Hydraulic shock
- Thread starter Ran6er
- Start date
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".
gee, not sure where i got "hydro shock is nothing more than a therory..."
"I do not argue that the bullet kills faster than the arrow due to it causing more damage from a localized hydro effect." again, how did i misinterpret that?
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".
gee, not sure where i got "hydro shock is nothing more than a therory..."
"I do not argue that the bullet kills faster than the arrow due to it causing more damage from a localized hydro effect." again, how did i misinterpret that?
SlickerThanSnot
New member
6724 remember this?
Originally Posted By: 6724blah blah blah!
heres your sign buddy.
Originally Posted By: 6724blah blah blah!
heres your sign buddy.
CatShooter
New member
Originally Posted By: steve154 Quote:But the big factor is they all kill from tissue damage and nothing else.
Exactly!
Uh.... DUH!!!! What an insightful thought.
As I stumble through all the permutations of your convoluted logic, what you are saying is that the mechanism of dying is bleeding, whether it is from a high speed bullet, or an arrow, or, for that matter, a woman's hat pin.
I have no words to describe how impressed I am by this new and profound discovery of yours - you should publish a research paper on your findings.
In the mean time...
...
P.S... your "link" is lame BS - you cannot use someone else's "opinion" as proof in your argument... you can find a thousand of "opinions" on the internet - it does not count unless you can explain it yourself on common language, or find a true scientific reference - wiki-poopoo does not count!
Exactly!
Uh.... DUH!!!! What an insightful thought.
As I stumble through all the permutations of your convoluted logic, what you are saying is that the mechanism of dying is bleeding, whether it is from a high speed bullet, or an arrow, or, for that matter, a woman's hat pin.
I have no words to describe how impressed I am by this new and profound discovery of yours - you should publish a research paper on your findings.
In the mean time...
...
P.S... your "link" is lame BS - you cannot use someone else's "opinion" as proof in your argument... you can find a thousand of "opinions" on the internet - it does not count unless you can explain it yourself on common language, or find a true scientific reference - wiki-poopoo does not count!
If there is one thing that is scientifically proven it is that Catshooter is all knowing and will 100% of the time revert to his teenaged girl years and throw a temper tantrum if there is the slightest disagreement with his God like knowledge. Catshooter, you sir, are dick of the highest caliber and that is an excellent selfie you took there.
The reading comprehension and logic used here are sometimes unbelievable...bullets are magical bolts of lightning that instantly shock an animal to death?
For the simple folks among us: Bullets do not kill by sending a shock wave throughout the body, which is exactly what the Hydraulic "shock" theory suggests. There is a hydraulic effect, which creates a temporary cavity, but the results are directly correlated to how much tissues is disrupted by the bullet. FMJ disrupt less tissue than an expanding/fragmenting bullet of the same size and velocity and are often not very effective. If your shock wave were valid, why would that be?
For those that want to read, here ya go: I know even a surgeon that has spent a good portion of his lefe studying this will not be good enough for some. link maybe some special attention to the part about using under sized animals as an example would be appropriate here and maybe even the part about tissue that is elastic (muscle) versus that which is not (liver) and the effect that the temporary cavity has on each.
The reading comprehension and logic used here are sometimes unbelievable...bullets are magical bolts of lightning that instantly shock an animal to death?
For the simple folks among us: Bullets do not kill by sending a shock wave throughout the body, which is exactly what the Hydraulic "shock" theory suggests. There is a hydraulic effect, which creates a temporary cavity, but the results are directly correlated to how much tissues is disrupted by the bullet. FMJ disrupt less tissue than an expanding/fragmenting bullet of the same size and velocity and are often not very effective. If your shock wave were valid, why would that be?
For those that want to read, here ya go: I know even a surgeon that has spent a good portion of his lefe studying this will not be good enough for some. link maybe some special attention to the part about using under sized animals as an example would be appropriate here and maybe even the part about tissue that is elastic (muscle) versus that which is not (liver) and the effect that the temporary cavity has on each.
Last edited:
CatShooter
New member
Originally Posted By: steve154If there is one thing that is scientifically proven it is that Catshooter is all knowing and will 100% of the time revert to his teenaged girl years and throw a temper tantrum if there is the slightest disagreement with his God like knowledge. Catshooter, you sir, are dick of the highest caliber and that is an excellent selfie you took there.
That is all well and good, except that I am not the one disagreeing with you - most everyone here is disagreeing with (and laughing at) you.
You started by making a stupid statement, and you've been shuckin', jivin' and spinnin' ever since.
I did not insult you and call you names, I challenged your flawed and illogical statements, and your changing the frame of the comments every time someone challenged what you were saying.
You, Steven. are the one that acted like a petulant pig and crawled into the gutter of name calling.
Go home and have your mommy wash out your mouth with brown soap. Then learn how to have a discussion while standing up straight, instead of crawling in the garbage.
You went to a discussion of ideas - unarmed!!
That is all well and good, except that I am not the one disagreeing with you - most everyone here is disagreeing with (and laughing at) you.
You started by making a stupid statement, and you've been shuckin', jivin' and spinnin' ever since.
I did not insult you and call you names, I challenged your flawed and illogical statements, and your changing the frame of the comments every time someone challenged what you were saying.
You, Steven. are the one that acted like a petulant pig and crawled into the gutter of name calling.
Go home and have your mommy wash out your mouth with brown soap. Then learn how to have a discussion while standing up straight, instead of crawling in the garbage.
You went to a discussion of ideas - unarmed!!
I went to name calling? When was that, Dick...I mean Cat? After your ridiculous, condescending and dismissive post, as usual with you. That's when. I have crawled no where. I stand by my statements, which have remained the same and are backed up by scientific facts. It is beyond my control that there are those that really believe that a 50 grain bullet going 3500 fps and designed to come apart when it hits a twig and then blows up a 1 lb rat is proof of some kind of magical shock effect of bullets.
No amount of twisting, semantic games, name calling, degrading, minimizing and band wagon jumping will change the facts of my point. The OP said that he understood that bullets kill by shock and an arrow kills by causing bleeding. I have stated consistently that there is no difference. The only thing I will back track on is that I should have not called the hydraulic effect (real), hydraulic shock(fantasy). They are two completely different things and have admittedly convoluted this discussion by allowing a difference with distinction to be twisted to without.
I find it completely unbelievable that you do not know exactly what my point is, but have simply chosen to take the opportunity to play at your internet hobby. Its all good. I and many others here expect nothing less from you.
No amount of twisting, semantic games, name calling, degrading, minimizing and band wagon jumping will change the facts of my point. The OP said that he understood that bullets kill by shock and an arrow kills by causing bleeding. I have stated consistently that there is no difference. The only thing I will back track on is that I should have not called the hydraulic effect (real), hydraulic shock(fantasy). They are two completely different things and have admittedly convoluted this discussion by allowing a difference with distinction to be twisted to without.
I find it completely unbelievable that you do not know exactly what my point is, but have simply chosen to take the opportunity to play at your internet hobby. Its all good. I and many others here expect nothing less from you.
CatShooter
New member
Originally Posted By: steve154I went to name calling? When was that, Dick...I mean Cat? After your ridiculous, condescending and dismissive post, as usual with you. That's when. I have crawled no where. I stand by my statements, which have remained the same and are backed up by scientific facts. It is beyond my control that there are those that really believe that a 50 grain bullet going 3500 fps and designed to come apart when it hits a twig and then blows up a 1 lb rat is proof of some kind of magical shock effect of bullets.
No amount of twisting, semantic games, name calling, degrading, minimizing and band wagon jumping will change the facts of my point. The OP said that he understood that bullets kill by shock and an arrow kills by causing bleeding. I have stated consistently that there is no difference. The only thing I will back track on is that I should have not called the hydraulic effect (real), hydraulic shock(fantasy). They are two completely different things and have admittedly convoluted this discussion by allowing a difference with distinction to be twisted to without.
I find it completely unbelievable that you do not know exactly what my point is, but have simply chosen to take the opportunity to play at your internet hobby. Its all good. I and many others here expect nothing less from you.
You keep digging deeper and deeper and deeper...
Enjoy the journey!
No amount of twisting, semantic games, name calling, degrading, minimizing and band wagon jumping will change the facts of my point. The OP said that he understood that bullets kill by shock and an arrow kills by causing bleeding. I have stated consistently that there is no difference. The only thing I will back track on is that I should have not called the hydraulic effect (real), hydraulic shock(fantasy). They are two completely different things and have admittedly convoluted this discussion by allowing a difference with distinction to be twisted to without.
I find it completely unbelievable that you do not know exactly what my point is, but have simply chosen to take the opportunity to play at your internet hobby. Its all good. I and many others here expect nothing less from you.
You keep digging deeper and deeper and deeper...
Enjoy the journey!
DiRTY DOG
Well-known member
Fast, light, fragmenting bullets put the smack down on smallish critters, that's for sure. 17Rem drops them INSTANTLY, as does my 223 40gr Vmax @ 3700fps.
I imagine it like being 8itch slapped REALLY REALLY SUPER hard, vs being punched with a slower deliberate fist jab.
As if the vitals are so severely stunned from the impact that they instantly shut down. Call it hydrostatic shock or whatever you want, but chunks go flying, and stuff dies mighty quick with the right combo of high velocity plus fragmentation/expansion compared to just poking a hole like a hole puncher.
You can stop someone's heart instantly with a solid punch to the chest, especially a child. It happens in Little League now and then when a kid gets hit in the chest with a baseball. Might a fast 55gr Vmax that frags near the heart/chest/lungs/CNS have a similar effect? Sure. Impact trauma kills same as blood loss.
I imagine it like being 8itch slapped REALLY REALLY SUPER hard, vs being punched with a slower deliberate fist jab.
As if the vitals are so severely stunned from the impact that they instantly shut down. Call it hydrostatic shock or whatever you want, but chunks go flying, and stuff dies mighty quick with the right combo of high velocity plus fragmentation/expansion compared to just poking a hole like a hole puncher.
You can stop someone's heart instantly with a solid punch to the chest, especially a child. It happens in Little League now and then when a kid gets hit in the chest with a baseball. Might a fast 55gr Vmax that frags near the heart/chest/lungs/CNS have a similar effect? Sure. Impact trauma kills same as blood loss.
NdIndy
New member
Originally Posted By: 6724i 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.
I popped one at 410 yards (laser) with a 10/22 and bulk ammo. He made it over 110 yards and rolled over within inches of his hole. I started by aiming somewhere in his general direction and did it in 1 shot. I should have finished by buying lottery tickets that day
a 22rf is rarely a quick kill.
I popped one at 410 yards (laser) with a 10/22 and bulk ammo. He made it over 110 yards and rolled over within inches of his hole. I started by aiming somewhere in his general direction and did it in 1 shot. I should have finished by buying lottery tickets that day
CatShooter
New member
Originally Posted By: LeadbellyOriginally Posted By: CatShooter
steve154 said:Quote:But the big factor is they all kill from tissue damage and nothing else.
Exactly!
Uh.... DUH!!!! What an insightful thought.
Are you patronizing me or the one that quoted me ????
The one that quoted you
RockyMtnHunter
New member
A bullet that opens up to around .970" like this one, sure plants them fast
steve, you are a real class act. you obviously went and dug up a post of mine from a few months back for the bla bla bla statement. works well for you, or at least you think, just like all of your posts in this thread, pick and choose, spin, deny etc...
you, sir, have downgraded the thread from a thread of discussion to one of insults and put downs, wow, what a big man you are. maybe you should call me a name like you did Cat, would that make you feel better about your posts that go nowhere?
it is obvious from the other posts in this thread that people do not agree with you. just because they disagree with you does not mean that you have to show everyone what an [beeep] you are!
you, sir, have downgraded the thread from a thread of discussion to one of insults and put downs, wow, what a big man you are. maybe you should call me a name like you did Cat, would that make you feel better about your posts that go nowhere?
it is obvious from the other posts in this thread that people do not agree with you. just because they disagree with you does not mean that you have to show everyone what an [beeep] you are!
Rustydust
Active member
Originally Posted By: K22Two ways to destroy tissue, big wound channel or hydrostatic shock. The higher percentage of DRT's for me have been with hydrostatic shock. Hence, my love for the 17 Rem. and 204.
I have a picture of a prairie dog that I shot with my .17 Remington. I hit him at 70-75 yards in the body using a 20 grain Vmax bullet being launched at 4400 fps. I doubt that it lost too much speed at that distance. Anyway, the picture is not actually of the entire prairie dog but rather of his head. The largest piece of him that I could find. I seriously doubt that he felt anything at all with the hit. I have done the same with my .220 Swift but was surprised that the little .17 Remmy did the same thing. Super high velocity and very frangible bullets do make an impressive pair.
I have a picture of a prairie dog that I shot with my .17 Remington. I hit him at 70-75 yards in the body using a 20 grain Vmax bullet being launched at 4400 fps. I doubt that it lost too much speed at that distance. Anyway, the picture is not actually of the entire prairie dog but rather of his head. The largest piece of him that I could find. I seriously doubt that he felt anything at all with the hit. I have done the same with my .220 Swift but was surprised that the little .17 Remmy did the same thing. Super high velocity and very frangible bullets do make an impressive pair.
Varminterror
New member
Wow, this was 3pages of awesome...