The Myth of Energy Transfer

[Rantastic]

Wow What an interesting read! I really liked alot of points brought up in the OP's article that i never considered as well as many great points by all the other posters here. I am really enjoying this thread and would like to ad my two cents as well as ask a couple questions because it sounds like i am among some real intelligent people who can give me some great answers.

As for the 22 bullet killing the cop after 4 357 magnum shots into his assailant. Unfortunate and very very rare. The odds are extremely in favour of the 357 winning in a gun fight. I own both and would much rather take a 22 shot any day. But we have all had some seriously tough game that may have taken 3 or 4 well placed shots to the chest/neck and still wouldn't die for 5 or 10 minutes while it bled out. I experienced 2 of these this year as I absolutely shattered a deers neck/spine/throat and the poor doe still needed a finisher after 3 or 4 minutes of my waiting for her to expire. My uncles buck also took 5 or 6 shots to the chest and neck and after having its throat cut from jugluar to vertabra still lived another 15 minutes, its rare and unfortunate but it happens.
Just like the fat man who took 4 357 bullets and lived. We have all also had one shot kills which the bullets seemed to have entered the exact same place. We cannot plan the exact destruction of tissue, only try to maximize it to our liking.

I have had many one shot drops where i hit no bones, no spine, , no brain but heart/lungs and the deer/moose dropped stone dead and was lights out before it hit the ground. How is that so if i hit nothing but vital organs that should have needed to bleed out? I dont understand how an animal doesnt need to bleed out to be dead if not for some value on this hydrostatic shock or energy transfer myth, or maybe just plain shock. If anyone has some answers for me please explain, im all ears. I also like how deer can be knocked unconsious from many different shots(antler,head,neck,backbone but then come back and start fighting 3 or 4 minutes later. Every deer will be different.

I butcher my own and after 20 or so big game i have decided my bullet and weapon of choice should be fast, expand fast, shrapnelize and pray to god to hit a rib to cause many multiple damage paths through the vitals... My buck this year i hit and shattered 4 inches of 3 ribs each and pushed them through the vitals and created about 40 wound channels that i could count. I also found the bullet in the oppsing shoulders hide. That deer from a full run was dead on the ground in five ft and 0 seconds. That was not hydrastatic shock but im assuming pure plain shock. I dont think it was from the full energy transferred from the bullet but from so many wounds and so much tissue damage. Like a grenade went off inside its chest. In my opinion the best kill i have ever made. The fact is a 22 could never do that... but anything above a 223 cal should be able to no problem. Speed kills. And its the only constant I can really trust when arming myself for a day out hunting. Sure a 22 right behind the ear could take out a moose or a buffalo but its not reliable or ethical. It also has no long distance potential. For some 300 yards is the longest shot they will ever take and they can really use any gun 243 or up to ethically kill any big game but if you get the skill and a chance up to 600m, you really need something of a bigger cartride just to keep that penetration damage up.

Variance betweeen experience is whats great and builds us all to trust different weapons but bullet type or cal or all other things aside we all know its bullet placement after a certain speed or energy req is met. gives the most reliable and repeatable results. A 300WM to the guts is never going to kill a deer as fast as a 243 to the chest.
Just like that 22 bullet that killed the cop was the perfect shot, those 4 357 bullets were obviously not as good of shots.

To answer why I think 1000ft Lbs of energy is deemed the ethical amount because to attain that amount of energy a small bullet must be zooming into the animal and hence will rip it apart or a big bullet can be going slower will have the weight to still penetrate very far inside the vitals. If we didnt have that amount, our bullets may not make it far enough inside or do enough damage to make repeatable kills. Sure many would still happen but alot more game would be lost if we were hurling 243 bullets at elk/moose 700m away. To me its a good formula for repeatable ethical kills. A good guideline to trust.

We know animals and people can die from 22's but we cannot trust our aim that we will always hit something vital with the shallow penetration of a 22, we need something that causes alot of collateral damage to fall back on.
And the answer to me is a nice combination of bullet size and speed. Big bullets make big holes and can push through the animal, but speed rips and tears which greatly increases the chance of injuring vital tissue. Thats why arrows kill animals just fine(broadheads make big holes) but to me i dont think it will ever be as effective as a bullet a quarter of an inch in diameter travelling 3000fps that can rip a 4 to 5 inch hole out the back of an animal and leave a wound channel 10 inches in diameter inside the chest. (Just talking about the weapons here, not skill of the hunters)

[AxeMan]

Guys, do a little experiment sometime. Shoot a pumpkin or a jug of water with a .22 rimfire and watch the effects. Next shoot it with a 22-250 (same 40 grain bullet weight). Tell me if you see a difference in the damage and why. Both bullets will penetrate through the target but the effects will be dramatically different.

Fill, me in. I would love to know.

Also, explain why the scientists in the following article believe in hydrostatic shock. There is some contraversy to it though. I believe in it. Show me the proof, don't just tell me I am wrong. I have seen the damage done on many animals.

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

BTW I agree 100% with Crazy Fool's post above this one. His experience and logic is the same as mine. Prove us wrong with some of your logic, guys. This is indeed an interesting subject that obviously many intelligent people disagree on including scientists.

[Arn?Narn.]

Originally Posted by AxeMan

Guys, do a little experiment sometime. Shoot a pumpkin or a jug of water with a .22 rimfire and watch the effects. Next shoot it with a 22-250 (same 40 grain bullet weight). Tell me if you see a difference in the damage and why. Both bullets will penetrate through the target but the effects will be dramatically different.

Fill, me in. I would love to know.

Also, explain why the scientists in the following article believe in hydrostatic shock. There is some contraversy to it though. I believe in it. Show me the proof, don't just tell me I am wrong. I have seen the damage done on many animals.

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

The main difference is the fixed ridgid plastic membrane of the water jug which is not comparable to human tissue. While the plastic may get destroyed,... I doubt the water in either jug was damaged much ...

It's these misconceptions that fuel more misconceptions. However I don't believe there isn't any intent to mislead, ...

You observe the difference in the way a jug reacts or whatever and apply the same conclusion to what happens in flesh or tissue etc etc..
but the two are not at all comparable.


In your previous post you mentioned the devastation of hydrostatic shock, especiall after hitting a rib. As you know, a great deal of energy would be lost on a bone, and therefore the "hydrostatic shock" potential would be very decreased, yet you claim there is much more damage "like an explosiion", which in itself in counterintuitive.
The more likely reason would be a fragmented or tumbling bullet, not a "hydrostatic explosion".

No doubt that the temporary wound channel causes damage to surrounding tissue and in some cases disruption to organs but "energy" is very very rarely fatal or even causes any wounds that would be considered potentially fatal. No doubt energy causes pumpkins to blow up and milk jugs to explode and surrounding tissue to bruise but if you read the original post, it isn't fatal....the hole is. The temporary wound channel, that release of energy if you will, may cause temporary disruption to the nervous system so you get that knockdown effect but without the hole, the effect would be temporary.

I'm not sure what you think you are seeing when a pumpkin blows up Axeman but in an animal, that temporary wound channel or as it's often called shockwave, rarely causes permanent damage.

[Arn?Narn.]

bruising...that's about it..

[209x50]

Flesh is only 60 to 70 percent water depending on location. That fact and the elasticity of the flesh and vascular system greatly reduce damage done by the stretching of the flesh by the temporary wound cavity. Hydrostatic shock was a favorite rifle sales tool of Roy Weatherby.

[duffy4]

I once shot the head off a ruffed grouse with my .264 win. mag. When I prepared the bird for cooking, the top part of the breast meat was kind of "jellied". I assumed that was the result of "Hydrostatic shock" or something. I have never seen that kind of result from a bird shot with a .22 or shotgun.

[Rantastic]

so arn in your reasoning, the ballistic gel cannot show hydostatic shock either because it is not fluid.... to show a hydro(water)static(still item)shock water jug is closer to showing how shock would work in bodies would show better because its got fluid in it and humans are 70% water. Gel is 0 water. Bodies can flex, but just because something can flex and absorb damage does not mean there is not severe damage to the area that flexed. Arms can be broken when flexed... no damage to skin but the important damage is inside the flesh.

Maybe a better test for shock would be to shoot a waterlogged sponge or loaf of bread and observe how much internal damage there is.

The science says the bullet ripping through veins and blood vessels pushed the blood/fluids through the delicate walls that normally hold it in place and in turn push more vessels to popping, and creates a wave of fluid that has absorbed the bullets kinetic energy and in turn has started moving and has its own kinetic energy which now needs to be burned out by breaking down surrounding tissue.

I believe it exists because a 22-250 does way more surrounding damage than a 22 when pumped into the same animal. yet its role in killing an animal is probably not as important as some may play it up to be. Severe bruising and damage yes, fatal no, otherwise bullet proof vests wouldn't save lives.

Take a phone book and put it on your stomache, then have ur best mate whack you with a hockey stick or bat on the phone book. It wont leave a bruise or kill you but it will hurt and shock you more than you would expect. It has knockdown power and i assume thats the hydrastatic shock.

Same reason when someone slaps you it hurts like heck, it doesn't kill you but it could help slow you down.

So if i was a deer and i either got a hole right through me or felt my entire upper body shock with pain and a hole right through me. I think all the shock is what would make me drop or stop quicker than simply a hole.

[AxeMan]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I'm not sure what you think you are seeing when a pumpkin blows up Axeman but in an animal, that temporary wound channel or as it's often called shockwave, rarely causes permanent damage.

What I think I am seeing is the high pressure shockwave that is generated from the high speed bullet that is displacing material at a high rate. That high pressure wave carries a great deal of the energy that is being released from the bullet as it slows and expands through the medium. The energy front shreads and blows the pumpkin to bits. No doubt that an animal is a better shock absorber but damage does result from the intense shockwave.

I don't buy Arn?Narn's explanation of the water jug's outer hard plastic outer membrane being the huge differentiating factor. Try a water balloon and the results will be the same.

Read the article I quoted earlier and you will see that I am not alone in my beliefs.

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

[altaberg]

the example of shooting into a water-filled jug is irrelevant.

You can take a wooden box, milk jug, tank... and fill it with air or sand and shoot into it. You will get holes and a channel.
You take the same container, fill it with water and seal it and shoot into it; the entire container will be blown apart. It's a common first year physics experiment.

It's relevant only in the case of somebody being shot into a full bladder. The military and old soldiers know about that, it has happened and it is awful.

[209x50]

I hate bringing science in and breaking up a good fairytale but here is an excerpt I keep around just for the times the old saw of "hydrostatic shock" comes up.

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.

[Arn?Narn.]

While I think this thread's debate was just owned...

why not put a goldfish in a large ziplock bag filled with water and shoot the bag, not the fish.

Think he will hydrostatically explode?

[AxeMan]

I can quote studies on the other side of the fence as well from other scientists:

Quote:

A shock wave can be created when fluid is rapidly displaced by an explosive or projectile. Tissue behaves similarly enough to water that a sonic pressure wave can be created by a bullet impact, generating pressures in excess of 100 atmospheres (1500 PSI).[25]

Duncan McPherson, a former member of the International Wound Ballistics Association and author of the book, Bullet Penetration, claimed that shock waves cannot result from bullet impacts with tissue.[17] In contrast, Brad Sturtevant, a leading researcher in shock wave physics at Caltech for many decades, found that shock waves can result from handgun bullet impacts in tissue.[26] Other sources also indicate that ballistic impacts can create shock waves in tissue.[27][28][29]

Blast and ballistic pressure waves have physical similarities. Prior to wave reflection, they both are characterized by a steep wave front followed by a nearly exponential decay at close distances. They also have similarities in how they cause neural effects in the brain. In tissue, both types of pressure waves have similar magnitudes, duration, and frequency characteristics. Both have been shown to cause damage in the hippocampus.[30][31][32] It has been hypothesized that both reach the brain from the thoracic cavity via major blood vessels.

For example, Ibolja Cernak, a leading researcher in blast wave injury at the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University, hypothesized, "alterations in brain function following blast exposure are induced by kinetic energy transfer of blast overpressure via great blood vessels in abdomen and thorax to the central nervous system."[33] This hypothesis is supported by observations of neural effects in the brain from localized blast exposure focused on the lungs in experiments in animals.[31]

BTW 209, your quote is from the following link:

http://en.allexperts.com/e/h/hy/hydrostatic_shock.htm

I would not consider allexperts.com to be the definitive experts on this subject. Spend some time and read some of the studies done at various universities on this subject.

[JET1]

i was on one side of the fence with this but when saying that the water jug test has no merrit becasue it reacts differently than flesh you want another experiment try shooting a prairie dog with a 22lr and shoot one with a 22-250 and tell me the reaction is the same

[209x50]

BTW 209, your quote is from the following link:

From the one who quotes wikipedia!

A killer hydrostatic shockwave doesn't exist. For one the word is an oxymoron. Hydrostatic pressure is the pressure at a given depth in a static liquid. So I don't know how something as dynamic as a bullet impact could involve static fluid.
There simply isn't enough fluid laying around in the body to react like a container of water other than a full bladder. Does the body ripple and deform when struck with a bullet? Heck ya and I have great slow motion footage of it. The fact is that this deformation caused by the temporary wound channel really isn't that hard on the flesh and because of the elasticity it quickly controls it, long before the ripple causes any damage and a long ways from lethality.
Take a 1 pound bag of sand and launch it at 60 feet per second and a 490 grain arrow at 225 foot per second. They both have 55 foot pounds energy. Which one will kill you? The bag is more efficient at transferring energy, does it all on the surface of your body but is non lethal. The arrow is far less efficient at transferring energy and zips through you with energy to spare. What killed you, the energy or the work the projectile did with the energy?

[walking buffalo]

Good conversation here.

The last two posts from AxeMan and 209x50 are saying the same thing. They both recognize the existence of shock waves transmitting through flesh.
They are also similar in that neither post claims that shock waves commonly produce mortal damage.

As TJ pointed out, getting 'hit' by the bullet may knock the animal out, it is not the energy transfer that kills it.

Ex.- Think about a boxer who gets his bell rung, he is out for a 10 count. Someone here can fill in the physiological terminology for this, I'm having a beer instead and writing this so Flint will except that the info could be from experience.

Most animals that receive massive arterial trauma from a bullet or arrow will die in seconds, usually 10 or less. Those that are nocked out, die before they can wake up and run. The others, more common in archery settings where shock waves are minimal, make a short death run.

Ya, no one is denying that energy is released and that a temporary wound channel (shockwave) extends out around the permanent wound channel but energy does not kill and very rarely does it assist in death. It has a temporary effect, other than in a water jug, pumpkin or gopher. We are talking big game here folks.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by JET1

i was on one side of the fence with this but when saying that the water jug test has no merrit becasue it reacts differently than flesh you want another experiment try shooting a prairie dog with a 22lr and shoot one with a 22-250 and tell me the reaction is the same

Size matters Jet! LOL! If we were to shoot a moose with a proportionally sized projectile as the 22-250 the result would be the same.

[Walleyes]

Very interesting stuff here guys some good points.

But surely you all must agree that the energy released from a bullet has some effect on the killing of an animal. How about a full frontal chest shot on a deer. Are you going to tell me that the shock from the impact in no way affects the heart even if it is not a heart shot.

Lets take it to the extreme here. What happens when an animal is hit by a vehicle. There is no entry, no exit wound nor wound channel its just pure energy that stops the vitals from working. Now with the right bullet with enough energy surely we are seeing some of those same effects..

[gunner72]

Originally Posted by Walleyes

Very interesting stuff here guys some good points.

But surely you all must agree that the energy released from a bullet has some effect on the killing of an animal. How about a full frontal chest shot on a deer. Are you going to tell me that the shock from the impact in no way affects the heart even if it is not a heart shot.

Lets take it to the extreme here. What happens when an animal is hit by a vehicle. There is no entry, no exit wound nor wound channel its just pure energy that stops the vitals from working. Now with the right bullet with enough energy surely we are seeing some of those same effects..

This actualy reminds me of a hunt I was on two years ago in 400. We called in a 5 piont bull elk up out of a drianage and he came out of the bush about 70 yards away and my buddy shot him twice broad side in the center of the shoulder with a 308 loaded with some rem corelock factory ammo and droped him on the second shot. When we knocked the guts out of him there was no blood in the chest cavity at all. When we skined him out at camp we saw that the two shots were about 4 inches apart(the width of my hand) and dead center of the shoulder blade(a good 6" below the spine). The shoulder was broken but there's no way that bull blead to death. I never seen this before in fact i excpected to find a lung shoot when we were gutting him. I think that those core locks opened up to fast and just pounded him in the ribs hard enough that it killed him. Must sound like i'm right out of er here but what else could have killed him?

[Arn?Narn.]

Here's a question...

If I put my hand in a swimming pool, and someone has a 30/06...
how close do you think the bullet has to hit the water next to my hand to cause my hand to blow up???

A guy came into the hospital after his log splitter did his foot in...

oddly enough, the shockwave and hydrostatic shock didn't cause his entire body to explode!!

[Arn?Narn.]

Originally Posted by gunner72

This actualy reminds me of a hunt I was on two years ago in 400. We called in a 5 piont bull elk up out of a drianage and he came out of the bush about 70 yards away and my buddy shot him twice broad side in the center of the shoulder with a 308 loaded with some rem corelock factory ammo and droped him on the second shot. When we knocked the guts out of him there was no blood in the chest cavity at all. When we skined him out at camp we saw that the two shots were about 4 inches apart(the width of my hand) and dead center of the shoulder blade(a good 6" below the spine). The shoulder was broken but there's no way that bull blead to death. I never seen this before in fact i excpected to find a lung shoot when we were gutting him. I think that those core locks opened up to fast and just pounded him in the ribs hard enough that it killed him. Must sound like i'm right out of er here but what else could have killed him?

Heart attack,...he had high blood pressure.

[gunner72]

LOL! It sound like you would know lol.

[Arn?Narn.]

Originally Posted by gunner72

lol! It sound like you would know lol.

lol

[whitetail Junkie]

Originally Posted by Arn?Narn.

While I think this thread's debate was just owned...

why not put a goldfish in a large ziplock bag filled with water and shoot the bag, not the fish.

Think he will hydrostatically explode?

How about when you throw a Stick of TNT into a lake and it kills\Stun's the Fish in the Surrounding Area???

If you shot a bag with a fish in it,good chance the fish would be stunned or dead!

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by gunner72

This actualy reminds me of a hunt I was on two years ago in 400. We called in a 5 piont bull elk up out of a drianage and he came out of the bush about 70 yards away and my buddy shot him twice broad side in the center of the shoulder with a 308 loaded with some rem corelock factory ammo and droped him on the second shot. When we knocked the guts out of him there was no blood in the chest cavity at all. When we skined him out at camp we saw that the two shots were about 4 inches apart(the width of my hand) and dead center of the shoulder blade(a good 6" below the spine). The shoulder was broken but there's no way that bull blead to death. I never seen this before in fact i excpected to find a lung shoot when we were gutting him. I think that those core locks opened up to fast and just pounded him in the ribs hard enough that it killed him. Must sound like i'm right out of er here but what else could have killed him?

Maybe the elk didn't die from blood loss. Let's postulate that this is the case, as I assume the BBQ has been busy and an autopsy is no longer an option. Bullet or bone fragments will travel a very long way inside the body. In this scenario, it is very likely that there was damage done to the nervous system from shrapnel.

This link has x-rays of deer showing bullet fragment travel.
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fish_wi...lead/index.htm

[Arn?Narn.]

Originally Posted by whitetail Junkie

How about when you throw a Stick of TNT into a lake and it kills\Stun's the Fish in the Surrounding Area???

If you shot a bag with a fish in it,good chance the fish would be stunned or dead!

Want me to do it?

[whitetail Junkie]

Originally Posted by Arn?Narn.

Want me to do it?

I dont care?If you want to ,I Guess?

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Size matters Jet! LOL! If we were to shoot a moose with a proportionally sized projectile as the 22-250 the result would be the same.

Generally, If I shoot a coyote behind the shoulder with a 22 lr it runs away and dies within 100 yrds. I shoot that same coyote with a 222 Rem and it drops there and dies. Both are dead yet what possibly makes the higher energy round put the coyote down right there?
I agree that blood loss and tissue damage kill but I dont rule out the effect of internal shock on an animals lungs,heart and spine to promote death on the spot.

[209x50]

There is a big difference between explosives and their effects and rifle bullets.