No Hydrodynamic Shock Below 2600FPS??

[milo-2]

View attachment 359068

Footage of buck after being shot at 200 yards by a 338 win that no longer had any pyroextatic shock

Thanks, made my day!

 

[Chuckrub]

https://www.bullet-behavior.com/hydrostatic-shock
https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-event...dynamic-pressure-process-may-make-meat-safer/

 

[gvjm]

I assume your talking about Ballisticstudies.com? I've shot a 308 for over 40 years. My gun was a 19 1/2" barreled H&K 770 for most of those years. Most of my hand loads arrived at the target at the 2600 threshold. I got total inconsistency as far as terminal ballistics with that gun. One year at the deer lease I loaned a couple of my 150 Nosler ballistic tips to a new guy on the lease with a 24" 308. We both got deer at the same range with virtually the same shot. The wounding was totally different! My bullet exited with a hold no bigger that a ping pong ball at best. He almost blew the whole shoulder off upon exit. Later I acquired a 24" gun and a chronograph and I can tell you that I personally have verified the 2600 fps rule now on numerous occasions with game I've taken with it. Between the 2 guns there was 200-250 fps difference with the same load. No real problem with bullets under 130 but with bullets 150-165, there is a marked difference in terminal performance. I no longer have the H&K.

 

[gvjm]

A respected ballistics expert basically says that bullets .338 diameter and less loose their hydrodynamic shock value below 2600fps. This basically means a .308 Win shooting a 180g bullet and a .338 Win Mag both loose their shock value in less than 100 yards. I have harvested animals with rifles from 270 Win to 375 H&H and am still confused.
I'm about to do a black bear hunt and if i go with that theory I'd pick a 225g over a 250g bullet for my 338 Win Mag. I'd be real interested in what you guys on the forrum have to say about this. What do you all think?

I assume your talking about Ballisticstudies.com? I've shot a 308 for over 40 years. My gun was a 19 1/2" barreled H&K 770 for most of those years. Most of my hand loads arrived at the target at the 2600 threshold. I got total inconsistency as far as terminal ballistics with that gun. One year at the deer lease I loaned a couple of my 150 Nosler ballistic tips to a new guy on the lease with a 24" 308. We both got deer at the same range with virtually the same shot. The wounding was totally different! My bullet exited with a hold no bigger that a ping pong ball at best. He almost blew the whole shoulder off upon exit. Later I acquired a 24" gun and a chronograph and I can tell you that I personally have verified the 2600 fps rule now on numerous occasions with game I've taken with it. Between the 2 guns there was 200-250 fps difference with the same load. No real problem with bullets under 130 but with bullets 150-165, there is a marked difference in terminal performance. I no longer have the H&K.

 

[Glenn Tullius]

Obviously he has never shot a deer at 50 yards with a 180 grain Hornady SST bullet out of a 308 winnie!!

 

[xsn10s]

It's because a ballistician and trauma surgeon might have different points of view, esp. in the 'hydrodynamic shock" (?) phenomenon.

The tissue/ bone densities won't match up.

 

[284ackley]

A respected ballistics expert basically says that bullets .338 diameter and less loose their hydrodynamic shock value below 2600fps. This basically means a .308 Win shooting a 180g bullet and a .338 Win Mag both loose their shock value in less than 100 yards. I have harvested animals with rifles from 270 Win to 375 H&H and am still confused.
I'm about to do a black bear hunt and if i go with that theory I'd pick a 225g over a 250g bullet for my 338 Win Mag. I'd be real interested in what you guys on the forrum have to say about this. What do you all think?

Total bunk from years of field experience.

 

[xsn10s]

It's because a ballistician and trauma surgeon might have different points of view, esp. in the 'hydrodynamic shock" (?) phenomenon.

IMO from the peanut gallery a ballistician could give terminal kinetic energy. But a trauma surgeon or forensic scientist would possible be better suited to determine actual trauma. I'd glean from both as well as field reports, depending on who's doing the reporting. But what do I know? I'm not a doctor, I just play one on TV

 

[Ernie]

Is this "hydrodynamic shock?"
Entrance side

Peeling the entrance side front shoulder back

Third picture is entrance side with front shoulder off.

Bullet ended up on the flank just underneath the hide (what was left of it)

It was a quartering shot

 

[Pdvdh]

You're so desperate to "win" this argument, that you'll compare my desire for people to stop ripping others down, to a suicide bomber. I feel sorry for you, I truly do.

Anything is justifiable to the righteous, in the name of God. Yes, even suicidal bombers justify their actions. On a righteous mission, as instructed by their God.

You will not be dissuaded. You've made it clear, it's your righteous mission. The comparison to your mission is, "the mission directed by God". Not the act that must be accomplished to complete the mission.

Never said you were a suicidal bomber. Saying you'll justify your derogatory keyboard stokes in the name of your God. No matter the means and methods to accomplish your goal. To the point that you claim to be the better person.

This Forum doesn't exist for you to instruct others in your path of righteousness. You don't get that, because you've made it clear your mission is justified by your beliefs. Beliefs which have been sanctified by God.

 

[xsn10s]

Is this "hydrodynamic shock?"
Entrance side
View attachment 359074
Peeling the entrance side front shoulder back
View attachment 359075
Third picture is entrance side with front shoulder off.
View attachment 359076
Bullet ended up on the flank just underneath the hide (what was left of it)
View attachment 359078
View attachment 359079
It was a quartering shot

It's a mess for sure lol. Really bright red! What bullet/ cartridge did that? In reality I think the bullets the OP quoted would be fine for black bear.

 

[Pdvdh]

Is this "hydrodynamic shock?"
Entrance side
View attachment 359074
Peeling the entrance side front shoulder back
View attachment 359075
Third picture is entrance side with front shoulder off.
View attachment 359076
Bullet ended up on the flank just underneath the hide (what was left of it)
View attachment 359078
View attachment 359079
It was a quartering shot

Most would say that qualifies. Impact velocity of 1,800fps? Hah!

 

[orkan]

Anything is justifiable to the righteous, in the name of God. Yes, even suicidal bombers justify their actions. On a righteous mission, as instructed by their God.

You will not be dissuaded. You've made it clear, it's your righteous mission. The comparison to your mission is, "the mission directed by God". Not the act that must be accomplished to complete the mission.

Never said you were a suicidal bomber. Saying you'll justify your derogatory keyboard stokes in the name of your God. No matter the means and methods to accomplish your goal. To the point that you claim to be the better person.

This Forum doesn't exist for you to instruct others in your path of righteousness. You don't get that, because you've made it clear your mission is justified by your beliefs. Beliefs which have been sanctified by God.

I'm so sad for you. You just keep attacking me as if I'm responsible for your pain. I'm not. You've never met me, yet you keep trying to speak as if you know me.

You're on ignore.

 

[FEENIX]

IMO from the peanut gallery a ballistician could give terminal kinetic energy. But a trauma surgeon or forensic scientist would possible be better suited to determine actual trauma. I'd glean from both as well as field reports, depending on who's doing the reporting. But what do I know? I'm not a doctor, I just play one on TV

That's exactly my point. "I" have no idea what hydrodynamic shock is. At this point, "WE" are speculating. I am hoping for a new phenomenon (new knowledge ) or a misinterpretation/misinformation.