Hydrostatic Shock (pistols)
- Thread starter iMagUdspEllr
- Start date
Seems to me that we accept the effects of hydrostatic transmission of shock waves every time we look at a test of a cartridge with ballistic gel. The wound cavities that we fret and argue over are not produced directly by the bullet moving through the gel, but by the kinetic energy dissipated by the round as it slows. (Unless I misunderstand the entire process - I did not sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I am a doctor.)
So the question seems to be whether those shock waves reach the brain. The answer is buried in that Wickipedia article: researchers measured shock waves and neurologic dysfunction in the brains of pigs that were shot in the "thigh" (ruining a perfectly nice ham). To me, this was the kicker: they had to use electroencephalography to detect functional abnormalities in the brain of the pigs, and implanted pressure transducers to measure the pressures. I couldn't come up with the original paper, but I have to think that if overt neurologic symptoms were present they would have been reported (even granted that this was a Wickipedia article). Similarly, if the increased pressures were large enough and prolonged enough they could have been detected by less elaborate means.
Summary: Are pressure waves transmitted to parts of the body remote from bullet impact, including the brain? Yes. Are the effects reliable enough to be counted upon by a person using a handgun in self defense? By both common observation and medical testing, no. It would require circumstances approaching the bizarre for shock waves from a bullet impacting an extremity, the abdomen, or the chest to reach the brain with sufficient force to cause an an immediately incapacitating injury.
So the question seems to be whether those shock waves reach the brain. The answer is buried in that Wickipedia article: researchers measured shock waves and neurologic dysfunction in the brains of pigs that were shot in the "thigh" (ruining a perfectly nice ham). To me, this was the kicker: they had to use electroencephalography to detect functional abnormalities in the brain of the pigs, and implanted pressure transducers to measure the pressures. I couldn't come up with the original paper, but I have to think that if overt neurologic symptoms were present they would have been reported (even granted that this was a Wickipedia article). Similarly, if the increased pressures were large enough and prolonged enough they could have been detected by less elaborate means.
Summary: Are pressure waves transmitted to parts of the body remote from bullet impact, including the brain? Yes. Are the effects reliable enough to be counted upon by a person using a handgun in self defense? By both common observation and medical testing, no. It would require circumstances approaching the bizarre for shock waves from a bullet impacting an extremity, the abdomen, or the chest to reach the brain with sufficient force to cause an an immediately incapacitating injury.
Blondie.357
New member
Hydrostatic Shock is a myth, even for high powered rifles.
N.H. Yankee
New member
Hydrostatic shock isn't a myth, I am sure I am a victim of such when my mother dropped me on my, oh never mind. Good grief energy transfer could be deemed hydrostatic shock, there are so many equations to energy transfer such as point of impact, bullet weight, bullet design, body mass etc.
Incapacitated is incapacitated and dead is dead shock or no shock, that's all that really matters. I think gun magazine writers and so called guru's like to throw out these terms and re-invent them for sales. yes bullets cause a shock wave, but I challenge them to say EVERY hit in the same place in tissue with bullet XYZ in said caliber will produce the same results in each and every shooting.
All I worry about is having a decent power caliber, modern ammo and most of all hitting where I intend the bullet to impact which to me is most important. Debates are fun but not always reality based.
Incapacitated is incapacitated and dead is dead shock or no shock, that's all that really matters. I think gun magazine writers and so called guru's like to throw out these terms and re-invent them for sales. yes bullets cause a shock wave, but I challenge them to say EVERY hit in the same place in tissue with bullet XYZ in said caliber will produce the same results in each and every shooting.
All I worry about is having a decent power caliber, modern ammo and most of all hitting where I intend the bullet to impact which to me is most important. Debates are fun but not always reality based.
Maybe, maybe not. I do know that when I shoot a rabbit with my .17, the "shock" effect is quite a bit more dramatic than when I shoot one with my AK using a FMJ.
The .17 blows them apart and damage is pretty dramatic. The old 7.62x39 just makes a hole. There generally isnt a brain left from a shoulder shot on them with the .17, so in that case, yea, the brain is affected. Then again, theres often not much of anything left, so it doesnt really matter.
Oh, the AK kills them just as dead too, it just doesnt have the giggle factor the .17 provides.
Tanglefoot
New member
By definition hydrostatic is static - not dynamic.
I'm saying the term hydrostatic shock is nonsensical. I'm not disputing this hydrodynamic pressure wave idea. Just grousing about the silliness of the term. A marketing guy must have propagated it.
Okay, I feel better. Gotta go order some more clips for my pistol.
I'm saying the term hydrostatic shock is nonsensical. I'm not disputing this hydrodynamic pressure wave idea. Just grousing about the silliness of the term. A marketing guy must have propagated it.
Okay, I feel better. Gotta go order some more clips for my pistol.
iMagUdspEllr
New member
@peetzakilla: Thank you for understanding the question and for your answer.
@TailGator: Thank you for understanding the question and for your detailed answer.
@Winchester 73: I am asking if it is possible to damage the brain with a bullet...when the bullet doesn't even hit the brain (chest/shoulder/etc.)
@TailGator: Thank you for understanding the question and for your detailed answer.
@Winchester 73: I am asking if it is possible to damage the brain with a bullet...when the bullet doesn't even hit the brain (chest/shoulder/etc.)
Last edited by a moderator:
The condition you were refering to is caused by exceptionally fast moving bullets traviling through an animal and liquifying major components of it's phisyiology (heart, lungs, etc..) Generally this is done with a bullet traveling above 3,300 feet per second but might happen with a slower bullet depending on the distance to target.
I am unaware of any handgun bullet that travels at this type of speed, with the exception of a rifle bullet fired from a T/C single shot pistol.
In answer to your question about the brain, it is not material as to the effect to the brain function after being shot in the torso or anyother part of the body, since they are independent organs. This is deminstrated ofter to deer hunters shooting directly into the heart of the animal and having it still travel 20 to 50 yards after it has been shot. While there is some trama to the brain and nervious system after being shot, there is not enought "Brain damage" to incapacitate the animal being shot.
The only effective method I know of that will totally disrupt the brain and nervious system is a Taser.
I hope this answers some of your questions.
Jim
I am unaware of any handgun bullet that travels at this type of speed, with the exception of a rifle bullet fired from a T/C single shot pistol.
In answer to your question about the brain, it is not material as to the effect to the brain function after being shot in the torso or anyother part of the body, since they are independent organs. This is deminstrated ofter to deer hunters shooting directly into the heart of the animal and having it still travel 20 to 50 yards after it has been shot. While there is some trama to the brain and nervious system after being shot, there is not enought "Brain damage" to incapacitate the animal being shot.
The only effective method I know of that will totally disrupt the brain and nervious system is a Taser.
I hope this answers some of your questions.
Jim
NSO_w/_SIG
New member
OP, If you want to know correct information on this topic google "Dr. Martin Fackler" and read, he is the foremost expert in this realm
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Or a direct hit.Jim243 said:
No reason why, but the bottom line is that hydrostatic shock at the velocities of handgun ammunition is non-existent or so negligible as to be a non-issue.iMagUdspEllr said:
Instead of chasing the Chimera of hydrostatic shock, for self defense purposes one will be best served by getting good training, practicing, being able to manage your weapon well and shoot accurately, and using good ammunition all improve your chances for a good outcome. But there are no "secrets of the ninja", and you will need to be able to deal with your problem until it is solved.
In real life there are many variables. Randomness and chance will play some role, to some degree, in the outcome of any shooting event. There seem to be some general themes, however.
[1] Shot placement is king.
[2] As I recall the tables tabulating results of actual events on the street, for at least .45 ACP all JHPs performed close enough to the same, and all JHPs performed uniformly better than FMJs.
[3] Adequate penetration is vital. (But excess penetration doesn't do anyone any good.)
[4] Bigger holes are better than smaller holes.
[5] Sometimes a .32 in the thigh has stopped a fight. Sometimes 10 rounds of .45 ACP +P, JHP in the thorax haven't.
[6] With a handgun, there will always be compromises -- size, concealability, and manageability against size and power of the cartridge.
[7] There are no magic bullets.
Last edited:
Correction, the speed of sound in tissue is approximately 4500 fps. In other worse, hydrostatic shock is impossible in just about every gun in civilian hands.
That isn't hydrostatic shock. That is the bullet deforming and imparting its velocity/energy onto surrounding tissue. Calling it hydrostatic shock is like saying my ceiling fan makes the mobiles in my room move about by creating a sonic boom.
The "hydrostatic shock" issue first came up in National Institute of Justice ammo tests in the early '80s. In ballistic gelatin, phenomena occurred that was associated with "hydrostatic shock". This was interpreted to indicate that high-velocity 9mm bullets would be most effective at incapacitation. Real-world incidents (the "Miami Shootout" in particular) proved that the research was faulty, even lethal.
One factor that was overlooked was that a living organism is not a homogeneous substance like gel, but is extremely varied in composition, with lots of voids and organs of varying density (ballistic gel is mixed to replicate muscle tissue). What this means is that whatever shock wave is created will be disturbed by the varying density of organs.
Bottom line, the three most reliable means of incapacitation are mechanical breakage of the support structure (bones), destruction of the central nervous system (brain or spine shots) or disruption of blood supply (destruction of the heart or massive blood loss).
Even with rifles, "hydrostatic shock" effects are problematic. History is filled with accounts of men hit repeatedly with full-power rifle ammo who continued to function for an appreciable time.
One factor that was overlooked was that a living organism is not a homogeneous substance like gel, but is extremely varied in composition, with lots of voids and organs of varying density (ballistic gel is mixed to replicate muscle tissue). What this means is that whatever shock wave is created will be disturbed by the varying density of organs.
Bottom line, the three most reliable means of incapacitation are mechanical breakage of the support structure (bones), destruction of the central nervous system (brain or spine shots) or disruption of blood supply (destruction of the heart or massive blood loss).
Even with rifles, "hydrostatic shock" effects are problematic. History is filled with accounts of men hit repeatedly with full-power rifle ammo who continued to function for an appreciable time.
earlthegoat2
New member
Doesnt hydrostatic shock damage explain why rifle rounds are better stoppers than pistol rounds?
Diamond LawDawg
New member
Just plain ole shock
No matter the posters question...your ability to react under stress will be YOUR final outcome of a shooting....all the practice in the world cannot change YOUR mental reaction to the ULTIMATE battle , either you are one who will react with COOL precision or panic and choke under stress. NO weapon/bullet will make up for your inability to react to a shoot or don't shoot situation. FEAR will cripple most people to a point of NON-response. Like I told all my partners and co-workers "only one reason I go thru the door first,if I get shot/killed you have to do the paper work.." Have a good day
No matter the posters question...your ability to react under stress will be YOUR final outcome of a shooting....all the practice in the world cannot change YOUR mental reaction to the ULTIMATE battle , either you are one who will react with COOL precision or panic and choke under stress. NO weapon/bullet will make up for your inability to react to a shoot or don't shoot situation. FEAR will cripple most people to a point of NON-response. Like I told all my partners and co-workers "only one reason I go thru the door first,if I get shot/killed you have to do the paper work.." Have a good day
Sounds like, and acts like "shock" to me.
If you fire the .17, or pretty much any other high speed bullet through "dry" material, you dont get the same dramatic result that you do when it goes through "wet" material. That energy dump is most certainly disrupting the surrounding "wet" material, if it wasnt, it would zip right through like an ice pick, and leave the rest intact. Bullet design most definitely has a lot to do with this, and how that energy is applied.
If there wasnt energy being imparted into the surrounding material, then you would not be getting results like this.....
http://www.dogbegone.com/video/maxcarn1.wmv
We know what the bullet weighs, and what its maximum expanded diameter is likely to be, so what causes the rest of the damage and how is it being delivered to those portions of the body not specifically hit by the bullet?
I would not count on hydrostatic shock stories much. In medicine, there is a device that uses a form of hydrostatic shock to break up kidney stones. The measured shock is said to be higher than what you would get from a 45 hardball and yet the machine hasn't killed anyone yet.
I am no expert, but the research says there's just not enough evidence out there to solidly lend credence to the notion that hydrostatic shock plays a big role in gun shot trauma. Certainly not enough data to support using it as a criteria for choosing a handgun caliber.
I am no expert, but the research says there's just not enough evidence out there to solidly lend credence to the notion that hydrostatic shock plays a big role in gun shot trauma. Certainly not enough data to support using it as a criteria for choosing a handgun caliber.
No, the reason is because the rifle rounds tumble, fragment, and simply have more energy than any pistol round causing far more damage.
What it sounds like and what it actually is are two completely different things. What you describe is not a shockwave no matter how much you want it to be.
Hydrodynamic shock refers to a pressure wave that is created when liquid is suddenly displaced, such as by a high explosive. Although it is sometimes used by scientists (e.g. (1)), the term is a misnomer because shock waves do not occur in incompressible fluids. Such pressure waves are known to cause extensive tissue damage to organisms that they pass through, and have been studied for use in meat tenderization and antibacterial applications.
Following the development of high explosives in the 19th century, it was discovered that setting off dynamite in water caused nearby fish to die en masse. Although highly efficient, dynamite fishing was found to be extremely destructive to the environment and has been widely banned, although it is still illicitly practiced in some areas.(2)
Proponents of hydrostatic shock argue that because tissue is composed largely of water, an analogous situation can occur in tissue where organs are damaged in the same manner as fish, more by the shock wave than the projectile itself.
[edit]
A Failed Theory
The theory of hydrostatic shock has been conclusively disproven. The claim that tissue behaves like water is obviously false. Water is an incompressible fluid, while tissue is a compressible solid. Tissue has memory and will return to its original shape if stretched, and can dissipate energy as it stretches. What's more, even if tissue did behave like water, the speed of sound in water is approximately 1500 m/s, but no commonly used rifle bullet exceeds 1300 m/s.
Tissue does behave similarly enough to water that a sonic pressure wave can be created by a bullet impact, generating pressures in excess of 100 atmospheres. However, a device known as the lithotriptor, commonly used to break up kidney stones, produces sonic pressure waves of approximately 5 times the amplitude of those caused by bullets. Up to 2000 such pressure waves are used in a single treatment session, with no damage to soft tissues whatsoever.(3)
From a study produced by the FBI, "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness"
The reason is that most tissue in the human target is elastic in nature. Muscle, blood vessels, lung, bowels, all are capable of substantial stretching with minimal damage. Studies have shown that the outward velocity of the tissues in which the temporary cavity forms is no more than one tenth of the velocity of the projectile. This is well within the elasticity limits of tissue such as muscle, blood vessels, and lungs, Only inelastic tissue like liver, or the extremely fragile tissues of the brain, would show significant damage due to temporary cavitation.(4)
Further, one study (5) showed that projectiles which strike above the speed of sound in water do not produce any "extra" trauma which could not be explained by the increase in drag as velocity increases.
References
* Note (1): Hydrodyne Process Research, Dr. James R. Claus. University of Wisconsin Madison. URL accessed on October 24, 2005.
* Note (2): Dynamite fishing ravages Philippines' precious coral reefs. San Francisco Chronicle. URL accessed on October 24, 2005.
* Note (3): What's Wrong With the Wound Ballistics Literature and Why. Letterman Army Institute of Research, Division of Military Trauma Research. URL accessed on October 25, 2005.
* Note (4): Handgun Wounding Factors. The Gun Zone. URL accessed on October 24, 2005.
* Note (5): Wounding Mechanism of Projectiles Striking at More than 1.5km/sec, Martin L. Fackler, Donald F Bellamy & John A Malinowski. B & T Ammo Labs. URL accessed on October 24, 2005.
Accuracy is King
Penatration is Queen
Kenetic energy is a Joker maybe it helps maybe not.
perminate crush cavity is real perminate damage,temporary cavity may or may not cause perminate damage.
in my opinion you need to get up around 700 ft lbs before you start seeing consistant perminate damage from temporary cavity.the problem with that is real concealable guns that have that kind of power really affect speed and accuracy.
there is some good reading on the subject of ballistic pressure wave here.
http://www.ballisticstestinggroup.org/ballistics.htm
Penatration is Queen
Kenetic energy is a Joker maybe it helps maybe not.
perminate crush cavity is real perminate damage,temporary cavity may or may not cause perminate damage.
in my opinion you need to get up around 700 ft lbs before you start seeing consistant perminate damage from temporary cavity.the problem with that is real concealable guns that have that kind of power really affect speed and accuracy.
there is some good reading on the subject of ballistic pressure wave here.
http://www.ballisticstestinggroup.org/ballistics.htm