in blood pressure.

I have an open mind on the matter, however, and feel that either could be right. I have never been a believer in the commonly held theory of hydrostatic or hydrodynamic shock causing massive damage to tissues (lungs, etc). But I do have trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that smashing the heart with a crushing blow could not cause an incredible increase in blood pressure that would travel directly to the brain in large vessels, where more sensitive capillaries would likely rupture under the strain and at least cause instant loss of conciousness, if not death.

Get a mental image of a fluid filled sac, like the heart, and then picture yourself smashing it with a sledgehammer. You know the fluid is going to burst out of the hoses leading from the sac at very high pressure. I am not sure that the milk jug example is too far out of line if you are strictly comparing it to a bullet striking the heart itself.

I have lost two young friends to anuerisms just from the increase in blood pressure associated with normal athletic activity. People commonly die from anuerisms caused by increased blood pressure while "pushing" on the toilet (shitty way to go ) or from sneezing. So it is not too far a stretch of the imagination for me to believe that a crushing blow to the heart (which should increase blood pressure an order of magnitude over a sneeze) could have the same effect on your average healthy being.

I guess the only way to know for sure would be to conduct an experiment by delivering high heart shots to a number of different subjects and follow up with an autopsy of the brain for signs of an anuerism. Guess I just have to go back to Africa in the name of science! Think I could get a gov't grant???

Canuck

LMAO Canuck! Excellent shot placement with that (shitty) joke! At any rate, I read the links too. And like you, I didn't find them all that compelling. And certainly no offence is intended by this.

Anyway, I just got to thinking... ... I know, I know but bear with me. Just for discussions sake, I'm going to make a comparison and let the rest of you debunk it, bat it around, or make fun of it as you please. And I won't take offence myself as it's just a thought.

I have on my desk a perfectly mushroomed .338 slug and my favorite Muzzy broadhead. The diameter of the mushroomed bullet is 0.81" which would cut a wound channel with a circumfrence of ~2.5". The broadhead has three blades each cutting 0.61". Double this measurement to find the wound area on each side of the blade, then multiply by 3. (.61 x2sides x3blades= 3.66) The wound channel left by the arrow is by these measurements has a greater surface area than the bullet. (can that be right? )

Assuming complete penetration, identical paths, through identical animals which will kill faster? Has anyone noticed a quantative difference in post mortum vitals between rifle and bow shot animals? A qualatative difference of how rifle/bow shot animals die? Is energy a factor?

What are your thoughts?

I have been thinking about this a fair bit lately now and I like waldogs question about the broad head vs bullet.

I started to think about it as compairing a surgical knife cut to a hit with a baseball bat. I know that is by no means scientific or even that compairable but the baseball bat will cause major trauma to the body and it will also obviously cause massive inturnal bleeding as well. But the knife cut would do major damage as well but with far less of an induced shock.

I have never bow hunted but I have seen alot of kills on TV hunting shows and it seem that every cause I have seen the animal ran for some distance before dieing.

The bear I shot this spring with my 300RUM was spun right around and knocked onto the ground by the force of the shot.

I find it hard to believe that energy acting like that would not end up killing faster.

If you imagine a large shoulder muscle reacting to a high energy hit it seems to me that the shock through the muscle could be enough to break bones with out the bullet ever coming into contact with a bone. I havn't seem that many kills to know if this type of thing actually happens though.

A broad head though is with out a doubt a very clean and "surgical" wound that causes massive damage but I don't think it actually damages anything it doesn't contact directly. But then again I have never bow hunted.

Ever hear about a baseball umpire being killed by a pitch hitting the chest or similar story? Guys being killed by a hard punch to the chest?

I'm purely speculating though and I really doubt there is much evidence out there other than what people have witnessed from experience.

The correct terminology is hydrostatic shock, not hyrostatic kill. The term hydrostatic shock refers to the result of a bullet passing through tissue. Hydrostatic shock produces tissue failure and sytem shut down in most all cases. That statment is misleading in the fact that every single game animal no matter their size will react differently when struck by a bullet. One will drop as if struck by lightning, another will act if nothing at all happened. Any bullet striking tissue kills by destroying that tissue and it will no longer support life. Few creatures can or will survive being struck in the heart lung area by a bullet. That is still not an absolute and anything can will happen in any given case.

People will debate this until the end of time, but I am with Ray on this one. I have killed more game than most people with all kinds of bullets, and I believe that shock does kill smaller animals faster. Shot placement being equal, Deer, Impala, Blesbok, Warthogs, and the like run every time when hit with a 165 grain Trophy Bonded from my .308. Same shot, same gun, but a 165 gr. Ballistic Tip and 9 out of 10 times they collapse.

I don't really care about any reports or scientific theories. I don't believe that any amount of theorizing can take the place of actual field research. As some of you may recall, I am currently developing my own hunting show and have been hunting a lot with a cameraman. I switched to Ballistic Tips hoping for more dramatic kills on these aniamls and I got them. Everything I have shot so far with Ballistic Tips has dropped instantaneously. I have used them in the past with equal results, and until I go back to Africa or hunt bigger game here, I am going to keep shooting them. While I prefer a controlled expansion bullet like the TBBC, I love getting quality kill shots.

Greg,

You wrote:

"I don't really care about any reports or scientific theories."

That speaks for itself. There is no hydrostatic shock. There is the effect of the temporary wound cavity.

The guy who wrote the text on the first link is a professor of vet medecine at a large Eastern Vet School. This is his professional opinion, backed up by a lot of work with animals.

The Fackler paper is from a peer-reviewed scientific journal (International Wound Ballistics mumble), it is not just some "stoff" I found on the Internet -- and there is a lot of that around as we see here. Fackler's results are repeatible

Also I understand aneurisms result from weakened vessel walls. They won't stand up to pressures that a "normal" vessel would tolerate.

Blowing up jugs pressed full of a non-compressible liguid does not compare to conditions in a body, although it is dramatic.

jim dodd

[ 11-27-2002, 02:28: Message edited by: HunterJim ]

I find the rush of blood to the brain and a resulting stroke theory very believeable, I am also convinced that there is, especially in the case of the sudden death shot, more to death by a gunshot wound than mere tissue damage/hemmorage.

One other thing that I cant ignore on this issue is considering the relativley low amount of force required to knock out a prize fighter when simply placed just so, as opposed to the amount of force generated by a bullet. The central nervous system matters, and if there is in fact a shockwave effect then the spine would surley know about it, especially if bone is directly struck.

Another possibility Ive considered is a sort of traumatic overload from all of the above. Over 50 amps and she goes POP! Hmmm... !

Jim,

FWIW, I agree with Fackler's report in its entirety. It seems like common sense to me, and supports my personal understanding of wound ballistics. He report does not, however, speak much to the difference in wound channel cause by standard hunting (expanding) bullets (other than to say they cause a much greater permanent cavity), and he doesn't even mention the specific circumstance that I was referring to above (whether a direct hit to the heart when the atria are full of blood would cause a surge of blood pressure to the brain with potentially CNS disrupting effects).

Your friends article is also well written and very believable. I do not dispute any of his opinions, or his qualifications. I just do not see any compelling scientific evidence that would lead me to believe his assertions over those of Kevin Robertson's (a trained veterinarian and experienced PH). In fact, it is possible that Kevin Robertson's qualifications/experience could carry more credibility as it is likely that he has autopsied (sp?) a greater number of gunshot wounds in animals. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I have an open mind on the subject, but it makes sense to me that compression of the heart (containing a non-compressible fluid -- blood) could elevate blood pressure enough to damage tissue in the brain. Normal anuerisms are undoubtedly caused by weak vessels, but how great of a pressure increase can normal, sensitive cappillaries in the brain withstand?

I think the only way to know for sure would be experimentation. In the meantime, I'll keep my mind open.

Canuck

[ 11-27-2002, 08:03: Message edited by: Canuck ]

Strokes are either hemorragic (a burst vessel in the brain) or occluded (a clot in a vessel in the brain). It's hard to believe a punctured heart could massively increase blood pressure enough to burst vessels in the brain. But instant loss of blood pressure causes fainting. Seems to me a punctured vascular system is much more likely to de-pressurize than send a high pressure wave to the brain severe enough to hemmorage. I'd put my money on an instant loss of blood pressure to the brain, which = lights out. But then again, I'm not a vet. Bob

I shot a steel can of pumpkin pie filling at 30 yards with my 30-06. The can just seemed to disappear. If there was a brief orange cloud of pie filling, I missed seeing it. As you can imagine, the lid came off and went up quite high in the air.

What happened to the rest of the can was a surprise. I thought the can would rip open at the seam. It ripped open alright, but the contents were in such a hurry to get out, they didn't pay attention to where the seam was. The can was torn to pieces. I found four or five little rectangular pieces as small as 1"x2". The can bottom was bulged, and there was a torn-off ring of the can body still attached at the bottom seam.

The bullet imparted enough motion to the contents of the can that the contents were able to tear the steel in several places. Obviously, the first tear in the can (or the lid coming off for goodness sake) did not relieve enough pressure to keep the other tears from occurring.

I surely would not want to have a can of pumpkin pie filling sitting near my vitals when some ya-hoo decides to shoot it.

H. C.

I just have a few comments on the stroke... One, the instantanious pressure spike idea would be fine if what was occuring was a closed system, however, as the pressure increases most of the distant arteries would probably expand enough to take the pressure. The ones that dont are the ones you see around the local area (brused jelled ect..). Secondly I never have seen any bursted arteries in the head or elsewhere a distance from the wound, from my own experiance. Maybe others have ? Third... strokes are generialy not instantanious. In my observation most animals seem to have 5-15 seconds of useable mobility left when shot and sustaining a wound that probably left them with zero blood pressure, however some just drop on the spot... beats me.
just some thoughts
take care
smallfry

Hi all,
Just going to throw a spanner in the works!
This topic intrigued me so much that I consulted a friend of mine in the military. Heres what he had to say:
When a target is hit with a supersonic bullet the first entry wound is made by the pressure wave in front of the bullet, there is also a pressure wave behind the bullet.
Internal destruction is caused by the shock wave and not the bullet! Of course there is a wound channel but the majority of the damage is caused by the supersonic shock wave!

Any body else heard of this?

Griff

Roll up your pant legs. That's deeper than I will wade through. I doubt any military doctrine taught by a competent instructor ever told him that one. Sounds like a new urban legend. Run away, run away!

I finished off a moose with my 416wby that my son shot in the lungs with his 308win at 200yds year before last. The moose ran about 75 yards out of his sight from where he was rested and stopped and looked back, I shot and hit high and right, he was quartering tward me some, facing my right about 100 feet below us.

The bullet went completely over his spine and down through the scapula stopping under the hide. The 400gr A-Frame dropped him like lightning, he was 59 1/2", a huge bull. It had to of shocked his CNS because he never even twitched, the shot had missed anything vital and was completely muscular damage only. You can see the entrance hole in this pic.

He was going to die with the lung shot sometime, but he was running the opposite way we had to pack him and there was only the two of us to pack him. He never acted like he was ready to die, more like just looking for where the shot was coming from.

I don't know if the hydrolic pressure exerted by a impact on the heart really causes that much pressure in the vascular system, with it being so large and having the ability to expand so much over the length of all its vessels and such, on top of that they're strong as hell too. Have to attach some tubes to one of them containers and see if they blow too.

Funny this came up, my brother just got back from Kodiak, he shot a deer with his FA 475 Linebaugh at 10 yards, top of the heart, thing just ran off aways. Another guy shot one in the heart with a 223, just ran, his dad dropped it with a 300wm with a neck shot. At least you know they'll die soon with a heart shot, if not instantly. Only shot I know of that stops them dead every time, is the spine.

Loved that Vidio, you shoot very fast too. Looked like a double rifle but you kept on shootin.



[ 11-29-2002, 12:07: Message edited by: Brent Moffitt ]

yes,hydro-static shock makes a big difference,shoot a deer with a 7mmstw with bullets going over 3300fps vs. a 3006 with bullets at 3000fps and youll get a quicker kill with the 7mmstw,even though the same shot placement(proven fact),the faster the bullet the quicker the kill in the vitals and in the non-vitals,due to the fact the faster bullet that completely penetrates and blows everything out the othe side.hydro-static shock is what makes the big exit hole and destroys whats going out the other side,bigger exit hole less chance of running off and being a one shot on the spot kill(drop them like lightning hit them shots).....very true.....

At our deer camp, we don't often see results from hydrostatic shock, BUT.
This year, one of the guys shot a doe with a 270 at 30ft, and a 150 BT. He broke both shoulders, no exit, bullet fragmented or something (no recovery). The result? We pretty much lost the entire shoulder on the off side. The deer continued to stand! I shot the same deer from the oposite side, distance 120 yards (Different angle), with a 30-30. My exit wound in the oposite front shoulder (170 Hornady interlock) was about 2". (eat right up to the hole) The deer was already dead.
The same guy (On his first deer) a few years back, shot behind the diaphram with his 270. Distance about 80 yards, exit was 6"
Guts were trailing behind the deer when it fell. (He was soundly berated for the shot) Now we know that the bullet did not expand to 6", so the shock wave, must be responsible for the hole.
To me, that clearly demonstrates the massive damage created by hydrostatic shock. Now, do you believe it is really needed? Or needed in the quantity that the 270 just demonstrated? Well, I use the 30-30 most of the time, so I have given away my position on that.

Bullshit indeed!!

Is there not a picture of a shock wave on the front cover of the early speer or sierra reloading manuals??

Griff

A simple comment in the form of a question as to griff's post. His friends comment sounded possible. If I am not mistaken there are posts here about the "ballistic gas envelopes" that surround bullets as they pass through flesh. I think someone even posted pics or a computer generated image. If his friend is military he would presumably be speaking of fmj rounds which would behave differently than soft point or expanding rounds.
I had a GFI outlet go bad a couple of summers ago. I lost about a hundred and fifty pounds of venison. To dispose of the meat we packed it in five gallon buckets and duct taped the lids down. Someone got the wonderful idea to shoot the meat buckets at an out of the way clay pit. Well we shot them and it was quite the eye opener. Meat blew out of the tops and split the buckets. I believe that if we had Canuks big bore we would have been covered in buck steak! Now I am no engineer but I know that our bullets did not displace that much space as to cause the the meat to fly into the air and split the buckets. What "hydro-something" caused the meat to fly and the buckets to burst with such force, and although it was not living, why wouldn't there be a similar effect on a live animal?