Hydrostatic Shock

[choprzrul]

So, the greater the hydrostatic shock, the greater the chance that your target will experience severe trauma to the brain. Did Carmichael give us the percentage of those animals that fell in place? I am surprised that they were seeing that kind of trauma on animals that size.

Thinking self defense here in man sized targets, wouldn't the major calibers (357, 10mm, 41, 44) have a much greater % of brain trauma results than lesser calibers? Based upon Carmichael's findings, would hollow points contribute to this effect?

Personal experience: Medium sized muley busted out of a plum thicket. I shot him at roughly 10-15 yards with my 300win mag. The bullet stayed in the animal retaining approximately 130gr of the 165gr btsp and was found under the hide on the opposite side. In the time it took me to walk that distance, that deer was dead and not even twitching. I have often wondered what shut him off so fast, and now I think that I have a plausible explanation.

.

[B Strong]

http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.3051


There appears to be documented evidence that shooting a person in the chest will cause damage to the brain, and that shooting pigs even in a region as remote as the thigh will also cause damage to their brain.

And I quote:



"However, Fackler’s
claim by analogy has been disproven.
Tissue damage due to lithotriptors has
been widely documented.[12][13][14]
Other than analogies to lithotriptors and
a 1947 study which did not examine
neural tissue,[10] authors arguing against
ballistic effects remote from the wound
channel have not provided experimental
evidence. Because subtle damage in
neural tissues was difficult to detect,
denials persisted for some time.
However, as discussed below, scientific
progress eventually afforded
considerable support for it."

I am asking because I am trying to choose a defensive handgun to sit in a lockbox outside the safe, and I am trying to decide between a .357 magnum revolver and a .40 S&W DA/SA semi auto.

Hence, I have a question: Has anyone exposed the research of Courtney and Courtney to be false? From my perspective, there seems to be a lot of evidence to support hydrostatic shock, many subjects have shown brain damage from being shot in the torso, or, in the case of animals smaller than a human, even a body part as remote as the leg.

According to this reseach paper, although some degree of hydrostatic shock/neural damage can occur with projectiles with about 300 ft/lbs of energy, (such as 9mm parabellum), it only becomes easily observable(truly consistent) at about 600 ft/lbs of energy, and they reccomend at least 500 ft/lbs to see results on a regular basis.

Thoughts?

Better to worry about marksmanship than wound ballistics.

All this he said/she said expanding that, pre-fragmented this, hydrostatic blah blah blah doesn't solve the problem of being able to hit the target exactly where the target needs to be hit, every time you squeeze the trigger.

The graveyards are full of folks that died from marginal hits with FMJ, and I know somebody personally who survived a headshot from 7.62 X 39, and Charlie Beckwith survived a hit from 12.7...

[dascoyne]

Technically it's quite difficult to cause instant brain death outside of a penetrating injury to the skull. The function of neurovascular shock is that it can cause vasospasm in critical vasculature that may result in underperfusion of the brain which would result in brain death/trauma. I suspect this is the mechanism for brain death when shot in non-critical areas of the body.

The OP should distinguish between "can" and "will." While brain injury can occur with high thoracic (chest) shots - there's no guarantee that it will occur. Real world experience teaches that, if the first two rounds in the thorax don't provoke the requisite neurovascular shock to stop a subject, then subsequent shots to the same area aren't going to be effective, either. That's why the modern teaching provides for "failure to stop" drills where a follow up shot goes in a triangular region between the eyes.

LEOs are taught to shoot center of mass only and not head shots. When a subject isn't stopped after the first few rounds to the body we end up with a situation where it takes 44 rounds to stop them.

[ZX-10R]

I read the same article...Made me consider a 40 instead of a 9mm as my next handgun.

[Kanoodler]

Hydrostatic shock is clearly a term that has been knocked back and forth for decades, under the heading of "stopping power."

I don't know how so much emphasis got put on the term "Hydrostatic Shock" or for that matter, any implied "shock" effect to the brain or the heart. While there is little doubt that a gunshot wound (or any trauma for that matter) can impart a psycological effect leading to death, there is no way to accurately predict any value to the outcome on humans, who have the ability to use cunning, resolve, revenge. It does not take into account an adversary who is under the influence of a mind altering substance, or has an organic (mental heath or medical condition) that blocks reasoning and pain receptors.

The result that has the most impact is permanent tissue damage. Firearms instructors often refer to this as the "big hole, air in- fluids out" action of personal defense with a firearm. What some refer to as "hydrostatic shock" sounds dramatic, but the initial abrupt or even violent movement of tissue and fluid in response to a projectile is secondary to the resulting damage or "wound defect." What causes the greatest effect translating to "stopping power" is an accurate shot to a vital organ(s), causing a "wound defect" that destroys that vital organ (heart or brain) or one that does not seal on it's own, causing excessive bleeding.

If the shock alone were so important, thousands more individuals would die each year from car collisions because of the "hydrostatic shock" translated through the energy transfer of the two vehicles meeting at speed. Yet they TEND to die due to massive physical trauma (permanent injuries). Some do most certainly die from heart attack, arguably from the trauma of the collision - but unlike a defensive situation, how many of those were hell-bent on an aggressive assault at the time of the crash? One big fly in the ointment of personal defense is your opponent's drive to kill you before dying himself.

Regarding your choice of personal defense caliber (.357 vs. .40) , you will be just fine either way. The 125gr .357 has a fabled history in the personal defense category. The .40 caliber is showing remarkable results for being a relative newcomer, when compared to the .357 cartridge.

Your choice should center on the handgun platform you are most comfortable manipulating and shooting accurately, with a strong consideration going to the ability to make rapid and accurate follow up shots. This being said, modern bullet technology is showing a return in popularity of the 9mm. I certainly would NOT feel underarmed with a pistol so loaded.

[dascoyne]

@Kanoodler
well put.

I would just add that aside from direct organ damage and hemorrhage there's also a neurovascular component I mentioned above. A prime example of neurovascular collapse/shock is a "heart attack". Some forms of heart attack are provoked by vasospasm of one or more coronary arteries causing an infarction of cardiac tissue (myocardial infarction). This can happen as a result of kinetic ... even emotional/endocrinologic effects. The entire process is complex and not completely understood but it is a real phenomenon. "Shock" can affect just about any organ in the body - kidneys, liver ... and brain. It should stand to reason that many forms of trauma can provoke that same response.

[Kanoodler]

Great learning points, Doctor! It's always great to know that there are medical professionals that are gun people. I attended a lecture about a year ago, presented by an ER Doc from your area, and it was awesome! The class was on emergency gunshot wound care. Thank you for what you do! - Respect!-

Kanoodler

[shinbone]

357Sig will provide lots of Hydrostatic shock. Light and fast hollowpoint is like a mini explosive once entering the body. As for vets who've gotten shot... Isn't military ammunition the non-expanding type?

[HK Dave]

Thoughts?

Shot placement is more important than counting on long-term brain damage to an attacker caused by some remote wound. If I need to cause serious brain damage to an attacker requiring deadly force as a response, I'll shoot them in the head.

LOL sorry, i don't know why i found that funny. I can imagine now... in CA...

"Burglar gets shot in the leg by home owner and sues home owner for long term brain damage. Burglar gets EVERYTHING!"

To the OP... this has been talked about and argued over a million times over. Get the gun you shoot BEST... the one you don't FLINCH with... practice shot placement. And please, if you're in a life and death situation... don't aim for the head.

And forget about all the people that say "YOU NEED A 45!! No no only 40 cal!! You kidding me... you need 357 sig!!! 9mm is just sissy." I'm pretty sure any of those calibers will ruin anyones day.

[HK Dave]

357Sig will provide lots of Hydrostatic shock. Light and fast hollowpoint is like a mini explosive once entering the body. As for vets who've gotten shot... Isn't military ammunition the non-expanding type?

Military rifle ammo is sort of designed to tumble in the body, so it does considerable damage. And when 1 doesn't work, you have 29 more ready to go!

Expanding rounds are "illegal" in warfare. That's always cracked me up. Expanding rounds are illegal, but dropping a 50,000 pound bomb on someones house is totally fine. hehe

[1911su16b870]

Hence, in summary "...getting shot is bad for you..."

[cineski]

Me thinks this is a classic case of over-thinking things. A .22 will put someone down immediately with correct placement (not even a head shot is required).

[elSquid]

{snip]

but unlike a defensive situation, how many of those were hell-bent on an aggressive assault at the time of the crash? One big fly in the ointment of personal defense is your opponent's drive to kill you before dying himself.

Here's a great interview with a Chicago PD officer who has been in multiple gunfights:

http://proarmspodcast.com/2010/05/23/052-interview-with-bob-stasch-of-the-chicago-police-department/

The MP3:

http://media.blubrry.com/proarms/content.blubrry.com/proarms/052.mp3

He talks about a shooting where an individual was assaulting an officer and wound up being shot multiple times with 45Colt, 44Mag, and 38Spl rounds...and who only stopped due to 'mechanical trauma'. Some folks have a lot of fight in them.

-- Michael

[ZombieTactics]

... A .22 will put someone down immediately with correct placement (not even a head shot is required).

Assuming you mean several days later, dying from peritonitis ... yes.

Otherwise, you had better damned well be certain of your ability to place rounds right thur in the heart , throat, etc.

[cineski]

Had a friend get shot in the stomach with a .22. All he could remember was being punched in the stomach before doubling over and hitting the ground like a 2x4. Would I carry a .22? No. Will it still get the job done? Yes.

Assuming you mean several days later, dying from peritonitis ... yes.

Otherwise, you had better damned well be certain of your ability to place rounds right thur in the heart , throat, etc.