Hydrostatic shock does not help kill animals

[AckleyHunter]

A sharp blow to the central nervous system (either brain or spinal cord) immediately incapacitates an animal. This doesn't need to be a direct hit to the cord or brain either. If you want to call the impact "hydrostatic shock" that's probably reasonable.

While it's "knocked out" it often bleeds out, or dies of hypoxia due to a pneumothorax.

The infamous high shoulder shot. The few times I have tried it, the animal wike up before it bleed out. They were paralyzed, but still required a follow up shot.

They don't go far with a hole in both lungs and quicks kills are more reproducable with double lung hits.

 

[SStomcat]

Shock waves created by a blast causes damage IMO. Consider it similar to a bomb where casualities happen due to the blast waves created, similarly when a bullet hits it transfers energy on the target creating shock waves as it traverses.

 

[Surgeon1]

I spent over 40 years doing surgery and, in those years, took a lot of trauma call including 5 years
in Detroit's 2 busiest trauma Centers. Detroit in the 80's was the murder capital of the world and
the 2 places I took call were #1&3 for volume. I have operated patients with all kinds of penetrating wounds and trust me Hydrostatic tissue disruption can kill you immediately or over several days even with the best surgical care. So, don't give me the BS that Hydrostatic trauma doesn't play a roll.
Shoot a prairie dog with a 223 with FMJ then shoot won that the bullet comes apart dissipating all its energy into tissue damage and tell me hydrostatic injury doesn't kill. Shoot a Cape Buffalo with a solid
and compare the tissue damage to a heavily constructed expanding bullet from the same gun and tell me which has the most tissue damage! The reason why I never use solids on buffalo.
Also, one of the many reason that I really dislike Barnes Bullets. I know there are those who love Barnes
but I suspect it's lack of experience with other bullets in many cases.

 

[375Fox]

So in your opinion, limited expansion bullets like copper and bonded bullets won't transfer as much energy as fragmenting bullets and are worse at wounding?

Also, according to @375Fox analogy, speed is the only difference between 22lr and 223 using nonexpanding bullets. One has more 'shock' then the other without expanding.

I used that example because if you are going try compare the effects of shock alone you need to compare the same caliber, bullet type/performance, weight, etc. A bullet’s job is to transfer energy combined with maximum penetration through vitals that’s why we generally use expanding bullets for hunting. There are a lot more variables to look at than energy (shock) alone. For my particular example you could easily do the math. Energy is 0.5xMassxVelicity Squared. Use the velocity on impact and the velocity on exit. A FMJ takes bullet performance and how they transfer energy differently out of the variables if you want to make it a scientific experiment. For hunting, There’s a reason soft cup and core worked well for years with older slower cartridges but Magnums needed tougher bonded or monolithic bullets. There’s also a reason fragmenting bullets work so well on varmints but not on a buffalo. You’re choosing a bullet that optimizes that energy transfer and tissue damage while getting full penetration through vitals. You need a lot of penetration on a buffalo. You only need a few inches on varmints. You’re choosing choose different bullets for different purposes. The combination of energy, penetration, tissue damage is what kills. You have to make it appropriate for situation.