The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Hunt

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 21, 2017, 11:30 AM   #26
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 5,164
From common cartridges such as the 7mm Rem Mag,30-06,etc,expanding bullets,I've seen horrendous wound channels.
When EVERYTHING in the chest cavity is soup,and about 70% of the bullet is recovered...What else is going on?
Even my little 257 AI makes football size cavities of destruction.
I got away from the 7mm Rem because I hate trimming bloodshot meat.
I've seen chest/shoulder shots make chocolate pudding clot up in the backstraps of a pronghorn.

The skin of a plastic jug is a lot tougher than mortal tissue,short of some bone and sinew.

What happens to a water jug hit with a 270/30-06/7mm Rem? It gets destroyed.
Internal high velocity water hammer. The kind of hard water you feel when you jump in the water with a belly flop.Pressure washers and water jet cutters CUT. That bullet does to the water what a pool cue ball does to the racked balls in a break.

I've seen prairie dogs do about the same as a grapefruit would.Bits and chunks hanging on the sage.
And no,it does not go that way with a 77 gr BTHP that passes through like an icepick.

If you shoot an arrow into a pond,no big deal.A big rock makes a ker-ploosh and a splash.

The water has to get accelerated .

I can't say for sure,but IMO,you get SOME at about 2000 fps,enough to matter 2400 fps plus,but that is tempered by a LOT of variables.

That RPM thing,I've thought about.180,000 or 200,000 RPM seems like it ought to be a buzz saw....but,really,I don't think so.Think of the twist rate. One in 10 inches? Well,thats one twist of the bullet as it goes through the lungs.I know it more complex,but that's a perspective on it.

Last edited by HiBC; June 21, 2017 at 11:37 AM.
HiBC is offline  
Old June 24, 2017, 05:16 AM   #27
Ibmikey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 1, 2013
Location: North Eastern Washington State
Posts: 2,281
All the quasi-scientific information suggested here does not put pork on the table. I would be more interested in hearing about the details of actual kills, what worked for them. My biggest boar (350#) went down with a single 300 Blackout 125 gr TNT. He was facing and angled to the left a bit, I shot inboard of the left shoulder and obviously took out most of the vitals. I had not the least concern for " hydrostatic shock" etc, I just wanted an animal on the ground.

Others use neck or shoulder shots for impressive results so I read about the successful kills and their results more than the "calculator and what if crew".
Ibmikey is offline  
Old June 24, 2017, 08:42 AM   #28
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 4,072
Don't dismiss science, that's one of the things that's wrong with the world today. Nobody seems to give a damn about what it, and learning what it can tell.

Science can't possibly set up hard truths about killing animals, that's an impossible task.

For the most part, what kills an animal is just loss of blood, or destruction of body tissues. however that kill takes place is nearly irrelevant. a spear, a bullet, a rock to the head, every one of them can cause sufficient damage to kill on the spot.

You can't just dismiss all events based on a few events, that's a great scientific fallacy. and seriously, does that series of kills prove anything about anything?

in fact, use of the tnt bullet supports everything that was said about hydrostatic shock causing extreme damage and death.
__________________
None.
briandg is offline  
Old June 24, 2017, 09:09 AM   #29
MarkCO
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 1998
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,157
True Brian.

The "calculator and what if crew" have provided the vast majority of the improvements in the bullets, propellants, and firearms over the past 30 years. Same types of folks who ushered in the technological revolution in the 60s and 70s and the industrial revolution in the early 1900s. None of it just happened.
__________________
Good Shooting, MarkCO
www.CarbonArms.us
MarkCO is offline  
Old June 24, 2017, 09:17 AM   #30
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 5,164
I'm not pretending I have enough technical knowledge to use physics and math and define what happens.

If you get an essentially non-elastic steel one gallon can with a lid...

Like a denatured alchohol can,or a Coleman Fuel can..
Fill it with water,put the cap on.

Shoot it with a hi-vel rifle,preferably a blunt or loose expanding bullet.

If there was no significant hydrostatic shock,there should be an entrance and exit hole of approximately the bullet diameter.

What you will see is steel ripped to shreds.

Try it with a grapefruit. You will see a ball of mist.

Its not about the bullet cutting the steel or the grapefruit. Its about accelerated water doing violence.

YES,the bullet itself DOES tear flesh and fragment bones,etc.

But there is another force at work.
Call it what you want,believe it or not.Makes no difference to me. I've seen the effects.
HiBC is offline  
Old June 24, 2017, 10:11 AM   #31
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 4,072
mark, it's also pretty interesting that up to the the twenties, maybe somewhere around there, it was all pretty much mechanical improvements. we were still using this and that, barely understood the the double base powders, couldn't use good primers, small chemistry changes and changes in precision were still beyond us, but the greatest inventions in the history of guns were designed. The 1911 and recoil operated systems, the garand and gas op systems, bottlenecked high velocity rounds, and the first few expanding high velocity rounds.

Great mechanical strides, as far as inventions, and for the most part, what we have done since then was was slow, but steady refinements. Good lord, the way we have gone since harry pope was shooting. I read about the "hoxie water bullet" years ago, it seemed that it was a hollow point, filled with water, and a ball bearing was clamped tightly into the nose. the bearing blew the water out as well as opening up the point.

Good lord, the advancements in optics over the past sixty years is amazing.
__________________
None.
briandg is offline  
Old June 24, 2017, 01:06 PM   #32
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 6,205
I once taped a Capri sun to a piece of 3/4" plywood and shot it with a .223 35gr varmint bomb. It made a 2.5"-3" hole in the board.
If an aluminum can is placed on top of a water jug and you hit the water just right with a varmint bullet, it will accordion the can.
rickyrick is offline  
Old June 24, 2017, 03:02 PM   #33
ShootistPRS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,356
HiBC,
Try shooting the same bullet into an inner tube that is just full (no Pressure) with water. You will get a closer approximation of what happens in a body. The entire body is encased in a tough flexible container of skin. Each organ has its own skin and even at the cellular level each cell has a skin.

I have killed a number of animals and I have fired bullets into a lot of other stuff. There is nothing that responds to a bullet in the various ways that living tissue does. Two shots into similar sized animals impacting at nearly the same spot can show very different terminal ballistics. I've seen my share of blood shot meat and a few bullets that went straight through never hitting a single bone where the heart and lungs were penetrated without any sign of blood shot meat. I am by no means an expert but Dr. Fackler was an expert who actually studied gunshot wounds in people and animals. We would all be better hunters if we understood terminal ballistics half as well as Dr. Fackler. Fortunately there is an abundance of his work published for us to use. Knowledge is power, fuel up!
ShootistPRS is online now  
Old June 24, 2017, 05:41 PM   #34
ZeroJunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,580
Dr. Fackler's study seems to me to be based on military wounds and expanding bullets typical of hunting bullets were prohibited by the Hague Convention.
ZeroJunk is offline  
Old June 24, 2017, 07:41 PM   #35
MarkCO
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 1998
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,157
Fackler does have some really good stuff, I use many of his papers as reference and support in my work. He wrote about 300 articles/papers. However, most of his work was in old cup and core bullets and some is not applicable to the better bullets we have today. Using some of his test methods illustrates that his approximations of living things was good, but also that a few of his conclusions are not valid for today's bullets. I use a Fackler box with glycerin and newsprint more than I use ballistic gel. So far, it is the best approximation to measure performance without shooting living things. Water is not a good approximation, and Fackler said so and was instrumental in getting the 10% ballistic gelatin as a test standard.
__________________
Good Shooting, MarkCO
www.CarbonArms.us
MarkCO is offline  
Old June 25, 2017, 08:59 AM   #36
Old Stony
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 31, 2013
Location: East Texas
Posts: 1,294
I know little about hydrostatic shock, and don't really enjoy dissecting the minute details of this sort of stuff. I can relate somewhat to shock, just by way of hunting a lot. The hog below was shot by me last night, and was shot straight up the snout...breaking both jaws and there was enough energy there to make one eyeball pop right out of it's skull. I was using my 6.5 Creedmore and I would definitely say there was some type of shock inside it's skull !
Old Stony is offline  
Old June 25, 2017, 09:56 AM   #37
buck460XVR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 3,393
IMHO, hydrostatic shock does happen at higher velocities and more so with expanding bullets. Expanding bullets not only make a bigger hole, but disperse their energy while expanding and that energy is dispersed into the tissue. If one butchers their own game, hydrostatic shock is readily apparent anytime bone, and/or heavy muscle is hit. It can make a real mess of the tissue surrounding the wound channel and sometimes damage is massive. But it's something that IMHO, cannot be counted on to increase the odds of a killing shot when the hit is marginal or bad to start with. While it makes a mess of tissue and can lead to more blood loss, most of the time the damage is done to heavy muscle and not vitals. There are times when I have double lunged a deer with a good 180 gr JSP outta my old ought-six and the lungs were nuttin' but mush. Still those deer ran just as far or farther than those deer I double lunged with a bow and only had a clean X cut thru both lobes. It does tho, generally increase the amount of blood lost outside the body and thus make bloodtrailing easier, and in doing so may make recovery of marginally hit deer a higher probability.
buck460XVR is offline  
Old June 25, 2017, 01:43 PM   #38
Jack O'Conner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 11, 2005
Location: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,789
I've been hunting North American big game animals for 45 years and have taken them with a variety of cartridges. The fastest "drop in their tracks" shot was a pronghorn antelope taken with a .243 rifle shooting the 95 grain SST bullet. Distance was approx 275 yards.

My cousin hunts legally in South Dakota with a 22-250 shooting 60 grain Nosler Partition bullets. He always drops 'em where they stand. On the other end of this spectrum, I've toppled a number of whitetails using my 44 MAG carbine and 240 grain Hornady XTP bullets. This is a very lethal bullet but the animal typically bounds away at the shot only to topple in mid-stride after just a couple jumps. I've witnessed this same lethality with 30-30 and 35 Remington rifles as well.

Hit 'em right with a good expanding bullet that holds together and you'll have meat on the table. Bore size is less an influence upon lethality than many hunters can comprehend.

Jack
__________________
Fire up the grill! Deer hunting IS NOT catch and release.
Jack O'Conner is offline  
Old June 25, 2017, 02:53 PM   #39
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 4,072
It's really kind of simple, shoot the things, they bleed, they die, end of the story, really. make them bleed to death, break them down, blow out the nervous system. whether it's an arrow, a club to the head, spear, knife, sometimes one thing or another is more effective. Sometimes it puts them down quicker with a change in weapons.

Have any you ever wondered why 3 pound prairie dogs just explode if they are hit with a 22-250? Because it is hit with an enormous, hyper velocity bullet.

What would happen if you nailed a 300 pound elk with a lightly build and fragile bullet moving at 4,000 feet per second, but using a bullet that weighed almost 13 oumces, nearly 3/4 of a pound? That's eight times the weight of a 50 bmg.

what would a rifle bullet that weighs darned near a pound, fired at 4,000 fps, that is built like a V max or similar varmint bullet do to an elk? whatever area that is actually hit by the bullet is going to turn into a spray.

Seriously, this hypothetical round, 13 ounces at 4,000 fps can be compared to the vulcan cannon. the difference is that the vulcan fires a much smaller3.6 ounce projectile at only 3,500 feet or so. these things can bring down a plane or cruise missile, or sink a boat. We smack prairied dogs with things equal to that.

we could push the limits of velocity and weight to the point that hydrostatic shock would gut an animal from butt to snout. we can also kill them just as dead with a .600 ne that just blows a smaller hole from gut to snout.
__________________
None.
briandg is offline  
Old June 26, 2017, 06:36 AM   #40
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 5,164
I think there may be an overlap of ideas.
When folks are discussing the 9mm vs 45 vs 40,etc handgun debate,the temporary cavitation is not extreme or violent enough to exceed the elasticity of tissue.Its not a significant trauma or disabling factor at handgun velocities.
Agreed.
IMO,it is NOT accurate to carry that over to high velocity rifle rounds.

I also agree,each shot is different. Exactly what will happen is not real predictable.

Shot placement is the greatest factor.From a Muzzle Loader round ball to over mach 3.
HiBC is offline  
Old June 26, 2017, 07:53 AM   #41
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 11,537
Quote:
I know little about hydrostatic shock, and don't really enjoy dissecting the minute details of this sort of stuff. I can relate somewhat to shock, just by way of hunting a lot. The hog below was shot by me last night, and was shot straight up the snout...breaking both jaws and there was enough energy there to make one eyeball pop right out of it's skull. I was using my 6.5 Creedmore and I would definitely say there was some type of shock inside it's skull !
Given that hydrostatic shock is the remote wounding of structures and you placed the bullet up the snout, then is likely to have occurred here is the overpressure from hydraulic shock, which is localized (think temporary wound cavity).

Quote:
IMHO, hydrostatic shock does happen at higher velocities and more so with expanding bullets. Expanding bullets not only make a bigger hole, but disperse their energy while expanding and that energy is dispersed into the tissue. If one butchers their own game, hydrostatic shock is readily apparent anytime bone, and/or heavy muscle is hit.
That is hydraulic shock.

From the article cited above...

http://www.ballisticstudies.com/Know...e+Killing.html
Quote:
Hydraulic shock is the civil engineers term also known as water hammer but in terminal ballistics context refers to the pressure of accelerated fluid particles that create the temporary wound channel.

Hydrostatic shock transfer refers to the effect when shock waves travel through flesh to distant nerve centers, disrupting their ability to emit electrical impulses.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old June 26, 2017, 08:29 AM   #42
MarkCO
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 1998
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,157
You are correct Double Naught Spy. When you SEE tissue damage, that is not the result of Hydrostatic shock. That is mechanical damage due to the strength of the tissue being surpassed and causing permanent damage.
__________________
Good Shooting, MarkCO
www.CarbonArms.us
MarkCO is offline  
Old June 26, 2017, 09:42 AM   #43
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 5,164
I won't blame anyone for doubting this story.I'd be skeptical,hearing it myself.
But,as Elmer might say"Hell,I was there!"

I make no claim this is about "Ackley Magic",either.
Maybe 20 years ago I killed an antelope.I took a longish shot,and did not estimate everything just right. In any case,she dropped (I had a doe only tag)
When I got to her,she was dead.I found no entry/exit hole.I looked real hard. I was baffled.
I found a crease/furrow through the hair on the sternum,but the hide was not broken.Skinning,I found a bruise area maybe 5 in in diameter on the sternum area.

I assumed a fibrillation thing or? Your "hydrostatic" nerve thing explains it.
HiBC is offline  
Old June 26, 2017, 11:20 AM   #44
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 6,205
Put simply, hydrostatic shock knocks them out so they are unconscious as they die.

Instant loss of consciousness = probably hydrostatic shock
Animal ran off then died = probably not hydrostatic shock
rickyrick is offline  
Old July 1, 2017, 09:31 AM   #45
jackstrawIII
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2016
Location: Upstate NY.
Posts: 379
According to a medical journal I read, human tissue resonates at approx 2500fps. In order to induce "hydrolic shock", a bullet would need to be traveling faster than that to inflect permenant tissue damage outside of the bullet path. This is why you see such excessive damage with rounds like 7mm mag or 300 Win mag on deer. The meat will behaved in a large radius around the bullet path. Whereas a round like a slow 45/70 you can "eat right up to the hole".

As others have said, I think the NEED for fast bullets is largely exaggerated these days. Bullets kill by damaging vital organs. Doesn't take shockwaves to do so.

Hydrostatic shock is really unpredictable. It's whether the bullet overwhelms the animals bodily nerve responses so it doesn't run. Tends to happen with faster bullets, but you just can't rely on it to "kill". Killing is done by organ damage.
__________________
In God we trust.

Last edited by jackstrawIII; July 1, 2017 at 09:37 AM.
jackstrawIII is offline  
Old July 1, 2017, 01:47 PM   #46
ShootistPRS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,356
When the 7mm Mag was first introduced there was a lot of bullets that were not designed for its velocity. Sometimes the bullet would go straight through without much damage and other times it would over expand and do a lot of damage that didn't reach the vitals. If velocity alone caused damage the 7mm mag would have ben the most successful round out there. It wasn't.
Speed is only a small part of the killing potential of any round. I'll take a big bullet at moderate speeds over any bullet at super high velocity. That is how the buffalo, elephant and rhino were reduced in population.
ShootistPRS is online now  
Old July 6, 2017, 07:32 PM   #47
mnhunter3030
Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2015
Posts: 45
FrakenMauser, that was a beautifully written description of "hydrostatic shock" everyone can appreciate.
In my simple little mind I think of it like this, fill your sink with water and then spread out your hand and slowly immerse your hand, next slam your hand down violently. Hurts don't it lol, did you notice the big back splash? that would be the tempory wound cavity its going to fill back in as the skin of water comes back together. the slow immersion cut clean and easily dispersed the surface water. slow heavy bullets disperse water molecules better than super high speed. I favor my 3030 for just that reason
mnhunter3030 is offline  
Old July 6, 2017, 10:56 PM   #48
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 11,537
Quote:
In my simple little mind I think of it like this, fill your sink with water and then spread out your hand and slowly immerse your hand, next slam your hand down violently. Hurts don't it lol, did you notice the big back splash? that would be the tempory wound cavity its going to fill back in as the skin of water comes back together. the slow immersion cut clean and easily dispersed the surface water. slow heavy bullets disperse water molecules better than super high speed. I favor my 3030 for just that reason
I have no idea what you are describing.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2016 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09369 seconds with 9 queries