Light and fast vs Heavy and slow?

[AJMD429]

I really like the way my 444 just melts through my 1/2 steel plates (hmmm or are they 3/8ths?), with just Hornady factory 265gr. FN ammo ... I guess I have to take some pics!!!

Shhh...! Don't let the .45/70 guys know that - they'll get jealous.

[76/444]

I really like the way my 444 just melts through my 1/2 steel plates (hmmm or are they 3/8ths?), with just Hornady factory 265gr. FN ammo ... I guess I have to take some pics!!!

Shhh...! Don't let the .45/70 guys know that - they'll get jealous.

Ohhhhhh,... I don't think it such a big secret that the 444 has a slight edge on sectional density,.... even to a 45/70 owner!

[n2t]

I have read a huge article on how hydrostatic shock doesn't exist, and I don't buy it. The problem is that the person who wrote it is putting the terms static and shock together and then arguing it's junk science. Well the term is hydrostatic shock..refuring to hydrostasis or the fact that water doesn't compress under preasure. Which means when compressed it tends to displace. And yes..it can kill, just watch a pistol shrimp someday, or a groundhog shot with a light fast round come undone. Be that as it may, and it's an unwinable arguement as people who shoot light fast rounds advocate shock, and people who shoot heavy and slow advocate penetration, both work. I hunt deer with a .243, because they are not toughly built and hits to the shoulder can ruin rosts with any round. I like a shot to the heart/ lungs that does a lot of damage. I shot my texas hogs with the same round. Because I don't know the land and didn't want to go tracking hogs into shooting lanes. .243 to the head = no tracking and no damaged meat. On big animals, I have a 35 rem, I have no broblem using slow and fast where it works better than my .243, it's all about shot placement.

[AJMD429]

I have read a huge article on how hydrostatic shock doesn't exist, and I don't buy it. The problem is that the person who wrote it is putting the terms static and shock together and then arguing it's junk science. Well the term is hydrostatic shock..refuring to hydrostasis or the fact that water doesn't compress under preasure. Which means when compressed it tends to displace.

I always thought of 'hydrostatic' shock as a real concept, and assumed it was largely a consequence of super-sonic projectiles. I'm assuming that part of what happens is that when a projectile is going faster than the speed of sound in whatever medium (typically 'tissue' or essentially, 'water') it hits, there would be in effect an explosion vs. just a wave of pressure, as the force hits the next 'layer' before the secondary wave from the first 'layer' has even had time to get there, and things kind of 'pile up' (you can tell I'm not a physicist). Anyway, from a logical standpoint, it seems sort of analogous to the difference between 'burn' and 'explode' in powders - changes the whole nature of the impact. I think of it as a sort of 'sonic boom' taking place in the impact material.

Of course the ultimate is rounds like the .50 BMG - which are not only BIG, but supersonic at most ranges of impact.

[Grizz]

wowsers only 3 pages and we're running outa gas already????? WUWT?

I always thought of 'hydrostatic' shock as a real concept, and assumed it was largely a consequence of super-sonic projectiles.

1440 is supersonic, but barely. But the hydrostatic pressure flexed the plank hard enough to bounce it up into the air. I am pretty sure it would have a similar effect on a heart or liver or stomach or lungs, eh? Would a 444 levitate that board that way?

Ohhhhhh,... I don't think it such a big secret that the 444 has a slight edge on sectional density,.... even to a 45/70 owner!

OK, OK I get. Can your .429 do this

http://empresspublications.com/xyz/FlyingGong4.wmv.

can it set this 8" dia 1/2" stainless back FIVE FEET ?

hmmmmmmm ?

c'mon back y'all

Grizz

[Kansas Ed]

Here's my take on it. I've seen a lot of deer killed with the fast .25's...more specifically the .257 Roberts and the 25-06. There is massive tissue damage, and the deer seldom go far, but they don't generally stop in their tracks. They generally move anywhere from 20-60 yards. Now I've personally killed a lot of deer with .375 caliber and above using the same shot placement. Generally the deer have dropped in their tracks, and you can eat right up to the hole. The only one I ever had that run, made it about 40 yards and gave it up (38-72 cast). That's what has put my 25-06 at the back of the safe...I can't depend on it to kill as quickly as my 40's.

Ed

[madman4570]

I always thought all the bullets from most all firearms generate some amount of "hydrostatic shock"------
being that which is the shock to the body in which that bullet suddenly stops and tranfers that force
while slowing.

I thought it was just how much force------------Example would be a 300 Weatherby Mag with a 180gr Boat tailed hollowpoint buzzing along at 3300fps
When that bullet strikes at that speed and that bullet opening up greatly the '"hydrostatic shock" would be huge.
A 45-70 400gr turned brass punch bullet going say 1900fps and though having a very big dia. bullet the
"hydrostatic shock" effect is not as great.(bullet just keeps on a going and does not expand so abrutly.

If I remember correctly the reason that a .223 was so effective was because the bullet upon impact first tumbled within the body causing great bodily damage but also because the bullet never left the body many times that "hydrostatic shock" was great for the bullet size.Imagine if the bullet was a hollowpoint .223 at superfast sppeds that "hydrostatic shock" would also be large for it's size.

Just what I thought and I am no expert so -------------

A interesting to try would be like that Gong in the photo above having some type force gauge hooked that
you could actually get the Force to the gong in ftLbs.
Take a reading of force with the 44mag not going through/ the .444 going through/a 22-250 HP not going through/and a 300 mag going through.???????????

[Kansas Ed]

The Hydrostatic Shock theory is another long chain of debate. I do believe it exists to a certain extent and is evident in the bruising we see with bloodshot meat....but to carry it as far as P.O Ackley believed....that HS Shock would kill an animal when shot into a nonvital area...is bunk IMO. While I am a great fan of Ackley's work and cartridge design, I don't necessarily prescribe to all his opinions. Neither do I accept all of Elmer Keith's biases on the subject. I think the truth lies somewhere in between.

Ed

[Old Savage]

It depends on what the hydrostatic shock affects and how much. MM I have heard the tumbling business and personally think it is bunk, as was a lot about the M16 theory.

[Mike D.]

Years ago, I was shooting my 1916 vintage 1886 Winchester LW rifle at a range on public land east of Red Bluff, CA. A fella showed up with a new 7mm Mag rifle and proceeded to fire away at the 100 yd gong.The "gong" was a 3/8" piece of steel hung on chains from a RR tie. His bullets hit the gong and splattered on the surface. I asked if he minded my taking a turn. "No problem", he said as he looked askance at my ancient old clunker. "Can you hit it out there with than gun?" I was NOT shooting lead. My loads were 50grs IMR 4198 and 350 Grain Hornady RN bullets, with MV was in the 2000+FPS vicinity. My first shot spun that gong around, as did the second. We walked down to it and both bullets has passed completely through the plate, leaving "brassy" holes. The 7mm shooter was shocked to his socks, as was I.

[Bogie35]

No offense intended, but I just don't buy "hydrostatic shock" as a killing factor. The animal might feel it, but I don't think the shock would kill the animal. Wild animals are infinitely tougher than humans. I once hit a white-tailed doe with my pickup going about 45 miles per hour. She was hurled over 30 feet into a ditch. Before I could even stop the truck, she jumped up and ran off without even as much as a slight limp! Of course, she may have wandered off and died, but there was absolutely no indication that she was hurt. If she had been a human, she would have been killed instantly. There is no shoulderable firearm in history that could produce as much "hydrostatic shock" as a pickup truck traveling 45 miles an hour.

bogie

[Old Savage]

We had a piece of 3/8" steel sitting against a bank at 100 yds. We shot 243 100 gr, 270 130 gr., 30-06 150 gr., 7mm Mag 175 gr., 8mm steel core military, 375 H&H 270 gr. and .458 400 gr, 500 gr. and 600 gr. at it. Only the 270 and the 30-06 blew through it. I have asked many people which they though would penetrate and no one gets it right except one fellow at an NRA banquet who worked at a company that made bullet traps and he answered correctly and without hesitation. Bullet action on targets in interesting.

[Noah Zark]

During the Phillipine Insurrection, it sometimes took two or three rounds from a Krag rifle and carbine to put down a Moro. After reissuing substitute standard Trapdoor Springfields, it seldom took more than one 45-70 round to down a Moro.

Noah

[Jason_W]

To me it's really an apples to oranges comparison when you are so far apart. Take a 12ga. slug (foster). I'm amazed at the lack of damage that big ol' chunk of lead doesn't do. It punches a big hole but usually does very little damage to the surrounding tissue and many times will not exit a deer. Now look at a rifle like .30-30. IME, the damage to surrounding areas is actually worse and can damage a lot more meat. Example: Take 2 milk jugs and shoot one with the 12ga. and the other with 150gr SP .30-30 and you'll get 2 different reactions. The .30-30 will tend to blow up the jug and send it flying in the air where as the 12ga. will punch a big hole in it but is not nearly as impressive as the .30-30. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't a 12ga. slug have more energy and much of it is expended in the deer?

My findings have actually been that a remington foster slug is highly frangible and at close range essentially annihilates itself on impact causing a wide, but shallow cavity. This is in ballistics gel, mind you and a living deer could be a different story. Were the deer shot past the effective range of the slug?

[n2t]

I think comparing truck impact vs bullet impact has many different factors involved and is not a good basis to disprove hydrostatic shock. I think pistol shrimp prove hydrostatic shock factualy exists as a lethal thing in and of itself independent of hunting applications. My .243 has never produced a true exit hole, I have always found all or most of the bullet inside the animal I hit, but everything died just as fast as when hit with my .280 rem which did produce exit holes. Sofar the only diff I've noticed between the two rounds is recoil and amount of powder used to reload. That said..there's no doubt penetration kills, and on big toothy stuff, given the choice I would take penetration over shock. Even in light fast rounds, I would take a fmj bullet for the penetration factor against big stuff if I had no other option.