User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/6/2010 10:24:08 AM EDT
So what's the deal with hydrostatic shock?
I know in terms of self defense, shot placement is key. Past that, I'd choose a service caliber with modern hollow point rounds. But how much validity does hydrostatic shock have, especially with killing someone? I'm sure it's a real occurrence, but I hear the typically gun shop b.s., "Well I carry a .45 'cuz if I miss his vitals, the hydrastatic shocks are gonna fry his central nervous systems"... 
Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2010 12:04:19 PM EDT
[#1]
From what I've heard, Hydrostatic shock is gun store BS. There is not really any evidence to back it up. Frankly, as long as it's a modern, bonded, jacketed hollow point with greater than 12" of ballistic gel penetration, 9mm, .40, or .45, it's gonna do essentially the same amount of permanent crush damage, which is what matters. Bottom line: shot placement.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2010 12:21:54 PM EDT
[#2]
The only addition to the above is that, all else equal, the larger diameter bullets create larger permanent crush cavities...FWTW.
There was a very interesting thread on Glock Talk started by a "forensic officer at a major metropolitan police department in Louisiana" (or pretty close to that effect); I know it was locked since it degenerated into name calling but it appears to have been erased....I can no longer access it, any way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2010 4:09:45 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
The only addition to the above is that, all else equal, the larger diameter bullets create larger permanent crush cavities...FWTW. There was a very interesting thread on Glock Talk started by a "forensic officer at a major metropolitan police department in Louisiana" (or pretty close to that effect); I know it was locked since it degenerated into name calling but it appears to have been erased....I can no longer access it, any way. If it's the one I'm thinking of, the poster was FOS. At least on his claims to where he worked––-and to boot, he claimed to be personally overseeing in involved in more autopsies of shooting victims each year at his work than we have a year in the entire state |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2010 5:12:05 PM EDT
[#4]
Hits to the CNS and/or hits that create permanent wound channels which cause significant, rapid blood loss are the only two things that really matter in terms of stopping an aggressor. Other things like "hydrostatic shock", "bullets dumping all their energy", "stopping power", etc. are all basically irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2010 5:21:56 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Hits to the CNS and/or hits that create permanent wound channels which cause significant, rapid blood loss are the only two things that really matter in terms of stopping an aggressor. Things like "hydrostatic shock", "bullets dumping all their energy", "stopping power", etc. are all basically irrelevant. +1. But even rapid blood loss leaves time for a bad guy to get you. From everything I've studied and experienced first hand, the only thing that GUARANTEE'S a stop, is a central nervous system hit. To a lesser extent, shoulder and hip shots will slow down an attacker, or sometimes you get lucky and psychological effects take over and they freeze up or try to run. But solid CNS hits drop bad guys like their strings got cut. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2010 6:17:00 PM EDT
[#6]
Hydrostatic shock is pretty much nonexistent in a handgun round. And if there were, .45 would have the least of it. .45 is a blunt force impact. .357 Sig or 10mm would be closer to being able to achieve hydrostatic shock speeds.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2010 9:52:46 PM EDT
[#7]
Thanks to all for the replies. Everything above is what I have figured on my own from studying up on the subject. It just seems to be one of those irrelevant gun rags/shop stories that doesn't go away, and I wanted others thoughts on it , since I've never seen a thread on it.
And the quote from very top came from a gun shop owner, FWIW. 
Thanks again, MF |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2010 9:56:27 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Hydrostatic shock is pretty much nonexistent in a handgun round. And if there were, .45 would have the least of it. .45 is a blunt force impact. .357 Sig or 10mm would be closer to being able to achieve hydrostatic shock speeds. Excellent point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2010 11:06:13 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Thanks to all for the replies. Everything above is what I have figured on my own from studying up on the subject. It just seems to be one of those irrelevant gun rags/shop stories that doesn't go away, and I wanted others thoughts on it , since I've never seen a thread on it. And the quote from very top came from a gun shop owner, FWIW.
Thanks again, MF Just out of curiosity, which shop? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2010 7:04:21 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks to all for the replies. Everything above is what I have figured on my own from studying up on the subject. It just seems to be one of those irrelevant gun rags/shop stories that doesn't go away, and I wanted others thoughts on it , since I've never seen a thread on it. And the quote from very top came from a gun shop owner, FWIW.
Thanks again, MF Just out of curiosity, which shop? He was in Gardnerville. He's no longer in business. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2010 7:24:57 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Hydrostatic shock is pretty much nonexistent in a handgun round. And if there were, .45 would have the least of it. .45 is a blunt force impact. .357 Sig or 10mm would be closer to being able to achieve hydrostatic shock speeds. +1 in my non-expert opinnion i think hydrostatic shock is only relevent in high velocity rifle rounds |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2010 7:26:55 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Hydrostatic shock is pretty much nonexistent in a handgun round. And if there were, .45 would have the least of it. .45 is a blunt force impact. .357 Sig or 10mm would be closer to being able to achieve hydrostatic shock speeds. I think this is the winner. Hydrostatic shock can make a huge difference in a large high speed round (like 150 grain 30 cal at 3300 fps) but I cannot believe it is even remotely applicable to service handgun rounds. Based on numerous harvested whitetails, even my TC Contender firing a 7-30 Waters (120 grain 7mm bullet) or 44 mag (240 Hornady XTP) down an 11" barrel does not generate the velocity you need to create shock wave damage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2010 9:31:21 AM EDT
[#13]
H-shock is for high velocity rounds. The only thing in the human body that's going to be affected by pistol h-shock is maybe the liver (close bullet trajectory too).
There is a ammo sub forum btw. Zhukov would love to answers these questions. Bed time reading for you. http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=20&t=97960 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2010 6:28:55 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Hydrostatic shock is pretty much nonexistent in a handgun round. And if there were, .45 would have the least of it. .45 is a blunt force impact. .357 Sig or 10mm would be closer to being able to achieve hydrostatic shock speeds. This. Hydrostatic shock is a real wounding mechanism, but it generally involves fast rifle rounds, and is NOT something you can count on. It is a disruption of (some) soft tissue caused by an expanding pressure wave that occurs when the bullet is traveling faster than the speed of sound (in tissue not in air). Most tissue is fairly resilient and springs right back, some organs like the liver can take a lot of damage by this mechanism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2010 10:11:42 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Quoted: Hydrostatic shock is pretty much nonexistent in a handgun round. And if there were, .45 would have the least of it. .45 is a blunt force impact. .357 Sig or 10mm would be closer to being able to achieve hydrostatic shock speeds. This. Hydrostatic shock is a real wounding mechanism, but it generally involves fast rifle rounds, and is NOT something you can count on. It is a disruption of (some) soft tissue caused by an expanding pressure wave that occurs when the bullet is traveling faster than the speed of sound (in tissue not in air). Most tissue is fairly resilient and springs right back, some organs like the liver can take a lot of damage by this mechanism. If you hold stock in a the tests Fackler did, there's a minimum velocity for "remote wounding" of a bit over 2000 fps. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2010 12:39:49 PM EDT
[#16]
I see Dr. Courtney's advocates have not hit this thread yet. Perhaps they have grown tired of defending BS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2010 1:25:31 PM EDT
[#17]
Make sure you don't mistake hydrostatic shock with "temporary wound cavity". Seems like a lot of people might make that error.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2010 5:18:06 PM EDT
[#18]
Ah, the smell of gun store BS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2010 7:24:50 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: I see Dr. Courtney's advocates have not hit this thread yet. Perhaps they have grown tired of defending BS. is he the one that had the thread on Glock Talk? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2010 10:48:24 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Quoted: I see Dr. Courtney's advocates have not hit this thread yet. Perhaps they have grown tired of defending BS. is he the one that had the thread on Glock Talk? He has multiple threads, at least two names, and some rabid followers on GlockTalk. In large part, the reason I don't visit much there any more, except for the cop section. His "exploding the brain by shooting them in the chest" BS almost made my brain explode. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2010 6:25:29 PM EDT
[#21]
As indicated, think rifle rounds. The little itty bitty 5.56mm FMJ round, pick one...the old M193 or new M855, will cause some hydrostatic shock. The 45-70, probably not. Bullet design and velocity have a lot to do with it. Some reports came in during WWII of the Russian 7.62x25 causing hydrostatic shock effects. This could be compared to the modern day .357sig load or a .357 magnum 125 grain FMJ round. Really, a 9x19mm round traveling at high velocity. Fire a .357sig or a 7.62x25 Tokarev and its bark is as bad as its bite.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2010 7:22:38 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: As indicated, think rifle rounds. The little itty bitty 5.56mm FMJ round, pick one...the old M193 or new M855, will cause some hydrostatic shock. The 45-70, probably not. Bullet design and velocity have a lot to do with it. Some reports came in during WWII of the Russian 7.62x25 causing hydrostatic shock effects. This could be compared to the modern day .357sig load or a .357 magnum 125 grain FMJ round. Really, a 9x19mm round traveling at high velocity. Fire a .357sig or a 7.62x25 Tokarev and its bark is as bad as its bite. Not really, .357 sig for all the flash and recoil hardly performs better than 9mm +p. In all the stuff I run across from Fackler, he says that based on bullet construction and such, generally imact velocity has to be about 2500 FPS before there is any kind of "shock". |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2010 10:19:16 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
In all the stuff I run across from Fackler, he says that based on bullet construction and such, generally imact velocity has to be about 2500 FPS before there is any kind of "shock". Sounds about right. I also recall that he found the liver was particularly suceptable to this type of damage mechanism, while most other organs were pretty resilient. (he was shooting pig carcasses as I recall) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 5:58:20 AM EDT
[#24]
You can get an idea of the effect of hydrostatic shock by shooting a milk jug filled with water. If there was no such thing as hydrostatic shock, there would be a nice round hole in the front and a nice round hole in the back, but what really happens is the shock causes the jug to split open. Yes, it's far more dramatic with a HP .30-06 than a 9mm, but there is still a little bit there. How much of an effect it will have on a person can't be predicted, but if you get shot in the stomach, it won't feel the same as someone sticking a 9mm needle through you slowly, or a .65" needle, if you're assuming expansion of the bullet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 6:11:03 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: You can get an idea of the effect of hydrostatic shock by shooting a milk jug filled with water. If there was no such thing as hydrostatic shock, there would be a nice round hole in the front and a nice round hole in the back, but what really happens is the shock causes the jug to split open. Yes, it's far more dramatic with a HP .30-06 than a 9mm, but there is still a little bit there. How much of an effect it will have on a person can't be predicted, but if you get shot in the stomach, it won't feel the same as someone sticking a 9mm needle through you slowly, or a .65" needle, if you're assuming expansion of the bullet. You still wrote that, after everyone cited works from studies that spanned decades and cost millions proving the opposite? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 11:08:40 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Quoted: You can get an idea of the effect of hydrostatic shock by shooting a milk jug filled with water. If there was no such thing as hydrostatic shock, there would be a nice round hole in the front and a nice round hole in the back, but what really happens is the shock causes the jug to split open. Yes, it's far more dramatic with a HP .30-06 than a 9mm, but there is still a little bit there. How much of an effect it will have on a person can't be predicted, but if you get shot in the stomach, it won't feel the same as someone sticking a 9mm needle through you slowly, or a .65" needle, if you're assuming expansion of the bullet. You still wrote that, after everyone cited works from studies that spanned decades and cost millions proving the opposite? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 11:09:54 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
You can get an idea of the effect of hydrostatic shock by shooting a milk jug filled with water. If there was no such thing as hydrostatic shock, there would be a nice round hole in the front and a nice round hole in the back, but what really happens is the shock causes the jug to split open. Yes, it's far more dramatic with a HP .30-06 than a 9mm, but there is still a little bit there. How much of an effect it will have on a person can't be predicted, but if you get shot in the stomach, it won't feel the same as someone sticking a 9mm needle through you slowly, or a .65" needle, if you're assuming expansion of the bullet. You still wrote that, after everyone cited works from studies that spanned decades and cost millions proving the opposite? Yeah, well, it's not like those studies used milk jugs man! Though as an aside about the effect of high velocity projectiles on liquid filled containers: A few years (OK, it was in the '90s,) I was shooting with some friends of mine at the range in Brooklyn MS. Spying an unopened but seriously old 16 ounce bottle of Coke in the bed of my truck, I decided that setting it up as a target would be nifty, as a hit with 5.56mm out of one of our ARs would make a neat little exploding cola effect. I set up the bottle about 100 yards from the benches, and my buddy Shawn (who won the rock paper scissors,) took aim with his rifle and fired one round. Me and the other friend immediately began making fun of him for his shooting, as the bottle was unmoved and un-exploded. Shawn seemed exasperated for a moment, then looked at the bottle a bit more, then calmly informed us that if he was such a bad shot, why was the bottle, formerly brown in hue due to the Coke, now clear? Upon insppection we discovered that he hit it dead center, one neat hole in, one neat hole out, and only a tiny amount of Coke remained in the bottom of the bottle. As a result of this experience, I now know that if you shoot someone with an AR, their insides will all be sucked out of the exit wound. ETA: It was a plastic bottle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 11:14:04 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
In all the stuff I run across from Fackler, he says that based on bullet construction and such, generally imact velocity has to be about 2500 FPS before there is any kind of "shock". Sounds about right. I also recall that he found the liver was particularly suceptable to this type of damage mechanism, while most other organs were pretty resilient. (he was shooting pig carcasses as I recall) I don't claim to be a scientest, expert, in the know...nor did I stay at a holiday inn express last night. But my my experience (loads of whitetail) is exactly the same. Brain and Liver is pretty well destroyed. Everything else is only damaged badly by bone/bullet fragments. This is of course with sufficient velocity, which handgun rounds simply do not possess |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 2:28:44 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You can get an idea of the effect of hydrostatic shock by shooting a milk jug filled with water. If there was no such thing as hydrostatic shock, there would be a nice round hole in the front and a nice round hole in the back, but what really happens is the shock causes the jug to split open. Yes, it's far more dramatic with a HP .30-06 than a 9mm, but there is still a little bit there. How much of an effect it will have on a person can't be predicted, but if you get shot in the stomach, it won't feel the same as someone sticking a 9mm needle through you slowly, or a .65" needle, if you're assuming expansion of the bullet. You still wrote that, after everyone cited works from studies that spanned decades and cost millions proving the opposite? Yeah, well, it's not like those studies used milk jugs man! Though as an aside about the effect of high velocity projectiles on liquid filled containers: A few years (OK, it was in the '90s,) I was shooting with some friends of mine at the range in Brooklyn MS. Spying an unopened but seriously old 16 ounce bottle of Coke in the bed of my truck, I decided that setting it up as a target would be nifty, as a hit with 5.56mm out of one of our ARs would make a neat little exploding cola effect. I set up the bottle about 100 yards from the benches, and my buddy Shawn (who won the rock paper scissors,) took aim with his rifle and fired one round. Me and the other friend immediately began making fun of him for his shooting, as the bottle was unmoved and un-exploded. Shawn seemed exasperated for a moment, then looked at the bottle a bit more, then calmly informed us that if he was such a bad shot, why was the bottle, formerly brown in hue due to the Coke, now clear? Upon insppection we discovered that he hit it dead center, one neat hole in, one neat hole out, and only a tiny amount of Coke remained in the bottom of the bottle. As a result of this experience, I now know that if you shoot someone with an AR, their insides will all be sucked out of the exit wound. ETA: It was a plastic bottle. Oh man, that made me laugh! 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
