Knockdown power my philosophy

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Augie’s earlier response explained quite well that he does not want to see an animal suffer so I see no reason to presume that he would stand idly by and withhold a followup shot if it is needed. Besides, at 11fpe muzzle / 8fpe on target and these very short distances, the probability of that being necessary is exceedingly small. 



Consider for a moment that it is very common to use a 20 – 30fpe .22 at 30-50 yards for gray squirrels. Sure, there is plenty of terminal energy available but it requires substantially more aiming precision, ranging, and there’s more opportunity for the wind to push it off, and more opportunity for the critter to move at the last moment. We all understand how critical shot placement is. Meanwhile, compared to what Augie described, all 4 of these factors are conspiring to make this a lower percentage shot. Yet this scenario gets no pushback and his does.



It doesn’t add up.
 
Upvote 0
Wow, I didn't mean to goof up your post here Raden1942. Good luck with your test. Though I'm with Bob on this one. Why?

Motorhead said - "Your making a mistake in your thinking of what HYDROSTATIC shock is and the type wound it creates with KINETIC shock and a projectile that is simply tearing at the flesh as it exits. Hydrostatic shock turns flesh into jello gelatin's goo because the actual cell structure of the tissue is being ruptured." 

I think that you are probably right with that statement. Not really possible to verify the point that KINETIC shock turns to something more. 

The "Meat Butter" ( jello gelatin's goo ) around the wound canal was washed from this 1/2 grown Ground Squirrel cadaver shot at 42 yards. The first shot at 276 yards was an obvious KINETIC shock that blew the intestines from this Squirrel. The 42 yard shot with a specialty slug that can hardly penetrate the cardboard box that was behind it after a pass through is that something more. Is it causing HYDROSTATIC shock ? The brain is only about 1.5" away from impact. With the majority of 75 FPE being dumped into a 1 .5" thick body, and virtually no energy left for down range safety issues. Performance and safety.

I know there's no need for a stop watch, and a big plus they don't run off. 

1573663449_7590393315dcc32d94cc060.32838280_IMG_6467.JPG


In my opinion Military records on humans means NOTHING. FMJ .22 cal. or 30 cal. rounds aren't remotely close to what we're using. 

If they had records of 1.20 - 1.50 cal. pure lead HP rounds hitting humans I'd be very very interested in that. 

A 1000gr. 150 cal. with a 1/2"wide 1.5" deep HP at 950 FPS for a 200 lbs human quarry would be a better apples to apples comparison.
 
Upvote 0
Long_shot, I agree with your distinction that the congealed tissue around a wound does not represent hydrostatic shock and I just want to expand on that a bit. I think it’s useful to point out the distinction has less to do with the nature of the damage and more to do with its proximity. The hydrostatic shock phenomenon looks to explain damage that is distant from the wound site. FWIW, I think the local congealed tissue we often see is caused by the sudden cavitation channel behind the projectile.



Also, you bring up a good point about the projectile’s size and energy in relation to the target. There’s an interesting bit in the Wikipedia article on this topic:



Hydrostatic shock is commonly considered as a factor in the selection of hunting ammunition. Peter Capstick explains that hydrostatic shock may have value for animals up to the size of white-tailed deer, but the ratio of energy transfer to animal weight is an important consideration for larger animals. If the animal's weight exceeds the bullet's energy transfer, penetration in an undeviating line to a vital organ is a much more important consideration than energy transfer and hydrostatic shock.[61] Jim Carmichael, in contrast, describes evidence that hydrostatic shock can affect animals as large as Cape Buffalo in the results of a carefully controlled study carried out by veterinarians in a buffalo culling operation.

He wrote “Whereas virtually all of our opinions about knockdown power are based on isolated examples, the data gathered during the culling operation was taken from a number of animals. Even more important, the animals were then examined and dissected in a scientific manner by professionals. Predictably, some of the buffalo dropped where they were shot and some didn't, even though all received near-identical hits in the vital heart-lung area. When the brains of all the buffalo were removed, the researchers discovered that those that had been knocked down instantly had suffered massive rupturing of blood vessels in the brain. The brains of animals that hadn't fallen instantly showed no such damage.”
 
Upvote 0
Kinetic Shock

Kinetic Energy

Hydrostatic Shock

Hydrostatic Effect

Cavitation

Pentration 

Potential Energy dump

Actual Energy dump

Before any really logical discussion can be made it might be a good idea for everyone to agree on definition of what all these mean. For good example Hydrostatic Effect and Hydrostatic Shock are in actuality two different things .... Hydrostatic Effect is the discription of event itself that is to say what the projectile is doing as it is passing through the tissue. Hydrostatic Shock on the other hand is a means of measurement of the event by it's effect on the subject. It sounds nitpicking I will admit but surely everyone has to start with an agreed unit of measurement and terminology before they can understand each other's point of view. 

Here is another good example is cavitation part of Hydrostatic Effect? For that matter what exactly is Hydrostatic Effect and what causes it, 


 
Upvote 0
I agree with Motorhead.

Shooting sparrows, starlings and squirrels I have had much more success with little energy compared to higher energy levels however that is on a small scale. 15fpe vs 3fpe. On larger game and higher energy levels I am sure this is less true but personally shooting any small game 10-12ftlbs is the sweet spot for anything out to 50-60 yards if you're capable of that. I prefer head shots to vitals simply due to killing the brain just seems better to me as if your slightly off with vitals the animal is aware of dying, head shots they may be moving but they aren't alive. Just my 2¢
 
Upvote 0
Long_shot, I agree with your distinction that the congealed tissue around a wound does not represent hydrostatic shock and I just want to expand on that a bit. I think it’s useful to point out the distinction has less to do with the nature of the damage and more to do with its proximity. The hydrostatic shock phenomenon looks to explain damage that is distant from the wound site. FWIW, I think the local congealed tissue we often see is caused by the sudden cavitation channel behind the projectile.



Also, you bring up a good point about the projectile’s size and energy in relation to the target. There’s an interesting bit in the Wikipedia article on this topic:
Click to expand...

I read most of those articles a year or 2 ago. That Buffalo one was interesting. Too many factors involved when a piece of lead is sent through living skin, flesh, bone, ect. to get 100% repeatable results. So most articles end with inconclusive results.

Your probably right about sudden cavitation channel behind the projectile creating the tissue damage. 

Willie14228 - That's a good idea. 


 
Upvote 0
Sorry Augie, I just re-read your post and see you described 8fpe on impact, not at the muzzle. No doubt that will be devastating on a gray squirrel with either a brain or a vitals shot.

That reminded me...at these leisurely velocities, the biggest practical issue we face is the exaggerated trajectory. It begs for vigilance in characterizing your range card and knowing precisely your quarry's distance and angle. Before taking the shot in that example video, I had practiced with the rifle and pellets quite a lot and had absolute confidence it would place the pellet exactly where needed. It's not the gun I would reach for a woods walk where I may need to take quick shots. For that, I would want something with a flatter trajectory and plenty of power for a slightly imperfect shot.
Click to expand...

We got another Augie on here? Wow! Cool! Great name...
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu