Hydrostatic shock, what's your opinion?

Ridge Runner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2002
Messages
987
Location
mathias wv
It is hard to say why the performance of your wifes uncle's 416 is the way it is on elk without knowing more details, but when you look at professional guides like Jim Shockey that carry a 416 as his backup rifle when guiding things like grizzly, it makes you wonder if it isn't because of personal experiences that are favorable. Big bullets like a 416 that penetrate too quickly and exit, might not be the best bullet for the type of game being hunted. On the other hand when a compromise between a solid and an expanding bullet is needed on large dangerous game, the bullet might perform better. My personal experience is with medium calibers at high velocity and they have proven themselves as devasting on game. I am over 95% DRT with both my 338 ultra and my 300 ultra and that is more than I can say with any of the multiple animals I have harvested with both a 30-06 and 7mm mag.

My guess on that and bigs trouble with the 45/70 on deer is this, not enough resistance to expand the bullet, I used a 350 rem. mag occasionaly for about 10 years, never knocked a deer down with it, and always had to track them, and not much expansion either. Once a bullet exits the remaining energy is basicly wasted.
RR
 

bigngreen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
8,336
Location
SW Montana
I liked the 350 round nose over the 405 flat nose in my 45-70. the 405 is good on elk and fire wood but that's it. It will split a 12 in piece of firewood real nice :D.
My preference is the 300gr hollow points, they are unbelievable on elk at normal distance but they through the parachute out over a couple hundred yards and you need larger bullet for longer range.
 

OKIE2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Messages
379
Location
terlton, oklahoma
With my 264 mag and 100 grain ballistic tips at 200 yards or less for deer I always try to hit them high between the shoulder and the spine to this day I have never had anything but a drt on all of them. I have never got to elk hunt
and deer don't need a canon ball to kill them. My uncle never used anything but his 22 long rifle for deer.
 

theodore

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
293
Location
Truckee
The more internal damage, the greater the shock. The less damage, the less shock is produced from the bullet. Thats my opinion.

FACT-

Harder bullets usually passthrough more consistent with less shock.
Softer bullets usually passthrough less consistent with more shock if the bullet can even make to the vitals without losing it shocking power upon entrance.

Exception for soft bullet-
VLD are soft and have this unique delayed expansion(penetrate extremely well upon entrance) which makes it consistent in getting into the vitals but doesn't always make it out.


I also agree the larger diameter plays a huge role in shock, it is complicated due to wide variety of bullet performance.- Another opinion or theory
 

billy_bigbore

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
8
Location
prince george, bc
I have shot many big game animals with different guns over the years some drop instantly and others run some distance. I am under the assumption shock has a lot to do with quick and clean kills.

But here is another thought. I have shot countless grouse with a 22 rifle over the years. One thing with grouse is you can shoot 25 a year where I live so you have way more chances to observe what happens (than 1 moose and 1 deer a year).

If you shoot a grouse in the brain it dies instantly other than nerves twitching and wings flapping rappidly (also nerves I believe), not much blood loss. Shoot the same grouse in the neck lots of blood loss and never are they dead when you go pick them up, there eys are blinking and they are trying to breathe and they are not flapping rapidly like the brain shot grouse. Next, gut shoot a grouse very little blood loss, no rapid flapping from nerves, just instant death they fall out of trees like rocks.

Why the big difference in the way they die? They are all equally dead.
 

Harry

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
8
I shoot a 300 weatherby mark five with 150 gr. Nosler at 3500 fps.
I killed a bull elk at fifty yds. hitting it in the juggler . He dropped in his tracks.
 

3fingervic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
449
Location
Michigan
I'm not sure if I'm buying into it. My uncle gut shot a deer at about 40 yards with a Lightfield 12 ga slug. The deer went about 20 yards then died. When I gutted it the stomach was punctured, but didn't explode. Maybe the slug wasn't going fast enough.
 

mzimmers

New Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
1
OK, I'll venture an opinion. Hydrostatic shock is (mostly) bunk.

First, there doesn't seem to be a generally accepted definition of the term. Second, there are widely varying claims as to what exactly it does to a living organism.

Does a firearm projectile create a temporary wound cavity? Absolutely, although the effects of this are pretty nebulous. The arguments that it somehow causes an enormous surge in blood pressure (enough to reach the brain and disrupt functioning) are borderline ridiculous, in my opinion. The studies of this have found nothing more than very minor capillary damage in the brain.

Some people insist on trying to make the effects of getting shot more complicated than necessary. A living creature dies when its brain functioning is stopped. And, unless you accomplish this with a direct hit to the brain or CNS, it happens because of bleeding.

You kill an animal by causing it to lose blood, amply enough and fast enough to cause death. This is done with tissue damage. A hit to vital organs will make this happen faster, because they have more and bigger blood vessels, but it's not necessary. You simply need to create enough tissue damage to cause blood loss to the extent that blood pressure drops to the point where the brain doesn't get any more oxygen. End of story.

There are exceptional cases in which hydrostatic shock has caused death. I believe that an FBI shootout a number of years ago resulted in an agent hit in the neck. Though the bullet missed his vertebrae, the temporary wound channel created enough pressure to snap his neck, killing him instantly. But these are rare, and certainly not to be tried for (again, in my opinion).
 

OKIE2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Messages
379
Location
terlton, oklahoma
I think the lack of oxygen to the brain can kill you too.
But to much oxygen to the brain will kill you for sure.
that's what killed Kenady his brain had too much.
 

Ridge Runner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2002
Messages
987
Location
mathias wv
mz read my post on the 600 yard doe, if what you say is correct why did this deer die? nothing was hit but hide in hide out, no bleeding, a bit of bruising is all. when you go out and kill a bunch of deer with a bunch of different cartridges then you can fill us in.
RR
 

lewwetzel

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
273
Location
Central OH
Oliver: I assume you've read up on Roy Weatherby and his "experiments" regarding hydraulic shock (he may be the person who came up with that term) on African game animals with his .300.
 

Oliveralan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
993
Location
SW MT or noVA
Lewwetzel,
no I haven't read it. Will look it up. Just seems to be a controversial topic and this thread has a lot of first hand accounts so people can make up their own opinion. I believe shock can kill animals, but not so reliably that you can make a "shock kill shot" every time. But that's just IMO.
 

jwp475

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
2,622
Location
USA
Hello everyone,

I'm curious as to what you think about hydrostatic shock. Ive read quite a lot and it seems to be logical but yet there are studies disproving it.

Have any of you witnessed a kill you believe to be hydrostatic shock? (abdomen shot causing bangflop) or such.
I watched an episode of mythbusters where they blew open a safe by suspending a small explosive charge in the middle and filling it with water. The water then transfered the force to the door ripping it straight off. They repeated the experiment with no water in the safe and the charge did absolutely nothing. Also, the water transfered the force to the objects inside the safe, breaking them aswell.

I would think a big bullet going real fast would bring this about, anyone land a gut shot on an animal with something like a 30-378? be interesting to hear what it did.

Please post your thoughts and opinions.

Oliver



Hydrostatic shock, caused by high velocity is BS and an incorrect term. Hydraulic pressure created by a high velocity bullet is real and the correct term
 

Recent Posts

Top