AR Sponsor
Posted: 6/27/2004 12:23:26 AM EDT
|
I've reworked my guide to 'Basic Ballistics' to include more information about how recoil is measured, and terminal effects. See: www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ballistics.htm Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum |
Hydrostatic shock is a B.S. term people use when they don't understand terminal ballistics and want to impress people with big words. Nobody has ever shown a single instance of real 'hydrostaic shock' being a factor in the creation of wounds/cause of death. If I were you I'd start reading some of Dr Facklers work on the subject - there are links tacked up at the top of this forum. |
Sorry, you're correct. I should have elaborated. Forest summed it up in a nice, simple way. I don't have one single link or article I can point you to right now, but maybe start by reading the Fackler work up top. I'll keep an eye out and see if I can find a nice descriptive work on the subject. |
One of my favorites: The Shock Wave Myth |
Heh. I forgot I had that one hosted. It's a good one! |
|
Well, if you read what I actually wrote you will see that I am not exactly writing in support of the theory - I have mentioned it mainly to criticise it: "It is often claimed by hunters that as the striking velocity of the bullet increases beyond about 700 m/s (2,300 fps), so hydrostatic shock begins to appear, with the effect that animals drop dead much more dramatically than if hit in the same place with a low-velocity bullet. However, this effect does not seem to be replicated in people; there are many cases of soldiers continuing to fight for some time despite receiving severe (and ultimately fatal) wounds from high-velocity rifle bullets. Furthermore, serious shock effects are only likely if the bullet exceeds the speed of sound in flesh, which is around 1,500 m/s (4,900 fps), but even this has been disputed." Hardly a ringing endorsement! Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum |
Yet you post the above statement w/o any bit of evidence nor cite of a study. Maybe not a 'strong endorsement' but printing a 'theory' or 'wild-ass-guess' as a viable idea is just as bad. Its not like other rifle bullets can't fragment ...... 
|
|
You missed out the important initial words "It is often claimed by hunters..." Anyone who has read the books by the classic big-game hunters (as I did, many years ago) will have come across references to the dramatic increase in killing power achieved when bullets strike at more than about 2,300 fps. The term 'hydrostatic shock' was coined to explain this. I don't believe that any comprehensive description of terminal effects should omit this, as it was an observation resulting from a huge amount of practical experience in shooting animals in the field. However, there is no doubt that the work of Dr Fackler (with which I am familiar) and others using gel tests shows no mechanism which would achieve this (although I ought in fairness to point out that Dr Fackler has his critics, too). Furthermore, humans don't seem to react like this when shot, either - as I point out. The essential feature of an objective account of a controversial issue like this should be to express both sides of the argument, which I do. However, I think it is clear from the way I have expressed it that I am basically on Dr Fackler's side! Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum |
The paragraph starts out okay, but when you write,
The way that's worded makes it read as though you do support the theory on animals. Perhaps if you reworded it, there would be less confusion. |
No I didn't - that quote was your first problem. WTF do hunters know about what is going on when the bullet strikes? All they know is put a bullet there and the animal will die. Then when they open up the game to dress it they find there is dammage. How are they qualified to determine how/why the dammage was caused?
'Hydrostatic shock' was NOT an observation. What they observed was dammage - and they MADE UP some wild-ass theory and kept pushing it w/o a shred of evidence.
You do realize Fackler (and others) also do tests on live animals and compare gel results to autopsies of shootings? If you bothered to read the articles in the thread tacked to the top you'd see the one doen on Hogs with the 5.45x39 where he lays out how the experiement is done.
Sure - uneducated baffoons who like to 'invent stories' rather than do the hard scientific work that is required. So far I've yet to see a critic of Dr Fackler's research that had enough credentials to take a graduate level class - let alone critize peer reviewed research.
No, because Humans have a psychological reaction which animals lack. Humans can (and have) died from non threatening wounds because they worked themselves up enough. In some animals you also have difference in density of tissue - but if the animal tissue is similar enough to humans (i.e. hogs) the bullets behave the same. (see previoulsy mentioned paper)
No you didn't. To have an 'argument' you need to expouse the 'theory' then back it up with reproduceable data. You have spouted the theory but not backed it up with any data. You have elevated a 'wild-ass-guess' to the same level as reasearch that has been proven over and over again for the last 20 years. There is a HUGE differnence between the two. |
Are they the hunters quoted in the article? Forest is refering to hunters as a group, not any one specific person, or subgroup. If you follow the hunting rags, there's a lot hunters don't know. |
Do they know WHY and HOW the dammage is caused - or do they know what kind of dammage to expect. They are two entirely different things. I'll bet they know the 2nd but not the first (unless your hunters are surgeons and/or wound ballistic researches in their day jobs...). |
AR Sponsor