[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Hydrostatic shock? (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 1/3/2011 4:20:43 PM EDT
|
I remember that it's a myth, but I've heard it dropped a few times. What's the word, night crew?
|
|
Per Wikipedia
The term hydrostatic shock describes the observation that a penetrating projectile can produce remote wounding and incapacitating effects in living targets, in addition to local effects in tissue caused by direct impact, through a hydraulic effect in liquid-filled tissues.[1][2] There is scientific evidence that hydrostatic shock can produce remote neural damage and produce incapacitation more quickly than blood loss effects.[3] The debate between proponents of bullets that are "light and fast" versus bullets that are "slow and heavy" often refers to this phenomenon. Human autopsy results have demonstrated brain hemorrhaging from fatal hits to the chest, including cases with handgun bullets.[4] Thirty-three cases of fatal penetrating chest wounds by a single bullet were selected from a much larger set by excluding all other traumatic factors, including past history. |
|
Hydrostatic shock in action....notice how big the wound channel becomes after the bullet has passed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFvrr9s_M-4 |
|
Quoted:
Per Wikipedia The term hydrostatic shock describes the observation that a penetrating projectile can produce remote wounding and incapacitating effects in living targets, in addition to local effects in tissue caused by direct impact, through a hydraulic effect in liquid-filled tissues.[1][2] There is scientific evidence that hydrostatic shock can produce remote neural damage and produce incapacitation more quickly than blood loss effects.[3] The debate between proponents of bullets that are "light and fast" versus bullets that are "slow and heavy" often refers to this phenomenon. Human autopsy results have demonstrated brain hemorrhaging from fatal hits to the chest, including cases with handgun bullets.[4] Thirty-three cases of fatal penetrating chest wounds by a single bullet were selected from a much larger set by excluding all other traumatic factors, including past history. All of that shit was written by Michael Courtney. He has been discredited many times over, but like cholera, keeps coming back. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Per Wikipedia The term hydrostatic shock describes the observation that a penetrating projectile can produce remote wounding and incapacitating effects in living targets, in addition to local effects in tissue caused by direct impact, through a hydraulic effect in liquid-filled tissues.[1][2] There is scientific evidence that hydrostatic shock can produce remote neural damage and produce incapacitation more quickly than blood loss effects.[3] The debate between proponents of bullets that are "light and fast" versus bullets that are "slow and heavy" often refers to this phenomenon. Human autopsy results have demonstrated brain hemorrhaging from fatal hits to the chest, including cases with handgun bullets.[4] Thirty-three cases of fatal penetrating chest wounds by a single bullet were selected from a much larger set by excluding all other traumatic factors, including past history. All of that shit was written by Michael Courtney. He has been discredited many times over, but like cholera, keeps coming back. Other people seem to agree with him. In self-defense, military, and law enforcement communities, opinions vary regarding the importance of remote wounding effects in ammunition design and selection. In his book on hostage rescuers, Leroy Thompson discusses the importance of hydrostatic shock in choosing a specific design of .357 Magnum and 9x19mm Parabellum bullets.[63] In Armed and Female, Paxton Quigley explains that hydrostatic shock is the real source of “stopping power.”[64] Jim Carmichael, who served as shooting editor for Outdoor life magazine for 25 years, also believes that hydrostatic shock is important to “a more immediate disabling effect” and is a key difference in the performance of .38 Special and .357 Magnum hollow point bullets.[65] In “The search for an effective police handgun,” Allen Bristow describes that police departments recognize the importance of hydrostatic shock when choosing ammunition.[66] A research group at West Point suggests handgun loads with at least 500 ft·lbf (680 J) of energy and 12 inches (300 mm) of penetration and recommends:[6 |
|
Quoted:
I'll tell you without question that meat nowhere near the path of the bullet can be destroyed by the shock of projectile. Have you fuckers seriously never gutted a deer? You've never experienced "bloodshot" meat? 308 makes a mess of your small Texas Deer............ 
I messed up a nice chunk of 105lb buck by hitting him in the shoulder it was all a mess back 10 -12 inches from the impact site. |
|
Quoted:
There is a difference between handguns and rifles. Rifles are fast enough to take advantage of the temporary stretch cavity. Service pistols do not I think what they are saying is the faster 9mm and the 5.7rounds are fast enough to create hydrostatic shock.........not so much the slower rounds. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Per Wikipedia The term hydrostatic shock describes the observation that a penetrating projectile can produce remote wounding and incapacitating effects in living targets, in addition to local effects in tissue caused by direct impact, through a hydraulic effect in liquid-filled tissues.[1][2] There is scientific evidence that hydrostatic shock can produce remote neural damage and produce incapacitation more quickly than blood loss effects.[3] The debate between proponents of bullets that are "light and fast" versus bullets that are "slow and heavy" often refers to this phenomenon. Human autopsy results have demonstrated brain hemorrhaging from fatal hits to the chest, including cases with handgun bullets.[4] Thirty-three cases of fatal penetrating chest wounds by a single bullet were selected from a much larger set by excluding all other traumatic factors, including past history. All of that shit was written by Michael Courtney. He has been discredited many times over, but like cholera, keeps coming back. Other people seem to agree with him. In self-defense, military, and law enforcement communities, opinions vary regarding the importance of remote wounding effects in ammunition design and selection. In his book on hostage rescuers, Leroy Thompson discusses the importance of hydrostatic shock in choosing a specific design of .357 Magnum and 9x19mm Parabellum bullets.[63] In Armed and Female, Paxton Quigley explains that hydrostatic shock is the real source of “stopping power.”[64] Jim Carmichael, who served as shooting editor for Outdoor life magazine for 25 years, also believes that hydrostatic shock is important to “a more immediate disabling effect” and is a key difference in the performance of .38 Special and .357 Magnum hollow point bullets.[65] In “The search for an effective police handgun,” Allen Bristow describes that police departments recognize the importance of hydrostatic shock when choosing ammunition.[66] A research group at West Point suggests handgun loads with at least 500 ft·lbf (680 J) of energy and 12 inches (300 mm) of penetration and recommends:[6 Leroy Thompson? Please 
I dont even know those other turkeys, but I can tell you that the FBI spends huge amounts of time and money figuring not only what works, but why. I trust them over any of the names thus far mentioned. Also note, none of the names you mention claim that a bullet striking the torso effects the brain. Courtney does. Our own Dr Roberts rebuilds troops faces, and they've repeatedly told Courtney they dont see any such hemoraging. In fact Suneson, whom Courtney cites as a believer, doesnt buy into it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is a difference between handguns and rifles. Rifles are fast enough to take advantage of the temporary stretch cavity. Service pistols do not I think what they are saying is the faster 9mm and the 5.7rounds are fast enough to create hydrostatic shock.........not so much the slower rounds. Whoever says that would be wrong. |
|
"The FBI recommends that loads intended for self-defense and law enforcement applications meet a minimum penetration requirement of 12 inches (300 mm) in ballistic gelatin.[16] Maximizing the ballistic pressure wave effects requires transferring maximum energy in a penetration distance that meets this requirement. In addition, bullets that fragment and meet minimum penetration requirements generate higher pressure waves than bullets which do not fragment.[3]"
ETA "In such meticulously selected cases brain tissue was examined histologically; samples were taken from brain hemispheres, basal ganglia, the pons, the oblongate and from the cerebellum. Cufflike pattern haemorrhages around small brain vessels were found in all specimens. These haemorrhages are caused by sudden changes of the intravascular blood pressure as a result of a compression of intrathoracic great vessels by a shock wave caused by a penetrating bullet." |
|
Quoted:
"The FBI recommends that loads intended for self-defense and law enforcement applications meet a minimum penetration requirement of 12 inches (300 mm) in ballistic gelatin.[16] Maximizing the ballistic pressure wave effects requires transferring maximum energy in a penetration distance that meets this requirement. In addition, bullets that fragment and meet minimum penetration requirements generate higher pressure waves than bullets which do not fragment.[3]" Where'd that come from? More from Courtney? The FBI absolutely does have a minimum penetration requirement, but they DO NOT reccomend a fragmenting handgun round, nor do they buy into "ballistic pressure wave theory". Check the link to the FBI's paper on handgun wounds. ETA: Where does Courtney get his info? He never says. Also, have you bothered to read the FBI paper entiltled Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
"The FBI recommends that loads intended for self-defense and law enforcement applications meet a minimum penetration requirement of 12 inches (300 mm) in ballistic gelatin.[16] Maximizing the ballistic pressure wave effects requires transferring maximum energy in a penetration distance that meets this requirement. In addition, bullets that fragment and meet minimum penetration requirements generate higher pressure waves than bullets which do not fragment.[3]" Where'd that come from? More from Courtney? The FBI absolutely does have a minimum penetration requirement, but they DO NOT reccomend a fragmenting handgun round, nor do they buy into "Ballistic pressure wave theory". Check the link to the FBI's paper on handgun wounds Causes of pericapillar brain haemorrhages accompanying gunshot wounds), Krajsa, J., Institute of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic, 2009. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"The FBI recommends that loads intended for self-defense and law enforcement applications meet a minimum penetration requirement of 12 inches (300 mm) in ballistic gelatin.[16] Maximizing the ballistic pressure wave effects requires transferring maximum energy in a penetration distance that meets this requirement. In addition, bullets that fragment and meet minimum penetration requirements generate higher pressure waves than bullets which do not fragment.[3]" Where'd that come from? More from Courtney? The FBI absolutely does have a minimum penetration requirement, but they DO NOT reccomend a fragmenting handgun round, nor do they buy into "Ballistic pressure wave theory". Check the link to the FBI's paper on handgun wounds Causes of pericapillar brain haemorrhages accompanying gunshot wounds), Krajsa, J., Institute of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic, 2009. Hey, if you believe him thats fine. As it sits now, its nothing more than theory. Theory that cannot be proven, and hasnt been proven yet |
|
Quoted:
I'll tell you without question that meat nowhere near the path of the bullet can be destroyed by the shock of projectile. Have you fuckers seriously never gutted a deer? You've never experienced "bloodshot" meat? this man speaks the truth, Hydrostatic shock is real |
|
Quoted: I remember that it's a myth, but I've heard it dropped a few times. What's the word, night crew? Myth, same category as 'knockdown power'. The only real wounding effects caused by small arms ammo, are the result of the permanent wound cavity... Not 'hydrostatic shock' or 'energy dump'... This is part of the same myth that claims a bullet that stops, intact (no frag) inside the target is more damaging than a bullet that makes an entry and exit wound. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I remember that it's a myth, but I've heard it dropped a few times. What's the word, night crew? Myth, same category as 'knockdown power'. The only real wounding effects caused by small arms ammo, are the result of the permanent wound cavity... Not 'hydrostatic shock' or 'energy dump'... What causes the temporary wound cavity? " All tissue is elastic and will rebound, up to a point, from the stretch caused by the hydrodynamic force of the bullet's passage (this is termed a "temporary cavity"). Tissue has varying elasticity and some tissues will be damaged by hydrodynamic pressure which causes only temporary cavitation in other surrounding tissues. In general, however, temporary cavitation is relatively insignificant for the hunter, although it is often very useful in combat situations. Humans are not as psychologically predisposed to struggle to survive as wild animals, and will often collapse or surrender when struck by a bullet which causes violent temporary cavitation, even if they are not physically incapacitated (especially if the bullet passes close by the spine). Game animals will generally recover and run (or charge) within a second or so; aggressors hyped on drugs or anaesthetized by endorphins as a result of a previous injury will behave in the same way. The figure below illustrates the typical wound cavity created by most conventional lead-alloy cored, copper-alloy jacketed bullets. The dashed line indicates the dimensions of the temporary cavity. Note that there is often a short "upset depth" before the bullet begins to deform, then a violent cavitation as the bullet expands. The deformation of the bullet is complete approximately at the terminus of the large cavity. Thereafter, the bullet penetrates in a rigid form until the termination velocity of the tissue is reached. It then travels a short distance elastically with its residual momentum until rebounding to the end of the permanent cavity at rest. " |
|
Leave it.
What you are finding on Wikipedia is the last desperate stand of a man who wants to be relevant. He was disproven by trauma surgeons, MEs, Dr Roberts, MacPherson, among others. He offers his theory as fact, yet has no way of actually proving it. He cites his wife a source. He hasnt written a peer reviewed paper. God speaks to him about loving girls wearing pink hi-top shoes. |
|
Quoted: Hydrostatic shock is no myth. Ask any fish killed by a grenade or dynamite, or a sub being depth charged. When a bullet hits a body, there is a shock wave. How big...how much force will be equal to the amount of KE applied to the body by the bullet. The phenomenon as it relates to explosives and such isn't a myth... As it relates to small arms projectiles and wounding, it is. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I remember that it's a myth, but I've heard it dropped a few times. What's the word, night crew? Myth, same category as 'knockdown power'. The only real wounding effects caused by small arms ammo, are the result of the permanent wound cavity... Not 'hydrostatic shock' or 'energy dump'... What causes the temporary wound cavity? Since the temporary cavity has been shown to be insignificant, it doesn't matter... When I reference 'hydrostatic shock', I'm talking about the gun-rag version, not the dynamite-fisherman version. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I'll tell you without question that meat nowhere near the path of the bullet can be destroyed by the shock of projectile. Have you fuckers seriously never gutted a deer? You've never experienced "bloodshot" meat? this man speaks the truth, Hydrostatic shock is real It's interesting how scientific ballistics and anecdotes from deer hunters are almost always contradictory... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I remember that it's a myth, but I've heard it dropped a few times. What's the word, night crew? Myth, same category as 'knockdown power'. The only real wounding effects caused by small arms ammo, are the result of the permanent wound cavity... Not 'hydrostatic shock' or 'energy dump'... What causes the temporary wound cavity? Energy. Handgun rounds dont posess enough enrgy to take advantage of it, and the elasticity of flesh can compensate for that energy. With rifles, they are fast enough and posess enough energy that living flesh cannot compensate for the energy, and the flesh is torn. |
|
Quoted: I dont "believe" in him as you say.......I am adding what I can find on the subject. take it or leave it! I'll leave it. I've had several first-hand discussions with two pre-eminent experts in the field of wound ballistics (both MDs), and they have ridiculed Courtney. The problem is that Courtney is very prolific citing his own works. When he cites the work of others, it turns out to have no relation to the subject matter at hand - he's just counting on people not to read the references. That being said - hydrostatic shock (aka the temporary cavity) is a factor in rifle rounds traveling about 2100fps or higher. Below that it's simply not much of an issue. |
|
Quoted:
I dont "believe" in him as you say.......I am adding what I can find on the subject. take it or leave it! Ive read a little about it, but I noticed it first hand when i began shooting heavier bullets at deer. My shots are high shoulder shots, an area of dense muscle and bone with close proximity to major organs. The hits on deer are not like what you see on hunting TV(behind the shoulder/area of light muscle and bone) the deer immediately hits the ground and dies within seconds. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the same shot made with a 6.5 Grendel rather than a 300RUM will put the deer down but isnt as affective at killing it, this is why i went to neck shots with the Grendel(dense muscle to transfer the energy and major vital zone). By this I mean that the RUM dosent kill solely by hitting the heart, Ive pulled intact hearts and lungs out of deer shot high in the shoulder with an Ultra Mag, but rather by Hydrostatic Shock and/or shrapnel to the vital organs. Where as the Grendel has the energy to put the deer down but lacks the extreme energy of the RUM to cause hydrostatic shock |
|
Quoted: Hydrostatic shock in action....notice how big the wound channel becomes after the bullet has passed? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFvrr9s_M-4 Ummmh. NO. The "wound channel" is not nearly as big. If you were to watch that video some more, you'd notice that the gelatin contracts again and leaves only a MUCH smaller permanent cavity. Human flesh behaves in a very similar manner (which is why BG is used to model tissue). Tissue is ELASTIC. The are some organs, the liver being the most prominent, that is not as elastic and can sustain damage from being stretched like that. What is useful, however, is if the bullet were to fragment. Think of the tissue being showered with bullet fragments when it's stretched like that. It will significantly increase the size of the permanent cavity and explains why bullets like the 75gr Hornady TAP load is so effective. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll tell you without question that meat nowhere near the path of the bullet can be destroyed by the shock of projectile. Have you fuckers seriously never gutted a deer? You've never experienced "bloodshot" meat? this man speaks the truth, Hydrostatic shock is real It's interesting how scientific ballistics and anecdotes from deer hunters are almost always contradictory... [/quote] Dave you should pick up a copy of Applied Ballistics for Long range Shooting, and see what it has to say on the subject. Its written by Brian Litz..... he designs bullets for Berger, not hunting bullets. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I remember that it's a myth, but I've heard it dropped a few times. What's the word, night crew? Myth, same category as 'knockdown power'. The only real wounding effects caused by small arms ammo, are the result of the permanent wound cavity... Not 'hydrostatic shock' or 'energy dump'... This is part of the same myth that claims a bullet that stops, intact (no frag) inside the target is more damaging than a bullet that makes an entry and exit wound. So an object that is traveling at supersonic speeds has no shock imposed on the object that its traveling/expanding/breaking up through. I think hydrostatic shock depends on shot placement, ex. the more dense the muscle and bone in the impact area the greater the energy transfer |
|
"Handgun Stopping Power"
Physiologically, no caliber or bullet is certain to incapacitate any individual unless the brain is hit. Psychologically, some individuals can be incapacitated by minor or small caliber wounds. Those individuals who are stimulated by fear, adrenaline, drugs, alcohol, and/or sheer will and survival determination may not be incapacitated even if mortally wounded. The will to survive and to fight despite horrific damage to the body is commonplace on the battlefield, and on the street. Barring a hit to the brain, the only way to force incapacitation is to cause sufficient blood loss that the subject can no longer function, and that takes time. Even if the heart is instantly destroyed, there is sufficient oxygen in the brain to support full and complete voluntary action for 10-15 seconds. Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, "too little penetration will get you killed." 42,43 Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet.44 From Evan Marshall, Edwin Sanow |
|
Quoted: "Handgun Stopping Power" Physiologically, no caliber or bullet is certain to incapacitate any individual unless the brain is hit. Psychologically, some individuals can be incapacitated by minor or small caliber wounds. Those individuals who are stimulated by fear, adrenaline, drugs, alcohol, and/or sheer will and survival determination may not be incapacitated even if mortally wounded. The will to survive and to fight despite horrific damage to the body is commonplace on the battlefield, and on the street. Barring a hit to the brain, the only way to force incapacitation is to cause sufficient blood loss that the subject can no longer function, and that takes time. Even if the heart is instantly destroyed, there is sufficient oxygen in the brain to support full and complete voluntary action for 10-15 seconds. Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, "too little penetration will get you killed." 42,43 Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet.44 From Evan Marshall, Edwin Sanow Data that shows Marshall and Sanow lied and falsified evidence: Fackler, Martin L., MD.: "Book Review, Street Stoppers: The Latest Handgun Stopping Power Street Results." Wound Ballistics Review, 3(1); 26-31: 1997. van Maanen, Maarten: "Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow 'Data Base': An Evaluation Over Time." Wound Ballistics Review, 4(2); 9-13: Fall, 1999. MacPherson, Duncan: "The Marshall & Sanow 'Data' - Statistical Analysis Tells the Ugly Story." Wound Ballistics Review, 4(2); 16-21: Fall, 1999. [ETA] You really need to understand more about wound ballistics before you Google search and simply paste anything that you come across. Are you going to post links to the Strasbourg goat study next?  |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
"Handgun Stopping Power" Physiologically, no caliber or bullet is certain to incapacitate any individual unless the brain is hit. Psychologically, some individuals can be incapacitated by minor or small caliber wounds. Those individuals who are stimulated by fear, adrenaline, drugs, alcohol, and/or sheer will and survival determination may not be incapacitated even if mortally wounded. The will to survive and to fight despite horrific damage to the body is commonplace on the battlefield, and on the street. Barring a hit to the brain, the only way to force incapacitation is to cause sufficient blood loss that the subject can no longer function, and that takes time. Even if the heart is instantly destroyed, there is sufficient oxygen in the brain to support full and complete voluntary action for 10-15 seconds. Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, "too little penetration will get you killed." 42,43 Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet.44 From Evan Marshall, Edwin Sanow Data that shows Marshall and Sanow lied and falsified evidence: Fackler, Martin L., MD.: "Book Review, Street Stoppers: The Latest Handgun Stopping Power Street Results." Wound Ballistics Review, 3(1); 26-31: 1997.
MacPherson, Duncan: "Sanow Strikes (Out) Again." Wound Ballistics Review, 3(1): 32-35; 1997.
van Maanen, Maarten: "Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow 'Data Base': An Evaluation Over Time." Wound Ballistics Review, 4(2); 9-13: Fall, 1999.
Fackler, Martin L., MD.: "Undeniable Evidence." Wound Ballistics Review, 4(2); 14-15: Fall, 1999.
MacPherson, Duncan: "The Marshall & Sanow 'Data' - Statistical Analysis Tells the Ugly Story." Wound Ballistics Review, 4(2); 16-21: Fall, 1999.
LULZ |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is a difference between handguns and rifles. Rifles are fast enough to take advantage of the temporary stretch cavity. Service pistols do not I think what they are saying is the faster 9mm and the 5.7rounds are fast enough to create hydrostatic shock.........not so much the slower rounds. I would say around 1,500 fps and faster you start seeing it. |