What is the max range of my elk hunting load?

[WildRose]

LOL. You're mixing biological and physical terms. A shock wave is physics, not biology. Hyperstatic refers to a STATIC condition, meaning non-changing. It means that the pressure is higher than normal, but has nothing to do with dynamic pressure changes, such as those caused by shock waves.

How many animals have you shot with FMJ's, and then witnessed massive internal damage? When a bullet penetrates without expansion, you usually see a pencil hole through the lungs and ribs.

That YouTube video is just a bunch of rockchucks being exploded, and has nothing to do with human targets. If you've seen the damage from a .50 BMG on humans, you'd know that people don't instantly explode when hit.

I'm going to stop contributing to this conversation, since it's clear to me that you're arguing just to argue, and that you lack an understanding of the science behind what's going on. This is evident by the fact that you think that water can transverse the cell membrane in large quantities within thousandths of a second, and that you believe that a non-expanding bullet will cause a living body to explode. I was simply correcting some flawed logic regarding the physics of bullet impacts on living flesh. Not interested in a ****ing match just for the sake of ****ing.

The fact is, when bullets that expand rapidly impact flesh with enough velocity to undergo violent expansion, yet retain enough structural integrity to penetrate through vital organs and tissues, stuff dies pretty quick.

I hold a master's degree in biology so I'm quite well versed in the science.

A static condition or condition of "stasis" is changed by high velocity projectiles.

If you can't understand the physical effects of a projectile passing through a body perhaps you should consider excusing yourself from the conversation.

Water doesn't need to pass rapidly through all of the cell membranes for this to occur. The fact that it cannot is why the cells explode!

As I stated, you will see the same effect with high speed non fragmenting bullets which makes it abundantly clear that your theory (no pun intended) holds no water.

 

[Jordan Smith]

I'm not going to stoop down to unzipping my fly and breaking out the ruler, but suffice it to say that I also hold university degrees in organic chemistry/physics, and we'll just have to agree to disagree. But real world results show that your words are purely theoretical, as I've actually put FMJ bullets, as well as various expanding bullets, through flesh, containers of water, and other test mediums, at various ranges, and non-expanding bullets do not have the effect that expanding bullets do, as you claim. An understanding of biology is important, but this is the realm of fluid dynamics and physics, and your theory isn't backed by experimental evidence, nor physical principles.

Have a good one, and good shooting!

 

[WildRose]

I'm not going to stoop down to unzipping my fly and breaking out the ruler, but suffice it to say that I also hold university degrees in organic chemistry/physics, and we'll just have to agree to disagree. But real world results show that your words are purely theoretical, as I've actually put FMJ bullets, as well as various expanding bullets, through flesh, containers of water, and other test mediums, at various ranges, and non-expanding bullets do not have the effect that expanding bullets do, as you claim. An understanding of biology is important, but this is the realm of fluid dynamics and physics, and your theory isn't backed by experimental evidence, nor physical principles.

Have a good one, and good shooting!

Don't start a ****ing contest with the "if you don't understand the science" crap and then cry foul.

As for your supposed experiements I call BS. I've seen the results far too often to know your claim holds no water.

This is but one, albeit rather damatic example of a non frangible bullet passing through bodies with great energy. The explosive results are due to the principles I was rather politely trying to explain to you.

50.cal Sinper Rile from 8000 ft Vs Terrorist in Afghanistan#

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Geez, so now an interesting conversation has turned into one of the players calling the other a liar! I don't hold but an Associate in Science, but I can tell you that IMHO after 60 years of hunting that I call baloney on anybody who equates a nonexpanding bullet as being able to produce the same results when going through flesh of any large creature no matter what type of degree he has! Expanding bullets were outlawed decades ago by the Geneva Convention and only FMJs are allowed in war time. The same goes in most instances in hunting regulations. Gee, I wonder why! Put a deer or elk in your video and shoot them with both types of ammo. You won't see a body exploding with either like those little rockchucks were, but you would find a heck of a difference in the wound channels when an autopsy is performed comparing the two. What am I missing here guys?

 

[WildRose]

Geez, so now an interesting conversation has turned into one of the players calling the other a liar! I don't hold but an Associate in Science, but I can tell you that IMHO after 60 years of hunting that anybody who equates a nonexpanding bullet as being able to produce the same results when going through flesh of any large creature is full of baloney no matter what type of degree he has! Expanding bullets were outlawed decades ago by the Geneva Convention and only FMJs are allowed in war time. Put a deer or elk in your video and shoot them with both types and you won't see a body exploding like those little rockchucks were. What am I missing here?

But then nobody said it produce "the same result".

The video isn't one of rock chucks. It's from M-82 firing standard ball ammunition (non expanding, non frangible) on Taliban snipers in Afghanistan.

Yes with an expanding bullet you get greater devastation but as you can see, with enough mass and velocity, expansion or not, you get very explosive results.

This is due to the hydrostatic/hyperstatic shock exploding tissue right down to the cellular level.

Expanding bullets just make a larger wound channel and impart even more energy on the body being contacted.

 

[Good]

But then nobody said it produce "the same result".

The video isn't one of rock chucks. It's from M-82 firing standard ball ammunition (non expanding, non frangible) on Taliban snipers in Afghanistan.

Yes with an expanding bullet you get greater devastation but as you can see, with enough mass and velocity, expansion or not, you get very explosive results.

This is due to the hydrostatic/hyperstatic shock exploding tissue right down to the cellular level.

Expanding bullets just make a larger wound channel and impart even more energy on the body being contacted.

This. The "same effect" discussed here does take place, just on a lesser scale dependent on the mass and velocity for the fmj due to the fact that it doesn't expand.

 

[Joe King]

Guys take it easy! I've read all of your comments and I can't help but to notice a linear fashion to your arguments, your both arguing the same side of the coin. Just from different angles.

As for FMJ bullets having the ability to disrupt flesh, I still have the image I saw back in 2002 - 2003 of an Insurgent that had taken a 50cal to the head. It literally opened the guys head up like a melon. So obviously that is true, I've also seen plenty of rodents come apart at the seems from a FMJ out of a 22-250. I also seen people try to use a Military surplus FMJ on Mule deer. The deer didn't even notice. I've also shot gophers with a 9mm luger using FMJ round nose, didn't even slow the rodent down.

So whats it mean? Use the proper bullet for the intended application. Taking into consideration all factors of the job that bullets is asked to do. Low velocity FMJ typically doesn't have much effect, speed em up and fluids have to move out the way quicker, and at some point will cause a degree of tissue damage. Expanding bullets are designed to cause fluid displacement so they will obviously cause a greater amount of disruption for a given velocity, given shape at a given weight.

Am enjoying reading both insights though

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Well Judas Jenny, LOL! No wonder those "rockchucks" were flying to pieces if that's what was being used. It sounds like what was just stated is the crux of the matter and basically what I stated. I was talking about using a similar caliber round of what would normally be used to shoot at a certain sized target (say a 30-06 at a deer as compared to a 50BMG). Using what was stated regarding the video for that size target would certainly not equate to what I mentioned.

 

[elkaholic]

Guys take it easy! I've read all of your comments and I can't help but to notice a linear fashion to your arguments, your both arguing the same side of the coin. Just from different angles.

As for FMJ bullets having the ability to disrupt flesh, I still have the image I saw back in 2002 - 2003 of an Insurgent that had taken a 50cal to the head. It literally opened the guys head up like a melon. So obviously that is true, I've also seen plenty of rodents come apart at the seems from a FMJ out of a 22-250. I also seen people try to use a Military surplus FMJ on Mule deer. The deer didn't even notice. I've also shot gophers with a 9mm luger using FMJ round nose, didn't even slow the rodent down.

So whats it mean? Use the proper bullet for the intended application. Taking into consideration all factors of the job that bullets is asked to do. Low velocity FMJ typically doesn't have much effect, speed em up and fluids have to move out the way quicker, and at some point will cause a degree of tissue damage. Expanding bullets are designed to cause fluid displacement so they will obviously cause a greater amount of disruption for a given velocity, given shape at a given weight.

Am enjoying reading both insights though

As I said earlier, there are several parts to the equation. Add a little, more effect. Take a little, less effect. It's all about balance for construction, velocity, energy, and intended target. That is EXACTLY why we have so many "discussions"
I'll have to admit though, this is the first time I've seen zippers and rulers mentioned in terminal ballistics........Rich

 

[Jordan Smith]

But then nobody said it produce "the same result".

As I stated, you will see the same effect with high speed non fragmenting bullets which makes it abundantly clear that your theory (no pun intended) holds no water.

Sure you did.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Guys take it easy! I've read all of your comments and I can't help but to notice a linear fashion to your arguments, your both arguing the same side of the coin. Just from different angles.

As for FMJ bullets having the ability to disrupt flesh, I still have the image I saw back in 2002 - 2003 of an Insurgent that had taken a 50cal to the head. It literally opened the guys head up like a melon. So obviously that is true, I've also seen plenty of rodents come apart at the seems from a FMJ out of a 22-250. I also seen people try to use a Military surplus FMJ on Mule deer. The deer didn't even notice. I've also shot gophers with a 9mm luger using FMJ round nose, didn't even slow the rodent down.

So whats it mean? Use the proper bullet for the intended application. Taking into consideration all factors of the job that bullets is asked to do. Low velocity FMJ typically doesn't have much effect, speed em up and fluids have to move out the way quicker, and at some point will cause a degree of tissue damage. Expanding bullets are designed to cause fluid displacement so they will obviously cause a greater amount of disruption for a given velocity, given shape at a given weight.

Am enjoying reading both insights though

There's a big difference between hitting the hard, thick bone structure of a human head, and putting a bullet through soft tissue and expecting the shock wave to cause the body to explode.

 

[Jordan Smith]

What causes tissue damage and death is a bullet that physically displaces tissue. Shock waves don't happen nearly as dramatically in the body of a large animal, as they do in a homogeneous fluid like water. The reason for this is because homogeneous substances, whether water or steel, exhibit high intermolecular forces, in which each molecule is "connected" to other surrounding molecules. When one moves, the others that are connected to it move. This is not the case in the heterogeneous environment of an animal body. At least not nearly to the same degree.

What kills animals is a bullet that displaces tissue. Whether the bullet fragments, violently expands, or is simply of a design to displace matter (flat point, wadcutter, etc). The temporary wound channel that a shock wave induces does not often kill large animals, although on occasion the electrical current passed through the CNS is overloaded, and the brain shorts out, but this is extremely rare. Remember, we're talking large animals, here, not varmints. Varmints are so dramatic when hit with CF rifles because of a massive impulse relative to the body size of the animals. This is not the case with large animals like humans and deer, unless we're using a 20mm.

Anybody who claims vehemently that hydrodynamic shock (or hyperstatic shock, lol) is what kills big game, clearly has never shot a deer through the lungs with a .50BMG, or had a hunting bullet fail to expand on a large game animal's chest cavity. The results are underwhelming, regardless of the 15,000 ft-lbs of muzzle energy that the .50BMG generates.

It's simple- put a hole through the vitals with a bullet that displaces tissue via point design or expansion, and you'll have a dead animal in short order. A common example to show that shock waves do not cause death nearly as much as people think they do, is putting a bullet through the guts. The guts should be a GREAT medium for a shock wave to show its effects, since it is a sack that is largely made up of water and densely packed, liquefied material. But go ahead and put a bullet through the guts, and you'll be in for a long and tiring day. Regardless of how much energy your shoulder-fired rifle generates, if you put a FMJ through the guts, you'll have a frustrating tracking job on your hands.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Another thought- go and compare a deer shot in the chest with a Berger VLD, and one shot in the chest with a Nosler AB. Both bullets expand violently, but the VLD essentially turns into a grenade inside the chest cavity. This has nothing to do with energy, since both bullets should be fired from the same rifle, at the same velocity, and everything to do with the bullet displacing tissue via expansion and fragmentation.

Get back to me, and tell me which chest cavity looked more like soup.

 

[elkaholic]

Another thought- go and compare a deer shot in the chest with a Berger VLD, and one shot in the chest with a Nosler AB. Both bullets expand violently, but the VLD essentially turns into a grenade inside the chest cavity. This has nothing to do with energy, since both bullets should be fired from the same rifle, at the same velocity, and everything to do with the bullet displacing tissue via expansion and fragmentation.

Get back to me, and tell me which chest cavity looked more like soup.

I hear what you're saying but actually, it does have SOMETHING to do with energy. ALL of the energy is expended INSIDE the animal and not waisted flying thru the air on the opposite side. I do agree that fragmentation, as long as it occurs inside the vitals, has the greatest affect. I would also say that hydrostatic shock in the gut can not be compared to the same in the heart/lung area. I would contest the idea that hydrostatic shock is not, at times, a large contributing factor. Many people have died by a baseball, or the like, striking a person in the chest which causes the heart to stop. How much more likely is it to happen with 3000-4000 ft. lbs. of energy whether it is caused hyrostatically or via some other transfer?.......Rich