Bullet performance...what do you expect?

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by smith88

"Bang-flops" are mostly likely caused by damage to the nervous system. Shoot any animal in the head and they are going to drop. Same as a good spine shot.

Do you feel this damage could be equally obtain through direct wound channel or through the hydrostatic shock created?

I ask this because I once shot a white-tail buck, in the neck at 100 yrds....he went straight down. I walked up to him and had a look...decent 4X5, started dragging him in my excitement....then decided why I am I dragging an ungutted deer? so realizing I had my knife in my pack back at the spot where I was laying down in the wide open feild. I walked back to get it, while in the process called my Dad on my cell to let him know I got the deer I was watching/patterning for several days.

I get back to within 20 or so yards of the deer and within 10 yards of my gun leaned on a fencepost....the deers head is up!!! I made a sudden movement to get my gun and he is up like a shot running away....a follow up shot was not possible due to low light/ HOLY !@$# factor/ not being ready for this....

Unfortunately I never recovered that deer, we tracked him in the dark for about 3 hours, kicking him up once. Small pool of blood in his bed. This was second last day of the season and his neck was big from being rutted up.

I seemingly had a "bang flop" situation. Apparently I only knocked him down/out...its my belief the hydrostatic shock did this.....the wound channel obviously did not damage any spine or neuro system so he was effectively knocked out....so I basically drug a live deer for about 10 yards.

What did I learn? If I have a chest shot...take it. Neck shots are effective but apparently can fail...also ALWAYS have a knife on your hip, not in your pack. I likely would have started gutting him from the neck, and would have cut his throat to free up the windpipe first off.....then he for sure would not have gone anywhere..

This one still haunts me even to this day....only animal I have lost so far with the rifle.

The point in this long winded response it was likely the shock that gave him the "lights out", the wound channel (placement) was not signifcant enough to finish him off.

Lefty

[Cal]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I have seen bang flops with lung shots using high velocity, and rapidly expanding bullets. The lungs were totally destroyed at the shot. How fast would you drop if you suddenly had no lungs?

Lol I've been waiting all night for you to say that... how would a little 7mm bullet destroy the whole lungs Elk? And furthermore what would high velocity and fast expanding bullets have to do with it? Well why dont I let Lefty explain that to you, savor this Lefty cause Elkhunter doesnt talk himself into a corner very often I'm going to bed guys, have fun.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Cal

And the trap is sprung... how would a little 7mm bullet destroy the whole lungs Elk? And furthermore what would high velocity and fast expanding bullets have to do with it? Well why dont I let Lefty explain that to you, savor this Lefty cause Elkhunter doesnt talk himself into a corner very often

AHHaaaa I am pickin up what you are laying down!

Likely the effect of the shock pulverized the lungs and had enough energy to knock him down? The bullet exploding in the chest likely had a little to do with it too.....

Lefty

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

AHHaaaa I am pickin up what you are laying down!

Likely the effect of the shock pulverized the lungs and had enough energy to knock him down? The bullet exploding in the chest likely had a little to do with it too.....

Lefty

Or maybe the lack of oxygen to the brain made the animal collapse?
Cat

[elkhunter11]

And how would a little 7mm bullet destroy the whole lungs Elk?

Simple, the 140gr Ballistic tip launched at 3500fps expanded very rapidly, displaced a lot of material, and rib and bullet fragments caused even more damage to the lungs. Actually, the entire lungs were not destroyed, but the center of the lungs where the other vitals connect were pretty much shredded. With all the damage, the animals couldn't run anywhere.

Or maybe the lack of oxygen to the brain made the animal collapse?
Cat

That certainly could be a huge factor, with the connections to the other vitals severed.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Simple, the 140gr Ballistic tip launched at 3500fps expanded very rapidly, displaced a lot of material, and rib and bullet fragments caused even more damage to the lungs. Actually, the entire lungs were not destroyed, but the center of the lungs where the other vitals connect were pretty much shredded. With all the damage, the animals couldn't run anywhere.

We must have different deffinitions of the term "shock" because that right there is what I would call "shock", having to do with dumping energy into the body of an animal. I've never seen anything of this nature happen with a bow kill because it doesnt have enough energy. Are you still holding that energy and shock are invalid even after describing what I would call the result of a large amount of energy causing shock to an animals lungs? He's still getting used to the idea of talking himself into a corner Lefty.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Ultimately dead is dead....I guess I put more stake in the energy/shock factor than I needed to think about?

I always try to go for a one shot kill and use bullets that I feel are accurate enough out of rifle and have a decent level of expansion, etc to make a clean kill.

I personally think its a combination of shock and wound that kills critters. Maybe I just put more thought into that side of the equation (energy/shock)than I needed to? I never thought of the angle that people use a heavier bullet to acheive more penetration (like elkhunter11 pointed out), I always assumed that more mass (heavier bullet) meant hitting harder/more shock value.

I think most guys if asked why shoot a 180gr bullet over a 150gr bullet would answer "cause it hits harder" rather then "cause it will punch through"

Lefty

[elkhunter11]

We must have different deffinitions of the term "shock" because that right there is what I would call "shock", having to do with dumping energy into the body of an animal.

The material is displaced by forcing a blunt object(expanded bullet) through a media. Since it is blunt, the bullet has to tear it's way through the lungs , thereby displacing a great deal of media along the way. As the bullet passes through the lungs it displays a snowball effect(due to the tearing action) in that the wound channel becomes larger and larger until the bullet fragments, and the frontal area of the bullet becomes smaller. As the frontal area of the bullet becomes smaller, the wound channel also becomes smaller, until either the bullet exits or stops forward motion.

I've never seen anything of this nature happen with a bow kill because it doesnt have enough energy.

A broadhead is sharp, so it cuts through the media, displacing very little material. An expanding bullet is blunt, and has a much larger frontal area that has to tear it's way through the media.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The material is displaced by forcing a blunt object(expanded bullet) through a media. Since it is blunt, the bullet has to tear it's way through the lungs , thereby displacing a great deal of media along the way. As the bullet passes through the lungs it displays a snowball effect(due to the tearing action) in that the wound channel becomes larger and larger until the bullet fragments, and the frontal area of the bullet becomes smaller. As the frontal area of the bullet becomes smaller, the wound channel also becomes smaller, until either the bullet exits or stops forward motion.



A broadhead is sharp, so it cuts through the media, displacing very little material. An expanding bullet is blunt, and has a much larger frontal area that has to tear it's way through the media.

You must be a dutchman.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The material is displaced by forcing a blunt object(expanded bullet) through a media. Since it is blunt, the bullet has to tear it's way through the lungs , thereby displacing a great deal of media along the way. As the bullet passes through the lungs it displays a snowball effect(due to the tearing action) in that the wound channel becomes larger and larger until the bullet fragments, and the frontal area of the bullet becomes smaller. As the frontal area of the bullet becomes smaller, the wound channel also becomes smaller, until either the bullet exits or stops forward motion.



A broadhead is sharp, so it cuts through the media, displacing very little material. An expanding bullet is blunt, and has a much larger frontal area that has to tear it's way through the media.

I think we are all discussing the same effect but calling it something different,

Hydrostatic shock or hydraulic shock describes the observation that a penetrating projectile can produce remote wounding and incapacitating effects in living targets, in addition to local effects in tissue caused by direct impact, through a hydraulic effect in liquid-filled tissues.[1][2] There is scientific evidence that hydrostatic shock can produce remote neural damage and produce incapacitation more quickly than blood loss effects.[3] Proponents of bullets that are "light and fast" versus bullets that are "slow and heavy" often refer to this phenomenon.

Human autopsy results have demonstrated brain hemorrhaging from fatal hits to the chest, including cases with handgun bullets.[4] Thirty-three cases of fatal penetrating chest wounds by a single bullet were selected from a much larger set by excluding all other traumatic factors, including past history.

A number of bullet companies appeal to ideas related to hydraulic shock in their marketing materials. For example, Berger Bullets advertises that hydraulic shock is enhanced by penetrating several inches prior to expanding and fragmenting.

The VLD design is different, penetration before expansion, and as it expands [the bullet] fragments to enhance the wound cavity for massive tissue damage. The VLD will penetrate several inches of hide, muscle, and bone before expanding and fragmenting, causing tremendous hydraulic shock and fragments that wreck the vitals and drops the animal in its tracks.

– Berger Bullets[63]

Barnes bullets advertises that their triple shock bullet has superior incapacitation because it expands quickly and produces hydraulic shock.

Hydraulic shock disrupts vital organs, short-circuiting the nervous system for clean, quick kills.

– Barnes Catalog[64]

The importance of hydraulic shock in the performance of their bullet designs is reiterated in their "Performance vs. Deformance" video.

The bullet expands immediately on impact, immense hydraulic pressure swells the deer's chest, forcing the front legs apart ... death is instantaneous ... The bullet has expended almost all its energy inside the animal.

– Barnes Bullets[65]

In their "Bullet Myths Busted Choosing the Right Bullet: II" DVD, Chuck Yeager explains how hydrostatic shock improves the performance of Barnes Bullets.

The triple shock bullet ... When it hits an animal [creates] a hydrostatic shock wave ... it's a shaped charge...

– Chuck Yeager[66]

Hornady Manufacturing discusses the advantages of remote neurological effects of their law enforcement line of ammunition in their "Hornady Tactical Application Police Ammunition Test Report and Application Guide."

Possibly even more significant is that a study conducted in North Carolina involving shooting large goats in the lungs with high velocity high energy frangible projectiles indicates that the large temporary cavity created by such a projectile can cause a severe blood pressure spike to the animal's brain causing instant incapacitation. In effect it is an artificially induced massive stroke. The test animals had special blood pressure monitoring probes surgically inserted into one of the animal's major neck arteries to the brain well prior to the shooting. When the projectile had a large and violent enough temporary cavity to cause a severe blood pressure spike, the animal was instantly incapacitated. The Hornady TAP rounds have energies and temporary cavity sizes well beyond those shown to cause instant incapacitation in the tests.

– Chuck Karwan[67]

Interesting information,

I have to add I enjoy these types of conversations as I find them to provoke discussion and thought in a civil manner.

Lefty

[elkhunter11]

A number of bullet companies appeal to ideas related to hydraulic shock in their marketing materials.

If people want to believe that hydrostatic shock kills game animals, the companies certainly won't hesitate to use this to their advantage. Marketing sells, whether it is based on fact or fiction.

[smith88]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Do you feel this damage could be equally obtain through direct wound channel or through the hydrostatic shock created?

I ask this because I once shot a white-tail buck, in the neck at 100 yrds....he went straight down. I walked up to him and had a look...decent 4X5, started dragging him in my excitement....then decided why I am I dragging an ungutted deer? so realizing I had my knife in my pack back at the spot where I was laying down in the wide open feild. I walked back to get it, while in the process called my Dad on my cell to let him know I got the deer I was watching/patterning for several days.

I get back to within 20 or so yards of the deer and within 10 yards of my gun leaned on a fencepost....the deers head is up!!! I made a sudden movement to get my gun and he is up like a shot running away....a follow up shot was not possible due to low light/ HOLY !@$# factor/ not being ready for this....

Unfortunately I never recovered that deer, we tracked him in the dark for about 3 hours, kicking him up once. Small pool of blood in his bed. This was second last day of the season and his neck was big from being rutted up.

I seemingly had a "bang flop" situation. Apparently I only knocked him down/out...its my belief the hydrostatic shock did this.....the wound channel obviously did not damage any spine or neuro system so he was effectively knocked out....so I basically drug a live deer for about 10 yards.

What did I learn? If I have a chest shot...take it. Neck shots are effective but apparently can fail...also ALWAYS have a knife on your hip, not in your pack. I likely would have started gutting him from the neck, and would have cut his throat to free up the windpipe first off.....then he for sure would not have gone anywhere..

This one still haunts me even to this day....only animal I have lost so far with the rifle.

The point in this long winded response it was likely the shock that gave him the "lights out", the wound channel (placement) was not signifcant enough to finish him off.

Lefty

Have you never been hit really in hockey or football? The deer you shot was knocked unconcious. I think if enough energy (shock or whatever) is transferred to the brain it just stops, electrical impulses are stopped or whatever. If animals bleed to death from the bleeding caused by a headshot, why don't they died that fast from bleeding from the heart or lungs where all the blood comes from? I have seen a 17 inch antelope get shot threw the nose and drop dead with less blood than when you cut your finger. When we skinned it and cut the horns off, the brain was a pile of goo. No physical contact was made between the brain and the bullet but obviously there was enough shock from the energy of the bullet to kill. In my opinion, animals die instantly from head or nervous system tramua and bleed to death from wounds like holes in the lungs or heart. With the deer you shot, neither was accomplished so the deer did not die.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

If people want to believe that hydrostatic shock kills game animals, the companies certainly won't hesitate to use this to their advantage. Marketing sells, whether it is based on fact or fiction.

So are you suggestion that Hydrostatic/hydraulic shock is a buzz word used to sell bullets? I would suggest that there is alot more to it than that? There is really no reason for them to include this in their materials other than it is a proven effect of a bullets impact on it target?

Just food for thought,

Lefty

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by smith88

Have you never been hit really in hockey or football? The deer you shot was knocked unconcious. I think if enough energy (shock or whatever) is transferred to the brain it just stops, electrical impulses are stopped or whatever. If animals bleed to death from the bleeding caused by a headshot, why don't they died that fast from bleeding from the heart or lungs where all the blood comes from? I have seen a 17 inch antelope get shot threw the nose and drop dead with less blood than when you cut your finger. When we skinned it and cut the horns off, the brain was a pile of goo. No physical contact was made between the brain and the bullet but obviously there was enough shock from the energy of the bullet to kill. In my opinion, animals die instantly from head or nervous system tramua and bleed to death from wounds like holes in the lungs or heart. With the deer you shot, neither was accomplished so the deer did not die.

I think you might have misread/misunderstood my post...

At the end of my post I stated:
The point in this long winded response it was likely the shock that gave him the "lights out", the wound channel (placement) was not signifcant enough to finish him off.

I totally agree with you....I am saying shock can kill/affect animals....im not disputing that at all.

Elkhunter11 feels that shock has no bearing on the damage a bullet does to an animal, I was just pointing out a case where I saw the effects of shock (knocking down/out of the deer I shot), where it didn't kill and animal but did knock him down.

Lefty

[elkhunter11]

So are you suggestion that Hydrostatic/hydraulic shock is a buzz word used to sell bullets? I would suggest that there is alot more to it than that? There is really no reason for them to include this in their materials other than it is a proven effect of a bullets impact on it target?

Hydrostatic shock is certainly present with gunshots, you need only shoot a can full of water to prove that. Now as to whether it is the actual cause of death when you shoot a game animal is another matter. From what I have seen from actually shooting game animals for nearly forty years, and reading reports by other people that have killed a great many animals, I choose to believe that the wound channel is the actual cause of death, rather than hydrostatic shock.

Now as to companies using the hydrostatic shock theory to sell products, the companies will use whatever means that they think will sell their products. Sure their bullets cause hydrostatic shock, but is it the hydrostatic shock that kills the animal? They really don't care, as long as their products sell..

[elkhunter11]

Elkhunter11 feels that shock has no bearing on the damage a bullet does to an animal, I was just pointing out a case where I saw the effects of shock (knocking down/out of the deer I shot), where it didn't kill and animal but did knock him down.

And the key phrase in that statement is:

it didn't kill and animal

If hydrostatic shock is such an effective killer, why didn't it kill that animal?

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

And the key phrase in that statement is:



If hydrostatic shock is such an effective killer, why didn't it kill that animal?

I think we have some wires crossed here in all the rhetoric....I never said it was an effective killer....I have only stated it is a FACTOR in an effective kill....I also stated that when I hit that deer it was knocked down and out by shock NOT by the wound the bullet created....I think we are actually making the exact same points just in different fashion....

Lefty

[elkhunter11]

I also stated that when I hit that deer it was knocked down and out by shock NOT by the wound the bullet created...

Absolutely shock can stun an animal, the question is still the actual cause of death. And was the shock that stunned the animal hydrostatic shock, or some other type of shock?

[Lefty-Canuck]

Not sure I follow? what other type of shock do you suggest? Shock from hearing the gun go off?

In my case it was not....in the case of post from smith88 on the antelope apparently it was.

Lefty

[elkhunter11]

Not sure I follow? what other type of shock do you suggest? Shock from hearing the gun go off?

An impact to the nervous system from a hit along the spinal column can knock down an animal without any hydrostatic shock.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

An impact to the nervous system from a hit along the spinal column can knock down an animal without any hydrostatic shock.

Lol, its too late for me to get involved in a "tomatoe" "tomAtoe" discussion tonight. Hopefully some other members will chime in on this and offer their opinions.

Have a good one,
Lefty

[Pathfinder76]

This is painful.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by chuck

This is painful.

I agree! I wish elkhunter11 would just see the light

I think things got a little off track with this one.

Lefty

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

I agree! I wish elkhunter11 would just see the light

I think things got a little off track with this one.

Lefty

He isn't the one missing the light.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by chuck

He isn't the one missing the light.

LOL! Nope.
Some one answer me this. Shock waves travel through fluid. At the millisecond of impact the lungs are full of air. What does the "hydrostatic shock wave" travel through?

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by 209x50

LOL! Nope.
Some one answer me this. Shock waves travel through fluid. At the millisecond of impact the lungs are full of air. What does the "hydrostatic shock wave" travel through?

The minds of the uneducated and misinformed.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by chuck

The minds of the uneducated and misinformed.

Thats the great thing, we can all have our own take on how things happen.

The funny thing is my original post didnt have much to do with hydrostatic shock but it sure turned out that way.

I see you and elkhunter11 have similar takes on that issue.

Lefty

[209x50]

Originally Posted by chuck

The minds of the uneducated and misinformed.

Ha ha! You must have had a good weekend Chuck, you are at the top of your game this morning!

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by 209x50

LOL! Nope.
Some one answer me this. Shock waves travel through fluid. At the millisecond of impact the lungs are full of air. What does the "hydrostatic shock wave" travel through?

Oh boy.......derail inc......? The lungs are not like a balloon like our grade school teachers told us. They are also full of blood (ie liquid), the purpose of the lungs is to transfer O2 into the blood stream.....without getting further off track i'll leave it at that.

Lefty

[209x50]

Not close enough. That blood is in capillaries, minute vessels without the substantial volume of fluid required and incapable of carrying the shock wave. So now what? I'm serious, explain to me how it works and I'll drink the kool aid.