Hydrostatic Shock

[Munk]

Get a quality built .40, then get the .357sig barrel for it. Use the same mags... Have your choice, depending on your mood.

I've read most of these articles on hydrostatic shock, and unless you know anatomy and can hit the head of a nail with your gun, you're better of not using it as the basis for your choice. It's still better to go for vitals, just keep dumping rounds center mass. Hell, you'll probably get some kind of hydrostatic shock effect within the first 4-10 rounds. (I'd say 4 to 15, but this is CA) so make sure you get them all in there.

Also, check out quarterboregunner's story about his encounter with a wanna-be murder-spree. It'll show you what can really happen with a .45. I consider his story more influential than most of these studies.

Edit: Posts 24 and 26 are the story (somebody pulled a combo-breaker with post 25)

[Shenaniguns]

Searching for his name on the big forums will result in hours and hours of reading. A sample:

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=28142

Both are reasonable choices. Probably best to the pick the one that you are most comfortable with/shoot the best/etc. If you don't have a clear favorite, then go with the auto. <shrug>

-- Michael

Nice topic and DocGKR sums it up nicely here (better to read the whole topic if you have time):

I think anyone who has actually read Dr. Fackler's work or what I have written, for example my comments on page 2/post #36 in this thread, would clearly see the importance of Temporary Stretch as a primary wounding mechanism, particularly for rifle projectiles--less so for handgun calibers.

[ZombieTactics]

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.

Wonderful for your friend. On the other hand, I myself have been shot with a .22LR (upper left back) at close range ... and didn't feel it until 15 minutes later. The round had hit and been stopped cold by my scapula. My medical care consisted of cleaning the wound and putting a band-aid on the teensy little slit-like hole, as the round had worked its way out on its own during the car ride to the ER. At no time during the entire incident was I rendered unable to move and/or fight.

Pain is a psychological fight-stopper, and varies widely from person-to-person. When most are discussing "getting the job done", it refers to an actual physical incapacitation.

There is a REASON why police don't carry .22LR sidearms or rifles. I don't doubt that a .22LR can be deadly, but it's not a fight stopper in the usual sense of the word. It's just not the kind of thing you'd choose to bet your life on ... which is why nobody with any sense does.

[Revolverhawk]

Get a quality built .40, then get the .357sig barrel for it. Use the same mags... Have your choice, depending on your mood.

I've read most of these articles on hydrostatic shock, and unless you know anatomy and can hit the head of a nail with your gun, you're better of not using it as the basis for your choice. It's still better to go for vitals, just keep dumping rounds center mass. Hell, you'll probably get some kind of hydrostatic shock effect within the first 4-10 rounds. (I'd say 4 to 15, but this is CA) so make sure you get them all in there.

Also, check out quarterboregunner's story about his encounter with a wanna-be murder-spree. It'll show you what can really happen with a .45. I consider his story more influential than most of these studies.

Edit: Posts 24 and 26 are the story (somebody pulled a combo-breaker with post 25)

Nice story. Velocity is pretty important, which is why John Moses Browning put a 5 inch barrel on his 1911's(EDIT: yes, I know hollowpoint bullets weren't widely used back then. I am just saying velocity is important in general). I am really not surprised he didn't get proper expansion from a compact .45. I have been thinking of the .357 sig, thanks for the advice. I'd like to thank everyone who has offered advice and chimed in here. I appreciate it.

Going to have see how well I handle the .357 magnum, the .357 sig, and the .40 S&W, and base my decision on that.

[elSquid]

Going to have see how well I handle the .357 magnum, the .357 sig, and the .40 S&W, and base my decision on that.

If you don't have a lot of handgun experience, you should probably include something in 9mm... perhaps 45ACP too. Some folks find 45ACP easier to shoot than 40S&W. YMMV.

It's also quite illustrating to shoot said guns not only with a two handed grip, but one hand as well. Something that is borderline controllable two handed may be quite difficult strong hand only. If you are really adventurous, include some shots from the weak hand.

-- Michael

[paul0660]

It's also quite illustrating to shoot said guns not only with a two handed grip, but one hand as well. Something that is borderline controllable two handed may be quite difficult strong hand only. If you are really adventurous, include some shots from the weak hand.

Very good point. If a gun won't shoot and cycle, or you can't hit a target, with a less than ideal grip or stance, it's a target pistol, and it doesn't matter what round you are shooting.

[tankerman]

Dude is this like the 60's or something? This argument is decades old.

Hydrostatic shock is why we have Weatherby cartridges. Roy was so sure hydrostatic shock was real he took all his high speed calibers to Africa to prove his theory on game animals. He ended up making himself look like a fool and dropped the and dropped junk science 'old wife's tile' of hydrostatic shock.

[Revolverhawk]

Dude is this like the 60's or something? This argument is decades old.

Hydrostatic shock is why we have Weatherby cartridges. Roy was so sure hydrostatic shock was real he took all his high speed calibers to Africa to prove his theory on game animals. He ended up making himself look like a fool and dropped the and dropped junk science 'old wife's tile' of hydrostatic shock.

That's interesting, because, as we noted earlier, several vetrinarians shot Cape Buffalo and a large percentage of them instantly fell to the ground...suffering brain damage from a torso shot. Seems like you are assuming Hydrostatic shock doesn't exist because of some badly designed cartridges based on outdated hypothetical technology. Simply put: Weatherby's failure doesn't mean Hydrostatic Shock doesn't exist, it means he didn't design his cartridges properly. There is a lot of evidence in favor of hydrostatic shock from other sources, with different cartridges used.

[tankerman]

Weatherby knows nothing of cartridge design. The PH's know nothing either.

Keep going, you're proving what I've been thinking.

Truly clueless.

That's interesting, because, as we noted earlier, several vetrinarians shot Cape Buffalo and a large percentage of them instantly fell to the ground...suffering brain damage from a torso shot. Seems like you are assuming Hydrostatic shock doesn't exist because of some badly designed cartridges based on outdated hypothetical technology. Simply put: Weatherby's failure doesn't mean Hydrostatic Shock doesn't exist, it means he didn't design his cartridges properly. There is a lot of evidence in favor of hydrostatic shock from other sources, with different cartridges used.

[Shenaniguns]

That's interesting, because, as we noted earlier, several vetrinarians shot Cape Buffalo and a large percentage of them instantly fell to the ground...suffering brain damage from a torso shot. Seems like you are assuming Hydrostatic shock doesn't exist because of some badly designed cartridges based on outdated hypothetical technology. Simply put: Weatherby's failure doesn't mean Hydrostatic Shock doesn't exist, it means he didn't design his cartridges properly. There is a lot of evidence in favor of hydrostatic shock from other sources, with different cartridges used.

I guess you missed this again since this is the Handguns area of the forums:

DocGKR:
I think anyone who has actually read Dr. Fackler's work or what I have written, for example my comments on page 2/post #36 in this thread, would clearly see the importance of Temporary Stretch as a primary wounding mechanism, particularly for rifle projectiles--less so for handgun calibers.




Plus I think you should follow the link I posted from people who disprove the claims you keep going on about.

[FieldsofFire]

According to this, some of the Buffalo dropped instantly, became unconsious instantly, and developed brain bleeding from being shot in the torso(heart/lung area). Unfortunately, I don't know what cartridges they were using, or what distances they were shooting from.

Hence I don't know if it is practical to expect a .357 magnum to do similar to a human being.

Whether or not that actually happens, police officers have shot suspects multiple times in the chest only to have them continue shooting back. The most prominent round is probably .40S&W I would guess. Maybe you do need a round that packs a ton more energy to have this effect but I wouldn't really worry all too much about it. If you're putting shots to center mass anyway and cutting up the spine, lungs, heart, etc., you've done your job.

[shinbone]

Whether or not a handgun round causes enough HS to be the prominent factor in stopping power, expansion will definitely aid in hemorraging.

Im sure youve seen this image before:

Personally, I think it doesnt really matter which you choose, as long as you train well with it.. but in the case of 357SIG, you just can't get away from how much of a difference 300fps will do with a 9mm round.

[Katana]

Whether or not a handgun round causes enough HS to be the prominent factor in stopping power, expansion will definitely aid in hemorraging.

Im sure youve seen this image before:

Personally, I think it doesnt really matter which you choose, as long as you train well with it.. but in the case of 357SIG, you just can't get away from how much of a difference 300fps will do with a 9mm round.

Here is what Wound Ballistics expert Dr. Gary K. Roberts (DocGKR) has to say in reference to that photo: (emphasis his)

"As is quite obvious from the photo above, NONE of the common service pistol calibers generate temporary cavities of sufficient magnitude to cause significant tissue damage."

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887

He goes on to say:

"Anyone interested in this topic should read and periodically re-read, “Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness” by Urey Patrick of the FBI FTU, as this remains the single best discussion of the wound ballistic requirements of handguns used for self-defense..."

Here is a link to that FBI report—please take the time to read it:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm

Here is an excerpt from that report: (emphasis mine)

"The tissue disruption caused by a handgun bullet is limited to two mechanisms. The first, or crush mechanism is the hole the bullet makes passing through the tissue. The second, or stretch mechanism is the temporary cavity formed by the tissues being driven outward in a radial direction away from the path of the bullet. Of the two, the crush mechanism, the result of penetration and permanent cavity, is the only handgun wounding mechanism which damages tissue. To cause significant injuries to a structure within the body using a handgun, the bullet must penetrate the structure. Temporary cavity has no reliable wounding effect in elastic body tissues. Temporary cavitation is nothing more than a stretch of the tissues, generally no larger than 10 times the bullet diameter (in handgun calibers), and elastic tissues sustain little, if any, residual damage."


Rifle calibers have sufficient energy to generate a temporary stretch cavity capable of causing damage, but the handgun caliber's only effective wounding factor is the permanent crush mechanism. However, with any platform, in any caliber, the only consistently reliable wounding factor remains the crush mechanism.

˙