Hydrostatic shock

Another thing that puzzles me.

People think that faster bullets deflect more. Not true at all!

Before the average guy gets his hackles up with this comment, just bear with me!!!


If a shooter fires a bullet into a tangle of bush (say a 3006,180grain bullet going 2700fps)
And another bullet (22-250,55 grain bullet, going 3500fps).

Most certainly the old 3006 is going to plow a straigher path through the nasty stuff.
But that is not comparing "apples to apples".
Two completly different bullet weights and momentum values.

situation #2:

a shooter fires a 3006, and a 180 grain bullet at 2700fps.
and he fires a second bullet, 180 grain bullet at 2850fps.
This is an apples to apples comparison.
the bullet with more 'momentum' (hence the faster) will plow straighter through the tangled mess.

But since no two bullets can fly through the same tangled path, through the same exact limbs and obstructions, it makes this age old debate some what pointless. LOL!

Again, Just another observation I felt compelled to comment on.

Anyone with any thoughts on this?
 
All that has been said gives a fellow a lot to think about. The consensus seems to be there is as was said " no magic formula ". However, I do find this sort of thing very interesting.

Every hunter needs to become very familiar with their rifle and the round they shoot. Tonight I was hunting and had a few deer 220 yards feeding quitely in front of my blind. I chose not to shoot because I had my muzzle loader and I know that past 150 yards it loses a lot of steam. Would the gun have made a kill shot at that range ? Most likely yes but due to the loss of speed the shock from the hit would not have been sufficient to put it down quickly and the animal would of moved enough to find its way back into some thick brush. With luck I may have found it this evening however, most likely I would of had to return in the morning to find what was left. My experience with this gun over the years backs up the fact that speed does have a measurable effect on kill power.

I realize that all experiences may differ and my observations are just that. When I hunt I want to give myself the best possible chance at quick clean kills and bullet speed IMHO does relate directly to bullet performance. Be it a fast explosion of a lighter bullet travelling at very high speeds or a sledge hammer 300 gr XTP out of my savage ML speed does count.

I guess the jury is hung on the issue but Physics does count and we will all continue to search for that magic combination. We just have to remember to practice our shooting and hunting skill as well.

Cheers:D
 
"It never fails to amaze me that people still put so much emphasis on velocity/energy, some even stating minumums to guarantee kills on game of this size, or that size."

Now Dave, you have to admit, the manufacturers of firearms and ammo, have done a tremendous job of keeping the shooting public convinced of that!
Otherwise, all these short and super short magnums of various dimensions, as well as some other designs, would never have seen the light of day, if it were not for all the bs fed us under the general heading of ballistics.
I grew up in the era when all bush homesteaders had to have wild meat, 12 months of the year, or the family would go hungry. They shot moose and elk with any rifle they happened to have, when that terrible age, known as the great deperession, overtook the world.
I had a considerable older brother who kept our rather large family well supplied in elk and moose meat, but other families weren't so lucky. I have often seen school kids going hungry, when the hens had quit laying for the winter, the cow was drying up, the vegetables in the cellar were nearly gone and the dad couldn't get a moose.
No one ever questioned whether a rifle was good enough for big game, they just took their rifle, whatever it was, and shot game with it. One homesteader, a family friend, had a Winchester 351 self loading. He bought a box of 20 shells for it and when the box was empty he had killed nine moose with the box of shells.
Another fellow killed thirty moose with a 30-30. I asked him how many he had wounded that had got away. He thought for a while, then said, "I can't remember any moose that got away wounded."
 
dthunter said:
Another thing that puzzles me.

People think that faster bullets deflect more. Not true at all!



If a shooter fires a bullet into a tangle of bush (say a 3006,180grain bullet going 2700fps)
And another bullet (22-250,55 grain bullet, going 3500fps).

Most certainly the old 3006 is going to plow a straigher path through the nasty stuff.
But that is not comparing "apples to apples".
Two completly different bullet weights and momentum values.
Click to expand...

Nobody is comparing apple to apples. We're comparing apples to other fruit. Apples make it through the thick bush, grapes, oranges and bananas do not. When people figure this out, they will come home with more meat.
 
H4831 said:
"It never fails to amaze me that people still put so much emphasis on velocity/energy, some even stating minumums to guarantee kills on game of this size, or that size."

Now Dave, you have to admit, the manufacturers of firearms and ammo, have done a tremendous job of keeping the shooting public convinced of that!
Otherwise, all these short and super short magnums of various dimensions, as well as some other designs, would never have seen the light of day, if it were not for all the bs fed us under the general heading of ballistics.
I grew up in the era when all bush homesteaders had to have wild meat, 12 months of the year, or the family would go hungry. They shot moose and elk with any rifle they happened to have, when that terrible age, known as the great deperession, overtook the world.
I had a considerable older brother who kept our rather large family well supplied in elk and moose meat, but other families weren't so lucky. I have often seen school kids going hungry, when the hens had quit laying for the winter, the cow was drying up, the vegetables in the cellar were nearly gone and the dad couldn't get a moose.
No one ever questioned whether a rifle was good enough for big game, they just took their rifle, whatever it was, and shot game with it. One homesteader, a family friend, had a Winchester 351 self loading. He bought a box of 20 shells for it and when the box was empty he had killed nine moose with the box of shells.
Another fellow killed thirty moose with a 30-30. I asked him how many he had wounded that had got away. He thought for a while, then said, "I can't remember any moose that got away wounded."
Click to expand...


With out a doubt there were many great shots and boat loads of game was taken with 30 30, 351, 44 40, and even the good old 22 rim fire. Back then that was the technology of the time and hunters used it. However, there were also a lot of animals wounded and lost as well and I would venture a guess quite a few. You will get no arguement from me that bullet speed and the such probably played a marginal role at best in this but it did play a role.

Most of todays newer rounds are indeed hype, bells and whistles but ask your self this question. If the hunters of years past had access to todays faster rounds what would they choose. A good old lead ball with a double lung shot will do the job but IMHO todays faster and better designed bullets do it better. Yes dead is dead but a 10 yard blood trail vs a 200 yard blood trail may mean finding or not finding your animal.

If the quantity of meat brought home is the deciding factor then I will totally agree that the the rifle you carry has a very small part in your success and your hunting skills are the deciding factor. Fact of the matter is 15 of the last 20 years I have tagged out with a muzzle loader rather than my rifles and sadly they don't get much of a chance other than punching holes in paper or the occasional pumpkin. For me the 3000 fps + rounds have little to do with my venison supply. Today hunters have a lot of options and any technology that improves the chances of a quicker kill marginal as it may me can not be a bad thing. Technology will never ever replace shot placement, and hunting skills, nor will it ever guarantee a clean quick kill but given a choice why not choose the best option.
 
dthunter said:
Another thing that puzzles me.

People think that faster bullets deflect more. Not true at all!

Before the average guy gets his hackles up with this comment, just bear with me!!!


If a shooter fires a bullet into a tangle of bush (say a 3006,180grain bullet going 2700fps)
And another bullet (22-250,55 grain bullet, going 3500fps).

Most certainly the old 3006 is going to plow a straigher path through the nasty stuff.
But that is not comparing "apples to apples".
Two completly different bullet weights and momentum values.

situation #2:

a shooter fires a 3006, and a 180 grain bullet at 2700fps.
and he fires a second bullet, 180 grain bullet at 2850fps.
This is an apples to apples comparison.
the bullet with more 'momentum' (hence the faster) will plow straighter through the tangled mess.

But since no two bullets can fly through the same tangled path, through the same exact limbs and obstructions, it makes this age old debate some what pointless. LOL!

Again, Just another observation I felt compelled to comment on.

Anyone with any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...

I saw a magazine article on deflection years ago. The author tested firearms ranging from 22 cal to his 470NE. He piled a bunch of brush infront of a target and then fired away. Everthing that hit a branch was deflected.
 
Eagleye said:
Game animals neither read ballistics charts, nor are they influenced in any way by them.
A decent bullet that disrupts vital functions will kill, regardless of velocity or energy figures.
It never fails to amaze me that people still put so much emphasis on velocity/energy, some even stating minumums to guarantee kills on game of this size, or that size.
What a crock!! Bullet placement and disruption of CNS or heart lung functions kills, period!
Those of us who have hunted for 5+ decades, and have probably shot a trainload of game animals, have the experience to recognize a horse turd on the road when we see it.
Regards, Eagleye
Click to expand...

You have it right.
 
Cdnexpat said:
I saw a magazine article on deflection years ago. The author tested firearms ranging from 22 cal to his 470NE. He piled a bunch of brush infront of a target and then fired away. Everthing that hit a branch was deflected.
Click to expand...

Even what we have come to think of as slow bullets are pretty fast. I think deflection occurs when the base of the bullet is pushed out of line with its flight path. This typically occurs when shooting through a tangle of branches, but I have shot through a number of small trees (3"-5") with powerful rifles loaded with tough jacketed bullets where each tree was hit squarely and there was no significant deflection. I could have easily killed a game animal on the far side of any one of those trees; not that I would intentionally try such a stunt.
 
Kelly Timoffee said:
Hydrostatic shock:

A 5000Lb(3.5 million grains) (insert your favorite truck here)
Moving at lets say, 100 ft/sec collides with a deer!!!!

This combination can kill instantly without any penetration.:p
Click to expand...

A 2300lb toyota pickup doing 125km/h damn near breaks every bone in a nice size whitetail buck. End result alil meat in the freezer and a truck that's 3.5" shorter and a $5000+ bill. Truck placement grill to center of mass killed instantly. Truck still drivable. I love my toyotas
 
I once shot at a running fawn with a 50cal muzzleloader using a 338gr bullet at about 1850fps at the muzzle. I had the crosshairs on the front shoulder pulled the trigger and It disappeared. When I went to where it was I found a massive blood trail where it had dragged itself thru the undergrowth for nearly 100 yards. When I found this fawn in the ditch there was about a 4" wide entrance hole in the right ass cheek and a 2" exit in the far rib cage just behind the shoulder. It was only a 40 yard shot. Looking back I found a 2" wide sappling nearly cut in half about midway thru my bullets flight. My bullet was deflected nearly the length of a fawn but yet went thru the deer and it went so far with a broken hip and destroyed lung. Yet other deer just fall over at twice the range. Other then 1 stolen doe I've never lost a deer with a muzzleloader. Some have run to a 110 yards other were dead before they hit the ground. I've never once found a bullet remaining in a deer
 
Cdnexpat said:
I saw a magazine article on deflection years ago. The author tested firearms ranging from 22 cal to his 470NE. He piled a bunch of brush infront of a target and then fired away. Everthing that hit a branch was deflected.
Click to expand...

i think it was seyfried and the conclusion was that a round ball did the best.
 
A bullet carries kinetic energy when it is travelling through the air. Some of that kinetic energy is converted into mechanical energy when the bullet his the target and begins to expand. Some of that mechanical energy is transmitted to the tissue as the tissue is displaced from the path of the bullet. Hydro-dynamic shock does exist here, but what causes death is the expanded bullet pushing tissue out of its way, destroying the integrity and structure of the organs.

If a bullet is carrying enough velocity and momentum to expand fully and penetrate through any obstacles between it and the vital organs (like large bones), then it has plenty of "energy", "power", "hydrostatic shock" (gag), or whatever you want to call the ability to take life, to kill the animal, provided placement is appropriate.
 
the flaw in the " they killed deer in the depression with 22's argument is that they really wouldn't (and shouldn't ) of cared too much about the suffering an animal might endure compared to the end result of not having food for their family. Now not to say i fall into the 6000 fps crowd or anything , i mean i use an underpowered 32 winchester for deer :p but really comparing true sustance hunting to "meat" hunting nowdays isn't quite as valid.

also a 45-70 and even a 44-40 seems to work well on deer, what do CGN'ers think of the opposite argument , that slow and big are a more effective killer
 
ryan32 said:
the flaw in the " they killed deer in the depression with 22's argument is that they really wouldn't (and shouldn't ) of cared too much about the suffering an animal might endure compared to the end result of not having food for their family. Now not to say i fall into the 6000 fps crowd or anything , i mean i use an underpowered 32 winchester for deer :p but really comparing true sustance hunting to "meat" hunting nowdays isn't quite as valid.

also a 45-70 and even a 44-40 seems to work well on deer, what do CGN'ers think of the opposite argument , that slow and big are a more effective killer
Click to expand...

IMO, small/fast (hydrostatic shock) CAN kill lightning quick, but is unpredictable (even when shooting the same species of game with the same rifle in basically the same place). Big and slow doesn't give you the instant "lights out effect", but is downright boring in it's reliability when it comes to just plain killing things.
 
The discussion on speed and penetration of the projectile is very interesting. I have written papers on bullet wounds and death from gunshots to humans. The problem frequently in the death of a human is the cavitation that the bullet creats plus the distortion and fragmentation of the round. A good example that I studied was a man who received a hit from an AK47. It hit him in the left shoulder. he was killed instantly by the round fragmenting and a fragment ripping open the Aorta - the biggest blood vessel in the body. I am sure that a similar scenario may contribute to the fairly rapid though not instant death of deer etc.
 
Call it anything you want, but this is the entrance of a .257 caliber, 100 grain NBT started at 3500 fps. It had most of that left at impact too.

DSCF2193.jpg


Those who don't trust small, light, screaming fast and soft bullets can gain some comfort with bigger, heavier,screaming fast and relatively soft bullets.
 
First, I'm gonna admit that I didn't read this whole thread (couldn't find the energy)... so if I am being redundant please forgive me.

From the comments I did read, there was a huge over emphasis being placed on the "hydrostatic shock" value... it is only ONE of MANY factors at work in inflict damage and a satisfactory wound channel. First, whoever it was that said that there is no hydrostatic shock under 2500 fps is a moron... the next time you are sitting on the "john," take your index finger and tap it firmly into your relax thigh (obviously between contractions :D)... do you see those ripples that occur (some will see more than others... I am probably on the "Y" side of the XY scale :D)... those ripples are "hydrostatic shock" and I'm pretty sure that your finger was travelling under 2500 fps! All living tissue is made up to a greater or lesser degree of H2O... and ANY projectile at ANY speed that is forcing its way through that tissue will cause a Hydrostatic shock effect. Other factors that IMO are more important are energy, and to an even greater degree Momentum. Energy is expressed in foot pounds... where the velocity is squared X weight / 450,240... Momentum (resistance to stopping OR changing direction) however is where velocity is multiplied by weight (you can see that weight bears a higher value in momentum compared to kinetic energy alone)... people get very distracted by the kinetic energy of a particular fast round compared to a heavier, slower round from the same gun... and point to the higher "kinetic" energy of the faster/lighter bullet and say "see this is better." They have forgotten momentum... the fast/light bullet "sheds" it energy easily, where the slower/heavier bullet resists (to a greater degree) shedding its energy and continues on its path, inflicting a long wound channel. If both the fast/light bullet AND the slow/heavy bullet achieve 100% penetration, THEN you would look at the other values (in anchoring game species), including hydrostatic shock, bullet design, frontal diameter, weight retention, wound channel factors (bone, muscle or vital tissue etc...). And all of this is MOOT... because most reasonable caliber/bullet cominations have "SUFFICIENT" assets to achieve the demise of MOST North American game species when the respectful, sufficiently skilled and morally ethical hunter stays within his/her limitations and the limitations of his/her weapon of choice and properly places a lethal shot on their target.

What were we talking about again??? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom