Hydraulic shock

R

Ran6er

New member
OK - So as I understand it bullets kills thru Shock, unlike an arrow which kills thru blood lose. Keeping in mind both do tissue damage and that is a factor as well.

my question is what will deliver more Hydraulic shock, a small bullet going fast or a big one moving slower?

Just wondering, while I should be working.
 
Generally speaking, the smaller and faster bullet will do the most damage as far as hydraulic shock is concerned. And with the hydraulic shock you also have hydrostatic shock to go along with it which gives you those most spectacular blowups when shooting something the size of a prairie dog with a bullets such as a Vmax. Once the speed slows down the shock goes down. I have killed prairie dogs at 700 yards with 50 grain .224 bullets but there sure wasn't any spectacular tosses at that range. Killed them where they stood though.

Big heavy bullets with high sectional density are wonderful for getting to the vitals on dangerous game. With critters that you want to atomize you need the light frangible bullets moving as fast as you can safely push them. At least I do anyway.
 
I used to shoot a lot of little gophers here in Iowa as a kid. They look like a brat with legs . With a .22 you could put 3-4 holes in one and it would still crawl off and into a hole. When I got my 5mm rimfire magnum , I had times where I shot at one standing up and took its front leg off at the shoulder ...no damage to torso other than missing leg. Knocked it over spinning. It never even twitched..stone dead. Took me a while to figure out the hydraulic shock on its body and blood stream must have exploded the blood vessels through its body and nervous system. Hardly had a wound the size of a nickel where the bullet just grassed its body as it faced me standing up... like you snipped its leg off with a shear. Like I said , they could take a lot of .22s through the body and still be mobile . Jim
 
Originally Posted By: spidermanI used to shoot a lot of little gophers here in Iowa as a kid. With a .22 you could put 3-4 holes in one and it would still crawl off and into a hole.

usually one good placed 22lr will kill any gopher around here. you guys have tuff ones.
 
PD's here would take a solid .22 hit and make 40-60 yards to disappear down their hole. didn't matter where you hit them. Pretty much every one would run even if they didn't make the long runs. We even found several missing their heads that made it 10+ yards before they went down, crazy little buggers. This happened with cheapy bulk and supver-velocity rounds. Switched to the HMR and runners ceased. Same shooters, same hits, different caliber.

Then stepped up to the centerfires and there wasn't enough body parts attached to each other to run.

To compound the issue, using antelope as test beds. I've popped several with 25-06 using cheapy bullets and a 100 yard run wasn't abnormal. After I moved to TTSX, same caliber, same weight and about the same velocity, similar ranges, similar shot placement, bang/flop. But the bullet appparently interacts differently. There's a lot more variables in downrange performance than just light/fast and heavy/slow.
 
i have watched ground squirrels hit with a 17 cal 20gr vmax with their guts hanging out, back legs all but gone crawl off 30 yards and into their hole.

a 22rf is rarely a quick kill.
 
Bullets do not kill/incapacitate by "shock". They kill the same way an arrow does and that is by putting a hole somewhere that will cause major bleeding and subsequent immediate drop in blood pressure, disrupt the central nervous system, or bust a supporting skeletal bone.

Hydro shock is nothing more than a theory that surmises that a shot to the chest will cause damage to the brain etc...by an over pressure of compressed fluid. If it is a factor at all, it is by far secondary to putting big/multiple holes where they need to be. I do not argue that the bullet kills faster than the arrow due to it causing more damage from a localized hydro effect. A bullet hits the heart of a deer and it has the same effect that it has on the tiny rats that blow up. Hit it with an arrow and it just slices through. Less damage from the arrow takes longer to dump that blood pressure to zero. It is still killing the exact same way.

The FBI has done as much research as anyone on the subject and they specifically advise against choosing a round/bullet on perceived shock effect. For humans, they want bullets that penetrate 12" and no more than 16". They know that holes in the right places are what stops attackers, not the reliance on "shock".
 
hydrostatic shock is a very real thing. bullets that act like an arrow (fmj's) are not very effective.

ever take a look at the lungs of an elk after a lung shot? sure there is a channel through the lungs from the bullet, but the rest of the lung is bruised and full of blood. that does not appear with an arrow through the lungs.

if there is no hydrostatic shock, then what causes the ground squirrels to explode into pieces like a can full of water?
 
Quote:Hydro shock is nothing more than a theory that surmises that a shot to the chest will cause damage to the brain etc...by an over pressure of compressed fluid. If it is a factor at all, it is by far secondary to putting big/multiple holes where they need to be. I do not argue that the bullet kills faster than the arrow due to it causing more damage from a localized hydro effect. A bullet hits the heart of a deer and it has the same effect that it has on the tiny rats that blow up. Hit it with an arrow and it just slices through. Less damage from the arrow takes longer to dump that blood pressure to zero. It is still killing the exact same way.

 
Originally Posted By: steve154Bullets do not kill/incapacitate by "shock". They kill the same way an arrow does and that is by putting a hole somewhere that will cause major bleeding and subsequent immediate drop in blood pressure, disrupt the central nervous system, or bust a supporting skeletal bone.

Hydro shock is nothing more than a theory that surmises that a shot to the chest will cause damage to the brain etc...by an over pressure of compressed fluid. If it is a factor at all, it is by far secondary to putting big/multiple holes where they need to be. I do not argue that the bullet kills faster than the arrow due to it causing more damage from a localized hydro effect. A bullet hits the heart of a deer and it has the same effect that it has on the tiny rats that blow up. Hit it with an arrow and it just slices through. Less damage from the arrow takes longer to dump that blood pressure to zero. It is still killing the exact same way.

The FBI has done as much research as anyone on the subject and they specifically advise against choosing a round/bullet on perceived shock effect. For humans, they want bullets that penetrate 12" and no more than 16". They know that holes in the right places are what stops attackers, not the reliance on "shock".

You have very badly mixed your apples and oranges - the FBI is studying bullets that travel at 900 to 1,000-ish fps and stay in one piece, against 150 to 250 pound targets.

We are talking about bullets that travel at 3 to 4 times that speed, fragment into hundreds of pieces against targets that are 2 to 10 pounds.

You have obviously never hit a ground hog inn the guts with a 22-250 or a .220 Swift - no nerves, no nothing critical, and it drops to the ground, and is stone dead in a 1/10th of a second - lemme see an arrow that does that.
 
Originally Posted By: CatShooterOriginally Posted By: steve154Bullets do not kill/incapacitate by "shock". They kill the same way an arrow does and that is by putting a hole somewhere that will cause major bleeding and subsequent immediate drop in blood pressure, disrupt the central nervous system, or bust a supporting skeletal bone.

Hydro shock is nothing more than a theory that surmises that a shot to the chest will cause damage to the brain etc...by an over pressure of compressed fluid. If it is a factor at all, it is by far secondary to putting big/multiple holes where they need to be. I do not argue that the bullet kills faster than the arrow due to it causing more damage from a localized hydro effect. A bullet hits the heart of a deer and it has the same effect that it has on the tiny rats that blow up. Hit it with an arrow and it just slices through. Less damage from the arrow takes longer to dump that blood pressure to zero. It is still killing the exact same way.

The FBI has done as much research as anyone on the subject and they specifically advise against choosing a round/bullet on perceived shock effect. For humans, they want bullets that penetrate 12" and no more than 16". They know that holes in the right places are what stops attackers, not the reliance on "shock".

You have very badly mixed your apples and oranges - the FBI is studying bullets that travel at 900 to 1,000-ish fps and stay in one piece, against 150 to 250 pound targets.

We are talking about bullets that travel at 3 to 4 times that speed, fragment into hundreds of pieces against targets that are 2 to 10 pounds.

You have obviously never hit a ground hog inn the guts with a 22-250 or a .220 Swift - no nerves, no nothing critical, and it drops to the ground, and is stone dead in a 1/10th of a second - lemme see an arrow that does that.



hem
I am not mixing anything. I have shot hundreds, if not a thousand, woodchucks with a 22-250. Some of them in the guts. Some drop on the spot and never twitch and some of them have dragged themselves, with 5 feet of guts behind em, into a hole. What is your point? Do you really believe one of your "100's" of fragments didn't penetrate the spine, or a major blood vessel when it blew the guts completely out of a 9 pound animal that dropped on the spot? I never said an arrow does the same damage as a bullet. I said they kill the same way. Arrow just takes longer.
 
Originally Posted By: steve154Originally Posted By: CatShooterOriginally Posted By: steve154Bullets do not kill/incapacitate by "shock". They kill the same way an arrow does and that is by putting a hole somewhere that will cause major bleeding and subsequent immediate drop in blood pressure, disrupt the central nervous system, or bust a supporting skeletal bone.

Hydro shock is nothing more than a theory that surmises that a shot to the chest will cause damage to the brain etc...by an over pressure of compressed fluid. If it is a factor at all, it is by far secondary to putting big/multiple holes where they need to be. I do not argue that the bullet kills faster than the arrow due to it causing more damage from a localized hydro effect. A bullet hits the heart of a deer and it has the same effect that it has on the tiny rats that blow up. Hit it with an arrow and it just slices through. Less damage from the arrow takes longer to dump that blood pressure to zero. It is still killing the exact same way.

The FBI has done as much research as anyone on the subject and they specifically advise against choosing a round/bullet on perceived shock effect. For humans, they want bullets that penetrate 12" and no more than 16". They know that holes in the right places are what stops attackers, not the reliance on "shock".

You have very badly mixed your apples and oranges - the FBI is studying bullets that travel at 900 to 1,000-ish fps and stay in one piece, against 150 to 250 pound targets.

We are talking about bullets that travel at 3 to 4 times that speed, fragment into hundreds of pieces against targets that are 2 to 10 pounds.

You have obviously never hit a ground hog inn the guts with a 22-250 or a .220 Swift - no nerves, no nothing critical, and it drops to the ground, and is stone dead in a 1/10th of a second - lemme see an arrow that does that.



hem
I am not mixing anything. I have shot hundreds, if not a thousand, woodchucks with a 22-250. Some of them in the guts. Some drop on the spot and never twitch and some of them have dragged themselves, with 5 feet of guts behind em, into a hole. What is your point? Do you really believe one of your "100's" of fragments didn't penetrate the spine, or a major blood vessel when it blew the guts completely out of a 9 pound animal that dropped on the spot? I never said an arrow does the same damage as a bullet. I said they kill the same way. Arrow just takes longer.

My point is... the FBI studies have nothing to do with what we are talking about.

How many BGs drop like a sack when hit in the stomach with a pistol bullet... none, nada, zip.

Hydraulic shock...




 
I know what a bullet does. I said that I recognize hydro shock. It rips, tears and crushes tissue in an area bigger area than the bullet path, yes sir. That ripping, tearing and crushing causes severe damage to blood vessels, organs and sometimes bone, which creates more fragments, which causes more damage to blood vessels and organs, which causes the blood pressure to bottom out, which causes death.

Under the theory that the "shock" of the bullet is what kills, the bad guy hit in the guts with a pistol bullet would be incapacitated because of the over pressure of fluid on other organs, vessels and the CNS. You are right. It seldom happens. The last deer I killed was shot with a 110 vmax out of a .308. Had golf ball sized chunks of lung that blew out the fist sized exit. She ran until she was pumped dry and then dropped. Where was the shock principle that should have taken out the brain and dropped it stone dead? That is what I am talking about, not that it doesn't cause damage.
 
if there is no shock involved, then why are cast bullets with large meplats more effective for hunting than a pointed bullet of the same caliber and weight?

most of the body of any animal is fluid. when a bullet hits that fluid, the fluid cannot get out of the way fast enough, that creates a shock wave. as we all know fluids do not compress much beyond a certain point. so when a bullet traveling at 3500 fps tries to push a fluid like belly of an animal, the shock wave created goes outside the immediate path of the bullet. the bullet itself is not very big in diameter at this point. but the damage to the tissue around the wound channel is sometimes several inches.

when a squirrel gets hit in his fat belly full of liquified grass, he goes pop a whole lot better than when he is a skinney squirrel just out of his den for the winter. when it flies 10 feet in the air, it is the reaction of his little body exploding. what else would you call a body exploding from a bullet impact, if not shock, then what?
 
no one here except you, steve, has said anything about shock to the brain.
hydrostatic shock is a fact, but no one here has said that hydrostatic shock kills via shock sent through the blood vessels of the body to then compress the brain. other than your referencing the government research, that Cat has pointed out has to do with slow moving bullets, no one is talking about a 45 slug at 850fps.
anyone who has shot small rodents with arrows, 22rf, or large bore slow bullets can honestly say that the rodents are blown up. but, with fast bullets that release energy rapidly, POP.
 
Are you reading all of what I said, or just picking out parts? I am seriously dumbfounded as to how this discussion has gone.

Let me reiterate my point.

The Op said that he was of the understanding that an arrow kills by causing blood loss and a bullet kills by shock. With that in mind, which causes more hydraulic shock, fast and light, or heavy and slow.

I come along and make the point that death by projectile, bullet, or arrow, is caused by putting a hole in a part that bleeds, or by shutting down the CNS. I have clearly said that the bullet causes more damage due to hydrostatic shock, yes, but the shock is not what kills. It is the blood loss caused by the damage, the same as an arrow.

There is no argument that hydro shock exists and causes damage greater than the diameter of the bullet, which is obviously greater damage than an arrow will cause. Proponents of hydrostatic shock say it is a factor in killing by causing damage to areas no where near the bullets path. An example would be damage to brain from a chest wound. I do not believe it be a significant factor, hence my statement that bullets do not kill by "shock", but kill the same way an arrow does, just much quicker in most cases.
 
link

I think we have a misunderstanding of each others terms. The above is what I am talking about and what I was trying to say about hydrostatic shock killing.
 
I know one thing: If I am ever in front of a firing squad I would certainly rather the shooters all be armed with .300 Weatherbys than I would they all have bows and arrows.
 
^^^ lmao rusty,
OP,
This argument has been going on since high velocity rounds came around. Some outlandish claims have been made on both sides. Some bullets and cartridges preform best due to shock, some from large holes going clean though. But the big factor is they all kill from tissue damage and nothing else. You'll have to just pick out the right cartridge and load for the task at hand and the desired effect.
 
Last edited:
I placed a 150 gr Nosler Ballistic Tip bullet into a 214lbs whitetail buck this past November. I hit him slightly high and in on his shoulder. His @ss dropped like a ton of bricks followed by the rest of his body, all in one motion and didn't wiggle. He appeared dead as he was going down. I shot a doe a couple days later and placed the same bullet through her heart. She ran 40 yards and painted the woods red. There just seems like there had to be some shock that was exhausted into that buck's body by hitting bone compared to shooting the doe through the heart.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top