Previous  1  2  3

Shooting a milk carton full of sand yealds a very different result than a milk cartion full of water, and being 90 percent water, I think we have a vested interest.

Lol.. on the origin but you can bet that GWB has bee meddling with the laws of physics on this one too.

   

Ridenrain, there are two things wrong with that comparison

1) Sand is significantly denser than milk and so will not react in nearly the same fashion
2) Tissue is NOT a giant bag of fluid. Most bodily fluids are compartmentalized and are unable to slosh around like carton of milk. Our body behaves more like a gel than fluid. hence the use of ballistics gel and not milk to simulate tissue.

   

I agree but I await bluenose's explation why hydrostatic shock is bunk.
Yes, the tissues of the body are not one homoginous medum but the walls that hold one bag of goo from the other are rendered to paste when SS109 rounds splash through. Within their confines, the .303 round may mess things up but within the shorter ranges, the .233 round tumbles and chews up vital organs throuout the body cavity.

   

The hydrostatic shock theory is not how you described it as a bullet bouncing around destroying tissue.

The theory suggest that a pressure wave is created by the impact, and travels through blood vessels and other liquids in the body to vital organs.

According to shock theory proponents, if you got shot in the leg by a high-velocity bullet, a shock wave could travel up your veins to your heart and brain and cause terminal damage.

This is 'bunk' because a body isn't a hollow cavity filled with homogeneous liquid; elastic tissue is very capable of absorbing vibration. The liquid found in gunshot wounds is a result of the injury, not the cause of it.

It's never been about the bullet itself causing damage, or the turning tissue to "goo". Those would occur by other mechanisms than "hydrostatic shock".

   

The Geneva Protocols forbid hollow nose or soft nosed bullets.

This is why .303 Brit with full patch, will pop right through a deer, doing little damage unless it hits bone or something real vital. The object is to transfer the energy of the bullet to the target.

The reason for this is their sudden expansion causes the bullet to loose inertia and impart the terminal energy to the target.

In the case of the high velocity .222 or 243 soft nosed bullet, what occurs is not simple expansion at ranges under 200m but the bullet literally explodes. If it strikes a blade of grass first only dust strikes the target with negligable effect. Disembowled chucks are a standard result from a direct hit.

I have never heard that one---sounds like the mystical magical molecule. It was likely invented for the purpose of debunking. This is likely the very same gang who think 1 nuke will destroy a whole state. Mind you a 50 megaton would really screw up Rhode Island.

I helped a guy butcher a moose he had hit from behind with a .338 magnum (180gr @ 3000+fps.). Must have been 50 lb of meat ruined. I had earlier heard that should you hit a moose in the ass you would blow his head off.

It would seem like most things BN appoints himself an expert, when in reality beyond being a legend in his own mind, he hasn't a clue.

Ridenrain

I recall something Dad taught me many, many summers past.

Using a 12 ga, fire a beeswax candle and a parafin candle at a barn door. At this point I shudder but his dangerous experiment had a valid result.

   

That's just how it's described in everything I've read - what you're talking about is something different, though, and makes sense - its just not "hydrostatic shock", so you shouldn't call it that.

Anyway, this little foray into ballistics was interesting, especially finding that enthusiasts actually determine things like recoil energy from physics.

   

Ah, I was trying to be polite, but since you decided to edit your post to add this

you can go fuck yourself.

   

Blue_Nose

A sure sign of a master debater who has not progressed beyond the anal stage of psycho-sexual development.

   

You call this a debate? You've ignored evidence I've offered from other sources (since I've never claimed to be an expert on the subject), and can't even keep straight the meanings of the terms being used, much less defend their validity.

You could have simply conceded that "hydrostatic shock" isn't what you thought it was, and left it at that. Instead, you are the one who started with the insults, so keep your personal assessments to yourself.

   

That may be what you and the heads of the IPCC think but the rest of us never had your hydostatic shock BS in mind.

BTW firearms are not capable of artificial intelligence.

Despite the ridicule the holophobes heap on anyone who opines "firearms don't kill people---people kill people.

   

I`m stepping away from this one. These degenerate into pissing matches and, although I believe we pretty much agree on things, the forum medium isn`t really good at finding concensus.

I`ll stick with my old copy of Jane`s Inf. weapons and the writtings of Anthony G Williams.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ballistics.htm

   

Leave it to samsquanch to completely ignore the subject and instead ramble on about Global Warming. Nothing I've read that even considers "hydrostatic shock" theory puts a lot of confidence behind it.

Sorry, but I'm not going to trust the scientific understanding of someone who thinks standing in a bucket and pulling on the handle violates laws of physics.

Ridenrain, this is the main source I considered: [url=http://civic.bev.net/shawnee/digress.html]"Hydrostatic Shock" Is An Even Bigger Myth
[/url]. What someone believes causes guns to kill people is not that important to me either way.

I'm curious if BartSimpson has anything to say on the subject. If he's taught ballastics as I recall he'd mentioned, he should at least know of the phenomenon, and perhaps its validity.

   

While his comments on hydrostatic shock sound reasonable, he focusses on the extreem. I think there is more middle ground than he lets on.
I do not agree that the average bullet moving at normal speeds "kills the same way any other agent of penetrating trauma does." I've hunted with both rifle and bow and anyone will tell you that deer killed with arrows are not a pretty sight.

   

Previous  1  2  3