Hydrostatic shock?

[MagnumManiac]

G'day all,
Just watched Barnes bullets podcast referring to hydrostatic shock effects on killing game.
It absolutely confirms what I have been saying for years. The permanent wound cavity, and what it disrupts in regard to tissue and organs, is what kills animals.

Cheers.

 

[Phil Rizzo]

Barnes and the possible existence of hydrostatic shock are weird in the same sentence.!?

* bloodshot meat indicates rupture of the vascular system by liquid that is under pressure or am I wrong?

 

[MagnumManiac]

No, capillaries are easily burst by small stretching, which is what a bruise (haematoma) is.
Hydrostatic shock does not always go beyond the permanent wound channel. So, it cannot 'hydraulic' through the blood vessels as it is commonly described as doing.
To my observations, there are many reasons as to why it occurs, and just as many as to why it doesn't.
So, in other words, it cannot be relied upon to kill an animal, only disruption to either major blood vessels or organs can be relied upon to kill. Even the CNS hit may not result in death.

Cheers.

 

[Lou270]

The permanent cavity is what is left by the crush and temporary cavity. The permanent cavity can be several times bullet diameter due to temp cavity (depends on elasticity of tissue and diameter of cavity) but will be smaller than the actual temp cavity which in a high velocity round can be 10-20x plus projectile diameter. What the temporary cavity can do is stun or render an animal unconscious if it affects the CNS. The animal will often bleed out before it regains its feet leading people to think "shock" killed the animal. It is still bloodloss that kill but appears faster as animal "dropped in its tracks" or struggles for short distance vs running a good ways. Temp cavity can also break bones/spine or burst dense organs if close enough. The diameter of the temp cavity is proporrional to the energy transfered at any given position during penetration. The 2 main factors influencing energy transfer (temp cavity diameter) are projectile surface area and velocity as drag is proportional to surface area and v^2. This is why fat bullets and fast bullets (especially a combo of both) tend to have a reputation for "knockdown" power. Note, the rate of energy transfer and where it is at is what influences this, not the starting energy

The extra kicker is bullet fragmentation. Bullet fragmentation turns more of temp cavity into permanent cavity. The little frafments themselves are not destructive as they dont have much mass/energy to penetrate. However they poke holes in tissue around the crush cavity and tissue that may normally stretch from the temp cavity will tear and de-tach greatly increasing the permanent wound. Of course fragmenting may result in less penetration so not always a good thing as you may end up with wide/shallow wound and insufficient damage to actual vital areas

There are lesser / more ambiguous remote effects people talk about where pressure waves travel through the body/brain that cause "instant death" I have seen no clear evidence in anything I have found other than there is probably something going on sometimes.

Lou

 

[choprzrul]

@fordy I'm guessing has some valuable insight?

 

[haisardao]

I do agree that permanent wound cavity is the mainstay for blood loss and death, I have however seen the effects of temporary wound cavity with significant disruption of distant tissue and organs both in animals and, unfortunately, in people shot by rifles. The difference in wound cavity and remote damage caused by pistol round is minimal, basically bullet caliber, compared to the damage caused by rifle rounds.

 

[jseandsje]

Wound channels, shock, exit wounds, fragmentation, expansion - a lot to keep writers occupied.

unless you make a perfect CNS hit every time, the deer, not your shot, will determine how far you have to track it, most of the time.

 

[Huntaddict]

G'day all,
Just watched Barnes bullets podcast referring to hydrostatic shock effects on killing game.
It absolutely confirms what I have been saying for years. The permanent wound cavity, and what it disrupts in regard to tissue and organs, is what kills animals.

Cheers.

You think Barnes is solving the entire discussion in one podcast - I am laughing my butt off right now!!!

A company that made its mark with non expanding bullets that inherently pass through, have less energy upon contact, and cannot compete with standard lead and copper in hydrostatic shock says its a myth?

I have some swamp land in florida I would like to sell you....cheap.

 

[FEENIX]

Like it or not, Barnes pioneered the monolithic bullet industry. And no, Barnes monos or any other monos, or any C&C bullet is a solution to the discussion on hand, but rather an alternative to anyone that fits their personal choice/intended purpose.

 

[jseandsje]

You think Barnes is solving the entire discussion in one podcast - I am laughing my butt off right now!!!

A company that made its mark with non expanding bullets that inherently pass through,

Non expanding? I think you mean non-fragmenting.
Pass through is inherent, yes

have less energy upon contact, and

e = MV^2. Same mass, same velocity same energy.

cannot compete with standard lead and copper in hydrostatic shock

We shoot a lot of both. It depends on distance, shot placement, and THE DEER
I'm not going to use a TTSX at 800 yards,
and not gonna use a vld or eldx at 100 yard. But all are good bullets.

says its a myth?

I have some swamp land in florida I would like to sell you....cheap.

the only myth out there is the myth that videos test a bullet.
Ballistic Gel, temporary cavities permanent cavities. But none of this describes what happens with the Deer I shot on a given day at a given distance at a given angle, at a given "deer alertness". Any bullet will perform differently, and all can work great.

Quit spending money on videos - pass out free bullets, and let the hunters tell the truth.

 

[Huntaddict]

Like it or not, Barnes pioneered the monolithic bullet industry. And no, Barnes monos or any other monos, or any C&C bullet is a solution to the discussion on hand, but rather an alternative to anyone that fits their personal choice/intended purpose.

Barnes took the solid industry and made it more mainstream that is for sure - totally agree but solids were being used with great success since 1845

 

[Huntaddict]

Non expanding? I think you mean non-fragmenting.
Pass through is inherent, yes

e = MV^2. Same mass, same velocity same energy.

We shoot a lot of both. It depends on distance, shot placement, and THE DEER
I'm not going to use a TTSX at 800 yards,
and not gonna use a vld or eldx at 100 yard. But all are good bullets.

the only myth out there is the myth that videos test a bullet.
Ballistic Gel, temporary cavities permanent cavities. But none of this describes what happens with the Deer I shot on a given day at a given distance at a given angle, at a given "deer alertness". Any bullet will perform differently, and all can work great.

Quit spending money on videos - pass out free bullets, and let the hunters tell the truth.

No I mean expanding and fragmenting. Barnes engineers both and I have used them both, along with nearly every other kind of bullet made today

Stop with the math...or acting as if you understand it by posting the wrong formula

The idea here is energy, hydrostatic shock, and cavitation. ANYTHING that creates cavitation through hydrostatic shock is the definition of energetic transfer. More of it, or less of it, it is 100% part of the process.

Gel is not a deer, no - however it is the standard of test that the entire industry aligns to.

Most of your answers have a lot of "air" in them. Maybe do some reading and get back to us with actual proof.

 

[FEENIX]

Barnes took the solid industry and made it more mainstream that is for sure - totally agree but solids were being used with great success since 1845

So, educate us all; who commercialized the solids in 1845, and made it readily available for us all? I do like to learn. I am no bullet historian, but Randy Brooks, former owner of Barnes Bullets, is credited with pioneering the modern monolithic (all-copper) bullet industry in the mid-1980s.

 

[jseandsje]

No I mean expanding and fragmenting. Barnes engineers both and I have used them both, along with nearly every other kind of bullet made today

So Barnes doesn't expand either?

Stop with the math...or acting as if you understand it by posting the wrong formula

What is your formula for "energy upon contact".

The idea here is energy, hydrostatic shock, and cavitation. ANYTHING that creates cavitation through hydrostatic shock is the definition of energetic transfer.

so what's your point. What are you trying to defend. Is it any different than what Barnes is trying to defend.

More of it, or less of it, it is 100% part of the process.

Gel is not a deer, no - however it is the standard of test that the entire industry aligns to.

Most of your answers have a lot of "air" in them.

Air is healthier than smoke.

Maybe do some reading and get back to us with actual proof.