If hydrostatic shock were a fact??

[caorach]

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...

 

[Grandhubert]

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: http://www.rwsmunition.de/en/projec...26&PHPSESSID=d36abf1e4713e18b8887266132457689

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.

 

[Orion]

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.

http://www.rwsmunition.de/en/projectiles/geschoss_berater.htm?navid=&geschoss=FS

 

[dieseldan]

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

 

[Grandhubert]

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.

 

[Grandhubert]

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.

 

[User00023]

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!

 

[204 Ruger]

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.

 

[flytie]

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; http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/myths.html#energy
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.

ft

 

[Dalua]

Death by whacking!

Heavens! Blindness, yes... but death?

 

[User00023]

Heavens! Blindness, yes... but death?

Bugger!!!!!!

flytie will be after me for inappropriate terminology.

 

[jingzy]

Well spotted FT, I for one thought it was hydrostatic shock. I have learnt, yet again . HYDRODYNAMIC shock, yes I believe in the theory. Deer drop on the spot for different reasons, nervous system shots are a prime example. I have frequently shot deer from quartering away and I think they drop quickly due to the wind being taken away from them. I also believe that a bullet going through the correct area will cause a blood pressure surge that can knock out a deer causing it to drop. This phenonemom will not happen all the time, but is part of the variety of effects that a projectile will have on an animal.

 

[Bob]

+1 for flytie and Jingzy. I took so long typing this out that Jingzy got his reply in before me.

I am not particularly interested in studying the actual mathematics myself (not my favourite subject) but Rathcoombe sounds right to me.

Consider that every day animals and people are cut open for medical reasons, their organs are moved about slowly , hearts are even cut open, repaired, returned to their original position and sewed up again, and hopefully the patient is then restored to as normal a life as possible. The result being that they mostly live and get over the medical trauma
.
So why do they live when shot animals die?

Fishermen know that when fishing for trout a 1lb trout can break a 6lb line by a ‘smash’ take where the trout takes the fly at high speed. Beach fishermen use a 50 or 60lb ‘shock leader when casting to avoid the much lighter main line (say15 to 20lb) line snapping under the high impact load of casting a 6oz weight. Climbers know that their ropes have different breaking strains for dead loads and imposed loads and if you have ever had your vehicle towed by an idiot who rather than taking up the strain slowly and smoothly but accelerates rapidly away from a standing start then you will have experienced a broken tow rope.

When a bullet passes through a block of ballistic gelatine, then depending on the size and shape of metaplat of the bullet and the speed of the bullet two cavities are produced, a permanent cavity, which depends on the diameter of the bullet's metaplat and a temporary cavity which depends on the speed of the bullet and the shape and diameter of the bullets metaplat. These results can be observed and I am certain that if you pushed a metal rod shaped like the final shape of a deformed bullet slowly through a block of ballistic gelatine then you would observe the same permanent cavity without a temporary cavity. Also the faster the any particular combination of metaplat and bullet travels then the more energy is transferred into the ballistic gelatine to create the temporary cavity
.
If an animal is hit in the heart and lung area when the temporary cavity is very rapidly formed and then collapses the vital organs and the major blood vessels and nerves are rapidly displaced then depending on their individual strength/fragility/elasticity they will be undamaged, damaged or shattered.

Fragments of displaced bone and tissue blasted through vital organs obviously have an adverse effect and will kill an animal as will a bullet piercing a vital organ.

I am certain also that if the chest cavity is struck hard enough to compress the heart then a surge of blood pressure will be felt even out to the body’s extremities. If you don’t believe this think about people having their heart started again by mechanical means when it stops or just feel your pulse. I believe that the brain can be damaged by high blood pressure bursting blood vessels in it, similar to a stroke. It may be just enough to stun the animal to allow it to bleed out sufficiently to incapacitate it before it finally expires.

Ideally any shot in a vital area will have a combination of these factors to ensure incapacitation and a quick death.

To suggest that Rathcoombe’s theories mean that a deer shot in the haunch should die from ballistic shock is to misread it, however I have read that during the 100 days war between Finland and Russia some soldiers who were killed by tank fire had not been penetrated by the round , it had just been so close that it had brushed against their ski. Their bodies were bruised all over with no other visible sign of wounds (no post mortems were carried out it’s just that equipment was in short supply and therefore valuable). Never been in combat and can't speak from personal experience.


Bob

 

[flytie]

Bugger!!!!!!

flytie will be after me for inappropriate terminology.

Anyone got any honey?

ft

 

[flytie]

+1 for flytie and Jingzy. I took so long typing this out that Jingzy got his reply in before me.

I am not particularly interested in studying the actual mathematics myself (not my favourite subject) but Rathcoombe sounds right to me.

Consider that every day animals and people are cut open for medical reasons, their organs are moved about slowly , hearts are even cut open, repaired, returned to their original position and sewed up again, and hopefully the patient is then restored to as normal a life as possible. The result being that they mostly live and get over the medical trauma
.
So why do they live when shot animals die?

Fishermen know that when fishing for trout a 1lb trout can break a 6lb line by a ‘smash’ take where the trout takes the fly at high speed. Beach fishermen use a 50 or 60lb ‘shock leader when casting to avoid the much lighter main line (say15 to 20lb) line snapping under the high impact load of casting a 6oz weight. Climbers know that their ropes have different breaking strains for dead loads and imposed loads and if you have ever had your vehicle towed by an idiot who rather than taking up the strain slowly and smoothly but accelerates rapidly away from a standing start then you will have experienced a broken tow rope.

When a bullet passes through a block of ballistic gelatine, then depending on the size and shape of metaplat of the bullet and the speed of the bullet two cavities are produced, a permanent cavity, which depends on the diameter of the bullet's metaplat and a temporary cavity which depends on the speed of the bullet and the shape and diameter of the bullets metaplat. These results can be observed and I am certain that if you pushed a metal rod shaped like the final shape of a deformed bullet slowly through a block of ballistic gelatine then you would observe the same permanent cavity without a temporary cavity. Also the faster the any particular combination of metaplat and bullet travels then the more energy is transferred into the ballistic gelatine to create the temporary cavity
.
If an animal is hit in the heart and lung area when the temporary cavity is very rapidly formed and then collapses the vital organs and the major blood vessels and nerves are rapidly displaced then depending on their individual strength/fragility/elasticity they will be undamaged, damaged or shattered.

Fragments of displaced bone and tissue blasted through vital organs obviously have an adverse effect and will kill an animal as will a bullet piercing a vital organ.

I am certain also that if the chest cavity is struck hard enough to compress the heart then a surge of blood pressure will be felt even out to the body’s extremities. If you don’t believe this think about people having their heart started again by mechanical means when it stops or just feel your pulse. I believe that the brain can be damaged by high blood pressure bursting blood vessels in it, similar to a stroke. It may be just enough to stun the animal to allow it to bleed out sufficiently to incapacitate it before it finally expires.

Ideally any shot in a vital area will have a combination of these factors to ensure incapacitation and a quick death.

To suggest that Rathcoombe’s theories mean that a deer shot in the haunch should die from ballistic shock is to misread it, however I have read that during the 100 days war between Finland and Russia some soldiers who were killed by tank fire had not been penetrated by the round , it had just been so close that it had brushed against their ski. Their bodies were bruised all over with no other visible sign of wounds (no post mortems were carried out it’s just that equipment was in short supply and therefore valuable). Never been in combat and can't speak from personal experience.
Bob

Bob, If you read the quote I gave from Rathcoombe you will notice he also said, "The word shock should never appear in a gun journal".

ft

 

[Muir]

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...

I think everyone is missing the totally sci-fi, hypothetical nature of this post. We are taking how/where you would shoot a deer with an "instant death" bullet. I'll answer this: In the tip of either ear, or the hooves, or the tail... maybe the tip of the nose or the jaw. The knee, perhaps... Anywhere that doesn't damage meat.

Now in the real world, as I said on the other thread, I will rely on the bullet damaging vital, blood and oxygen delivering organs. To rely on anything else is silly. JMHO~Muir

 

[flytie]

I think everyone is missing the totally sci-fi, hypothetical nature of this post. We are taking how/where you would shoot a deer with an "instant death" bullet. I'll answer this: In the tip of either ear, or the hooves, or the tail... maybe the tip of the nose or the jaw. The knee, perhaps... Anywhere that doesn't damage meat.

Now in the real world, as I said on the other thread, I will rely on the bullet damaging vital, blood and oxygen delivering organs. To rely on anything else is silly. JMHO~Muir

Sanity!!!!! Thanks Muir

ft

 

[Thar]

I also believe that a bullet going through the correct area will cause a blood pressure surge that can knock out a deer causing it to drop. This phenonemom will not happen all the time, but is part of the variety of effects that a projectile will have on an animal.

I think this sums my view on this topic, as well.

ATB

Tahr

 

[Grandhubert]

Er chaps, I think the point is not linguistic is nature, rather centring on the phenomenon.

The word hydrostatic is indeed mis-applied, however so would any other word be unless we define the phenomenon we are talking about.

 

[Cyres]

Must say agree with Bob. Futher to earlier posts this week I spent some time on google, and searches on high velocity/ bullet wound trauma revealed a huge ammount of reading. Unfortunately most is based on military bullets so not strictly relevent to deer stalking.

There does however seem to be some concencus on the damage caused by high velocity small calibre bullets. From my limited experience 65 grn v maxs are devestating. When I have fully digested all the above info I will post a summary.

D