[Shawnee]

Since the Esteemed Gentleman from Tequila, Texas brought up the topic of bullet damage...

Some years ago we trigger jerks all talked frequently about "hydrostatic damage". But I haven't heard much of that in recent years.

The gist of "hydrostatic damage" - as best I understood it - had to do (sorta) with hydraulic pressure. Apparently when the bullet strikes tissue (which we all know is fluid-laden to some extent), it starts sort of a local tsunnami that runs around the body rupturing blood vessels, kidneys, livers, and assorted necessary body parts thus causing the demise of the quarry.

Does anyone remember all that stuff or have deer developed an immunity to "hydrostatic damage" or have the Liberals outlawed it, what ?

Anyone ?


:cool:

[R.W.Dale]

It's still there but I've only really turned deer innards to goo when shooting higher velocity rounds.

[MCgunner]

Tequila? LOL!

The best explanation I've yet found backed by solid research....

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=292871&highlight=pressure+wave+research

http://www.ballisticstestinggroup.org/lotor.pdf

Energy rather than velocity is what causes this "turn to mush" thing. I've seen it with the 7 mag, pretty impressive. Of course, velocity has a great effect on energy.

[Wildfire]

Hey there;
It is Hydrodynamic shock that you are reffering to.

Some call it Hydrostatic shock. That term is incorrect.

[Shawnee]

Cool !

Thanks for educating me. I guess if i had thought about it hydrostatic would not have made sense. LOL :D

Thanks for the note !

Krochus - I'm not a big "goo" aficionado.
As long as I can get to the CNS ahead of the diaphragm I'm good to go.

:cool:

[Wildfire]

Hey Agian;
You and I seem to agree on many issues. I am totally nuts. I study that kind of crap.

Anyway , It was a good question. And I for one believe that it is the shock effect that kills things like deer and such, when high speed oblects make their way thru them. I do not buy into energy figures. They are just numbers.

Buy the way you were partly right anyway. The effect seen on a P-dog when it vaporizes is Hydrostatic .
Hydrodynamic is when it is contained inside with no where to go. That is what explains soem of us seeing a deer colapse in it's tracks. The energy did not "push" the deer over. The shock caused total shut down and the animal drops.

[R.W.Dale]

I believe what happens is much the same effect as the sonic boom you get in supersonic aircraft. On a critter that gets hit with a very fast projectile in the vitals the bullet outruns the ability of the tissues to get pushed aside resulting in a high pressure shockwave that destroys tissues that the bullet doesn't even come into contact with.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mFvrr9s_M-4

this video gives a great visual representation, imagine this being a heart and lungs confined inside a chest cavity

[Wildfire]

Hey there;
I agree. i have seen many times, the lungs all jelly. But the bullet did not hit the lungs. You may also see bruised hearts with no bullet touching that heart.

[Shawnee]

When I hunted from tower blinds in S. Texas my favorite shot was to angle the bullet (usually a .243 87gr. BTHP) down through the "withers". Several times, at the shot, I would see the deer literally up in the air with all four legs pointing straight up in the air and it would land on the ground where it had been standing. That action of the deer's body looked almost like a reaction to a huge electric shock.

Maybe I've found a new source for hydroelectric power ? :confused:


:D

Krochus - that sounds right. I've seen heart and lung damage that wasn't very close to the bullet path at all.

[Wildfire]

Hey ;
I mostly hunt deer with my Encore .50. This last year I tested and used the all copper bullet from Barnes. (MZ) The 250 grian with a huge hole in the end.
I still have a hard time belieing that they are that accurate. 1/2" at 100.
Anyway, I took a nice 9 point this last fall at about 60 plus yards. Hit in the left side middle of the ribs. I heard the bullet hit like a home run.
Here is the funny part. That bullet dropped 2 bucks and 1 doe this last year and there were no exit holes. But all dropped. My son shoots the 300 grainers and they all exit. Same powder charges. I found all 3 of the bullets and wow.
They said they would expand 100% and retain 100% of their weight. That is exactly what they did. I am sold. I also took a full sized coyotee. 1/2" hole in and out. No mess. Oh ! Opening day was kind of boring so I whacked a nice Woodchuck that morning. Some of my older post show pics of the deer.

[Harve Curry]

Wildfire ,
I've seen the same thing as you with those Barnes bullets .

Also I don't see the "Hydrostatic damage" with them but the hits were from 125 yards out to 265 yards, so the velocity had dropped. I like to use the 45-70 at 1580 FPS partly because there is no hydro static shock, and it still makes one shot kills.

Does anyone know at what velocity does hydro static shock/ damage to tissue begin?

[alsaqr]

The shock caused total shut down and the animal drops.

+1

Exactly. I have killed hogs and deer that dropped as if struck by lightning although no vital organs were hit. Much of my hunting is done with a .50 muzzleloader. Shot a hog at a measured 192 yards with a 250 grain SST bullet. The animal was hit just behind the diaphram and the lungs were destroyed by that low velocity bullet.

Many years ago I gut shot a big doe that was running across my front: The gun was a .30-06. That doe dropped and never kicked.

Seen it happen many times when shooting running hogs with a .223 and the military M193 ball round.

[Art Eatman]

I guess you'd have to go back to the earliest articles on Roy Weatherby to find whether he said hydrostatic or hydrodynamic. Anyhow, he was the first to speak extensively to that idea for killing power.

I may not be exactly correct; it's been decades: His thesis was that the use of very high velocities created (my choice of words) pressure waves through all the blood vessels around the impact area. And, there would be some sort of horrendus nerve signals sent to the brain, IIRC. Anyhow, there would be disruption beyond the basic breaking of bone and tearing up tissue. Anyhow, there would be a shock effect due to the high energy release resulting from the high bullet velocity.

I hope that's not too garbled.

Again, dredging from a hlaf-century back: One of the hunting mags had an article about one of his African trips. A photo of an eland taken with a .257 Wby was shown. Bad hit, crosswise through the hindquarters. But, a one-shot kill. The exit wound was a fist-sized conical void. Weatherby's opinion was that the hydro? shock was the cause of the quick death.

I'm a charter member of the "I dunno" school of thought. What I think I know is that bullets travelling above 3,000 ft/sec at impact make one hellacious mess, and animals so hit tend to be DRT.

:), Art

[Art Eatman]

"Tequila? All give thanks to Santa Hernandez, who brings us the gift of Jose Cuervo Gold, 363 days a year. One day, of course, is given to Santa Claus. And then there is August 20th. What is August 20th, you ask? Why, that is the day the new Chevys come out!"

Courtesy the late Allen Damron, troubadour, shooter, CHL instructor and hunting guide. RIP

[MCgunner]

Hey there;
It is Hydrodynamic shock that you are reffering to.

Some call it Hydrostatic shock. That term is incorrect.

Actually, Dr. Courtney (check the links posted) refers to a "ballistic pressure wave". He doesn't refer to any sort of shock. He claims in the writings I've read on this board that the effeects on the CNS are measurable as a bullet approaches 1000 ft lbs, but that any bullet has a pressure wave, just that it doesn't affect much in tissue until it gets up there. Even the .357 magnum can kill with the ballistic pressure wave, though, or so Dr. Courtney claims. He's the guru of such research for the Army, a physicist who studies such effects, and from a layman's perspective, reading his study, I have to go with him on the subject. Roy Weatherby might have made some great observations in the field and tried to describe what he saw, but Dr. Courtney puts numbers to it and describes the actual physics of it. It's an interesting read, really.

I don't see a lot of tissue damage, personal observation here, from .308 levels and down, 2600 ft lbs muzzle energy. But, up at 3300 ft lbs close up from my 7 mag with good bullet expansion, I have seen lungs turned to mush, almost as if they'd been disintegrated. Pretty awesome damage and it had to come from pressure wave dynamics, no other explanation. If you watch some kills of deer in slow motion, you will see the chest actually expand on impact as if being inflated. I would reckon it's the pressure wave doing this.

[Geno]

Art is correct. The late, great Roy Weatherby was a profound believer (and tester) of hydrostatic shock transfer. He even harvested Cape Buffalo with the "lowly" .257 Wea. Mag. By the time I had bought my first Weatherby rifle and began coresponding with the Weatherby company, Roy was retired, and Ed had taken over the family business. (Side note...Ed is a genuine chip-off-the-old block, and is equally committed to the company). I would suggest that if anyone has any questions about his father's theories and tests, to contact Weatherby. Mr. Weatherby is excellent at communicating with customers.

[Odd Job]

Hmmm, raccoons in buckets?

No board certified veterinary surgeon to provide cause of death in the cases of the dead raccoons? (Do you want to bet against aspiration injuries and tympanic ruptures as opposed to a ballistic pressure wave?).

Dr Courtney refusing to do proper histology, pathology and medical imaging of the brains of his deer shot in the thoraces, because of fear of legal action by PETA or other similar agents? But then he shoots raccoons in buckets and waits up to 24 hours for them to die?

Reliance on Marshall & Sanow data? Referencing himself when defending his use of them?

Reliance on goat tests which aren't even verified and have no named author, organisation or contact details?

Does that smell a bit strange to you?

In my book that's called BS. Your mileage may vary.

Don't forget, the Courtneys' ballistic pressure wave is all about handguns, don't bring rifles into it.
In fact he takes such great pride in it, he even maintains his own Wikipedia entry on it:

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

Dr Courtney is a layman, and he produces this work for the layman, who might be more receptive to his theories. He is not a medical doctor, and has not treated any human gunshot cases, or been in an allied medical role in the handling of such cases. There are those of us who have, and the vast majority of us are highly critical of Dr Courtney's claims and his research methods.
You can find the appropriate information (and much more) on Tactical Forums.

That is all I will say here, normal programming can now resume.

[Shawnee]

Hi Odd Job...

I'm certainly open to education. And my friend McGunner - though sort of a shy, wallflower type, would surely entertain new information.

Setting the good Dr. Courtney aside - what can you tell me/us of all this hydro-whatever stuff and all its' attendant tsunnamis, pressure waves and hot flashes ?

:)

[Out West]

I know it exists because I have seen the effect from shooting deer with .223. It may be "all that" for stopping critters - shutting down the CNS, etc., but its hard on the meat. I took my nephew hunting two years ago. He had a single shot 223. He made a decent shot at 100 yards and downed a buck. The buck managed to get up and move about 40 yards before dropping dead. When we field dressed the buck I was surprised to see so much ruined meat. Additionally, some of the internal organs ruptured and splattered all about inside the chest cavity. Anyway, dead is dead. But a good portion of meat was ruined. Precision shooting is the key to this type of cartridge. Otherwise you may get your animal, but not get as much meat.

Out West

[Jeff F]

Small and fast can do a lot more damage then big and slow.

[Odd Job]

Shawnee, in the realm of handguns I can tell you this:

1) I have seen a small number of cases (about 3 or 4 out of more than 3000) where damage was found remote from the path of a handgun bullet. In all the cases the damage was less than 3 inches away from the permanent wound channel and in all the cases the damage did not cause significant damage in terms of incapacitating the person.

2) I have seen inelastic organs such as the liver suffer stellate tears and localised rupture from the passage of a handgun bullet. I am convinced that the temporary cavity can cause damage in inelastic organs, from the passage of a handgun projectile.

3) I have never seen a case of a gunshot victim having sustained a wound to the chest, and exhibiting neurological signs and symptoms that could be attributed to a brain injury, where such injury could be attributed to any kind of wave produced by the bullet.

So my position is this: remote effects may be present in handgun wounds, but they are either not very remote, or the effects cannot be relied upon to produce incapacitation acutely.

You need a CNS or vascular damage, and if you get musculoskeletal disruption and any voluntary cessation of activity, that is a bonus.

If you go by some other theories, it would be easier to pour hot butter in a feral cat's ear ;)

[MCgunner]

Doctor Courtney is a physicist, not an MD. Layman, eh? Got a hell of a resume for a layman.:rolleyes: I tend to listen to physicists when it comes to describing such things as energy transfer in soft targets. I wouldn't let an MD write me an operating system for my computer; a prescription, sure. Treat a disease, sure, but do physics? I think not.

Condescending medical doctors are what makes me suspicious, sorta like Al Gore and his "if you don't believe me, you believe in a flat earth". :rolleyes: How about a politician doing climatology? Makes about as much sense, eh?

I have SEEN with my own eyes what a magnum rifle can do and, just as a layman, it has to have something to do with energy transfer. Dr. Courtney's work is the first I've read that gave me a working knowledge of the processes of that energy transfer, or at least an idea of what's going on. It makes sense and explains what I've actually seen in game. I've read through some of the BS Fackler crap. You can't compare a 200 ft lbs handgun cartridge to a 3300 ft lb rifle cartridge. For a 200 ft lb handgun cartridge, I'm sure crush cavity has much more effect than pressure wave. But, my hunting experience and just plain common sense tells me that at magnum rifle energy levels, there's more to it than crush cavity. I've seen it. I can cut open a deer as good as an MD, might not be able to sew it back together and bring it back to life, but I can dissect it. I even know where the lungs are, or were. And, hey, I ain't completely stupid. I passed comparative chordate anatomy on the way to a BS in wildlife and fisheries management. More importanly, I've seen a lot of gutted deer killed by a variety of calibers up to .338 Win Mag. I'd listen to a hunting guide before I listened to a MD about rifle caliber effects. They've seen more game shot by more high calibers than any MD. It's the physicist that will put numbers to it, though. Me, I made it out of calculus, somehow. :D

And, hey, I ain't the only uneducated layman out here that has seen these pressure wave effects on tissue. We were just talking about Roy Weatherby. Now, what affect the pressure wave has on neural tissue, I'm a little less convinced about, but it would explain that drop in their tracks reaction when you don't hit closer than 5" from the spine in the lung cavity. I've noticed that more'n once and with ordinary rifle calibers.

I've read Dr. Courtney's posts and even he says that handgun energy levels are not enough to cause much damage from pressure wave effects. His contention is that it does neural damage at energies as low as 500 ft lbs. I'm not a neurologist, so I'm not going to argue that. He had neurologists working with him, I understand. I do know, for a fact, that energies in the 3000+ ft lbs level when properly transferred via bullet expansion and pressure wave can do amazing tissue damage well away from the actual path of the bullet, like turn lung tissue to liquid goo. I've seen it. You seem to be talking handguns. When you get a body to autopsy that's been shot with a .300 win mag and a light constructed rapidly expanding bullet, get back to us on the subject.

[Shawnee]

Given the vastly different impact forces between handgun and rifle bullets and the significant velocity difference (which could possibly be significant if the elapsed time of the wound being received were important) - I'm not sure there are inharmonious viewpoints here, excepting perhaps the value to be placed on this or that experimental approach or interpretation.

Since I have not read Dr. Courtney I can't offer an opinion in that direction. All I really have to go on is the damage I've witnessed and my admittedly amateur deductions about the nature (or mystery) of its' cause(s).

The limit of my academic skill is that I think it's right that the energy being transmitted has to travel somewhere and in the process it is traveling through flesh, organs and similar mediums that were not designed to transmit anywhere near that much energy in that short of a timespan. Some sort of pressure seems almost inevitable but if I had to explain it before eating another meal I'd starve.

:confused:

[MCgunner]

Shawnee, check out the links I gave. But, I think you hit on it. You're NOT going to see the kind of tissue damage from a handgun that you are from a high powered rifle. Gunshots on the street with .38s and .45s and such are going to kill primarily with crush cavity. Even Dr. Courtney says that. He does claim that energies up in the +P .45-.357 magnum levels can cause nerve interruption away from the actual path of the bullet. Like I say, I'm no neurologist. I have no reason to disagree with his research, though.

These guys are involved in a long standing big and slow vs small and fast argument about HANDGUNS in defensive shootings. It really does not relate to hunting with rifles, apples and oranges. But, Dr. Courtney has had the same questions as I've had about wounding he's seen in hunting scenarios and set out to find the mechanics of the reason. His research makes sense at least to ME. I really don't care about the .45 vs 9mm war that's been on going for 30 years it seems. I don't even like 1911s, do have a P90 and I also have a P85 and carry a 9mm Kel Tec because it fits in my pocket and will be there when I need it. If I have to shoot the BG twice to put him down with it, hell, it has 13 rounds on tap....AND STILL FITS IN MY POCKET and is under 20 ounces LOADED. It ain't the caliber I like, it's the gun. :D I don't feel carrying a 40 ounce 1911 all day and putting up with it is worth the hassle, not when I can shoot my little 9 so well. I do know one thing...I don't wanna be SHOT with a 9mm. You won't find me volunteering to be the test subject.

[the lone gunman]

When I hunted from tower blinds in S. Texas my favorite shot was to angle the bullet (usually a .243 87gr. BTHP) down through the "withers". Several times, at the shot, I would see the deer literally up in the air with all four legs pointing straight up in the air and it would land on the ground where it had been standing. That action of the deer's body looked almost like a reaction to a huge electric shock.


I had the same thing happen, shot a doe in the neck with a 22 hornet, all 4 legs went up in the air and it was dead on the spot. range about 75 yds.

[Shawnee]

Yeah.... the handgun "debate" wore me out long ago. Twice someone in my home town tried to commit suicide by shooting themselves in the chest with a .44 magnum. The first guy shot himself TWICE with it - and still drove to the hospital (only about 3/4 mile). The other guy shot himself, wasn't found for at least 30 minutes, and was out of the hospital in some short amount of time. Then there was a 300-pounder shot in the stomach by his girlfriend - one shot with a .25 auto - and was dead before the ambulance could arrive from 6 blocks away.

I just don't understand the energy transmission - partly because it seems like there are multiple means of it getting done. Fill a balloon only 3/4 full with water and shoot it and it bursts with water spraying (as opposed to just trickling away) everywhere. That would seem to explain massive tissue damage away from the primary wound channel.
But throw an AR-15 into a pond about a foot away from a wood chip floating on the surface and the chip will rise and fall but remain in the same spot it was before the ripple(s) passed under or through or whatever they do to it. That would seem to be counter to the idea of damage from a transient force.

:confused::confused::confused::confused:

[the lone gunman]

I had a friend of mine here in Pa. Was driving down a dirt road in doe season. Someone shot thru his drivers side door and the bullet went thru both his knees. he told me he never felt any pain in his knees, Just tremendous pain in his chest and he thought he was having a heart attack.they did catch the guy, but my buddy 15 years later is still messed up. It was a 30 caliber bullet. He had 2 others in the truck with him. His son in the middle and brother on passengers side.They had a fannel shirt rolled up between him and his son. the bullet stopped there, causing a huge bruise in his sons left leg.

[MCgunner]

Ouch!

Fill up a milk jug or plastic coke bottle with water. Shoot it with either a .22-250 and a light, 45 grain varmint bullet OR a shotgun slug. Better yet, film it in slow motion. Energy is energy, big and slow or small and fast. The plastic will generally shatter with a big splash as it is contained in the jug. Sometimes it'll shoot out the top like a geyser. But, the pressure has to go somewhere.

Hmm, would seem suicide would work better if applied to the head, eh? ROFL What was he worried about, might hurt and give him a headache? Didn't have hearing protection? :rolleyes:

[Wildfire]

Hey again;
I have read the good doctors studies. He does make sence. He is saying the same thing just useing a different term. Pressure wave. (Shock wave)
Means the same thing.

The correct terminoligy is not that big of a deal. We all know what the point is trying to be made.
Shooting a Milk jug full of water will show the effects of this subject. Faster the bullet , bigger the splash. To some degree pistol bullets at slower speeds still have the same effect. Just not as big of a splash.

We tested this idea in water jugs. A .300 win mag w/180 bullet and compared to a .223. (6) water jugs were set in line. At 30 yards both rounds penetrated 5 jugs. The splash from the .300 was very impresive. The splash from the .223 was less but still got things pretty wet. We then set out 8 jugs and fired a 480 grain bullet from a .50 cal Muzzleloader. At 1550 FPS.
All 8 jugs were cleared and the splash out did all.
Maybe not a very scientific way of doing it but it proved a few things to us.
(1) High velocity bullets make waves !!!!!
(2) Slower but heavier bullets do too !!!
Shock effect ? YES.....
Pistol bullets did not fair so well. We did find that most anything at around 1200 fps would surely create a shock effect in the heavier bullets.
There are some hang guns out there that will make a big splash.
But as a rule the rifle rounds are gonna dominate this end of things.

So Pressure wave or shock wave ? The good doctor may not have been up on Roys research. So he calls it pressure wave.
Jim Carmichel also used the term Hydro " " shock.......

[Harve Curry]

On meat; when I look at blood shot meat shot with a 30-06, meats ruined.
Others shot with a 45-70 cast bullet @ 1500fps MV 350gr and almost no meat damage.

[cjanak]

The Wikipedia entry on hydrodynamic/hydrostatic shock is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock).

A research paper from the West Point Ballistics Testing Group is here (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.3051.pdf).

[Michael Courtney]

An anonymous poster with the handle "Odd Job" Wrote:

Dr Courtney is a layman, and he produces this work for the layman, who might be more receptive to his theories. He is not a medical doctor, and has not treated any human gunshot cases, or been in an allied medical role in the handling of such cases. There are those of us who have, and the vast majority of us are highly critical of Dr Courtney's claims and his research methods.

We have made some efforts to make our work understandable to the layman, but we've had an awful lot published in scientific venues for you to suggest that our work has been rejected by the scientific community. On the contrary, the acceptance of our work is growing in the scientific community (as witnessed by our growing list of papers in scientific journals). The criticism of which you speak is confined to internet discussion forums. If there are as many nay-sayers as you suggest and they possess sound scientific reasoning, why are there currently no negative comments published in well-established scientific venues?

Several important papers were published in 2007, including

Links between traumatic brain injury and ballistic pressure waves originating in the thoracic cavity and extremities

Authors: Amy Courtney a; Michael Courtney b
Affiliations: a Department of Physics, United States Military Academy, West Point, NY, USA
b Ballistics Testing Group, West Point, NY, USA

DOI: 10.1080/02699050701481571
Published in: Brain Injury, Volume 21, Issue 7 June 2007 , pages 657 - 662
Subjects: Neuroscience; Rehabilitation;
A copy of a preprint is available at:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0808/0808.1443.pdf

In 2008, we had a number of publications, many of which have relevance with ballistic pressure waves:

Ballistics Testing Group 2008 Publications

A Thoracic Mechanism of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Due to Blast Pressure Waves
Published as: Medical Hypotheses, Volume 72, Issue 1 (2009) , p 76 – 83. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2008.08.015
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0812/0812.4757.pdf

ABSTRACT
The mechanisms by which blast pressure waves cause mild to moderate traumatic brain injury (mTBI) are an open question. Possibilities include acceleration of the head, direct passage of the blast wave via the cranium, and propagation of the blast wave to the brain via a thoracic mechanism. The hypothesis that the blast pressure wave reaches the brain via a thoracic mechanism is considered in light of ballistic and blast pressure wave research. Ballistic pressure waves, caused by penetrating ballistic projectiles or ballistic impacts to body armor, can only reach the brain via an internal mechanism and have been shown to cause cerebral effects. Similar effects have been documented when a blast pressure wave has been applied to the whole body or focused on the thorax in animal models. While vagotomy reduces apnea and bradycardia due to ballistic or blast pressure waves, it does not eliminate neural damage in the brain, suggesting that the pressure wave directly affects the brain cells via a thoracic mechanism. An experiment is proposed which isolates the thoracic mechanism from cranial mechanisms of mTBI due to blast wave exposure. Results have implications for evaluating risk of mTBI due to blast exposure and for developing effective protection.


Comments on “Ballistics: a primer for the surgeon”
Published as: Injury, 2008 Aug; 39(8): p 964-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2008.03.020
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0812/0812.4930.pdf

Abstract:
In response to a published assertion to the contrary, this paper briefly reviews many studies that document remote wounding effects of ballistic pressure waves including experiments in pigs and dogs that find brain injury resulting from animal models shot in the thigh and case studies in humans that document both remote brain and spinal cord injuries ascribed to ballistic pressure waves.

Apparent measurement errors in “Development of biomechanical response corridors of the thorax to blunt ballistic impacts”
Published as: Journal of Biomechanics, Volume 41, Issue 2, 2008, Page 486
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0812/0812.4755.pdf

Abstract: “Development of biomechanical response corridors of the thorax to blunt ballistic impacts” (Bir, C., Viano, D., King, A., 2004, Journal of Biomechanics 37, 73-79.) contains apparent measurement errors. Areas under several force vs. time (Fig. 2) and force vs. deflection curves (Fig.4) differ significantly from the momentum and kinetic energy changes, respectively.


Misleading reference to unpublished wound ballistics data regarding distant injuries
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0812/0812.4927.pdf

Abstract: An article (J Trauma 29:10-18, 1989) cites unpublished wound ballistics data to support the authors’ view that distant injuries are a myth in wound ballistics. The actual data, published in 1990, contains a number of detailed examples of distant injuries. (Bellamy RF, Zajtchuk R. The physics and biophysics of wound ballistics. In: Zajtchuk R, ed. Textbook of Military Medicine, Part I: Warfare, Weaponry, and the Casualty, Vol. 5, Conventional Warfare: Ballistic, Blast, and Burn Injuries. Washington, DC: Office of the Surgeon General, Department of the Army, United States of America; 1990: 107-162)

Comments Regarding “On the Nature of Science”
Published as: Physics in Canada, Vol. 64, No. 3 (2008), p7-8.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0812/0812.4932.pdf

Abstract: An attempt to redefine science in the 21st century (BK Jennings, On the Nature of Science, Physics in Canada, 63(7) 2007) has abandoned traditional notions of natural law and objective reality, blurred the distinctions between natural science and natural history, elevated Occam’s razor from an epistemological preference to a scientific principle, and elevated peer-review and experimental care as equals with repeatable experiment as arbiters of scientific validity. Our comments review the long-established axioms of the scientific method, remind readers of the distinctions between science and history, disprove the generality of Occam’s razor by counter example, and highlight the risks of accepting additional scientific arbiters as equal to repeatable experiment.

Acoustic methods for measuring bullet velocity
Published as: Applied Acoustics 69 (2008) 925–928, doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2007.05.004
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0812/0812.4752.pdf

Abstract: This article describes two acoustic methods to measure bullet velocity with an accuracy of 1% or better. In one method, a microphone is placed within 0.1 m of the gun muzzle and a bullet is fired at a steel target 45 m away. The bullet’s flight time is the recorded time between the muzzle blast and sound of hitting the target minus the time for the sound to return from the target to the microphone. In the other method, the microphone is placed equidistant from both the gun muzzle and the steel target 91 m away. The time of flight is the recorded time between the muzzle blast and the sound of the bullet hitting the target. In both cases, the average bullet velocity is simply the flight distance divided by the flight time.
Key words: bullet velocity

A method for testing bullets at reduced velocity
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0812/0812.4934.pdf

Abstract: Reconstruction of shooting events occasionally requires testing of bullets at velocities significantly below the typical muzzle velocity of cartridge arms. Trajectory, drag, and terminal performance depend strongly on velocity, and realistic results require accurately reconstructing the velocity. A method is presented for testing bullets at reduced velocities by loading the bullet into a sabot and firing from a muzzleloader with a suitably reduced powder charge. Powder charges can be safely reduced to any desirable level when shooting saboted bullets from a muzzleloader; in contrast, cartridge arms can only be safely operated within a narrow window of powder charges/muzzle velocities. This technique is applicable to a wide range of both pistol and rifle bullets at velocities from 700 ft/s to 2000 ft/s.

[interlock]

I am with the good doctor on this. I use different rifles. the most damaging deer round i have ever used is a .243 with 80 gr soft points at 3400 fps. This smashes the animal to pieces and makes a huge bruise.

i picture it like hitting a full bath with a cricket bat, that water has to go somewhere. if you hit an animal very fast with a bullet the fluid has to go somewhere and it goes around the body and "switches" the brain off.

i think the bullet has to hit very fast.

the 150 gr .30-06 bullet at about 2800 kills just aswell but does far less damage.

interlock

[qwert65]

There are pressure waves with everything, all bullets cause hydrodynanmic damage(though you may not see it/ or it's not signifigant)
IThe more energy the bullet puts in its target the more force of the wave, however the placement, can determine how much is absorbed bone, muscle whatever

[MCgunner]

Killin' crickets with a baseball bat? Overkill, ain't it?? Wouldn't a fly swatter do? :D

Shot a spike two years ago with a 150 .30 caliber Nosler BT at about 1900-2000 fps impact velocity. The shot was in the lungs high just behind the shoulder and about 3" under the spine. That deer dropped so fast, I thought for a minute I'd missed, but it was piled up in its tracks where it had stood. That wasn't all that fast a bullet, but it was packin' around 1100 ft lbs plus or minus at that range, enough, I think, to affect the spinal cord with pressure wave effects. I hit nothing, but lung. The was no obvious damage to the spine, bullet passed well under it. I got good expansion on the bullet. It's the only explanation to why it shut down so quick that I could come up with.

I really thing that if the bullet is packin' the energy, it really doesn't matter much whether it's made with velocity or bullet mass. 1100 ft lbs is 1100 ft lbs. It's just a lot easier to make energy with velocity since the energy is proportional to the square of the velocity and is linear with respect to mass. But, if you play with loads and ballistic programs enough, you'll figure out that a given caliber is going to make similar energy with a heavy bullet as it is with a light bullet going faster. IIRC, the .243 is in the 1800-2000 ft lb range with any given bullet weight.

[Art Eatman]

One thing for sure: Itty-bitty bullets going really, really fast make a wound cavity all out of proportion to their size. A velocity at impact at or above some 3,400 to 3,500 ft/sec does truly horrible things to bodily parts.

I think of results I've seen from a 40-grain bullet from a Swift, or an 80-grain bullet from an '06. Yuck. Double handful thereof. :)