Hydrostatic shock does not help kill animals

[SStomcat]

I do not want to argue with Barnes, after all they are ammunition makers and I assume they have done adequate testing to support what they are saying.
I however find it hard to beleive that shock, blunt force trauma does not do damage. Imagine being whacked on the head with a baseball bat, there is no wound channel but the shock and damage it will cuase to your nervous system is well know, similar to a fall.

 

[Flbt]

I do not want to argue with Barnes, after all they are ammunition makers and I assume they have done adequate testing to support what they are saying.
I however find it hard to beleive that shock, blunt force trauma does not do damage. Imagine being whacked on the head with a baseball bat, there is no wound channel but the shock and damage it will cuase to your nervous system is well know, similar to a fall.

I understand where your coming from there supposed to the experts.
But I have heard so much hype for bullets manufacturers that I take them like car salesman they say what ever they need to to sell.
Especially with defense handgun ammo
I hate the 147gr 9mm that was being pushed on the 90s and 158gr 38
They seem to work well in gel but form what few shooting I saw I would rather a 115gr 9 than any 147

 

[M98Man]

Convenient a copper bullet manufacturer claims performance regularly associated with cup and core or bonded lead core bullets is false

 

[Miletic]

So in your opinion, smaller, faster bullets make bigger wounds, and presumably kill faster?

Well respectet Acley, it depends on several factors. I'm not sure we can explain it just like that. I've been working on wound healing for a while. I am very interested in that. The problem is that there is always a bullet hole If we could somehow cause a hydro shock without a bullet hole, things would be much clearer. In any case, a wide projectile that has a higher speed will make a bigger shock than a narrow one. Width (grain diameter) and its speed are directly related to hydro sch. Smaller calibers also make an effective shock, but it is smaller than a projectile with a larger diameter. That ratio is very important speed/width. Also, the shape of the grain is important. The less sharp the shape, the greater the shock and with a lower speed (of course up to a certain limit).
We see this on the example of shotgun. I examined the holes on rabbits and we came to the conclusion that hydro sch is expressed to a large extent in shot as well. With rifle bullets In addition to the destroyed tissue that occurred due to mechanical damage from the bullet itself, the muscle tissue was finely torn and destroyed by the shock within a radius of a few cm/inch.
When you look at it with the naked eye, you can see it to some extent, but under a microscope you can see those very small cracks.
Now the question and the point of this post is: would the hydro sc kill the organism without the penetration of the projectile? My personal opinion is yes, actually for sure. I think that laser weapons of the future are made on that basis

 

[mark-hunter]

The guys at Barnes say hydrostatic shock isn't important. Only permanent wound cavities contribute to killing. What say you?

My most sought after animal is roe deer. It is smallish deer, up to 60 pounds of mass.
I use more then enuogh bullet for them, 30 06, 180 grains, nosler ballistic tip.
This is supposed to be shock effect bullet with rapid expansion.

95% of bucks are shot broad side, heart and lung area.
5% differnet angle, most often chest shot.
It is perfect animal to take as an example for this subject.
Not too big, not too small, thin skinned.

And whatever I do, I cannot get better then 50% of down in tracks, with hydrodynamic shock.
So my average is: 50% are down on spot, 50% go up to 50 meters from place of being shot. I never lost any roe buck. (Believe it or not)

If we talk about velocity as main cause for hydrodynamic shock effect:
My close friend who hunts them with 300 win mag, has similar average, about 50/50.

I also think that bigger the animal, hydrodynamic shock is less likely to occur.

Has anybody herd of elephant dropping down on spot on hydrodynamic shock?
I did not.
Only brain shots work like this, but hitting the brain is completely different mechanics at work.

So, my opinion is following.
Hydrodynamic shock can occur, but it is not guarnateed, and bigger the animal, it is less likely to happen.
Smaller the animal, more likely to happen.

Hitting vital zone, on the other hand: leads to 100% effect.

Moreover, I read somewhere that wounded animals die mostly from blood loss.
This means bigger permanent wound channel. Bigger hole bleeds better.
And faster bullet does not cause hydrodynamic shock always.

In conclusion hydrodynamic shock is holy grail of hunters, never to be reached with 100% success There is no formulae for hydrodynamic shock, with current state of bullet design.
(unless we invent laser guns for hunting, or something like that)

 

[fourfive8]

Hydrostatic effect in terminal ballistics context has to do with wet tissue damage. You can remove or destroy the heart lung area of an animal and that will not necessarily translate into that instant “drop effect” as many refer to it. Remove or destroy a major portion of the brain, nervous system or skeletal support and there may be a “drop effect”. Some say that it involves pressurizing all the blood vessels which leads to the effect in distal parts of the body away from the area of the bullet path. The only way that could work would be if the vessels were rigid tubes.

 

[AckleyHunter]

If we could somehow cause a hydro shock without a bullet hole, things would be much clearer.

The closet thing to that would be blast lung injury caused by a blast wave from explosions. The difference in energy levels is many orders of magnitude higher with a bomb then a bullet, even though the bullet's shock wave is concentrated.

American College of Emergency Physicians

www.acep.org

But we can test the opposite, a bullet hole without shock. Subsonic impacts down to 800 fps have very limited shock, but bullets designed to expand at low velocity make big permanent wound channels. Arrows also make hole/wounds without shock. Both show tissue disruption causes bleeding and quick death without needed shock.

 

[JG26Irish_2]

I think there needs to be a bit of a clarification between hydrostatic shock and hydraulic shock. Hydrostatic is a term thrown around in hunting circles a lot, but I think a better term is hydraulic shock. That is the shock wave that moves through liquids. So no matter what peoples opinions are, hydraulic shock happens when a high speed projectile meets a liquid. And mammals are 70% water, so this applies to us.
I read an interesting paper on this a while back, that came from (I think FBI data?) that talked about the difference in the reaction to tissue against the velocity of the shock wave, and the relation to that shock wave speed to the bullet that caused it. The long and the short of the data is that they concluded (this was against impacts on humans) that the binding that occurs between cells is broken by shock waves that occur from bullets that impact above 2300 fps.

What that means is: If the bullet hits you below 2300 fps, your wound will be defined by the permanent wound channel. If the bullet hits above 2300, there will be a larger area around the permanent wound where the cells and organ structure will be inoperable, if that is the right word. Those of us that have hunted with 270/7mm rem mag/300 win mag, and had to take a close range shot, have no doubt encountered the blood shot jellied meat and organs this causes.

I tend to agree with their assessment, and think that most mammals are probably around that 2300 fps mark as well. I think this is one of the reasons why buff and larger animals tend to run a bit, and that is because we are shooting them with slower moving heavy projectiles; we sacrifice velocity to get penetration, and so they only ever have a permanent wound, vice an area that has turned to jelly. I also think this is why things like the 270 win tend to flatten deer, the impact velocities are above this threshold, and so there is a much larger are a damaged. I used to hunt with 130gr bullets, and sometimes you would pour the lungs out of the chest cavity. I think it would be hard for barns to convince me that turning the lungs to liquid happened based on the bullets path alone.

So I don't think barns is right, but they are not totally wrong either. Like all things in physics, it is a little more complicated that yes or no. And I think far too often, none of us are examining the effect of freshly shot game, having used a laser range finder and ballistic apps to note the predicted impact velocity.

I think we are mostly in agreement on this subject regardless if we call it hydrostatic or hydraulic shock. It is not an insignificant thing but is also not the main cause of sudden death in game animals.
I have hunted with and had sudden bang/flop results with both large slow bullets like 44mag fired from a rifle and smaller fast bullets like 130g 270win. Presumably the 270 would produce more hydraulic shock. Until, I started hunting Africa, I used only cup & core Nosler Ballistic tips for deer in my 270 and had never had to take a 2nd shot. These expand rapidly and violently in tissue.

The liquification of lungs and large arteries was the norm. Many if not most animals never ran at all. But, I have had the same results with the 44mag which is well below 2300fps. Recently killed a 600lb Nilgai with a 338wm using a 225g Barnes TTSX. His heart was literally blown into two pieces.

I think the bang/flop results that we sometimes see where the central nervous systems was not the point of impact may result in part due to a hydraulic shockwave that flows from the heart and/or the aorta up thru the large arteries to the brain effectively knocking the animal unconscious for long enough to bleed out.

In the case of the Nilgai with the Barnes bullet, the shot was taken at 155y and the muzzle velocity of this round was 2925fps more or less. Impact velocity is estimated to be 2650fps. The animal dropped at the shot and never regained its feet. We did not wait and approached it in only a few minutes but it was still moving some so, I shot it a 2nd time from close range. It is hard to know what knocked it down if it was not momentarily stunned by the shock of the impact. The internal damage was so massive, I was surprised that it was still struggling when we arrived on the scene. Nilgai are simply very tough and on par with any African PG I have encountered.

Still even with a copper mono bullet, a solid impact to the heart can produce a bang/flop result. on the Nilgai hunt three of us, all hunting with 338wm rifles had the same bang/flop results. Two of us used the Barnes TTSX ammo and one used the Nosler AccuBond 225g ammo. Different rifles, different bullets, different animals, at differing ranges all with the same results. The only things being the same were the cartridge and the fact that all three of us hit the animal smack in the heart.

Our fourth hunter used a 300wm. Not a weak round at all. He was using the 180g TTSX ammo and hit the animal with a double lung shot from about 200y. It ran away as if never shot and ran for about 150y where it bedded down. They tracked it until they lost the blood trail and then searched in a pattern until they jumped it and due to the way it ran the guide had to shoot it with his 33 Nosler on the run which dropped it.

 

[AckleyHunter]

My most sought after animal is roe deer. It is smallish deer, up to 60 pounds of mass

I think this is a good example to demonstrate what 'energy' really means when discussing ballistics. E=(1/2)mv^2 is kenetic energy, but it is the potential energy being released that causes tissue disruption and that comes from bullet upset/expansion. And that upset comes not from the bullet hitting the animal, it comes from the animal/tissue pushing back on the bullet.

If you use a 308, 30-06, or 300 win mag all shooting the same bullet but at different velocities with the same result, it is because the one thing that is the same is the animal you are shooting. Those little roe deer can only push back so hard, so the extra kenetic energy is not converted.

The converse would be to not change velocities but bullet construction. A 223 with a fmj, a varmint bullet, and a monometal bullet will all produce different out comes due to different wounds made by the tissue pushing back. The tissue isn't tough enough to upset the fmj and the varmint bullet isn't tough enough to resist complete distruction, while you will get limited upset with the mono.

I also think that bigger the animal, hydrodynamic shock is less likely to occur.

I believe people tend to mistake instant drops as hydro shock killing. With bigger animals, a 4 inch wide wound channel is less likely to hit something in the cns where as a 4 inch wound on a small deer is likely to catch some spine in that circle. Big animals also have a larger blood volume. Shooting a 120 lb deer will cause enough instant blood volume loss to induce vasovagal syncope and 'instant' drop. Bigger aninamls just need more then bullets can give to get the same effect.

 

[AckleyHunter]

You can remove or destroy the heart lung area of an animal and that will not necessarily translate into that instant “drop effect” as many refer to it.

This deer ran further than any deer I have ever shot. 308 with a 165 ballistic tip. What was left of the heart was laying loose in the chest cavity.

 

[Mark458]

I used to do a lot of bow hunting years ago and I've taken dozens of deer with my bow. I know there is no hydrostatic shock involved here but in most every case deer that I shot in the heart always seemed to run farther than deer I shot through the lungs.

A buddy of mine always said, shoot em in the heart and they'll run as far as their blood will take em. Shoot em in the lungs and they go as far as their last breath will take em.

I always felt that heart shots seemed to release more adrenaline. No science to back that up, just my observations over the years.

 

[Philip Glass]

I really don't know but I do know that Barnes bullets will do the trick in most every hunting scenario.
Interesting discussion.

 

[Miletic]

The closet thing to that would be blast lung injury caused by a blast wave from explosions. The difference in energy levels is many orders of magnitude higher with a bomb then a bullet, even though the bullet's shock wave is concentrated.

American College of Emergency Physicians

www.acep.org

But we can test the opposite, a bullet hole without shock. Subsonic impacts down to 800 fps have very limited shock, but bullets designed to expand at low velocity make big permanent wound channels. Arrows also make hole/wounds without shock. Both show tissue disruption causes bleeding and quick death without needed shock.

The closet thing to that would be blast lung injury caused by a blast wave from explosions. The difference in energy levels is many orders of magnitude higher with a bomb then a bullet, even though the bullet's shock wave is concentrated.

American College of Emergency Physicians

www.acep.org

But we can test the opposite, a bullet hole without shock. Subsonic impacts down to 800 fps have very limited shock, but bullets designed to expand at low velocity make big permanent wound channels. Arrows also make hole/wounds without shock. Both show tissue disruption causes bleeding and quick death without needed shock.

Absolutely. The arrow causes injury and tissue damage mechanically. We know that. Let's take the example of a knife that can enter the body at a speed of 1cm/sec, so again there will be significant tissue devastation. I thought we were just talking about what was happening around the bullet hole. The main tissue damage is from an object passing through the flesh, and the secondary is from hydro shock

 

[TOBY458]

I believe hydrostatic shock definitely has an affect on deer sized animals. If you don’t believe it, shoot a deer or similar sized animal through the lungs with a 30/30 and a 270 Win or similar. You will immediately notice the killing effect is much better with the faster moving 270. Much of the time the animal will simply fold up as if hit by lightning. Where as the majority of animals shot with the slower moving 30/30 will run for quite a bit before going down.

 

[Hunt anything]

I believe in shock, one of my bullet backstops is a 77’ rolled up piece of sod. I was doing my weekly range session with a .375 Ruger before my first buffalo hunt. One day after my first shot I saw something fly up in the air but couldn’t figure out what it was so I walked up and found a writhing 2’ long cottonmouth on the ground and it died shortly there after, maybe 5 minutes.

The only thing I can figure is the snake was coiled up on the sod roll and the shock traveling through the tightly wrapped sod traveled through its body and turned the lights out. Open to other theories.

 

[275r7x57]

If I recall correctly Handgun Stopping Power: The Definitive Study book by Edwin J Sanow and Evan Marshall goes into great detail about the killing power of hydroelectric shock. This can be applied to rifles as well. I am not aware of any other singular source that details this information from actual deaths and autopsies.

Handgun Stopping Power

Dramatic first-hand accounts of the results of handgun rounds fired into criminals by cops, storeowners, cabbies and others are the heart and soul of this long-awaited book. This is the definitive methodology for predicting the stopping power of handgun loads, the first to take into account what...

books.google.com

 

[Hififile324]

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.

Well said Surgeon1!!

 

[Surgeon1]

Is that do to 'shock' or the bullet coming apart and the 1000's of little pieces each causing their own, little wound channel?

I would wager all of the people shot in Detroit are shot with handguns. Velcoties are slow and weight retention of handgun bullets is near 100%. Especially in the 80s when pistol bullet tech was in the caveman era.

Well, you would lose your wager in the 80's I treated and operated many shot with shotguns and center fire rifles. SWAT teams used 223 to 300Win Mags. Many of those were in the TriCounty Morgue, there our residents participated in at least 100 autopsies each.
And one drug ring used a lot of AR-15 and AK47's.
We delt with handgun from 22rimfire to 44mag.
Saw the results of 2 different hand grenades being used in the drug wars that were everyday part of our lives.
Shotguns were the most devastating wounds we delt with, everything from fine bird shot to slugs. Even a rubber bullet from a 12ga to the side of the skull and trust me there was a lot of "hydrostatic" injury.
Ballistic gel is not living tissue, fun to shoot into and helpful in seeing bullet performance to a degree.

 

[lawrence_court]

A punch to the gut or liver, or any hard impact to the body during a contact sport, can incapacitate a person for 30 seconds or more. No wound channel. Just shock to the organs and nervous system.

Animals sometimes are clearly incapacitated at the moment of a bullet impact by this type of visceral and nervous system shock (what we all know as hydrostatic). Then, they bleed out before being able to regain their feet. Some fatally shot animals are not incapacitated, or almost seem to have avoided the bullet impact, as bullets behave differently and shock differently based on how and where they impact the animal.

Based on the above, it's always been my opinion that hydrostatic/hydraulic shock stuns and incapacitates only. That said, I believe anything could be killed by shock only if you sent a big enough trauma up its spine.

 

[Bejane]

19:20 minute mark PH talks about it.

Barnes are just using silly marketing. Rather talk to a PH