if shock "doesn't exist", (as many claim) - Page 5
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Handguns > General Handgun Discussion > if shock "doesn't exist", (as many claim)

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-28-2014, 11:42 PM   #41
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 6,624
Liked 2216 Times on 1523 Posts
Likes Given: 820

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hookeye View Post
Shoot a groundhog in the belly inside of 200 yards with a .220 Swift running a decent 50-55 gr varmint bullet and tell me it doesn't have hydrostatic shock.

BTW, I thought the threshold for such was 2K FPS.

Bullet design is a big factor in how energy is transferred. That which is available isn't always used.

Big slow bullets let a lot of air and blood out, trash stuff too. One doesn't need hydrostatic shock to kill.

But killing quickly usually means tearing up as much stuff as you can, as fast as you can.
You should try shooting something larger than a groundhog with a 220 swift. I have seen idiots unload a 5.56x45 on a deer and the dogs had to catch the deer. I have shot a deer 8 times with a 7.62x39. Every shot was in the deers shoulder blades, lungs and neck. If you shoot a deer in the shoulder blades once with a 30/06 he is running on his chin his front legs are immobile. I have gut shot deer with a 30/06 and the deer went down on the spot, his lungs were trashed. That is hydrostatic shock, not blowing up a 3lb groundhog.
__________________
John_Deer is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 03:06 AM   #42
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Free State of Winston, AL
Posts: 3,296
Liked 2157 Times on 1280 Posts
Likes Given: 1077

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Deer View Post
You should try shooting something larger than a groundhog with a 220 swift. I have seen idiots unload a 5.56x45 on a deer and the dogs had to catch the deer. I have shot a deer 8 times with a 7.62x39. Every shot was in the deers shoulder blades, lungs and neck. If you shoot a deer in the shoulder blades once with a 30/06 he is running on his chin his front legs are immobile. I have gut shot deer with a 30/06 and the deer went down on the spot, his lungs were trashed. That is hydrostatic shock, not blowing up a 3lb groundhog.
John,
If you 'gut shot' him you would have hit his lungs!!!
__________________

An armed society is not always a polite society, but it is a free and safe society!
Self Defense is an absolute and natural right!
Keep your head down and your powder dry!

JimRau is offline  
Axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 06:39 AM   #43
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Hookeye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 972
Liked 315 Times on 209 Posts
Likes Given: 25

Default

3 lb groundhog.............OK Mr wildlife expert.
Probably piggybacked that degree after the 7.62 eight shot thesis.

__________________

Last edited by Hookeye; 06-29-2014 at 06:43 AM.
Hookeye is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 07:26 AM   #44
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,709
Liked 22109 Times on 12429 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

ballistics on the 7.62x39 from various ammo makers.

it in many cases exceeeds even the 44 Magnum in MV and ME.

it has a bit less initial MV and ME than even the 30-30, but still retains pretty close to the same at longer distances and has less bullet drop than the 30-30.

http://www.remington.com/pages/news-and-resources/ballistics.aspx

http://www.remington.com/pages/news-and-resources/ballistics.aspx

http://www.remington.com/pages/news-and-resources/ballistics.aspx

http://www.hornady.com/store/7.62X39-123-gr-SST/

http://www.hornady.com/store/30-30-Win-140-gr-monoflex-Leverevolution/

http://www.hornady.com/store/44-Mag-225-gr-FTX-LEVERevolution/

http://www.winchester.com/Products/rifle-ammunition/Performance/Super-X-rifle/Pages/X76239.aspx

http://www.winchester.com/Products/rifle-ammunition/Performance/Super-X-rifle/Pages/X30301.aspx

http://www.winchester.com/Products/handgun-ammunition/Value/Pistol/Pages/Q4240.aspx

so my question is, if a person can hunt and kill deer with a 44 Magnum or a 30-30, but have a problem with killing a deer with a 7.62x39, is it a fault of the ammo or the person using the ammo?

IMO, there are three key factors that determine making a humane kill.

1) proper ammo selection of type of bullet for the intended game.

2) accurate shot placement.

3) staying within the limits of the intended cartridge used.

so 7-8 shots with a 7.62x39 to kill a deer speaks for itself without any further elaboration on my part. i know for a fact that it will take a deer down with one shot. i have seen it done at least three times personally.

__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 03:36 PM   #45
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Free State of Winston, AL
Posts: 3,296
Liked 2157 Times on 1280 Posts
Likes Given: 1077

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axxe55 View Post
ballistics on the 7.62x39 from various ammo makers.

it in many cases exceeeds even the 44 Magnum in MV and ME.

it has a bit less initial MV and ME than even the 30-30, but still retains pretty close to the same at longer distances and has less bullet drop than the 30-30.

http://www.remington.com/pages/news-and-resources/ballistics.aspx

http://www.remington.com/pages/news-and-resources/ballistics.aspx

http://www.remington.com/pages/news-and-resources/ballistics.aspx

http://www.hornady.com/store/7.62X39-123-gr-SST/

http://www.hornady.com/store/30-30-Win-140-gr-monoflex-Leverevolution/

http://www.hornady.com/store/44-Mag-225-gr-FTX-LEVERevolution/

http://www.winchester.com/Products/rifle-ammunition/Performance/Super-X-rifle/Pages/X76239.aspx

http://www.winchester.com/Products/rifle-ammunition/Performance/Super-X-rifle/Pages/X30301.aspx

http://www.winchester.com/Products/handgun-ammunition/Value/Pistol/Pages/Q4240.aspx

so my question is, if a person can hunt and kill deer with a 44 Magnum or a 30-30, but have a problem with killing a deer with a 7.62x39, is it a fault of the ammo or the person using the ammo?

IMO, there are three key factors that determine making a humane kill.

1) proper ammo selection of type of bullet for the intended game.

2) accurate shot placement.

3) staying within the limits of the intended cartridge used.

so 7-8 shots with a 7.62x39 to kill a deer speaks for itself without any further elaboration on my part. i know for a fact that it will take a deer down with one shot. i have seen it done at least three times personally.
AKA Common Sense!!!!
__________________

An armed society is not always a polite society, but it is a free and safe society!
Self Defense is an absolute and natural right!
Keep your head down and your powder dry!

JimRau is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 03:51 PM   #46
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 6,624
Liked 2216 Times on 1523 Posts
Likes Given: 820

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRau View Post
John,
If you 'gut shot' him you would have hit his lungs!!!
Jim, don't tell me you don't understand how hydrostatic shock works. Let me help you.

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Hydrostatic_shock.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock

Belief in remote effects of penetrating projectiles may have originated with hunters and soldiers, but their reality is now well established in a broad body of scientific literature...

Frank Chamberlin, a World War II trauma surgeon and ballistics researcher, noted remote pressure wave effects. Col. Chamberlin described what he called “explosive effects” and “hydraulic reaction” of bullets in tissue. ...liquids are put in motion by ‘shock waves’ or hydraulic effects... with liquid filled tissues, the effects and destruction of tissues extend in all directions far beyond the wound axis.[10] He avoided the ambiguous use of the term “shock” because it can refer to either a specific kind of pressure wave associated with explosions and supersonic projectiles or to a medical condition in the body.
Col. Chamberlin recognized that many theories have been advanced in wound ballistics. During World War II he commanded an 8,500-bed hospital center that treated over 67,000 patients during the fourteen months that he operated it. P.O. Ackley estimates that 85% of the patients were suffering from gunshot wounds.[11] Col. Chamberlin spent many hours interviewing patients as to their reactions to bullet wounds. He conducted many live animal experiments after his tour of duty. On the subject of wound ballistics theories, he wrote
If I had to pick one of these theories as gospel, I’d still go along with the Hydraulic Reaction of the Body Fluids plus the reactions on the Central Nervous System.
— Col. Frank Chamberlin, M.D
__________________
John_Deer is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 04:05 PM   #47
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Free State of Winston, AL
Posts: 3,296
Liked 2157 Times on 1280 Posts
Likes Given: 1077

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Deer View Post
Jim, don't tell me you don't understand how hydrostatic shock works. Let me help you.

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Hydrostatic_shock.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock

Belief in remote effects of penetrating projectiles may have originated with hunters and soldiers, but their reality is now well established in a broad body of scientific literature...

Frank Chamberlin, a World War II trauma surgeon and ballistics researcher, noted remote pressure wave effects. Col. Chamberlin described what he called “explosive effects” and “hydraulic reaction” of bullets in tissue. ...liquids are put in motion by ‘shock waves’ or hydraulic effects... with liquid filled tissues, the effects and destruction of tissues extend in all directions far beyond the wound axis.[10] He avoided the ambiguous use of the term “shock” because it can refer to either a specific kind of pressure wave associated with explosions and supersonic projectiles or to a medical condition in the body.
Col. Chamberlin recognized that many theories have been advanced in wound ballistics. During World War II he commanded an 8,500-bed hospital center that treated over 67,000 patients during the fourteen months that he operated it. P.O. Ackley estimates that 85% of the patients were suffering from gunshot wounds.[11] Col. Chamberlin spent many hours interviewing patients as to their reactions to bullet wounds. He conducted many live animal experiments after his tour of duty. On the subject of wound ballistics theories, he wrote
If I had to pick one of these theories as gospel, I’d still go along with the Hydraulic Reaction of the Body Fluids plus the reactions on the Central Nervous System.
— Col. Frank Chamberlin, M.D
It don't work because it is a fallacy, an error in reasoning.
REAL shootings have proven the only thing that counts is the permanent wound cavity. Now it just so happens that most rifle 'loads' which produce a large 'temporary wound cavity' AKA hydrostatic shock, also produce a large 'permanent wound cavity' but not all. The real proof is when you look at hand gun loads and slower rifle loads with a large cross sectional area. Those type of loads, for the most part, lack a large temporary wound cavity/hydrostatic shock component but yet are still effective at causing rapid incapacitation because they produce a large permanent wound cavity . This also demonstrates the fallacy in the 'energy transfer' arguments.
__________________

An armed society is not always a polite society, but it is a free and safe society!
Self Defense is an absolute and natural right!
Keep your head down and your powder dry!

JimRau is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 08:43 PM   #48
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Hookeye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 972
Liked 315 Times on 209 Posts
Likes Given: 25

Default

Do you need it? No.
Can you use it? Yes.
Should you rely on it? No.

__________________

Last edited by Hookeye; 06-29-2014 at 08:46 PM.
Hookeye is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 10:05 PM   #49
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Chainfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,856
Liked 1712 Times on 1019 Posts
Likes Given: 370

Default

People who don't believe in the effects of hydro-static shock should pay close attention to the time lapse photos of a rifle bullet hitting ballistic gel, or a full gallon jug of water, then ask themselves what it feels like to get kicked in the kidneys or testicles. There is no penetration in the kick, and it won't kill you, but it can temporarily disable.

__________________

"It is better to be too skeptical then too credulous"

Carl Sagan

Chainfire is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 10:29 PM   #50
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Hookeye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 972
Liked 315 Times on 209 Posts
Likes Given: 25

Default

Most stuff will take things beyond the elastic limit of the plastic water jug.
And the fluid is probably at max capacity, and homogenous.

Tissues may have voids, structures within, different and maybe varied densities, fluid levels....... and elastic limits.
Wrap that all up with some good old stretchy hide..............

Still can pop some critters like balloons though, just isn't as sure as a water jug. Think scale has a lot to do with getting a comparable dynamic effect.

Keep the chuck close (150 and in), make sure he's got a belly full and then drop the crosshairs to give him a new belly button.

By accident (or on purpose), the cloud and sound of the hit ought to let you know what you did before you walk up and see all the green and blue flies.

Also, coming apart in extreme fashion doesn't always mean dead right away due to coming apart. Separating organs by group doesn't mean those organs are trashed and fail function immediately.

Sooner or later you're gonna pop one and more or less just unzip him.

And that is why one always does a followup check quickly, and add another bullet if needed.

__________________

Last edited by Hookeye; 06-29-2014 at 11:39 PM.
Hookeye is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
How to "Ghost Load" or "Carrier Load" or "Float a Round" a Shotgun Amsdorf General Shotgun Discussion 19 02-21-2014 06:35 AM
"Farmers' Almanac" predicts a "bitterly cold" winter Bigcountry02 The Club House 39 01-30-2014 05:24 AM
Doesn't the Background Check "Register" my Firearm? poker99 The Club House 11 01-27-2013 11:15 PM
Things Gello doesn't want you to know exist Jpyle The Club House 1 08-08-2012 03:32 AM
Witloe Remington 1858 New Model Army "Lee" & "Grant" bprevolver Blackpowder & Musket 0 09-26-2008 12:11 AM