|
|
Post by DocHolladay on Jan 18, 2009 0:28:28 GMT -6
This is about bullets and their terminal performance. I just found the link at another forum and decided to post it here. I am just getting started on the reading, but there is enough to make your head explode if you try to over analyze it. I am enjoying it so far and see that I am thinking like he is or vise versa on the subject of bullet penetration. I think it will be enjoyed. www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html |
|
|
|
Post by GrampaJer on Jan 18, 2009 7:44:22 GMT -6
That is valuable information , DOC,... Kind of explains why a frontal shot in the chest, isn't a good idea..  |
|
|
|
Post by bigblue on Jan 18, 2009 8:51:56 GMT -6
Doc,
Thanks for posting this. It promises to be interesting reading, but will surely take some time to digest all the material he's compiled. I'm sure I'll enjoy reading it.
Don
|
|
|
|
Post by DocHolladay on Jan 18, 2009 10:46:40 GMT -6
That is valuable information , DOC,... Kind of explains why a frontal shot in the chest, isn't a good idea.. I like a frontal shot and the "texas heart shot" is pretty effective too. |
|
|
|
Post by GrampaJer on Jan 18, 2009 11:07:26 GMT -6
Frontal shot in the Neck, might work good. I lost one DEER because I thought I missed it, And A second Almost got lost because He ran so far..Just a stroke of luck that I found him.. Both shot at 50 feet or less, with a 12GA. Slug.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigblue on Jan 18, 2009 17:17:46 GMT -6
While I certainly haven't finished reading the whole article, I did come across these very interesting points. They back what I have tried to practice.
" The other popular contemporary misconception results from the assumption that the kinetic energy of the bullet is "transferred" to the target, thereby somehow killing it through "hydrostatic shock".
I don't know where this term originated, but it is pseudoscience babble. In the first place, these are dynamic - not static - events. Moreover, "hydrostatic shock" is an oxymoron. Shock, in the technical sense, indicates a mechanical wave travelling in excess of the inherent sound speed of the material; it can't be static. This may be a flow related wave like a bow shock on the nose of a bullet in air or it may be a supersonic acoustic wave travelling through a solid after impact. In terms of bullets striking tissue, shock is never encountered. The sound speed of water (which is very close to that of soft tissue) is about 4900 fps. Even varmint bullets do not have an impact velocity this high, let alone a penetration velocity exceeding 4900 fps. "
And:
"The point that I have attempted to press here (perhaps in a rambling fashion) is that complete penetration is not something to avoid in the hunting field. In fact there is good evidence that through and through wounds cause collapse quicker in many instances, especially lengthwise shots."
Excellent reading! Thanks again Doc!
Don
|
|
|
|
Post by DocHolladay on Jan 18, 2009 23:20:28 GMT -6
I am glad to have found it. I started reading and knew that it had to be shared.
|
|
