Long Range Hunting Online Magazine


Go Back   Long Range Hunting Online Magazine > Hunting > Long Range Hunting & Shooting

Long Range Hunting & Shooting Nightforce Optics


Reply

Hydrostatic shock, what's your opinion?

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #22  
Old 12-21-2009, 02:42 PM
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: McLean, Virginia
Posts: 983
Re: Hydrostatic shock, what's your opinion?

Phorwath,
that's a very interesting study.

So my position now is that hydraulic shock or hydrastatic shock can cause death by inducing massive stroke, or knockout an animal by disrupting the CNS and the animal then expiring from hemoherrage. But it is very hard to bring by this effect on purpose. It seems none-controlled expansion bullets such as the Berger bring this effect bout better because of massive cavatation caused through violent fragmentation.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-21-2009, 08:22 PM
ATH ATH is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lizton, IN
Posts: 519
Re: Hydrostatic shock, what's your opinion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MontanaRifleman View Post
Tank, I think humans react very similar to animals to gunshot wounds. Animals are generally a lot tougher though and in some cases can travel quite far with fatal wounds.

The whole subject is a very complex one, because of the complexity of animal anatomy and the complexity of bullet terminal perfromance. No two cases are the same. Some one may DRT an antelope with a 243 shot to the boiler room. And another guy shoots one with a 300 RUM that leaves a 6" exit hole and that antelope runs for a 100 yds.
I think the difference with humans is relatively straightforward. #1, in the civilian world most human gunshot wounds are handgun wounds. I think if we went around shooting deer with 9mm rounds we'd experience similar results.

#2, it's a difference in physiology and resulting shot placement. When we shoot deer and the like, we go for a broadside shot, as it's the biggest target, and shoot through both lungs; all oxygen uptake capacity is lost immediately and they are down in seconds. With humans, the largest target is to shoot at the front of the chest or the back. Unless the heart is hit, they typical result would be to hit one lung or the other but not both; many times one lung will remain functional and, with basic first aid, life extended until help arrives.

I have shot a small number of deer through the front of the chest and hit only a single lung. Each time, the result was a much longer than normal run, a couple times several hundred yards. Enough to make me avoid such shots whenever possible.


I won't argue over what to call it, but I believe energy transfer/shock etc does play a big role in the way a bullet kills. I've never had a DRT with archery, but I had DRTs with every deer I shot with my muzzleloader for 5 years straight (about 13 deer). Even bullets that don't fragment create jellied meat well outside the actual path of the bullet. Something is different to me!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-21-2009, 09:22 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: SW Montana
Posts: 4,253
Re: Hydrostatic shock, what's your opinion?

This has been a very interesting thread. I had never really thought of a stroke but it does seem plausible and may explain some things. I have killed coyotes by just stomping right on there heart, it actually works real good but I always though that it just stopped the heart or lungs but it is so fast maybe were causing a stoke and hemorrhaging in the brain.
I really think that shock plays a role but it can not be relied on to deliver constant or fairly predictable kills.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-22-2009, 09:09 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 4,012
Re: Hydrostatic shock, what's your opinion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATH View Post
I think the difference with humans is relatively straightforward. #1, in the civilian world most human gunshot wounds are handgun wounds. I think if we went around shooting deer with 9mm rounds we'd experience similar results.

#2, it's a difference in physiology and resulting shot placement. When we shoot deer and the like, we go for a broadside shot, as it's the biggest target, and shoot through both lungs; all oxygen uptake capacity is lost immediately and they are down in seconds. With humans, the largest target is to shoot at the front of the chest or the back. Unless the heart is hit, they typical result would be to hit one lung or the other but not both; many times one lung will remain functional and, with basic first aid, life extended until help arrives.

That definitely makes sense. I never really considered body position.

Tank
__________________
Matthew 7:13-14
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. [14] But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

If you find your self in a fair fight, your tactics suck!- Marine 1st Sergeant Jim Ryfinger

Friends don't let friends develop canonitis!-chucknbach

arguing over the internet is like the special Olympics....even if you win, you are still...special!
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-22-2009, 02:40 PM
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: McLean, Virginia
Posts: 983
Re: Hydrostatic shock, what's your opinion?

ATH,
the body position thing was real smart, never thought of that and explains why we have never heard of the shock causing death in humans before.

I agree that shock can cause kills, but it's very hard to define it as a reliable method or not. We would have to agree on a spot that we think would induce the shock->stroke->death effect and then shoot a number of animals with different calibers and bullets at that spot. I think the high shoulder shot, above the heart and lungs and below the spine would be a good place to test this. I have been shooting high shoulder on 4/5 if my last pigs I killed and all of them were DRT with a .308 shooting 178a-maxs.

I never thought this threa would bring up such a wealth of inormation. I really understand this effect a lot better now.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-22-2009, 03:12 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 4,012
Re: Hydrostatic shock, what's your opinion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliveralan View Post

I never thought this threa would bring up such a wealth of inormation. I really understand this effect a lot better now.

Yeah, I know what you mean.

Tank
__________________
Matthew 7:13-14
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. [14] But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

If you find your self in a fair fight, your tactics suck!- Marine 1st Sergeant Jim Ryfinger

Friends don't let friends develop canonitis!-chucknbach

arguing over the internet is like the special Olympics....even if you win, you are still...special!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-22-2009, 11:28 PM
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eastern Wheat Field, CO
Posts: 515
Re: Hydrostatic shock, what's your opinion?

Simply amazing. This has been a lot of great information.
Thanks to everyone for their input. I never even considered...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads for: Hydrostatic shock, what's your opinion?
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Barnes triple shock Fergus Bailey Rifles, Bullets, Barrels and Ballistics 8 10-22-2010 09:47 PM
.338 Rum and Barnes Triple shock angus-5024 Reloading 3 08-26-2009 09:01 AM
triple shock (load) BigDaddy0381 Reloading 8 05-30-2007 05:45 PM
Barnes Triple Shock, another opinion Derek M. Rifles, Bullets, Barrels and Ballistics 23 02-17-2005 09:53 PM
barnes triple shock missedshot Rifles, Bullets, Barrels and Ballistics 2 12-22-2003 03:40 PM

Current Poll
Are you on Facebook?
Yes - 46.66%
991 Votes
No - 18.97%
403 Votes
No, but I may join - 1.88%
40 Votes
No way, are you kidding? - 36.49%
775 Votes
Total Votes: 2,124
You may not vote on this poll.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Management Powered by vBadvanced CMPS
All content ©2010-2014 Long Range Hunting, LLC