Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Hydrostatic shock, what's your opinion?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ATH" data-source="post: 340650" data-attributes="member: 1656"><p>The problem I have with discounting shock and saying it's only hemmorhage through a direct wound channel is that you are essentially saying that a bullet and arrow kill the same way. As someone who has shot dozens of animals with all manner of legal firearms as well as modern archery equipment, I can say there is a distinct difference. While it is not unusual for animals to drop from a rifle shot even when the CNS is not hit, it is extraordinarily rare for this to happen with an arrow. Obviously, there is a difference.</p><p></p><p>I would contest that you don't just get a direct wound channel. Shoot a deer through the shoulder with an arrow, you get a broadhead-shaped hole with very little damage to tissue even 1/2 inch away. Shoot a 300WM through that same shoulder, and even if it is the entrance side and the bullet has not had time to expand you might as well throw everything within 6-7 inches radius of the bullet's path in the trash. </p><p></p><p>You can further see evidence of shock by comparing rifle wounds with shotgun slug wounds. Shotgun slug wounds leave large holes due to the size of the projectile; having grown up in a shotgun-only zone I have a lot of familiarity with shotgun/ML wounds. I must saw I was in awe the first time I shot a deer with a high-power rifle, the damage in an a whole other league; I attribute this to the much higher energy and energy transfer of rifles as compared to shotgun slugs.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ATH, post: 340650, member: 1656"] The problem I have with discounting shock and saying it's only hemmorhage through a direct wound channel is that you are essentially saying that a bullet and arrow kill the same way. As someone who has shot dozens of animals with all manner of legal firearms as well as modern archery equipment, I can say there is a distinct difference. While it is not unusual for animals to drop from a rifle shot even when the CNS is not hit, it is extraordinarily rare for this to happen with an arrow. Obviously, there is a difference. I would contest that you don't just get a direct wound channel. Shoot a deer through the shoulder with an arrow, you get a broadhead-shaped hole with very little damage to tissue even 1/2 inch away. Shoot a 300WM through that same shoulder, and even if it is the entrance side and the bullet has not had time to expand you might as well throw everything within 6-7 inches radius of the bullet's path in the trash. You can further see evidence of shock by comparing rifle wounds with shotgun slug wounds. Shotgun slug wounds leave large holes due to the size of the projectile; having grown up in a shotgun-only zone I have a lot of familiarity with shotgun/ML wounds. I must saw I was in awe the first time I shot a deer with a high-power rifle, the damage in an a whole other league; I attribute this to the much higher energy and energy transfer of rifles as compared to shotgun slugs. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Hydrostatic shock, what's your opinion?
Top