Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 49

Thread: If hydrostatic shock were a fact??

  1. #1

    If hydrostatic shock were a fact??

    I know there has been some discussion on this and I'm firmly in the camp that doubt this is an effective way to kill a deer but...

    If hydrstatic shock were a fact, say you could buy a hydrostatic bullet that assured you of a dead deer on every hit, where would we aim to hit our deer?

    The magic shock wave allows us to hit them anywhere and kill them so the issue becomes where would we chose to hit them. Now, in many circumstances I guess the answer is "I would aim at any bit I can see" but on balance I imagine that most stalkers would still be aiming for the chest in view of reduced meat damage and it is "centre of mass" and so presents the biggest target.

    I will be interested in what others think...

  2. #2
    To answer that question properly mate we would need to define hydrostatic shock but in my own theory, secodary fragments of either bullet, bone or a lump of tissue striking the spine I would say that this sort of bullet:

    Would be the most reliable for the effect above.

    Whether it would be reliable as a hunting bullet in real world conditions is another matter entirely.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Grandhubert View Post
    Whether it would be reliable as a hunting bullet in real world conditions is another matter entirely.
    Looking at the published ballistics I'd say not - deffo only for reasonably close range work, but good for what it was designed to do.

  4. #4
    What effect would the hydrostatic shock have on the rumen if you aimed irresponsibly. I would not want to gralloch it, hose it out or eat the meat.

    I do agree with the principal though, but shot placement is everything and negates the argument IMHO

  5. #5
    And hence the underlying fallacy in the shock argument, a bullet designed to transfer it's kinetic energy into instant tissue destruction may very well cause instant incapacitation in a number of instances, on the heart lung shot, but does not do so infallibly and therefore in consideration of the risk of break up on shoulder bones and total failure, is a rather false goal for a hunting bullet.

    A varmint bullet is another matter, here bullet weight as compared to game weight more or less ensures penetration to a sufficient degree to include vitals in the sum of the permanent and temporal wound cavities.

    It's nice when they drop from a chest shot but I think it is wooly thinking to make instant lethality, rather than humanely rapid lethality, the ultimate aim if in doing so the price is inability to take all but perfectly broadside shots.

    One could of course wait for all deer to either turn broadside or leave them, that is another valid option if using explosive bullets.

    I've just come back from Africa and shooting about twenty animals from 30-300kgs with a 180 grain bullet at 2600fps from my 06, some dropped some ran, all were recovered. I would not have liked to take the quartering shot on the blue wildebeest with hollowpoints and would not have wanted to bugger about changing ammo in my rifle if an impala had stepped out if I was loaded with the big softs.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by dieseldan View Post
    What effect would the hydrostatic shock have on the rumen if you aimed irresponsibly. I would not want to gralloch it, hose it out or eat the meat.

    I do agree with the principal though, but shot placement is everything and negates the argument IMHO
    Extrapolating from those internet prarie dog shooting videos if your calibre was large enough it would blow the thing into pieces and up into the air.

    This would not be shock, rather conservation of momentum.

  7. #7
    I don't doubt the phenomenon for a moment, although I doubt very much whether it, alone, plays any great part in almost any kill.

    If such a round did exist, presumably it would need to be a right thumper of a thing with the miraculous property of not causing any blood loss. Death by whacking!

    I feel I should point out that the meat of animals which are beaten to death is forbidden to certain religious groups. Presumably God doesn't like the idea either!
    /l\ Y gwir yn erbyn y byd /l\

  8. #8
    I think in theory it sounds realisitc however...a while back I shot at a Rabbit at 130 yards with my 22.250 with 55g bullet. Unfortunatyely the Rabbit moved forward as I fired. I got to the Rabbit to find that I had hit the back end of it which had totally destryed the rear end. It was still very much alive!!! Despatched it quickly. Surely if Hydrostatic shock was a fact it could not possibly still be alive for probably 4 mins.

  9. #9
    Having read several of the links from the other threads on this topic, can we please dispense with the term "Hydrostatic Shock", as this is a misnomer;
    I quote:
    "I don't know where this term originated, but it is pseudoscience babble. In the first place, these are dynamic - not static - events. Moreover, "hydrostatic shock" is an oxymoron. Shock, in the technical sense, indicates a mechanical wave travelling in excess of the inherent sound speed of the material; it can't be static. This may be a flow related wave like a bow shock on the nose of a bullet in air or it may be a supersonic acoustic wave travelling through a solid after impact. In terms of bullets striking tissue, shock is never encountered. The sound speed of water (which is very close to that of soft tissue) is about 4900 fps. Even varmint bullets do not have an impact velocity this high, let alone a penetration velocity exceeding 4900 fps. Unless the bullet can penetrate faster than the inherent sound speed of the medium through which it is passing, you will not observe a shock wave. Instead, the bullet impact produces an acoustic wave which moves ahead of the penetration. This causes no damage.

    Some people use "shock" in the colloquial sense to describe a violent impact, but it is confusing, especially in connection with the term "hydrostatic" and lends undeserved quasi-scientific merit to the slang. It also tends to get confused with the medical expression attending trauma. We are not describing any medical shock. The word shock should never appear in a gun journal.
    Before I become too dogmatic and overstate the situation, let me concede that there may be some merit to the idea that hydrodynamic (not hydrostatic) impulse created by bullets which have a high kinetic energy and generally exhibit violent cavitation, can cause some secondary effects due to pressure on the nervous system or heart."

    So, if we are to discuss this topic, can we please give it the correct terminology and not use an oxymoron.

    Blindness to suffering is an inherent consequence of natural selection. Nature is neither kind nor cruel but fiercely indifferent.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Iwrch View Post
    Death by whacking!
    Heavens! Blindness, yes... but death?

Similar Threads

  1. Hydrostatic shock, fact or myth?
    By Tamus in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 15-04-2011, 09:10
  2. I just had a shock
    By JAYB in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 18-09-2010, 11:10
  3. AOLQ Fact Sheet gone AWOL
    By Orion in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 22-08-2010, 17:47
  4. Federal classic (power shock)
    By 1995rs in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-07-2010, 06:48
  5. ammo price shock
    By griffshrek in forum Ammunition, Reloading & Ballistics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 30-01-2010, 13:00

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts