Originally Posted by
okie
I've not been able to find any evidence supporting the hydrostatic shock hypothesis. Take .22 WMR or .17 HMR for example. Well in excess of 2k fps. Or 5.7mm, which can reach velocities upwards of 2,500 fps. And despite those velocities, we of course know that there's nothing special about them in terms of bringing people down.
By the same token, there are numerous examples of people being shot by centerfire rifles, where the bullet passed within fractions of an inch of super important neurons, like in the heart, and had zero outward effect on the person's ability to aim and return fire.
Obviously the effect is real, and be observed scientifically, it's just not going to bring somebody down at the energy levels we're able to harness in a man portable gun.
You could also make the argument that anything big enough to incapacitate someone via hydrostatic shock is by definition also big enough to just kill them outright from actual direct tissue damage. Like a 20mm or something like that.
I think he is referring to temporary cavitation as hydrostatic shock. I dont believe he is talking about the theory of pressure waves traveling through the arteries and damaging other organs. Ive heard many people refer to cavitation as hydrostatic shock. Hell, that's what I thought it was called until about 10 or 15 years ago.
C co 1/30th Infantry Regiment
3rd Brigade 3rd Infantry Division
2002-2006
OIF 1 and 3
IraqGunz:
No dude is going to get shot in the chest at 300 yards and look down and say "What is that, a 3 MOA group?"
Bookmarks