Terminal Ballistics

[caorach]

Hydrostatic shock is a well known phenomena, if you look at any tests that have been conducted on ballistic gel the amount of “tissue” damage can clearly be seen were the gel has turned “milky”.

Who is it well known by? This is something that I certainly know very little about, at any level, but how exactly does the temporary cavity cause a deer to die? What exactly is this "hydrostatic shock?" What is the mechanism by which a deer with no damage to the vital organs would die from this hydrostatic shock? Why did animals not die when hit by the Barnes bullets which "penciled through?" There is considerable evidence of such things happening and the bullets were often launched at very high velocities from magnum cartridges leading to the conclusion that they would have been expected to produce lots of this hydrostatic shock but they created tiny permanent wound channels and if a vital organ wasn't hit the animal was often lost.

The area of ballistic gel which goes milky after the passage of a bullet is, in my rather basic understanding, the temporary cavity, that is to say it is the area which opens up as the bullet passes and closes afterwards. My belief, and this is certainly not a subject on which I have much knowledge, was that the science indicated that the size of this temporary cavity was unimportant in terms of the death of the subject. (the little information and firm science on this topic appears to mostly relate to attempts to kill people or to quantify what is necessary to kill people which seems rather inappropriate but its all we've got)

It is also the case that many large and very dangerous animals are shot using relatively low velocity but rather large bullets. When you consider elephant and cape buff for example you want a bullet which puts sectional density on your side and which carries significant momentum on its merry way. A bullet which trades momentum for expended energy as it deforms itself is not what is required. It would also be helpful to have a bullet which presents a flat, wadcutter type frontal surface as such a bullet is likely to maintain a straight path through a large animal.

Based on this logic I maintain my rather uninformed position that with common deer bullets it is likely most of the energy is expended in deforming the bullet (try and deform a bullet with you teeth to see how much energy it takes) and that rather low amounts of energy are requred to detach the heart or lungs from the rest of the body (You could, should you wish, do this quite easily with your teeth) in a manner which will ensure rapid death. I suspect that other, rather magical, mechanisms for death are unnecessary. This brings us right back to the beginning which is that you need to hit it in the right place with a bullet that maintains sufficient momentum to reach the vital organs and which uses its energy as it goes to deform the metal to create a larger hole.

 

[Muir]

One of the factrors in bullet performance that I see mentioned here on this forum is that "good" bullets are expected to drop deer on the spot. I can tell you that if you contacted a bullet maker and asked for their recommendation using that criteria, you wouldn't get an answer. They would tell you that how fast an animal falls is entirely due to shot placement with a given bullet.

A lung shot is a sure killer on deer. If it can't breathe, it dies, but not always where it's hit. A heart shot is the same deal: It may drop on the spot or run for 100M. You never know. Just about any reasonable bullet can make these kills. Shoot a deer in the spine or head and he's done for right then and there. A FMJ can get that accomplished. (I once killed a mule deer doe with a 22WMR one evening using a single shot to the head.)

If you don't want to track a deer, hit him in a spot that will make him incapable of moving on. It's that simple.

I said it earlier and others have echoed it; Shot placement is everything and there is no bullet that will make up for the lack of it. All my Yankee Opinion, of course.~Muir

 

[morena]

What is hydrostatic shock? How many stalkers have shot at a plastic bottle completely filled with water with a .177 air rifle. All you see is a hole appear in the bottle. Now shoot another with a deer legal rifle and the whole bottle explodes.
What happens is some of the kinetic energy ( 1/2 mv2 ) is transferred to the water causing the bottle to explode. Hydrostatic pressure in the popular press or more correctly ballistic pressure wave.

When a bullet strikes a deer 4 mechanisms come into play.

The initial one is crushing and laceration of the tissues. This is followed by the creation of ballistic pressure waves causing further damage to soft tissue and bone distant from the path of the bullet. The third is cavitation.
Some of the energy of the bullet is transferred to soft tissue which then expands to form a temporary cavity and then collapses leaving a permanent cavity of grossly damaged tissue. The final mechanism is, if bone is hit it fragments and these then act as secondary missiles causing additional damage. When the temporary cavitation collapses the result is negative pressure which sucks contaminated air into the wound.


Ballistic research people have come up with a formula for expanding bullets where the peak pressure waves are proportional to the kinetic energy divided by the penetration depth. In our case the bullet passes through the deer so not all the kinetic energy is expended.

The only info relevant to us I wa able to find was .308 winchester soft point.
7.62 bullets 9.7 gm travelling at velocity of 981 m/sec passed through the targets of 42 cm width and were recovered as 1.98 cm expanded 6.4 gm (ie +/- 33% fragmentation )

Experiments on pigs shot in the thigh have shown effects in the the brain ( hippocampus ).
The Strasbourg experiments on goats where pressure measuring devices were installed in the carotid arteries showed a massive increase in blood pressure to the brain causing damage when shot in distant parts of the body. No follow ups were made on these as PETA became involved/interested.

 

[caorach]

What is hydrostatic shock? How many stalkers have shot at a plastic bottle completely filled with water with a .177 air rifle. All you see is a hole appear in the bottle. Now shoot another with a deer legal rifle and the whole bottle explodes.
What happens is some of the kinetic energy ( 1/2 mv2 ) is transferred to the water causing the bottle to explode. Hydrostatic pressure in the popular press or more correctly ballistic pressure wave.

I don't dispute this but a deer is not a plastic bottle full of water. In fact, having no background in this sort of thing, I am always amazed at just how little there actually is in the chest of a deer. I would, therefore suggest, that tissue and the chest cavity of a deer will behave very differently to a plastic bottle.

Now, I can't dispute the assertion that having a high velocity bullet arrive, say, in the chest might impact upon the brain of a deer, as I've stated this is an area where I have no knowledge. However, recently I shot a deer in the chest at close range with a 308 and it ran 40 yards, it bled out into the chest cavity. If there had been instant damage to the brain caused by a pressure wave how was it able to run? If I'd shot it in the brain I am certain it wouldn't have run. So while there may indeed be damage to the brain I'm not at all sure that this damage makes a deer die fast.

I was also given to believe that the temporary cavity was not an important factor in killing something and that the effectiveness of a shot was related only to the permanent wound cavity. I suspect, though might be incorrect, that much of this research came as a result of some FBI shooting and the desire of the FBI to improve their ability to quickly kill the enemy. Has the science changed on this point?

Until I can find some science that demolishes my purely logical position, for I have no specialist knowledge of this field, I will remain convinced that the way to kill something is to put a hole in the right place. How quickly you drill the hole matters little nor does having to move a few things out of the way while you do the drilling. What does matter is that the hole is in the right place and that it is big, or at least big enough to allow rapid loss of blood and rapid death.

 

[Dalua]

Dacua
Hydrostatic shock is a well known phenomena, if you look at any tests that have been conducted on ballistic gel the amount of “tissue” damage can clearly be seen were the gel has turned “milky”.

'Hydrostatic shock' is certainly a well-known phrase, though I must say I don't understand what it means.
As a phenomenon I don't think I've ever observed it. Every shot deer I've had the chance to peer into has apparently died either from blood loss or CNS disruption, and in both cases the tissue damage which apparently caused death could easily be explained by a bullet and/or bone fragments having come into contact with the damaged areas.

I have seen parts, particularly of hinds, which could be termed 'milky' after the animal has been shot. Perhaps this 'milkyness' could be explained in terms of the results of the experiments which describe damage at some distance from the point of bullet impact?

What is hydrostatic shock? How many stalkers have shot at a plastic bottle completely filled with water with a .177 air rifle. All you see is a hole appear in the bottle. Now shoot another with a deer legal rifle and the whole bottle explodes.

I fear this is a dubious analogy of a particularly unhelpful kind: neither a mammal nor a mammal's cardiovascular system could be expected to behave like a sealed plastic bottle full of water.

Experiments on pigs shot in the thigh have shown effects in the the brain ( hippocampus ).

So? The pigs died? Or they just didn't remember stuff so well?

The Strasbourg experiments on goats where pressure measuring devices were installed in the carotid arteries showed a massive increase in blood pressure to the brain causing damage when shot in distant parts of the body.

So we shoot beast in the neck or chest only to prevent meat damage, rather than to kill them? Hang on, though: what if this 'brain damage' only knocked a few points off their IQ, rather than dropping them on the spot?

If a round deforms on entering a body but does not hit a vital organ directly, the hydrostatic shock, caused by the energy released from the bullet deformation, will more often than not kill the animal. The pressure wave created can burst blood vessels, both minor and major, and we have a kill.

I have never noted a single instance of a fatal wound in a deer where the mortal damage to blood-vessels could not be explained by direct contact with either the bullet or debris from its impact. I wonder if anyone else has?
The bullet deformation does not release, but rather absorbs energy. A bullet so deformed might well do more damage (i.e. transfer more energy) to the beast than one which did not deform.
As an aside, if a round actually did enter the deer's body, I'd get my rifle overhauled smartish.

I wonder whether we are for no obvious reason overcomplicating this subject? Is it a primitive urge (like that to go stalking, for example) to explain the commonplace in terms of the supernatural?

Until I can find some science that demolishes my purely logical position, for I have no specialist knowledge of this field, I will remain convinced that the way to kill something is to put a hole in the right place. How quickly you drill the hole matters little nor does having to move a few things out of the way while you do the drilling. What does matter is that the hole is in the right place and that it is big, or at least big enough to allow rapid loss of blood and rapid death.

Yup.

 

[morena]

I am sorry if the water bottle misled you what I was trying to illustrate was energy from one source being transferred to another. As mammal bodies are mainly water so tried to explain transfer of energy this way. I covered the topic of runners fairly fully under this heading.

http://www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27938&highlight=#279

I to have had runners where they should have fallen on the spot but haven't. Sika are notorious for this.

I was at a joint medical/vet meeting after the Falklands War and listened very carefully to one medic describing how an unfortunate soldier during a charge had his head blown off and still managed to run 50 or so yards.

When I was doing meat inspection I saw sheep walk after brain shots not often but surprising.

The FBI aren't the only people who do research on gun shot wounds.

 

[Dalua]

I am sorry if the water bottle misled you what I was trying to illustrate was energy from one source being transferred to another. As mammal bodies are mainly water so tried to explain transfer of energy this way.

No need to apologise.

Mammal bodies are mainly water, but nevertheless do not in my experience behave under impact remotely like a sealed plastic bottle full of water.

 

[Thar]

Kevin, I don't quite follow your argument here, if you are saying that the formula is applicable to a recovered bullet, ie after the event, how can it be applied to the same bullet before the deformation. Are there not too many variables in the bullets for this to apply, I doubt if a dozen recovered bullets from the same box fired by the same rifle at the same type of animal would all yield the same result. I know you say for all practical purposes but can we mix and match an exact measurement with near enough?
John

John

A pointed bullet is not pointed for very long once it hits a deer, this is the very reason we use expanding ammo. Therefore I see no problem with using the standard formula for working out the area of a circle to work out the frontal area of a bullet. As you say in the real world there are too many variables, but for theatrical argument we can assume these are constant the only variable is the bullet diameter. My point is that a small increase in diameter gives a much larger proportional increase in bullet frontal area:- larger frontal bullet area = bigger hole in deer = even more dead deer.

Caorach here you go.

It is unclear when the term "hydrostatic shock" first came into use to describe remote effects of penetrating projectiles, but Frank Chamberlin, a World War II trauma surgeon and ballistics researcher, noted remote pressure wave effects. Col. Chamberlin described what he called “explosive effects” and “hydraulic reaction” of bullets in tissue.
...liquids are put in motion by ‘shock waves’ or hydraulic effects... with liquid filled tissues, the effects and destruction of tissues extend in all directions far beyond the wound axis. [1]
He avoided the ambiguous use of the term “shock” because it can refer to either a specific kind of pressure wave associated with explosions and supersonic projectiles or to a medical condition in the body.
Col. Chamberlin recognized that many theories have been advanced in wound ballistics. During World War II, he commanded an 8,500 bed hospital center that treated over 67,000 patients during the fourteen months that he operated it. P.O. Ackley estimates that 85% of the patients were suffering from gun shot wounds. [2] Col. Chamberlin spent many hours interviewing patients as to their reactions to bullet wounds. He also conducted many live animal experiments after his tour of duty. On the subject of wound ballistics theories, he wrote: If I had to pick one of these theories as gospel, I’d still go along with the Hydraulic Reaction of the Body Fluids plus the reactions on the Central Nervous System.[1]
Other World War II era scientists noted remote pressure wave effects in the peripheral nerves.[3][4] There was support for the idea of remote neural effects of ballistic pressure waves in the medical and scientific communities, but the phrase "’hydrostatic shock’" and similar phrases including “shock” were used mainly by gunwriters (such as Jack O'Conner[5]) and the small arms industry (such as Roy Weatherby[6], and Federal “Hydrashock.”)

To me it is simple to understand (maybe for me it has to be) an animal body is mostly liquid, if you watch a boat move though water it sets up a pressure wave in front of it (wake). The faster the boat goes the bigger the pressure wave. A bullet moving though a body that is mostly liquid would also set up a pressure wave ahead of the bullet. For example if it hits an artery leading to the brain this wave pressure would travel up the artery and cause instant death/unconciousness.

If you shoot a deer with a high heart shot it drops on the spot, is this because of a pressure wave running though the main artery to the brain? Where a low heart shot will produce a runner that is capable of running a 100yrds.

I am not sure the comparison of shooting 12 ton Bull elephant and a 30kg roe deer are valid.

The legal minimum muzzle energy in England to shoot a Roe deer of a maximum live weight off 30kg is 1700ftlbs. OK you can kill them with far less powerful fire arms.

If you were to follow this logic out to its conclusion then the minimum muzzle energy to shoot a 12,000kg elephant would be 680,000ftbls.

Obviously it is not possible for a man to carry and shoot a firearm producing this amount of energy. As you point out we can assume there is not secondary damage, it is only organs that come into direct contact with bullet that kill the animal in the case of big game hence why bullet manufactures make bullets (solids) for shooting big game that nobody would use on deer.

Best rgds

Tahr

 

[Dalua]

To me it is simple to understand (maybe for me it has to be) an animal body is mostly liquid, if you watch a boat move though water it sets up a pressure wave in front of it (wake). The faster the boat goes the bigger the pressure wave. A bullet moving though a body that is mostly liquid would also set up a pressure wave ahead of the bullet. For example if it hits an artery leading to the brain this wave pressure would travel up the artery and cause instant death/unconciousness.

In my experience, the inside of a deer's body is not like a lake.
The water which makes up (as has been pointed out) most of a mammal's body-mass is not sloshing about freely, any more than it is constrained as in a full and sealed bottle made of inelastic plastic; rather it is contained within more or less elastic structures and tissues.
If the arteries were inelastic tubes the idea of a significant 'shock wave' travelling up the blood to the brain might be more convincing.

If you shoot a deer with a high heart shot it drops on the spot

Does this happen every time with a high heart shot?

Is this because of a pressure wave running though the main artery to the brain?

If it happened every time with a high heart shot, that might be so. I doubt it, though.



The idea of an expanding bullet making a big hole and therefore causing blood-loss leading to death is perfectly believable. Whether one bullet expands a few millimeteres more or less than another one might well not make the slightest difference in practice. I think the inherent unpredictablity of the behaviour of a bullet after impact on a beast would introduce so many uncontrollable variables as to make controlled studies impossible.

 

[caorach]

[I am not sure the comparison of shooting 12 ton Bull elephant and a 30kg roe deer are valid.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, my point was merely that it is normal to shoot elephant and other large and dangerous game with bullets travelling a lot slower than even a fairly standard 308 Win round. Quite clearly velocity and various magical effects thereof are not necessary to kill such large and determined animals, what is necessary to kill them is a hole in an important organ. This also brings the 45-70 and its use on the American bison to mind, at 1600 fps it was hardly a high velocity round.

I am afraid that I know nothing of Col. Chamberlin and so can't even attempt to discuss his position with any authority. It may be that he is absolutely correct but before I will be convinced I would need to see modern quantitative measurements of this effect and how it causes the death of a living organism. The science behind a hole in the heart/lungs is sufficiently well documented that I feel it is not necessary to "believe" in various other effects unless there is scientific evidence to support their existance. I'm not saying that it is impossible for them to exist nor that there may not be evidence for their existance just that I, in my ignorance, have never seen such evidence.

I still suspect that much of the energy expended by a bullet in a deer is actually used to deform the bullet and that the energy required to damage a deer sufficiently to kill it in a reasonable time period is probably a lot less than what is required for this bullet deformation.

While I appreciate the need or usefulness of high velocity cartridges when shooting at longer ranges it occurs to me that at rather closer ranges the hunter with a high velocity cartridge requires a more strongly built bullet. In effect what is happening is that he is using a bullet which requires more energy to deform it and so all his extra energy is being used to cause this deformation.

 

[Chops]

Thar,

If you look at a recovered bullet you will see that its frontal area is to all practical purposes flat, hence why the PiXrXr is valid.

I think we will agree to differ on whether the frontal area of a bullet is to all intensive purposed flat... sorry chap! A recovered bullet can have no true radius as it will have deformed.

I do agree though that I was wrong regarding cross section area of a bulletthough - it is directly proportional to the damage it can cause... though bullet shape must be taken into account...

Dalua-

If the arteries were inelastic tubes the idea of a significant 'shock wave' travelling up the blood to the brain might be more convincing.

Blood is more dense than the majority of the tissue around it - the laws of physics say that pressure waves travel faster through denser objects; this is why sound through sea water is approx 4.5 times faster than through air. The pressure wave (refered to as hydrostatic shock) passes through the body long before the elasticity of the vessels carrying the blood have a chance to absord the energy - as the energy disserpates the vessels will catch - and rupture- a distance away from intital wound.

If you guys doubt that hydrostatic shock exists or has any part in what a bullet does on entering a body that is your choice - look up stress waves and the associated rarefactions through fluids on the internet; alternativly have a look in "Ballistics: Theory and Design of Guns & Ammunition" by Carlucci and Jacobson (ch19,pg468-470), though mathematically heavy a very interesting read.

If you shoot a deer with a high heart shot it drops on the spot,

A bullet stike with send stess waves through any fluid or solid body - principle physical damage is caused by bullet; principle nervous damage is caused by stress waves - this has been previously proven by C.E. Peters in his work "Common Misconceptions in wound ballisitics" Journal of Trauma 1990, primarily these stress waves cause nervous damage but it is not uncommon to find that they have collapsed organs.

In my experience a high heart shot makes them arch high and drop on the spot. This is almost certainly the animal being knocked out by the shock wave and then dying from internal bleeding.

Cheers

Chops

 

[Chops]

Caorach -

I still suspect that much of the energy expended by a bullet in a deer is actually used to deform the bullet and that the energy required to damage a deer sufficiently to kill it in a reasonable time period is probably a lot less than what is required for this bullet deformation.

I think that you may have underestimated the energy in a bullet

- If you hit a bullet, that is stood on tail on a cocrete floor with a 14lb sledge hammer - swung at 12 metres/second - I would say that it would most likely deform the round - this would only be equivilant of 31.3ftlbs of energy. If a 100g round strikes its target with a velocity of 2500fps then its energy is 1387.7ftlbs.

Assuming a little energy is lost to friction during bullet deformation and during penetration where does all other energy go? It must be transfered somewhere or transformed into something...

Chops

 

[Thar]

Hi Chops

This bullets frontal area looks pretty flat to me.

The before shot.

caorach

I am not saying that velocity is the be all and end all, but things being equal I am convinced that a 150gn bullet travelling at 3000ftps kills better than 150gn bullet doing 2000ftps. While a 300gn bullet travelling at 1500ftps may kill as well as a 150gn its slower velocity brings too many of its own practical problems.

The deer act of Scotland recognizes this setting a minimum velocity of 2450fps.

Dismiss as hydrolastic shock as not existing if you wish, but it makes sense to me.

Best rgds

Tahr

 

[Dalua]

I have yet to see any evidence that blood vessels rupture at a distance from the expected direct physical injury caused by the bullet or bone fragments., though admittedly if you've taken the top off the heart , it really doesn't matter in the least what happens to the rest.

I have yet to see any evidence that these mysterious alleged 'shock' effects can put a beast down permanently without the involvement of the usual suspects, viz. adequate direct damage by bullet or bone bits to cardiovascular or central nervous system.

I have no doubt that on occasion some kind of 'nervous shock' might cause a rapid loss of consciouness or of coordination, but there seems little evidence that this happens often enough for it to be a major consideration in practice.

I think the mysterious 'shock wave effects' are a fitting subject for text-books.

Mr. Tahr's theoretical conviction that 150gr at 2000fps does not kill as well the same pill at 3000fps might be better explained in terms of greater expansion of the bullet, and therefore a bigger hole through the deer. On the other hand, with a bullet not designed for such an impact speed, the result might be quite otherwise.

Adequately large holes carefully placed through important bits of deer are in my view the thing to concentrate on.

 

[Chops]

Hi Thar - nice pics... the new bullet is cut well; what did you use? Diamond disc?

Flat yes - but not round... ie there is no true radius

I think this really comes down to bullet shape before and after deformation

Dalua -

I think the mysterious 'shock wave effects' are a fitting subject for text-books.

There is nothing mysterious about them, they have been around since bows and arrows. They have been accurately reported on since the Great War! They are not just in text books - but in every artical written, every journal note or publication concerning wound ballistics - please before dismissing, read! It is even a question in the DMQ level 1 exam!!

If the only object associated with terminal ballistics is whether or not a vital organ is hit or whether a vital supply is hit then please tell why:

1) This field is even studied by ballistic mathmaticians or ballistic scientists/designers?
2) Why a deer high arches and drops, on the spot, when the top of the heart is hit and not when similar blood loss occurs when the base of the heart is hit?
3) What causes the temporary wound channel as a bullet passes through its target (deer or ballistic gelatin)?

I totally agree that a big hole leads to a great deal of blood loss but there is a lot more to terminal ballistic than just big holes! A ballistic tip causes significantly more brusing than a standard softpoint - please tell me WHY? If this whole shock thing is quackery, please will you explain the 6" to 8" brusing left around the entrance ribcage when the penetration has clearly gone between the ribs? I certainly don't see it with a barnes to anything like the same extent (the reason I have gone over to barnes!)

I have yet to see any evidence that blood vessels rupture at a distance from the expected

When was the last time you looked for it?

I'm with Thar - believe what you wish. It makes perfect sense to me...

Cheers

Chops

 

[Dalua]

I think the mysterious 'shock wave effects' are a fitting subject for text-books.

There is nothing mysterious about them, they have been around since bows and arrows. They have been accurately reported on since the Great War! They are not just in text books - but in every artical written, every journal note or publication concerning wound ballistics - please before dismissing, read! It is even a question in the DMQ level 1 exam!!

Must be true then! I wonder why people are still debating it at all?

If the only object associated with terminal ballistics is whether or not a vital organ is hit or whether a vital supply is hit then please tell why:

1) This field is even studied by ballistic mathmaticians or ballistic scientists/designers?

The answer to this question is likely to raise more questions about the research than it answers.
They might be doing it from a disinterested scientific or academic point of view, to try to establish some facts about it.
On the other hand they might be doing it for some commercial or political advantage for themselves or whoever is paying them.

2) Why a deer high arches and drops, on the spot, when the top of the heart is hit and not when similar blood loss occurs when the base of the heart is hit?

Is this actually an established universal truth? I think I can recall deer running with the top of the heart off. Not running far, admittedly.

3) What causes the temporary wound channel as a bullet passes through its target (deer or ballistic gelatin)?

I don't think anyone is debating that one, are they? It is presumably energy transfer from the bullet to the gel or animal tissue.

A ballistic tip causes significantly more brusing than a standard softpoint - please tell me WHY? If this whole shock thing is quackery, please will you explain the 6" to 8" brusing left around the entrance ribcage when the penetration has clearly gone between the ribs? I certainly don't see it with a barnes to anything like the same extent (the reason I have gone over to barnes!)

Could it be that the bruising is extensive because of the early and dramatic deformation of the ballistic tip bullet compared to the Barnes causing, the BT to transfer more energy to the wrong bit of the animal (i.e. to the outer layer) compared to the Barnes? This might cause extensive disruption to the capillary beds near the surface of the animal with blood leaking into the tissue over a wide area, leading to very marked 'bruising'.
If the beast were hit with a golf-club, you'd also get extensive bruising, I would imagine. A physical blow. That's all.

I have yet to see any evidence that blood vessels rupture at a distance from the expected

When was the last time you looked for it?

When was the last time you looked for it? More to the point, when was the last time you found it?
I do tend to check the large vessels insofar as they can be looked at when the pluck is removed, but I suppose you don't need to look for it because you know IT IS happening, and I don't because I know it ISN'T!

The idea of a shock wave travelling up a blood vessel makes no sense to me. My understanding is that the shock wave in a liquid can only be pressure, which acts in all directions equally. Therefore, the idea that it would pass up an artery before the elasticity of the walls could 'take effect' seems bizarre.

Dalua

 

[Dalua]

Removed as double posted

 

[Thar]

Mr. Tahr's theoretical conviction that 150gr at 2000fps does not kill as well the same pill at 3000fps might be better explained in terms of greater expansion of the bullet, and therefore a bigger hole through the deer. On the other hand, with a bullet not designed for such an impact speed, the result might be quite otherwise.

Hi Dalua

Are you saying that providing both bullets expand to the same diameter and in doing so causes the same size wound channel, velocity plays no part in the terminal effectiveness of a projectile?

Best rgds

Tahr

 

[Chops]

see below - sorry fat fingers...

 

[Chops]

Hi Dalua,

We are going to have to agree that we disagree.

Yes I do look for trauma in the major blood vessels and in the lungs - I was taught to do this by my father out of interest, animal disection being a personal professional interest to him. Following a heart shot, rupturing of the alveoli is clear throughout the soft tissue – and distinct in patches, normally about the size of an old 50p piece.

Throughout my professional and academic career I have learnt to trust the specialists - particularly the guys that write the text books! Generally they are better educated than the majority of the interested parties; they tend to have knowledge of their subject far in excess to the average person. Their work can be crossed referenced and thus challenged or confirmed by other specialists.

I have not seen anything that would lead me to doubt their findings; and from what is reported I can draw person correlations with what I have seen. This for me holds a lot more credence than untested gut instinct (no pun intended!).

I don't think anyone is debating that one, are they? It is presumably energy transfer from the bullet to the gel or animal tissue.

Then where does the energy go? What is it transferred to or transformed into?

Cheers

Chops