Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
jimbob86 said:
I went back to get the truck and didn't see the results. I didn't hear any stories but I suspect it wasn't pretty.
Hydrostatic shock@ 100 yrds
- Thread starter douggamm
- Start date
I went back to get the truck and didn't see the results. I didn't hear any stories but I suspect it wasn't pretty.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Water is an incompressible fluid. Blood is mostly water. You release a bunch of energy into a pipe or a jug of water and it blows out the containment. Yes, a shock wave is created, which may cause a pipe elbow to rupture.
So, similarly with blood vessels in an animal. The shock wave can travel, but if the blood vessel is ruptured by bullet fragments the shock wave might not travel very far at all. You can't predict with certainty as to "shock therapy".
So we're back to the more reliable issues of wound channel and tissue damage.
So, similarly with blood vessels in an animal. The shock wave can travel, but if the blood vessel is ruptured by bullet fragments the shock wave might not travel very far at all. You can't predict with certainty as to "shock therapy".
So we're back to the more reliable issues of wound channel and tissue damage.
Results of using match or target type bullets on game may be less than optimum. While there are many who use this combination, it's not recommended by the bullet makers and I'll bet they've a reason for this advice.
Case in point. Last week, I witnessed a medium sized buck hit in the lower chest(possibly a little further back than perfect) by a 155 BTHP match bullet-2800+fps MV-hit at 200 yards still well over 2500 fps. Solid thump indicated a body hit and deer ran off. No blood trail and deer not recovered. I'm sure the deer died somewhere since a .308 hole anywhere in the body cavity is nearly always fatal. The fact that the hit occurred in a wide open field made no diff. A 3 hour search by an experienced hunter/tracker failed.
A few days prior to this fiasco, I saw the result of this same bullet hitting a deer in a frontal presentation. Bullet struck ribs and grenaded, dropping deer instantly. Two hits with totally opposite results simply due to resistance encountered indicates this is not an acceptable game bullet.
Case in point. Last week, I witnessed a medium sized buck hit in the lower chest(possibly a little further back than perfect) by a 155 BTHP match bullet-2800+fps MV-hit at 200 yards still well over 2500 fps. Solid thump indicated a body hit and deer ran off. No blood trail and deer not recovered. I'm sure the deer died somewhere since a .308 hole anywhere in the body cavity is nearly always fatal. The fact that the hit occurred in a wide open field made no diff. A 3 hour search by an experienced hunter/tracker failed.
A few days prior to this fiasco, I saw the result of this same bullet hitting a deer in a frontal presentation. Bullet struck ribs and grenaded, dropping deer instantly. Two hits with totally opposite results simply due to resistance encountered indicates this is not an acceptable game bullet.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
I don't know why you'd think that. Explosive bullets aren't high on hydrostatic shock. That's not hydrostatic shock, that's bullets doing lots of damage.
Hydrostatic shock is the shock wave created by the bullet rapidly pushing fluid, as Art described. Bullets that are best at that are bullets that stay in one piece. Monolithic, expanding bullets... Like the Barnes TTSX and Hornady GMX... and they are also the bullets that minimize meat damage by not blowing into pieces throughout the animal.
Hydrostatic shock isn't the phenomenon of dropping an animal where is stands, though it might contribute to dropping the animal. Hydrostatic shock is damage to places you didn't actually hit with the bullet.
The first deer I ever hit with a Barnes bullet is a good example. I was shooting a 110gr TTSX out of my 15" Encore Pro Hunter. I was in a tree and the shot was close. The bullet entered high on the deers right side, just behind the shoulder and exited about 1/3 the body width up from the bottom of the left side. I hit the upper, back portion of the lungs, I estimate that I missed the heart by at least 6 inches but the top of the heart was blown open.
THAT is hydrostatic shock. Ruined not an ounce of meat.
Saskhunter
New member
Nope. If that was the case, solids would produce the most "shock". They don't.
Expanding bullets are essential to provide the energy transfer that is necessary for any "shock" effects to occur. Expanding bullets are, in fact, destroying themselves. A bullet that destroys itself quickly will make for much more "explosive" shock effects than one that stays in one piece. Shoot a few dozen water jugs with different bullets, and you will find the "varmint" style of rapidly expanding bullets produce visibly more effect than do less frangible bullets.
I do not hunt big game with varmint bullets, but I would have to say that more bang/flop events have occurred due to highly frangible bullets shot into chest cavities, than occurred when more solidly constructed bullets are used.
Frangible bullets are far more likely to do excessive meat damage than are solid bullets because the produce more "shock".
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Staying in one piece is not the same as non-expanding.
The bullets must expand. Frontal area is what creates the shockwave.
It's essentially aerodynamics. Nonexpanding bullets are too aerodynamic, or in this case, hydrodynamic. You must have a "wall", the front end of a well-expanded bullet, and you must have SPEED.
Slow, wide bullets don't have speed. Fast, thin bullets don't have the "wall". You need fast, expanding, bullets that hold together.
Fragmenting bullets waste their energy blowing themselves to pieces and each piece is too small and too slow to create hydrostatic shock.
"Shock" is not "HYDROSTATIC shock". You're talking about two different things.
Fragmenting bullets create shock in a medical sense, as in a physiological reaction to extreme trauma.
That's not the same phenomenon as hydrostatic shock, though hydrostatic shock might also CAUSE the same physiological reaction.
The bullets must expand. Frontal area is what creates the shockwave.
It's essentially aerodynamics. Nonexpanding bullets are too aerodynamic, or in this case, hydrodynamic. You must have a "wall", the front end of a well-expanded bullet, and you must have SPEED.
Slow, wide bullets don't have speed. Fast, thin bullets don't have the "wall". You need fast, expanding, bullets that hold together.
Fragmenting bullets waste their energy blowing themselves to pieces and each piece is too small and too slow to create hydrostatic shock.
"Shock" is not "HYDROSTATIC shock". You're talking about two different things.
Fragmenting bullets create shock in a medical sense, as in a physiological reaction to extreme trauma.
That's not the same phenomenon as hydrostatic shock, though hydrostatic shock might also CAUSE the same physiological reaction.
math teacher
New member
RC20
What is the heart, lungs or brain if not tissue? I agree that ultimately you have to kill the brain. My point was just don't expect hydrostatic shock to always give you spectacular results.
What is the heart, lungs or brain if not tissue? I agree that ultimately you have to kill the brain. My point was just don't expect hydrostatic shock to always give you spectacular results.
My best lesson on the effect of hydrostatic shock on game animals, came a few years ago.
I was loading Sierra's excellent 150 grain .308 softpoint to about 2900 from the 30-06. I shot a fat little doe standing in front of big cottonwood tree, at about 140 yards. It was a perfect broadside heart shot and I later picked the jacket out of the bark of that cottonwood. The bullet had expanded to within a quarter inch of the base and blown a silver-dollar size hole on exiting. What was left of her heart would have fit in a shot glass. Can't ask for much more than that.
Funny thing is that the doe was unimpressed... she sauntered off 25 yards, jumped a five-strand fence and hit the ground like a wet dishrag- dead as a hammer.
The longer I hunt, the more I am convinced that the things we are hunting don't read ballistics charts
I was loading Sierra's excellent 150 grain .308 softpoint to about 2900 from the 30-06. I shot a fat little doe standing in front of big cottonwood tree, at about 140 yards. It was a perfect broadside heart shot and I later picked the jacket out of the bark of that cottonwood. The bullet had expanded to within a quarter inch of the base and blown a silver-dollar size hole on exiting. What was left of her heart would have fit in a shot glass. Can't ask for much more than that.
Funny thing is that the doe was unimpressed... she sauntered off 25 yards, jumped a five-strand fence and hit the ground like a wet dishrag- dead as a hammer.
The longer I hunt, the more I am convinced that the things we are hunting don't read ballistics charts
I've done some ballistic testing in wet clay, thanks to a gravel pit with a 15 foot clay overburden that kept falling to the base of the slope. It was similar to ballistic gelatin, but the wound cavity remained intact at the largest dimension.
It was very obvious that varmint bullets and non-expanding bullets didn't do much deep trauma. Varmint bullets penetrated just about 4 inches and made a large cavity. Solids, even .38 handgun wadcutters, penetrated deeply, but left a very narrow wound channel. Hunting .30-06 bullets, like Core-Locts provided deep and large wound cavities, obviously expending considerable energy from 4-12 inches deep and as much as 8 inches in diameter.
Damp clay isn't tissue and I can't claim direct performance equivalent, but it's been obvious in my many deer experiences that the performance of 150-180 grain Core-Locts and similar bullets get the job done and done well.
That said, I still like .277 diameter, 130 grain GMX and TSX bullets leaving the muzzle at 3150+/- fps. They shoot flat, expand well, and drive deeply. My latest 131 lb. deer shot at a slight angle with a GMX had the right lung blown to pieces and a big chunk of the liver gone before leaving a 1 1/4" exit wound. Blood was very noticeable at the spot and all the way to the deer, which ran about 50 yards and was dead when I found it. That was just two days ago. No lead in that venison!!!
It was very obvious that varmint bullets and non-expanding bullets didn't do much deep trauma. Varmint bullets penetrated just about 4 inches and made a large cavity. Solids, even .38 handgun wadcutters, penetrated deeply, but left a very narrow wound channel. Hunting .30-06 bullets, like Core-Locts provided deep and large wound cavities, obviously expending considerable energy from 4-12 inches deep and as much as 8 inches in diameter.
Damp clay isn't tissue and I can't claim direct performance equivalent, but it's been obvious in my many deer experiences that the performance of 150-180 grain Core-Locts and similar bullets get the job done and done well.
That said, I still like .277 diameter, 130 grain GMX and TSX bullets leaving the muzzle at 3150+/- fps. They shoot flat, expand well, and drive deeply. My latest 131 lb. deer shot at a slight angle with a GMX had the right lung blown to pieces and a big chunk of the liver gone before leaving a 1 1/4" exit wound. Blood was very noticeable at the spot and all the way to the deer, which ran about 50 yards and was dead when I found it. That was just two days ago. No lead in that venison!!!
I've never put any faith in hydrostatic shock on deer sized game. I've shot deer at close range with a 7mm mag and Ballistic tips that didn't pile up right there and deer with a .243 that did. But a good quality bullet made for deer sized game through something vital and it will kill it. Have worked for several years at a handicapped hunt and tracked/recovered/cleaned I have seen lots of examples of bullet performance. I don't think I have ever seen a true bullet failure, lots of shooter failures but no bullet failures. Had descriptions of a perfect hit and eventually recovered a deer that was marginally hit and finally bled out and others that from the description you knew you were in for a long trail on a gut shot deer. I am not knocking their shooting abilities, most of them have a very tough time holding a rifle well and making a great shot, but there are a couple that when they call afer shooting you know to take your knife. Placement of the bullet is what kills deer.
Deer are not tanks nor are they particularly hard to kill if you shoot them well, a great bullet through the guts will still result in a long trailing job with no guarantee of a recovered deer. A "cheap" wal-mart deer load through the lungs is usually just a recovery at the end of a pretty good blood trail. Strange isn't it.
Deer are not tanks nor are they particularly hard to kill if you shoot them well, a great bullet through the guts will still result in a long trailing job with no guarantee of a recovered deer. A "cheap" wal-mart deer load through the lungs is usually just a recovery at the end of a pretty good blood trail. Strange isn't it.