Hydrostatic Shock

[nmc02]

I do not claim to be an expert, a scientist, nor doctor....

Just a little common sense, a fully expanded bullet that passes through an animal (and still has enough energy to do so) is going to do more damage than one that stays inside an animal UNLESS the bullet ricochets inside the body off bones. 

The theory of bullets staying inside an animal being a bullet design is false. No bullets for animals are designed to stay inside an animal. This is comes from ammunition designed for war. The ideology is that a wounded (not dead) person takes two out of battle instead of one (injured & persons to tend to wounded).

Also, the hydrostatic shock causing death theory has been disputed. Specifically by Dr. Martin Fackler, a Vietnam Era trauma surgeon and ballistics scientist. Dr. Fackler says it is a farce. Though, his theory is based only on a tool called a Lithotriptor (tool used to break up kidney stones). He says this tool results in hydrostatic shock within the body, but causes zero damage to tissue, Bones, nor organs.

Once again, common sense says a well expanded (larger diameter once it hits its target) bullet that travels completely through its target will do more damage than one that only travels half way through the target causes "hydrostatic shock. "

Hydrostatic shock is a term bullet manufactures hang on to when advertising. 

Many agree that hydrostatic shock is a thing, well others do not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock

[vdep217]

Look at any ballistic gel test you will see that shock is a def factor and same weight bullet same caliber the one that passes through shows less disruption than the one that stays in..  If that is vital organs they are scrambled.  A bullet that not only expands but retains weight and stays in a target transfers all of its energy. A bullet that passes through has energy that escapes the target cavity

Edited November 29, 2023 by vdep217

[vdep217]

An easier example of shock.  Shoot a pumpkin with a 22lr you get a hole.  Now shoot a pumpkin with a 22250 and you blow the back of the pumpkin out

[archer36]

1 minute ago, vdep217 said:

Look at any ballistic gel test you will see that shock is a def factor..  when it expands.  If that is vital organs they are scrambled.  A bullet that not only expands but retains weight and stays in a target transfers all of its energy. A bullet that passes through has energy that escapes the target cavity

But can't a bullet do both? Why do you insist it's only the ones that do not exit. Many bullets can expand and cause the same damage as another but still have a portion of the bullet that remains intact and exits. An example of this is the first Nosler Partitions. The nose is designed to disintegrate but the rear of the bullet stays intact and has the ability to exit. You are claiming the bullet has to almost disintegrate in it's entirety to cause this magical hydrostatic shock. 

No modern bullet manufacturer will make such a bullet. 

[vdep217]

4 minutes ago, archer36 said:

But can't a bullet do both? Why do you insist it's only the ones that do not exit. Many bullets can expand and cause the same damage as another but still have a portion of the bullet that remains intact and exits. An example of this is the first Nosler Partitions. The nose is designed to disintegrate but the rear of the bullet stays intact and has the ability to exit. You are claiming the bullet has to almost disintegrate in it's entirety to cause this magical hydrostatic shock. 

No modern bullet manufacturer will make such a bullet. 

It's fact that if the bullet passes through its wasted energy there are reasons there are bullets designed for different applications velocities etc. Yes a bullet that passes through has shock but look a gel tests with same bullet weight.   A 223 fmj will pass through the gel and you will see tge expansion of gel in the slow mo.  But now same grain bullet but hollow point disnt go through and causes significantly more expansion in the gel

Edited November 29, 2023 by vdep217

[archer36]

2 minutes ago, vdep217 said:

It's fact that if the bullet passes through its wasted energy there are reasons there are bullets designed for different applications velocities etc.

Go to Africa and hunt Cape Buffalo with the bullet you describe and let's see how you make out. 

This is why we no longer use all lead bullets. They don't hold up!

Edited November 29, 2023 by archer36

[vdep217]

2 minutes ago, archer36 said:

Go to Africa and hunt Cape Buffalo with the bullet you describe and let's see how you make out. 

Mist videos I've seen gutless use 375 h&h at minimum and the bullets do not pass through.  Again you need the correct bullet for the application.  There's a reason manufactures have recommended velocities etc

Edited November 29, 2023 by vdep217

[archer36]

Just now, vdep217 said:

Mist videos I've seen gutless use 450 express at minimum and the bullets do not pass through.  Again you need the correct bullet for the application.  There's a reason manufactures have recommended velocities etc

They don't pass thru because of the animal's massive size. A bullet you describe would not even penetrate the animal enough to get a few inches of penetration. Go and hunt Cape Buffalo with a "frangible" bullet and you will get laughed at. A "solid" bullet is usually employed for follow up shots, NO expansion at all. 

[vdep217]

1 minute ago, archer36 said:

They don't pass thru because of the animal's massive size. A bullet you describe would not even penetrate the animal enough to get a few inches of penetration. Go and hunt Cape Buffalo with a "frangible" bullet and you will get laughed at. A "solid" bullet is usually employed for follow up shots, NO expansion at all. 

The goal is to use a bullet that transfers energy and retains weight depending on application.  Because of the size that goal is accomplished with that bullet

[archer36]

3 minutes ago, vdep217 said:

The goal is to use a bullet that transfers energy and retains weight depending on application.  Because of the size that goal is accomplished with that bullet

But you insist, it can't exit and accomplish it. That's where we disagree and let's leave it at that. 

I agree with MMCO2's post. 

Edited November 29, 2023 by archer36

[vdep217]

Just now, archer36 said:

But you insist, it can't exit and accomplish it. That's where we disagree and let's leave it at that. 

I didnt say a bullet that exits dosnt have shock but it's energy us wasted.  The way u prove this is same weight bullet in fmj and hallow point 

[Nomad]

Two 200 grain bullets fired at 2000 ft./s. and strikes the rib cage. One bullet design stays in, one bullet goes out.  It’s stands to reason that the bullet that stayed in has expended all of its energy inside the animal.  
 

That being said, the bullet that stayed in may not be the best choice for a shoulder shot or a full length body shot. Also, it won’t give you two holes, which may be important in some circumstances with a better blood trail.

 

I choose a bullet that will go through on a shoulder shot and of course, then it will certainly go through on a rib cage shot. Never had a problem with a little bit more substantial bullet that goes through. Of course I’m not talking about a full metal jacket that won’t expand at all.

Edited November 29, 2023 by Nomad

[vdep217]

35 minutes ago, nmc02 said:

I do not claim to be an expert, a scientist, nor doctor....

Just a little common sense, a fully expanded bullet that passes through an animal (and still has enough energy to do so) is going to do more damage than one that stays inside an animal UNLESS the bullet ricochets inside the body off bones. 

The theory of bullets staying inside an animal being a bullet design is false. No bullets for animals are designed to stay inside an animal. This is comes from ammunition designed for war. The ideology is that a wounded (not dead) person takes two out of battle instead of one (injured & persons to tend to wounded).

Also, the hydrostatic shock causing death theory has been disputed. Specifically by Dr. Martin Fackler, a Vietnam Era trauma surgeon and ballistics scientist. Dr. Fackler says it is a farce. Though, his theory is based only on a tool called a Lithotriptor (tool used to break up kidney stones). He says this tool results in hydrostatic shock within the body, but causes zero damage to tissue, Bones, nor organs.

Once again, common sense says a well expanded (larger diameter once it hits its target) bullet that travels completely through its target will do more damage than one that only travels half way through the target causes "hydrostatic shock. "

Hydrostatic shock is a term bullet manufactures hang on to when advertising. 

Many agree that hydrostatic shock is a thing, well others do not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock

I could be wrong but I think that's referring to external from hypersonic waves. hydrostatic shock not hydrostatic shock from a bullet.  If you look at gel tests that disruption had to effect organs

[Woodsman416]

Here's a graphic example of hydrostatic shock. I shot this coyote last year with a .204 Ruger from 70 yards. I shot it between the eyes. As the bullet entered it expanded and pressurized the soft tissue forcing the eyes out of the sockets BEFORE it exited the back of the skull.

 

 

Edited November 29, 2023 by Woodsman416

[Trophy8]

In my experience I have never had a Hornady sst 20ga slug exit a deer, 15yds out to 90yds. Never had to look for them either.

Shot a mule deer with 30-06 Hornady 178gr eld-x at 120yds, bullet disintegrated with no pass through. Deer dropped in its tracks. Bullet did its designed job.

For elk I would not use the same bullet, I use a bonded bullet that has controlled expansion, I may or may not get a pass through...distance can come into play. Fast expanding bullets work great on thin skinned medium size game, but if you hit major bone there is an good chance you won't get the penetration needed, thus not allowing the bullet to spill its energy to disrupt vital organs.

Right bullet for intended game is key.