Hydrostatic Shock (pistols)

I

iMagUdspEllr

New member
Of all of the stopping power theories... hydrostatic shock is the only one that I can't find enough information about to make my own decision.

Temporary cavity doesn't work very well on a human's elastic organs, "knockdown" doesn't exist, psychological factors are negated by drugs/adrenaline/determination, and larger holes don't necessarily matter because they are only confirmed to increase the speed of bleed-out (and I'm not going to wait for my attacker to bleed to death).

I know hydrostatic shock can be generated in pistol ammunition. I know certain rounds are capable of causing brain damage remote to the point of impact. However, I don't know how much brain damage is lethal. I don't know what properties a bullet must possess to create a lethal amount of hydrostatic shock. And, I can't find any reputable sources that can confirm that round A with load X caused a LETHAL amount of brain damage even though the point of impact was [choose a random point of impact besides the head and neck].

Can anyone shed some light on hydrostatic shock or point me to reputable reading material/website so that I can find out what to look for in home defense ammunition?

Thank you all in advance.
 
Brain damage? Are you seriously asking what bullet will cause the most brain damage?
 
Last edited:
I think your going to find that people who use bullets that tend to have it, tend to believe in it, and those who use bullets that dont, tend to not.

I tend to believe that it does have an effect. I've seen what high velocity small caliber rifle bullets do to critters and what larger caliber, lower velocity bullets do. The difference is usually quite dramatic, although both bullets did kill what was shot. The bullets with the "shock" generally performed better (more destructive) and quicker though. I've seen similar results with a couple of different pistol rounds too.

Realistically, I think there are to many variables when it comes to any of them, and a good hit with either will kill, and a marginal hit with either, may not. This is even more the case with a pistol. Either way though, what ever does more damage and disrupts normal function of what it hits and near by tissue and organs, even if only temporarily, would be my choice over something that doesnt. It might give you that slight edge that lets you prevail. Then again, a hit by a .45 in your pinkie toe, will do you in, so whats it matter. :)
 
@twhidd: Yes...I am asking about what kind of brain damage a pistol can inflict to the brain... when the bullet hits the chest/shoulder/etc (not the head/neck).

Some people claim that brain damage is possible from hydrostatic shock (a pressure wave created when the bullet impacts that is powerful enough to reach the brain and damage it).

I realize that if a bullet hits you in the head... it will destroy the brain. That isn't what I'm asking.
 
The classic 125 gr .357 JHP has a lot of hydrostatic shock for a handgun round and works really well on the street.
The classic 230 gr .45 Hydrashok JHP has very litle hydrostatic shock and works really well on the street.

No one knows exactly why this is. One thing's for sure; it's a complicated issue.
 
This is a little nasty subject. Fact is that a couple well placed .45 shots, or any caliber for that matter, will allow you to run away quite easily. Running away should be the ultimate goal in most situations.
 
iMagUdspEllr said:
I don't know what properties a bullet must possess to create a lethal amount of hydrostatic shock.
Click to expand...

Speed.

Hydrostatic shock is literally a shock wave. In order to create a shock wave that does damage the bullet must be traveling faster than the speed of sound IN THE MATERIAL IMPACTED. In a flesh and bones target, that speed is roughly 2000 fps.

In other words, almost no handgun generates ANY substantial level of hydrostatic shock.


iMagUdspEllr said:
Some people claim that brain damage is possible from hydrostatic shock (a pressure wave created when the bullet impacts that is powerful enough to reach the brain and damage it).
Click to expand...


Some people are nuts. The only way to damage the brain is to hit it with a bullet. The only weapon that would create a shock wave powerful enough to damage the brain with a shock wave would be an RPG, or an M1 tank.
 
Otis311

This is a little nasty subject. Fact is that a couple well placed .45 shots, or any caliber for that matter, will allow you to run away quite easily. Running away should be the ultimate goal in most situations.
Click to expand...

I am unclear as to where your "well placed .45 shots" should go to let you run away. I assume you do not mean on your body.

And peetzakilla has nailed it again. +1
 
oh yeah, i can see how that was poorly written. Well placed on the BGs body, of course. Hopefully he won't be doing any running afterward.
 
peetzakilla said:
...In other words, almost no handgun generates ANY substantial level of hydrostatic shock....
Click to expand...
Absolutely right on the money.

Otis311 said:
....Fact is that a couple well placed .45 shots, or any caliber for that matter, will allow you to run away quite easily....
Click to expand...
A little off topic, but if you actually do shoot at someone, running away is a very bad idea. You will want to be the first person to report the event to the police. Running equates to guilt. If you run, you'll have a very tough time selling the proposition that you were justifiably defending yourself.
 
I didn't mean fleeing the scene, just creating safe distance. Of course you should consult the police immediately.

I'll just stop talking now.
 
Otis311 said:
I didn't mean fleeing the scene, just creating safe distance. Of course you should consult the police immediately...
Click to expand...
I'm glad that's clarified. Wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea, or for someone who didn't know better think that leaving the vicinity might be a good idea after defending himself.
 
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer said:
Someone else can read it all - kind of busy now.
Click to expand...

Interesting information.

I find it hard to believe that a handgun, or any other gun for that matter, can cause "remote" damage to nerves by traveling along blood vessel in the brain. The most compelling reason for my unbelief is the sheer number of people who have survived gun shot wounds with no apparent ill effects, besides the obvious. The ability to blow out neural connections in remote locations would lend itself to a high degree of lethality, common sense says.

In power levels associated with long guns there is certainly a significant level of hydrostatic shock damage to nearby nerves, hence the "Dead Right There" phenomenon, but that seems to be more associated with spinal connections than brain damage as I've seen numerous examples of the animal getting up and running away within a few seconds if the original shot was not lethal.
 
Last edited:
In theory, why does this question matter?

I don't understand why we are discussing "hydrostatic shock" and damage to the brain? I don't know that the two can be related other than internet rumors. I think the most basic definition of hydrostatic shock is a believable occurence but I'm not sure why we are basically discussing the real and remote brain damage that could be suffered by a gunshot wound to the head??:confused:

Also, if a bullet strikes someones brain, why would hydrostatic shock matter if the direct damage would at least incapicate the person completely at the minimum?
 
Some people claim that brain damage is possible from hydrostatic shock (a pressure wave created when the bullet impacts that is powerful enough to reach the brain and damage it).

I realize that if a bullet hits you in the head... it will destroy the brain. That isn't what I'm asking.
Click to expand...

These are the same simple minded 'I heard from a guy who heard from a guy who saw a guy so it must be true' people who will cheerfully tell you that the shock of a 45 ACP bullet hitting your thumb will completely destroy your nervous system and kill you where you stand or that a 357 magnum will completely destroy an engine block with a single shot. Don't get all excited about super pistol bullets with untold tons of hydrostatic shock turning your brain to mush if it hits you in the collarbone. Now if its a projectile from an 8" naval gun there could be something to it but brain injury will be the least of your problems.
 
There aren't any 8" guns in service now. Although there are proposals to bring some back. New ones have been tested on some ships on a temporary basis.

The new DDG 1000 - a very controversial ship is supposed to have 155 mm guns.

So my brain is safe for a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top