Think About This - Page 2
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Handguns > Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection > Think About This

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-25-2013, 07:35 PM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
FernandoTheCommando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 903
Liked 505 Times on 297 Posts

Default

My info is coming from experts books like massad ayoob and others. I'm not reading gun blogs by weekend warriors. If we are talking hydrostatic shock with a semi auto, a 10mm auto generates 10,000 ft lbs of energy...that's pretty impressive. Step it up to larger revolver calibres and I'd say you're getting near some small rifle calibres at sd distances. Granted a rifle is going to have that power out to 100yd and beyond.

" Hydrostatic shock or hydraulic shock describes the observation that a penetrating projectile can produce remote wounding and incapacitating effects in living targets through a hydraulic effect in their liquid-filled tissues, in addition to local effects in tissue caused by direct impact.[1][2] There is scientific evidence that hydrostatic shock can produce remote neural damage and produce incapacitation more quickly than blood loss effects.[3] Proponents of cartridges that are "light and fast" such as the 9x19mm Parabellum versus cartridges that are "slow and heavy" such as the .45 ACP round often refer to this phenomenon.

Human autopsy results have demonstrated brain hemorrhaging from fatal hits to the chest, including cases with handgun bullets.[4] Thirty-three cases of fatal penetrating chest wounds by a single bullet were selected from a much larger set by excluding all other traumatic factors, including past history.

__________________
FernandoTheCommando is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2013, 07:43 PM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
FernandoTheCommando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 903
Liked 505 Times on 297 Posts

Default

Again, I myself am no expert. What I do is I find a specific gun related subject. I find multiple articles, videos, etc, and read or watch them all. I form my opinions based on all of their facts and sometimes opinions. If I own the gun or gear, I try my hardest to review it myself in a completely unbiased way. If I don't own the gun/gear, well....then I either had fun and educated myself reading.....or I go out and buy it whilst pissing off my wife in the process lol.

__________________
FernandoTheCommando is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2013, 07:46 PM   #13
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
orangello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,154
Liked 5737 Times on 3362 Posts
Likes Given: 4877

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FernandoTheCommando View Post
My info is coming from experts books like massad ayoob and others. ...

" Hydrostatic shock or hydraulic shock describes the observation that a penetrating projectile can produce remote wounding and incapacitating effects in living targets through a hydraulic effect in their liquid-filled tissues, in addition to local effects in tissue caused by direct impact.[1][2] There is scientific evidence that hydrostatic shock can produce remote neural damage and produce incapacitation more quickly than blood loss effects.[3] Proponents of cartridges that are "light and fast" such as the 9x19mm Parabellum versus cartridges that are "slow and heavy" such as the .45 ACP round often refer to this phenomenon.

Human autopsy results have demonstrated brain hemorrhaging from fatal hits to the chest, including cases with handgun bullets.[4] Thirty-three cases of fatal penetrating chest wounds by a single bullet were selected from a much larger set by excluding all other traumatic factors, including past history.
Since when does Ayoob write for the Wikipedia? You just quoted the first two paragraphs of Wiki's article on Hydrostatic Shock. I love Wiki for a quick fact check, though.

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

1.Jump up ^ Deadly fighting skills of the world, Steve Crawford (1999) pp. 68–69
2.Jump up ^ AK-47: the weapon that changed the face of the war, Larry Kahaner, John Wiley and Sons (2007) p. 32
3.Jump up ^ Michael Courtney; Amy Courtney (2008). "Scientific Evidence for Hydrostatic Shock". arXiv:0803.3051 [physics.med-ph].
4.Jump up ^ Krajsa, J. Příčiny vzniku perikapilárních hemoragií v mozku při střelných poraněních (Causes of pericapillar brain haemorrhages accompanying gunshot wounds), Institute of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic, 2009

Ayoob ain't in that pile.
__________________

Dead Bears, the only good kind.


Last edited by orangello; 10-25-2013 at 07:55 PM.
orangello is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2013, 07:55 PM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
FernandoTheCommando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 903
Liked 505 Times on 297 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orangello View Post
Since when does Ayoob write for the Wikipedia? You just quoted the first two paragraphs of Wiki's article on Hydrostatic Shock. I love Wiki for a quick fact check, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_shock
Quick info that's why. I'm not going to type out an entire paragraph from a book lol. You asked for a definition of hydrostatic shock and there it is. If I reeealllyyy must quote a book then you'll have to apologize to my fingers as I'm typing on a phone. I'm not trying to argue, just trying to educate. I'm here to make friends and share info with everyone so we can provide the less educated with solid facts. I've gained some great knowledge from people here and I enjoy sharing what I've learned.
__________________
FernandoTheCommando is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2013, 08:00 PM   #15
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
orangello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,154
Liked 5737 Times on 3362 Posts
Likes Given: 4877

Default

No problem.

I might not believe M Ayoob either, if he claimed hydrostatic shock incapacitation with .45ACP.

Of course, my favorite SD ammo in my XD45 is.................................Federal Hydra Shock. They look like they would be darn uncomfortable.

__________________

Dead Bears, the only good kind.

orangello is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2013, 08:00 PM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
FernandoTheCommando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 903
Liked 505 Times on 297 Posts

Default

All I did was Google that definition. Come on man lol. The sources sited in that article are reputable were they not? I'm not one of those guys that just posts for the sake of argument or trolling. I believe in thorough research with everything I own. That includes electronics, clothes, cars, etc. Do i know that the speakers that cost more work better? No, not until I read reviews or research it. If you said that the lower ohms make for better speakers, or asked what an ohm even was, I'd have to look up the definition.

__________________
FernandoTheCommando is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2013, 08:02 PM   #17
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
FernandoTheCommando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 903
Liked 505 Times on 297 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orangello View Post
No problem.

I might not believe M Ayoob either, if he claimed hydrostatic shock incapacitation with .45ACP.

Of course, my favorite SD ammo in my XD45 is.................................Federal Hydra Shock. They look like they would be darn uncomfortable.
Well, if we can't believe the experts, then who do we believe? I'm not about to test the shock theory on a live person lol. But I agree, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be on the business end of any gun. My point was that it's been proven, by educated experts, that you cannot count on a .22 to "bounce around the body tearing up organs. "
__________________
FernandoTheCommando is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2013, 08:08 PM   #18
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
orangello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,154
Liked 5737 Times on 3362 Posts
Likes Given: 4877

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FernandoTheCommando View Post
Well, if we can't believe the experts, then who do we believe? I'm not about to test the shock theory on a live person lol. But I agree, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be on the business end of any gun. My point was that it's been proven, by educated experts, that you cannot count on a .22 to "bounce around the body tearing up organs. "
Again, more bear testing is needed. I suggest shaved cubs for their thinner hides.

I don't think you can "count on" a .22LR to bounce around in the body, but I have doubts about non-magnum handguns generating significant hydrostatic shock.
__________________

Dead Bears, the only good kind.

orangello is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2013, 08:13 PM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
FernandoTheCommando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 903
Liked 505 Times on 297 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orangello View Post

Again, more bear testing is needed. I suggest shaved cubs for their thinner hides.

I don't think you can "count on" a .22LR to bounce around in the body, but I have doubts about non-magnum handguns generating significant hydrostatic shock.
Lol sounds like you have a vendetta against bears. I'd LOVE to go on a bear hunt for sure. Hell, I'd just love to hunt, but in my state the biggest thing in the woods is a small deer or MAYBE a black bear if you head towards ny or ct. I own magnum calibre revolvers and would trust my life to a .357 any day of the week. I also just bought an lc9 for carry. If I didn't have to conceal or worry about weight, I'd have the ruger gp100 .357 with me every day. I'm going to continue researching hydrostatic shock with pistol calibres. It's 're sparked my interest.
__________________
FernandoTheCommando is offline  
orangello Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2013, 08:17 PM   #20
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
orangello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,154
Liked 5737 Times on 3362 Posts
Likes Given: 4877

Default

Have you considered the Ruger SP101 for carry?

I don't do concealed carry; we can car carry or open carry without a permit here (adequate for me). We aren't allowed to shoot bears here, not legally.

__________________

Dead Bears, the only good kind.

orangello is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes