The Myth of Energy Transfer

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by whitetail Junkie

The greater the energy released into a deer from a bullet,creates a greater degree of shock within the deer's body.Human's die from shock and so do deer.once I witnessed a doe shot in the hind legs with a 300 win @ 250 yards.she droped instanley and was dead before she hit the ground. Now if you hit that same deer in the hinds with an arrow @ 40 yards do you think she would have dropped and died instantley from the "Hole's" in Her legs?

If you struck major arteries like the bullet did she absolutely would die and quickly.

[clakjp]

Originally Posted by chuck

And I'm being serious when I say you completely misrepresented me on this thread.

Sorry chuck did not mean to do anything like that.

[switchsl]

As I said the specifics of the exact damage was not really discussed in any of the material I found, you would need the original texts and autopsy reports, something I dont have access to online. Some of the reports of trauma surgeons findings detailed hemoraging in the brain to humans from hangun gsw to the chest. Hemorage is permenant, as is cell damage to any degree in the brain. I said the main cause of death was the original wound from the bullet, remote wounding was a compounding factor, not the only one. The only way to cause death is to stop CNS function. The big words may make it hard to read, but it is the only way to explain whats goin on. Like I said I explained what I read as I understand it, Im not an authority. If my opinion upsets you, well to bad. Thus far you have nothing to back up your argument other than telling me politley Im an idiot. Ill step down from the discussion, which seems to have run its course, unless you have something other than your opinion and my grasp of it to offer. If you would like to see what i read to come to the conclusions I did you can start with courtney and courtney and the research to support and contradict them, the names Yu-Yuan M, Cederberg A, Hansson HA, Cognitive deficits following blast injury, http://www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/...l_warfare.html

Originally Posted by switchsl

Thus far you have nothing to back up your argument other than telling me politley Im an idiot. Ill step down from the discussion, which seems to have run its course, unless you have something other than your opinion and my grasp of it to offer. ]

LOL...again I question your interpretation of the facts. There has been plenty of scientific and anecdotal evidence posted to the contrary of your opnion. I am in no way am telling you that you are an idiot. I'm telling you that you did a good job researching but don't fully grasp what that research is saying. You sure are quick to jump to conclusions. I appreciate all of the info you have provided. Much of it supports my thoughts on the subject.

As I said the specifics of the exact damage was not really discussed in any of the material I found

And therein lies the downfall of your interpretation. I've tried to politely point out several times that I agree the damage exists but it is not sufficient to cause death. Much of what's been posted on this thread and my own experience supports that.

Hemorage is permenant

Huh? Cuts heal, bruises go away and your body regenerates blood cells. Nothing permanent there.

[switchsl]

Evidence supports both sides of the argument, as did my post. You repeatedly missed the part where I said its the hole you shoot into something and the bleeding it caused that kills the animal. A brain hemorage is not a minor thing, if you have a stroke, you will understand. As for cell damage, well, I wasnt really talking about blood, I guess It was a mis interpretation. Lets respectfully agree to disagree... and agree at the same time. Shall we?

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by switchsl

Thus far you have nothing to back up your argument other than telling me politley Im an idiot.

Where did that come from?

Your information provided and explanations have been a good addition to this thread.

I have read all of the linked studies, and have yet to see any conclusive documentation as to the extent or severity of damages caused by these shock waves. Did I miss something?

Originally Posted by switchsl

A brain hemorage is not a minor thing, if you have a stroke, you will understand. As for cell damage, well, I wasnt really talking about blood, I guess It was a mis interpretation. Lets respectfully agree to disagree... and agree at the same time. Shall we?

Of course a brain hemorrage is not a minor thing but it's not always permanent either as you said. Nor is it always fatal. As I said, it's your interpretation of the facts that I question...not your facts. Always good to examine both sides before jumping to conclusions. I was long a fan of the energy dump theory but have changed my mind in the past few years. I don't think you are an idiot at all but I do think you are looking for evidence to support your position rather than looking at the evidence objectively.

[Cowtown guy]

Originally Posted by clakjp

What bullets do you use in both? Also what range are your shots taken?

Both are using TSX bullets. Rarely to do I shoot less than 100 yards and more than 300 yards. I would say the majority are in the 225 yard range somewhere. The .257 however has killed 2 deer just over 400. Both dropped instantly. 1 was centre punched hitting no bones except for a rib at the exit point. The other was at the top of the heart and both lungs.

[Cowtown guy]

Originally Posted by switchsl

Evidence supports both sides of the argument, as did my post. You repeatedly missed the part where I said its the hole you shoot into something and the bleeding it caused that kills the animal. A brain hemorage is not a minor thing, if you have a stroke, you will understand. As for cell damage, well, I wasnt really talking about blood, I guess It was a mis interpretation. Lets respectfully agree to disagree... and agree at the same time. Shall we?

I'm just going to throw a question at you Switch.

Are you basically saying that there MAY be some damage attributed to the temporary wound channel? I think this is what I am getting from your posts. I did see in a post above that you do believe that the majority of the killing is from the blood loss. So if this is your statement than I think TJ and yourself are saying the same thing. No?

[Cowtown guy]

Sorry if I put words in your mouth TJ. I just think from what I read that you guys are very close to saying the same thing differently.

Originally Posted by Cowtown guy

Sorry if I put words in your mouth TJ. I just think from what I read that you guys are very close to saying the same thing differently.

LOL...no problem. It's always a nice surprise when someone actually puts words in my mouth that I said...

I think the facts dictate that we need to be very close to saying the same thing. Human tissue is very effective at absorbing energy and while the resulting damage to that tissue is inevitable, it's the degree of damage that seems the point of contention. Between the water in our body, elastic nature of tissue and the heat of friction, the extent of the "shockwave" is amazingly small.

[clakjp]

Tj so if you are right what is the best bullet for the job? If you feel there is more than one due to animal size fill us in.

[switchsl]

Buffalo, I read alot of different studies and articles, and within those had to research the effects of their claims seperatly, and followed many cited articles to prove the stated claims. There are to many links and page numbers to list. The remote hemorage camewas quoted in many articles, but nothing I could print or read directly. These two pages are a good read and provide reads to follow up on about remote wounding if you search the cited articles http://wapedia.mobi/en/Hydrostatic_shock Jim Carmichael, Outdoor Life, July 31, 2003, http://www.outdoorlife.com/node/45560
Sheep, a hemorage is what it is, and we have both used the same facts to support our own arguments on different sides of the fence. The evidence is there for both our arguments and interpretations, and I believe in the end, we agree, but just like to argue for the sake of being stubborn. That being said, energy transfer is irrelivant to killing anything, only that it aids in the fast incapacitating of it. The original post goes on to say how a small cal weapon killed an officer when a 357 didnt get the fat guy, due to bleeding, aka hemorage. It also says that a shotgun slug can be absorbed with soft armour with no harm. The reason, the flexible nature of the human body, my rebutal was the lack of hydraulic action through liquid medium due to lack of penetration, such as internal veins and arteries. You are absolutly right, and I dont dispute, you have to have a crushed permanent cavity and ruptured blood vessels to kill something. I also have to say, there is reason to say that the energy dump theory has some merrit in the fast drop on the spot kills as cowtown was asking about, and aids in but does not complete a kill. Can we agree on this?

[switchsl]

cowtown, please read the above post and the link about outdoor life. the reason for your fast kill is the loss of blood causes the kill, the faster kill is from the added damage of remote wounding. It is explained in the buffalo cull experiments. Your particular caliber and bullet choice, possibly, is just more efficient in a deer sized game as a 257 than a 7mm in accomplishing this added damage.

Originally Posted by clakjp

Tj so if you are right what is the best bullet for the job? If you feel there is more than one due to animal size fill us in.

If there is more than one....LMAO. There are likely hundreds. The best bullet is the one that shoots best from your rifle and has the ability to sufficiently penetrate to make a hole that will cause the animal to die. Most quality hunting bullets will do that.

[clakjp]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

If there is more than one....LMAO. There are likely hundreds. The best bullet is the one that shoots best from your rifle and has the ability to sufficiently penetrate to make a hole that will cause the animal to die. Most quality hunting bullets will do that.

Which is best then from all of your years of study???? I am not sold on your theory this might help.

Originally Posted by switchsl

I also have to say, there is reason to say that the energy dump theory has some merrit in the fast drop on the spot kills as cowtown was asking about, and aids in but does not complete a kill. Can we agree on this?

It aids in knockdown but rarely aids in death....so no, I guess we can't agree.

[switchsl]

If it is proven to cause bleeding in internal organs and in the brain (not every time but it does happen) and bleeding is what we agree causes death, isnt it reasonable to assume it aids in a quick kill?

Originally Posted by clakjp

Which is best then from all of your years of study???? I am not sold on your theory this might help.

Once again JustinC, your inability to read astounds me. Your question was asked and answered. There is no best for everyone or every situation. There are countless great bullets out there and I continue to use many of them. I have many favourites and I know many knowledgeable hunters that have others.

Originally Posted by switchsl

If it is proven to cause bleeding in internal organs and in the brain (not every time but it does happen) and bleeding is what we agree causes death, isnt it reasonable to assume it aids in a quick kill?

In rare cases no doubt. If the bullet passes close enough to one of those organs it's conceivable that it could even cause death but the bleeding caused by the temporary wound channel "shockwave" typically does not cause enough bleeding to cause death by loss of blood. Remember hemoraging is not always permanent.

If energy really was so deadly, every animal that a bullet hit would die from shock or blood loss. They don't!

[switchsl]

Bullets could be (have been) beat to death without a doubt. So many variables, caliber and velocity and then cartridge of the same caliber, range, vld or not to B.T., game size. I like the looks of the Nosler accubonds for my 06, I like my hand cast 50 cal round ball with a B.C. of .06 ish, but I used hornadys last. Im going to bergers when I get my 300 mag... back to the scope of this thread. They all make a hole in the target

[Arn?Narn.]

Originally Posted by whitetail Junkie

The greater the energy released into a deer from a bullet,creates a greater degree of shock within the deer's body.Human's die from shock and so do deer.once I witnessed a doe shot in the hind legs with a 300 win @ 250 yards.she droped instanley and was dead before she hit the ground. Now if you hit that same deer in the hinds with an arrow @ 40 yards do you think she would have dropped and died instantley from the "Hole's" in Her legs?

I call B.S. IMO.... or at least if it did happen, it wasn't because of shock.

[switchsl]

I think I just uncovered a big difference in how we have interpreted hydrostatic shock. The temporary wound channel is caused by the displacement of tissue due to the elastic nature of it, wich pretty much doesnt hurt anything. The permanent wound channel, is the crush injury from the bullet and its frahgments. Both these things we seem to be dead straight and on the same page. The hydrostatic shoc effects and its ability to remotley wound an animal however is different altogether. The shockwave is not that which swells the tissue causing the temporary wound channel, but the hydraulic shockwave, precipitating at or near the speed of sound away from the wound channel through liquid media... like the veins and arteries, causing massive pressure in other areas away from the impact point. Or is that how you understand it and I misread or misunderstood you just now?

[switchsl]

let me reword that a bit, i got excited, my spelling shows that. The force that causes the swell in the tissue, will also make its way through liquid in the body, its not limited to the tissue

Originally Posted by switchsl

let me reword that a bit, i got excited, my spelling shows that. The force that causes the swell in the tissue, will also make its way through liquid in the body, its not limited to the tissue

Your theory would be good if we were talking the speed of sound in the air but the speed of sound in water/tissue is about 4,900fps....far outside the scope of a hunting bullet. There is no hydrostatic shock from a bullet.

Here's a quote from the article Peaks posted that bears repeating.

Some people use "shock" in the colloquial sense to describe a violent impact, but it is confusing, especially in connection with the term "hydrostatic" and lends undeserved quasi-scientific merit to the slang. It also tends to get confused with the medical expression attending trauma. We are not describing any medical shock. The word shock should never appear in a gun journal.

I think this is what you are trying to say but you must appreciate its limitations and frequency of occurence

Before I become too dogmatic and overstate the situation, let me concede that there may be some merit to the idea that hydrodynamic (not hydrostatic) impulse created by bullets which have a high kinetic energy and generally exhibit violent cavitation, can cause some secondary effects due to pressure on the nervous system or heart. It is possible to kill manually by nerve "strangulation". In this case actual damage to the central nervous system is not caused, but the signals governing the heart or diaphragm are shut off, resulting in instantaneous unconsciousness or even death. This sort of thing makes for lurid mythology in the martial arts and bad movies, but there is some real science behind it. Certain rare sports fatalities have been definitely attributed to a swift blow which interrupts the cardiac rhythm. Acoustic pressure on the spine can also cause temporary paralysis. These phenomena may account for the rapid effectiveness of some high-velocity hollow-point pistol bullet wounds, especially in cases in which the victim is not mortally wounded and recovers consciousness within a few minutes. Several special handgun loads have been designed with no regard whatsoever to penetration (e.g., the THV bullet) in order to achieve this result. Unfortunately, this is an unreliable mechanism of incapacitation, generally obtained at the expense of effective penetration. No bullet yet designed will produce this effect even 10% of the time. Many of the bullets designed to use this effect can be defeated by common barriers, such as glass, sheetrock, and even clothing. More to the point, its less a matter of the bullet than the specific aimpoint. Doing this deliberately by hand, even with a profound understanding of the mechanism and vital points, is extremely uncertain; using the passage of a pressure wave from a bullet to accomplish this falls into the freak event category. Such is never an acceptable mechanism for the hunter.

[Arn?Narn.]

Completely mind boggling./..

Shock vs Shock... there are two definitions or more !!!! and one does really kill!

Hydrostatic Pressure Shock whatever from a bullet only causes an effect on the near immediate tissue surrounding it.... resulting in a bruise...

If this particular tissue were the heart or lungs, than any benefit from that shock is negligible as the initial damage is the lethal one.


This is just nuts,...

Animals shot in the leg and drop dead before they hit the ground !!!!!!!!


ARE YOU SERIOUS !!!!!!!!!!!!!



Most animals you can cut off their freakin limb and they don't die instantaneously!!!!!!!!!!

This is just nuts !

Originally Posted by Arn?Narn.

Completely mind boggling./..


Hydrostatic Pressure Shock whatever from a bullet only causes an effect on the near immediate tissue surrounding it.... resulting in a bruise...

Hydrostatic shock does not exist inside the body when struck by a bullet from a hunting rifle. Hydrodynamic pulse....yes.

[switchsl]

The phrase hydrostatic shock is a relative term to describe the physics and effects of ballistic pressure waves and the damage they cause. Im certian now we are not on the same page, have not spent the same time researching the subject, and therefore concede we both have a great evening, good future hunts with quick humane kills, cold beer, and hot women. Cheers sheep

[switchsl]

I missed the bit about the pulse somehow... but yup, infrequent. again cheers, we have ehausted this subject dont you think?

LOL...Wikipedia is not always you friend. Shock by definition requires exceeding the speed of sound. A shockwave can only be created in a medium if something travels through it at or greater than the speed of sound. The speed of sound varies greatly in different mediums.

I will share your toast, however....cheers!