Canuck ,

Here is a bit more correspondence from my vet medicine source on wound balllistics.

"Fackler published in a "real" journal, and is a reputable scientist. He
doesn't get much press in the gun-zines, and not many people in the general
population have the slightest idea of what "science" and the scientific
method are, let alone how to interpret data. The argument he makes in the
IJWB is irrefutable to anyone whose background includes scientific training
and a lot of anatomy and physiology, but all Bubba has to do is see a
picture of a watermelon exploding from a Silvertip, and he's convinced
Fackler HAS to be wrong and Mashall and Sanow HAVE to be right.

Some myths die hard and some don't die at all. Hydrostatic shock is one of
those absolutely immortal myths, it seems."

jim dodd

Your average hunting bullet is spinning at between 150,000 and 200,000 rpm when it hits its target. The higher the velocity and faster the barrel's rifling twist, the higher the bullet rpm. As the bullet passes through its target it transmits energy from this spin into the tissue. My understanding is that the primary mechanism of transfer is hydraulic, given the high liquid content of tissue. The resulting energy wave has motion potential arising from all factors including the rpm (speed of the outside circumference of the bullet), bullet expansion (mushrooming), velocity and momentum (or are velocity and momentum redundant?). That energy wave, call it what you will, causes an instant, rapid and violent parting and contracting of surrounding tissue. This pressure wave extends beyond the actual wound channel, paralyses muscle and other tissue, and causes the "pulping" that we see and other haemorrage effect. Yes, it is the energy transfer that kills, and a high percentage of the transfer is from the kinetic energy of the bullet spin. No? Perhaps the engineers among us can expand on this.

PS

INNNNNNNNNTERESTING. Fackler's article says no to my post. He says that the "wave" is a stretching medium, but that bullet fragmentation is necessary to cut tissue or most stretched tissue survives. Hmmmmmmm. Then what about the masses of pulped tissue we see in some high velocity hits? My first deer was a mulie hit at close range with a .130 grain .270 bullet doing about 3200 fps. The hit was centre shoulder and the entire facing shoulder was a mass of pulped, spongy purple tissue. It looked like the entire lymphatic content of the shoulder had gelled in place. The meat was, as we all know, useless in the pulped area.

I have only read the first half of the article so far. Presumably either the balance of Fackler's article deals with this issue, none of it does or there are other theories? Anybody know?

[ 11-30-2002, 00:06: Message edited by: BBBruce ]

Stonecreek,
Could not have imagined how spooled up this topic has gotten. Whew! Anyway, my contension is that foot pounds don't kill. It is a handy reference for relative power levels between cartridges but its measure favors velocity in computation and that does not necessarily fly in the real world.

Track with me on this if you will:

The powder in the cartridge represents POTENTIAL energy stored in chemical form. That powder may be single base or double base, each group having approximately the same energy by unit weight regardless of type. The difference is primarily one of burn rate, which allows application in diferent cartridges. When ignited, energy is released or transfered to the bullet which leaves for the scene of the crime.

If you will look at the various ballistic tables and load tables you will find that in nearly all cases a given cartridge will produce the same energy regardless of the bullet used. So, with some degree of efficiency our projectile has the power now, and is tasked with application and distribution. One one hand we have the light, fast approach that emphasizes total transfer of energy to the target. Bullet hits, fragments, and we have a messy wound, usually fatal, often instantaneously. No exit wound. How hard did the bullet hit the animal? As hard as the butt hit you. Action=opposite and equal reaction. The laws of physics cannot be suspended for our sport. The energy was applied differently to the target and produced different results certainly.

The other philosophy, often associated with Elmer Kieth says bigger and slower is better but that is not my point. Due to the nature of the bullet construction and its size it passes through the target and applies even less energy in the final analysis yet leaves a rather large and permanent wound channel. By permanent, I mean one that does not close.

I can use the same cartridge in the same gun with different bullets to demonstrate this, and that was my point. They will, if loaded to the same pressure, generate about the same energy levels. Some super go-fast small bores generate far more FT. LBS. than more pedestrian large bores, but this is NOT an accurate index of their ability to kill a particular animal. Once the bullet is evergized, what happens depends on its construction and that of the target. And none of what I've said here has squat to do with the raging debate of this thread.

Of course energy is important, it is the terminology I don't like. Ft LBS has little more validity than Momentum does, that being the favored yardstick of big bore fans. I'm not sure that there is an accurate way to label it actually. Perhaps, "Grains of powder"? That would conclude my speech.

[ 11-30-2002, 02:20: Message edited by: DigitalDan ]

Purely taking the phrase "supersonic shock wave" for what it is, implies... no, "states"... that you've got some "shock wave" traveling at supersonic speeds. That's what you're saying. And again, I'm saying "bullshit."

Are there any jet fighter pilots (or "Naval Aviators" if you're of that persuasion) running around on this website? Have any of you "seen" a "shock wave" that is traveling at supersonic speeds? Do any of you have even the slightest understanding of what is involved in breaking the sound barrier???

What the "friend" alleges is based on "Bubba-isms" and not on empirical evidence.

Okay, though, let's say there IS such a thing as a "supersonic shock wave" set up by a bullet in flight. So, um, what happens to this "wave" when it hits an animal, huh? It just stops? Bounces off the flesh? Oh, no... you're saying that it suddenly shrinks to the size of the bullet's caliber and THEN follows it (the bullet) into the animal... oh, but THEN, it opens back up "wave like," to make all kinds of "shock wave" damage inside the animal.

I've personally talked with Marty Fackler on these matters and have spent a tremendous amount of time studying forensic ballistics. Claiming "sonic" shock waves, let alone "supersonic" shock waves, are what rips the insides of a deer's guts to shreds is, again, "bullshit."

Russ

Regardless whether your hunting bullet is supersonic in the air, I guarantee you it is not supersonic in the animal.

The speed of sound in water is 4820 f.p.s. (1470 m/s). To be supersonic in water, your bullet needs to be moving with a speed greater than 4820 f.p.s.

Whatever "shock waves" or displacements of tissue take place in the formation of a wound channel, they are not due to the bullet's moving faster than the speed of sound.

H. C.

Don't you know Henry, that the supersonic wave actually opens up the hole ahead of the bullet and the bullet never touches the flesh at all, it is the compression of the sound wave against the nose of the bullet that causes the mushroom to even form. Couldn't resist. Thanks Henry, I never new that one.

I'm with Russell on this one. The displacement of other matter, becoming projected into other matter sounds like a good way to explain the absorbtion of energy and the oversize wound channels.

Russel,

Got me on that fine point. You're right of course. Lest we not forget, there is the odd stray gnat, which is the cause of nearly all of my missed shots of course. Last deer this year at 12-15 yards. Would that be a "gimme"?

W.Hunter, Leverage? 'splain that please. Inertia too.

[ 11-30-2002, 17:59: Message edited by: DigitalDan ]

W. Hunter,

Although I might have described it differently I understand your comments regarding leverage and essentially agree with you. I don't follow that agreement back to my previous post as I understood there was an objection regarding that issue.
As to inertia, you lost me. Without quoting the dictionary as to definition, inertia is NOT a quantfiable entity. Not in yards, pounds or time. It is a law of physics that states simply that bodies in motion or at rest remain in that state unless acted on by an external force. When a static object is moved, energy is transfered and thus it moves. In the context of this thread, a moving bullet slows due to aerodynamic drag and or the dynamics of its collision with a target, whereupon its(the bullet) energy is tranfered to the target and/or spent reforming the bullet(expansion). My contention about action/reaction is not speculation, but rather an observation based on the reality of physics and physical laws. You are quite correct regarding your observations about bullet size vs. gun/butt pad size/mass. It hadn't occured to me to regard it as leverage. And I have indeed fired a gun an inch from my shoulder. Not something I try to repeat on a regular basis.

The pulped shoulder is exactly why I don't recommend the 130 for the .270 here where average shots are within 50 yds. But I'd like to add one other thing to the pot. Butchering one of those shoulder pulped deer I found a small ( less than 1/8" ) piece of bone driven from the shoulder half way through the ham. That is the phenomenon of secondary missiles. It can do interesting things.

Hi Henry,
you are probaly right that the bullet is not supersonic when it enters/exits the animal.
However there are 2 shock waves, 1 is when the the bullet exits the muzzle this is because it has just broken the sound barrier, the other is when it decelerates below the sound barrier.
could it be that the thwack you hear when it hits the animal is the second?
And surely as any jet fighter pilot will tell you the sonic boom will break windows miles away.
This energy has to be transferred to the host somehow.
Varmint hunters call it red mist,even a fragmenting bullet will not cause that effect on its own, there has to be pressure from some where?

griff

I gotta side with Russell in that the sound waves cause no damage inside an animal. But when a bullet strikes meat it tries to compress it. And since meat is roughly 80% water and you can't compress water it breaks up and you get the effect of shooting water jugs or something similar. Similarly when a bullet first strikes it still is sharp having not been deformed until it impacts so for the first little distance it separates its way through the tissue until it begins to mushroom when it becomes more of a plowing effect which would therefore cause a higher level of compression of tissues resulting in a wound channel that often grows as it passes through the body even though it is constantly and rapidly losing energy.

try and shoot just past the head of a grouse with your magnium. I don't think the sonic shock wave will make it do anything other than blink.

As Russell also points out it doesn't do anything to paper. Thats why we make expanding bullets and don't hunt with full metal jackets out of a 17 rem.

I don't have the physics degree here fellas but as far as this thing goes, I am with Russell. If buckets of meat and water jugs have any empirical value I don't know. Accelerating, uncompressable, displaced MASS becoming secondary projectiles, hmmmm. Yep, makes sense to me at least from all the gut piles I have pawed through.

fluids, suspension, and electrical system...

blood loss,broken spine/hip, severed CNS (can be associated with bloodloss.

even if "hydrostatic EFFECT" exists, it has to be in the right place...

AKA bullet placement

and then, the bullet has to stay together

AKA bullet construction

so, hit em well, hope the bullet stays together, and it's meat on the ground.

hit em with hydrostatic effect, in the guts behind the liver, and it's wounded beast, long stalk, and tainted meat.

sorry, not feel real charitable tonight
jeffe

Holy hydroponic shock waves!

Sonic shock waves from aircraft generate overpressures in the neighborhood of 3 PSF if the aircraft flys overhead approximately 100' above ground level. I cannot quote the source of this info as I saw it way too long ago. It was from Air Force research related to structure damage associated with incidental or intentional super sonic overflight. There was no evidence that the 'booms' could cause more than minimal damage in any scenario, ie. broken windows.

IMHO, it would be a bit(Texas sized 'bit') of a stretch to attribute any tissue damage to sonic shock waves. Particularly in light of the aforementioned fact that sound tranmission through water is faster than the projectile that causes the airborne wave. Once the wave changes tranmission mediums there is no sonic shock wave. (if I have another drink I think I can say that more better)
The photos taken of bullets that depict those same waves are done with a technique that takes advantage of air density changes across the wave that refract light and allow photography. The technique has a name but alas it is forgotten at the moment.

[ 12-01-2002, 08:21: Message edited by: DigitalDan ]

The problem with the atmospheric disturbance/"shock wave" theory is density. There is clearly a distint atmospheric disturbance surrounding a speeding bullet however, when the density of the atmosphere surrounding the bullet changes (the bullet strikes the animal) the form of the shockwave(s) can be expected to change dramaticly as well. I havent seen any photos of a bullet while passing through an animal latley to uphold the "two shockwave" idea. However it is obvious that a bullet effects more of the target than its own diameter.

Dan,

Im sure you would have splained it differently than me, and more eloquently as well Im sure.

As for inertia Im probably using the wrong terminology. Maybe velocity would be a better fit. What Im talking about is simply the movment that the bullet has, which contributes immensly to "how hard the bullet hits as opposed to how hard the butt of the rifle hits a shoulder". Which furthermore the butt of the rifle does NOT have unless held away. Inertia seemed like a better description than velocity but your right, it is not a quantifiable entity.

Another way to put it, the design of a weapon forces the "re-action" to take the path of least resistance, which concentrates the reactive energy into the bullet and out the barrel. Hence the notion that the shooter is hit as hard is a falacy. If the mass of a bullet were the same as the shooter then that would be painfull indeed, kind of like saeeds T-rex..

[ 12-01-2002, 19:19: Message edited by: Wstrnhuntr ]

At one time I had the opportunity to see (and watch the demise of) a whitetail deer hit in the carotid artery at a distance of 15 meters. That's the main one providing oxygenated blood to the brain. Most mammals, as I understand it, have two, each located in the neck on either side of the esophagus.

The deer did NOT run. The deer showed no effect except to walk off 10 meters and collapse to a "bedded position." Within 2 minutes , the deer simply laid it's head on the ground and stopped breathing.

"Autopsy" showed that the 22 LR bullet had impacted dead center on the left carotid, evidently causing no ancillary damage beyond evidently depriving the brain of the required blood supply necessary to sustain life.

The brain tissue, on stained slides did not exhibit hemoraghing (sic) and was normal in all aspects. The bullet did exit, so was not recovered.

Examination of the wound site showed little "hydrostatic / hydrodynamic" damage to the tissues surrounding the entry / exit.

Given that the artery, in a collapsed state, was roughly a bit less than 2.5mm, ("pressurized" = 4.5 / 6mm ?? ) such a shot was a fluke, unrepeatable, IMHO. But deadly nonetheless.

Proving to me, at least, WHERE� not how much.

Bi-refringent imagery (sp) Dan. This shock... supersonic shock wave stuff is silly... shock waves following bullets into a wound... BS. Shoot a empty closed cardboard box or spaced card board. Who said this anyway? Get out of the house and do alittle shooting once and awhile, who every you are.
smallfry

I remember seeing something about shock waves of some sort or another, way back when.
I don't remember most of it but I do remember this : There was an exercise with an ordinary wax candle the long skinny kind.
The guy took the the candle and started pressing it end first into a pine board and of course the candle just crumbled not even denting the board in the least .
Then he took another identical candle and loaded it into a muzzle loading rifle and shot it into the pine board.
When shot into the board the candle completely penetrated the board and was shown going through the board completely intact .
It was explained the when the candle flies that fast through the air there is a wave of sorts around it and that the candle itself does not make complete contact with the wood .

I think hydostatic shock is why it is hard to tell the difference between a rabbit shot with a 22-250 or 30-06 or 300 win mag since all three will vaporize the critter but I have found little use for it in my big game hunting.

Nobody has discussed the energy caused by the bullet spin and expansion, and the cause of the "pulped" lymphatic fluid or tissue seen on shot game, except for the mention of bone fragment. Any other ideas?

Canuck - nice video of the jugs of water and good shooting - inspires me to turn off the computer and go to the range - thanks - KMule

I doubt bullet spin has anything to do with much, just because the bullet is traveling so fast the spin over a foot is still only equal to your twist rate, not exactly a high speed drill on game. RPM sounds impressive but the bullet does not take a minute to penitrate, rather a very small fraction of a second.

The paper target example I think would put an end to the "shock wave/oversize wound channel" debate, guess not.

I don't believe that a shock wave kills an animal but i don't know the terminology of this but What causes an animal when shot to expand in the vital area upon impact of the bullet?I am talking about when shooting deer coyote and what not upon impact of the bullet the animal,in the mid section,balloons up so to say or expands.I agree that the bullet has to expand to deliver energy to the animal.I have always refered to this phenomenom as hydralic transfer.This is probably incorrect. I have no proof of this but i believe there is a difference in shooting game lets say with a .270 with 130 grain bullet at roughly 3000 feet a second and a 300 win mag with a 220 grain bullet.YES shot placement is a key factor but the energy behind the 220 grain is far more than the 130 grainer and the 220 is going alot slower.But if the shot is slightly off than point of aim the more energy that you have will offset that because of the transfer of energy to the surrounding tissue from the heavier bullet.Let me also say that an animal shot in the hind end no matter what caliber and bullet you use will not die cause of energy transfer or bullet construction or performance.What happens when someone is hit with a baseball bat and there is no wound cavity? The organs fail cause of a traumatic blow in the right spot from the baseball bat.This thread for me was confusing cause of all the jumping around but i have shot to many game animals to think that it is just the bullet expansion and wound channel that kill.Shot placement,bullet used,caliber and bullet wieght all play a role in the taking of game.

Sure are a lot of "experts" on this thread.
I'll be the first to say I don't know exactly why, but it's pretty clear that fast bullets despite their small size, generally do a lot of damage, and generally don't penetrate as well as slower big bullets of the same (expanding) construction, in flesh. Super sonic waves? maybe, high velocty energy transfer? something does it.

I believe hydrostatic shock killing power exists and does kill game up to the size of small whitetail with shoulder fired weapons with which a hunter is capable of withstanding the recoil.

I witnessed a small whitetail buck get hit through a spotting scope. He was shot with a 300WBY using 180gr bullets at about 100 yards. The comparison of his reaction would be similar to watching someone violently beat a small rug on a clothes line with a bat. However, I would not trust hydrostatic shock to be consistent on game animals. I would reley on caliber and bullets with good sectional density.

This is another one of them WTF topics. You know... WTF!! Don't some of these guys have anything better to do than think about this stupid shit?

Now.. go do some more research and testing with milk jugs, water balloons, and more preferably those prairie dogs in Denver.

Jim,
After reading both Fecler and Robertson, I am not sure they are in disagreement at all, Robertson just put it in everyday terms and related it to a drop in blood pressure that causes death and why...Certainly they are both qualified and deserve the respect of their professions...

As to the other posts when a bullet strikes it crates two phenomanons (sp? oh well) one is a temporary cavity that swells up every thing and destroys little blood vessels and causes bruising of the surrounding meaty tissue..This would heal without the other phenomenom and that is the permenent cavitatin wherein the bullet chew a big hole all the way thourgh in some cases and this will not heal, it lets the blood out and blood pressure falls and the brain is releived of oxygen and the animal dies..both Feckler and Robertson agree on this....With hi vel bullets sometimes this blood is forced or rushed through the veins and arteries and slams into the brain and has the same effect..this makes since to me, but I am not a wound specialist...

Hi guys!

Does the pressure wave make damage to the tissue like lungs and similar???

And is it the pressure wave of the bullet that make the wound channel??? I have seen wound channels in animals like moose that have been much larger than the bullet diameter. And the caliber have been .300 Win

That was my questions...! Thanks.