hydrostatic shock or not?

[coloradoclyde]

You're right Spence....There are two expansion/displacement events. I assumed the first was a given that everyone accepted.

 

[George]

I assumed the first was a given that everyone accepted.

It's safe to say that nobody accepts everything, never have, never will. :haha:

My terminology is apparently wrong. Whatever the proper name for it, what I'm trying to discuss is that pressure wave created by the striking bullet and the damage caused by it, not the damage caused directly by the bullet striking. I'm not talking about damage to the nervous system at a distance which takes the animal down...you know, shoot 'em in the knee and they drop dead. I understand completely that if such a thing happens it won't be with a muzzleloader.

Spence

 

[Billnpatti]

Hydrostatic shock by definition is the result of a penetrating projectile (such as a bullet) producing a pressure wave that causes "remote neural damage", "subtle damage in neural tissues" and/or "rapid incapacitating effects" in living targets. It does not matter what propelled the projectile nor at what speed it is moving, so long as it penetrates living tissue, it will produce a pressure wave. The greater the velocity and the mass of the projectile, the larger will be the resultant pressure wave and the greater will be the resultant tissue damage. So, what that means is that a round ball from a muzzleloader will, in deed, produce hydrostatic shock.

 

[Rifleman1776]

"A rose by any other name is still....."

Whatever kind of shock it is, yes it exists with ml rifles.
My first deer (maybe two) were shot under 100 yards with my .45 cal. flinter using 95 gr. 3Fg. Lots of ruined meat from shock. I didn't like that. Reduced the charge to 65 gr. from then on. Deer just as ded and barely any ruined meat.
Fuggit the numbers, it exists.

 

[tenngun]

The glass jaw was a term in boxing for guys that went down quick from a blow.
There is no telling how an animal will react to a shot. I’ve seen deer shot through the heart or aroata go right down. I’ve seen them run a bit. I shot one through left liver and right lung busting the diaphragm, and busted the shoulder. It ran a over a quarter mile. I’ve shot through aorta and veinacava high and it dropped right there.
Death is one to a customer and each ones different. I watch a human die at least once a month, and know the grim reaper never dresses the same.

 

[coloradoclyde]

I think anything that can disrupt the signal for the heart to keep beating, can kill....Once stopped it can be difficult to get going again.

There are many things that can do this, drugs, electricity, blood loss, trauma etc......

I think any disruption to the Vagus nerve or the heart itself could stop the heart or breathing.

 

[Skychief]

A couple of weeks ago, I shot some water bottles similar to Spence. I was using my 45 flinter. Shots were from 25 and 50 yards at gallon bottles, lined up 5 deep.

The 25 yard shot penetrated the first bottle and was found inside the second. The first bottle was blown to smithereens while the second less so. The recovered ball looked so like a miniature pancake.

The 50 yard shot also penetrated and blew up the first bottle, though not as dramatically as the 25 yard shot. Again the ball was found inside the second bottle. It nearly penetrated through though at this distance, denting the far side. The ball resembled something between a pancake and an igloo.

What I took away from the results of these shots, was, blowing up water bottles is a good way to spend one's time. :haha:

Best regards, Skychief

 

[azmntman]

:thumbsup: :haha: Only a few better ways and for one of em the fish gotta be biting....the other, well nobodies ever figured them out so...?

 

[azmntman]

Very odd that Frank gets messed up meat with a .45 at longer ranges and less powder. Like I said I have yet to see more than about 1" max meat waste from BP. 7mm, 30-06, .270 etc. yer gonna lose some meat. I hunt .50 at 65 gr mostly and .54 and .58 75 gr up to maybe 80. Still no mess?

Ya as for death....I have shot em close and far and none of act the same. Shot a cow elk in the heart, 44-50 yds, death lurch, KNEW it was a heart hit. Walked about 100 yds back to the truck, got my "stuff" and had a cup of coffe. Went back to get my meat and my meat got up and ran. For some reason I took the 30-30 back with me (usually would not) and I shot her again. Yep, one right through the heart and after about 20 min she got up and ran? Next the son hits a cow (a BIG cow) with a .54 PRB and hits a bit low and far back but toasted the liver. She went maybe 60 yds and was dead. Have had em fall over, keep eating and fall over, run a bit and fall over. Every once in a while a 2nd shot needed (and almost always with a CF ). I truly believe that with in reasonable range a PRB is a better game getter than a cf. My 30 inch buck took 3 .243 and a .45 1911 in the head to stop and ran 200 yds with no lungs. I believe if a .50 or larger it wouldnt a went more than 40 yds :idunno:

They are all different but the final destination is the same, a big white box in the garage with a plug :grin:

 

[Britsmoothy]

A couple of weeks ago, I shot some water bottles similar to Spence. I was using my 45 flinter. Shots were from 25 and 50 yards at gallon bottles, lined up 5 deep.

The 25 yard shot penetrated the first bottle and was found inside the second. The first bottle was blown to smithereens while the second less so. The recovered ball looked so like a miniature pancake.

The 50 yard shot also penetrated and blew up the first bottle, though not as dramatically as the 25 yard shot. Again the ball was found inside the second bottle. It nearly penetrated through though at this distance, denting the far side. The ball resembled something between a pancake and an igloo.

What I took away from the results of these shots, was, blowing up water bottles is a good way to spend one's time. :haha:

Best regards, Skychief

:rotf: :haha: :applause:

B.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Hydrostatic shock by definition is the result of a penetrating projectile (such as a bullet) producing a pressure wave that causes "remote neural damage", "subtle damage in neural tissues" and/or "rapid incapacitating effects" in living targets. It does not matter what propelled the projectile nor at what speed it is moving, so long as it penetrates living tissue, it will produce a pressure wave. The greater the velocity and the mass of the projectile, the larger will be the resultant pressure wave and the greater will be the resultant tissue damage. So, what that means is that a round ball from a muzzleloader will, in deed, produce hydrostatic shock.

NO

What that means is that all penetrating projectiles produce a hydrostatic effect, and only rise to the level of creating hydrostatic shock when they in fact cause, "remote neural damage", "subtle damage in neural tissues" and/or "rapid incapacitating effects" (aka shock) in living targets. :wink:

LD

 

[Skychief]

I'd say Spence shocked the stuffing, not to mention the brains, out of his doe. :hmm:

 

[bud in pa]

I read, too long ago to remember where, that hydrostatic shock was the effect of the projectile compressing fluid faster then the surrounding tissue can absorb it, causing the tissue to rupture. I am not a scientist so I have to rely on the writings of others with more knowledge and experience than me. just my 2c

 

[Black Hand]

It stands to reason that the energy of the projectile will be transferred to the fluid in the target (e.g. deer), and since the fluid is minimally-compressible, would result in tissue damage above and beyond the direct physical damage caused by a penetrating object. Now whether this has a distant effect on the nervous system would very much depend on the POI.

I think we might compare the effect of an arrow to a roundball. The arrow cuts and the animal is killed by massive hemorrhage, while the roundball impact would be more akin to being hit with a very fast small hammer. Either way, physiological shock (hypovolemic not hydraulic) can prove fatal.

 

[Sunkmanitu Tanka]

And I, who for many years was told by my dear wife that after I removed to quickly the contents of a nice bottle of adult beverage that I was drunk or hung over! :shake: She was wrong all the time! I was suffering from a hydrostatic shock! :idunno: :rotf: Now I AM shocked!

 

[Billnpatti]

Yep, ya got me!! :redface: You are right and I had used the wrong words. The result of a projectile striking an animal (or water jug) is hydrostatic effect. If the hydrostatic effect is sufficient, it can result in hydrostatic shock. Good catch! :thumbsup:

 

[Zonie]

Imagine if you will;
Air (a compressible fluid) rushing into a void in water (an incompressible liquid) at supersonic speed.

Imagine the results.

I have observed this up close and personal many times during the course of my life.

The fluid is resting peacefully when suddenly the high velocity gas is injected, usually, just below the surface.

The disturbance is often great enough to make the entire bathtub vibrate and rumble while emitting a loud, "PURRRRRRRTTTT" sound followed by a horrible stench.

The effects on the entire nervous system are difficult to describe but more than a few times my ears have heard my wife yell, "Jim. Quit farting in the bathtub." :nono: :shocked2: :thumbsup:

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Now whether this has a distant effect on the nervous system would very much depend on the POI.

Actually the theory now is that it depends a great deal at which point of the cardiovascular cycle is present when the bullet impacts. If the impact is near enough to a major blood vessel AND the heart is at max compression at the same instant, you get the transmission of trauma (or so the theory goes) to distant organs and possibly the brain. So if the cardio system is fully pressurized when the bullet hits..., the addition of increase in pressure causes the large overload to the system.

LD

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Seriously,

We have a nice discussion about Hydrostatic Shock..., folks on other forums do too. Right now, at least from what I've read, and I've read a lot because in my line of work and duties, I have in the past had to deal with gunshot wounds...,

So right now HS is known to happen, but not in a consistent manner for folks to say "Ah Ha!" or "Eureaka" when it comes to why it happens, well enough to be able to design bullets that will dependably cause it to happen..., and we're talking about modern, fixed ammunition for HS in most circumstances.

It happens less frequently with BP loads, and especially less with moderate, patched round ball loads.

So what do we do? WE, those that harvest large game with antique technology, WE worry about the damage that will actually be done by the projectile when it hits..., not what else it might manufacture at impact due to a physics phenomenon. (If you talk to a lot of successful hunters, they do the same thing with thier modern bullets :wink: )

HS causes a fraction of a second sooner mortality. A fraction of a second. I don't think any of us who have seen an animal hit have thought, "Now that's some good HS effect there." I don't think for the centuries that the flintlock reigned as the state-of-the-art ignition system it matter to those hunters.., nor to the lads who first started using smokeless ammunition. When we do remark on it, it's normally during the dressing or meat cutting stage and we find the damage, and remark something like, "Wow look at that," right? Not, "Just as I expected".

So while discussions of HS are fun, and interesting science, it won't matter a whit to the large game whether or not HS adds to the damage, just so long as we.....

......, wait for it.......

...., "do our part" ....

:wink:

LD

 

[nkbj]

Hydrostatic means there is unchanging pressure applied to a liquid filled volume.

How the term got drafted into referring to the completely non-static dynamic disruptive force of a bullet striking meat is pretty funny.

More fun to me: Run rate of displacement calcs for the cross sectional area and velocities of black powder firearms and obtain the cubic inch per second values of the loads and distances known to work best.