Preface: this is a firearms forum and we are going to have differences of opinion on this subject so lets keep it civil.

Okay Heavy and slow V Light and fast guys and all the other aspects of wounding theory.

To all the nay sayers of hydrostatic shock I would posit this. If what the bullet actually touches was the only thing that matters then there is no real difference in shooting an unarmored target, with a 60gr .22lr than with a .223 outside of penetration, which the 60gr .22lr has show sufficient penetration to penetrate a frontal torso. So I propose that velocity induced hydrostatic forces play at least some role in wounding, bit it high pressure shockwaves putting pressure on the brain or shockwaves tearing or bruising internal organs.

I am of the belief that wounding is in part puncture and hydrostatic shock. Anyone who has looked at blood shot meat on an animal and had to shake their head as they discarded it knows this to have value. I have seen the lungs of a deer absolutely destroyed by hydrostatic shock. On the other hand, don't go after a large bear or even a moose in the thousand pound range thinking hydrostatic shock is an ally. For the larger, heavily muscled, heavily boned animals the need is for penetration. The frames of those animals can soak up a lot of shock and recover quite well.

Both.

Getting a bullet inside is best. even a .22, but they can get cold stuck in the 3" ice armor on an Alaskan Brown Bear in the spring.

( I read on the Alaskan hunting guide forum)

gendoikari87 wrote:So I propose that velocity induced hydrostatic forces play at least some role in wounding

You won't get much of a fight there. The usual controversy is whether hydrostatic shock is a significant contribution at typical pistol velocities.

MtnMan wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:So I propose that velocity induced hydrostatic forces play at least some role in wounding

You won't get much of a fight there. The usual controversy is whether hydrostatic shock is a significant contribution at typical pistol velocities.

My suspicion here would be that it greatly depends on A) What organs are actually hit, because not all organs react the same to overpressure, some of have different numbers and sizes of blood vessels , ect, ect. and B)how long the bullet stays supersonic in tissue

Not to be pedantic but wouldn't it be "hydrodynamic" effects and not hydrostatic?

I guess that's pretty pedantic, eh?

Bucolic wrote:Not to be pedantic but wouldn't it be "hydrodynamic" effects and not hydrostatic?

I guess that's pretty pedantic, eh?

Sir, I think you misunderstand entirely. While you may find such quibbling "pretty", we at the Liberal Gun Club make a point of maintaining the highest standards of pedantry. You have not quoted the OED or performed your own analysis of Greek and Latin roots. You have not overexplained the physics implied by each of the two terms you contrast. You have not, most important, allowed for the fact that the phenomenon in question is actually transitional between the dynamic state and the static state.

You, sir, have misunderestimated your surroundings in this conversation. You may be a pedant, but you might only aspire to be a pedant of the first order. As in the Latin, one must bring the overwhelming weight of complete intellectualization of the nearly obvious; you must present details as one would present one's shoe to an insect, hence; ped, ant.

Ung. 9mm good, 10mm better, me like .45 ACP best.

Bucolic wrote:Not to be pedantic but wouldn't it be "hydrodynamic" effects and not hydrostatic?

I guess that's pretty pedantic, eh?

Yes actually. Static fluids are pretty boring.

Fukshot wrote:

Bucolic wrote:Not to be pedantic but wouldn't it be "hydrodynamic" effects and not hydrostatic?

I guess that's pretty pedantic, eh?

Sir, I think you misunderstand entirely. While you may find such quibbling "pretty", we at the Liberal Gun Club make a point of maintaining the highest standards of pedantry. You have not quoted the OED or performed your own analysis of Greek and Latin roots. You have not overexplained the physics implied by each of the two terms you contrast. You have not, most important, allowed for the fact that the phenomenon in question is actually transitional between the dynamic state and the static state.

You, sir, have misunderestimated your surroundings in this conversation. You may be a pedant, but you might only aspire to be a pedant of the first order. As in the Latin, one must bring the overwhelming weight of complete intellectualization of the nearly obvious; you must present details as one would present one's shoe to an insect, hence; ped, ant.

Mea maxima culpa, Fukshot. I will try harder next time.

As a very inadequate token of penance, I note that through nearly ten billion years of the Sun's existence, it will be in nearly exact hydrostatic equilibrium. It's self gravity is balanced by the thermal pressure produced by the nuclear reactions at its core - the so-called p-p or proton-proton chain. Actually it takes four protons but who is counting. (oh yeah, we are talking pedantry here, I forgot). This is cool,and very boring.

The fun happens when the hydrodynamics takes over. Then you get supernovae, bow shocks, accretion shocks, jets, etc. And the Sun! The whole field of solar activity is hydrodynamic in nature. In fact, it is magnetouhydrodynamic! Turbulent magneto convection rules! Coronal mass ejections, solar flares, space weather! The mind reels!

I could go on and on and on, but I won't.

Bucolic wrote:Mea maxima culpa, Fukshot. I will try harder next time.

As a very inadequate token of penance, I note that through nearly ten billion years of the Sun's existence, it will be in nearly exact hydrostatic equilibrium. It's self gravity is balanced by the thermal pressure produced by the nuclear reactions at its core - the so-called p-p or proton-proton chain. Actually it takes four protons but who is counting. (oh yeah, we are talking pedantry here, I forgot). This is cool,and very boring.

The fun happens when the hydrodynamics takes over. Then you get supernovae, bow shocks, accretion shocks, jets, etc. And the Sun! The whole field of solar activity is hydrodynamic in nature. In fact, it is magnetouhydrodynamic! Turbulent magneto convection rules! Coronal mass ejections, solar flares, space weather! The mind reels!

I could go on and on and on, but I won't.

Back atcha!

Bucolic wrote:As a very inadequate token of penance, I note that through nearly ten billion years of the Sun's existence, it will be in nearly exact hydrostatic equilibrium.

Please cite sources for this "sun" of which you speak and it's so-called "existence."

I tan, therefore I am.

QEgoddamD

" Coronal mass ejections, solar flares, space weather! The mind reels!"

Ooooooooooo! Space porn!