GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-19-2012, 13:56   #1
PghJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,767
Hydrostatic Shock - That's the Ticket

I came across a DVD, "Bulletproof Legal Defense", that helps you survive the SD encounter and how to stay out of prison afterwards. It is presented by Peyton Quinn who has a couple of training sites. Anyway, he states that the ammo that causes the greatest hydrostatic shock (pressure) will be the most effect in neutralizing the threat, including handgun ammo. I found one of his websites and you can read it yourself and give your opinion.

http://stresshooting.com/index.php?o...d=28&Itemid=86

Another thing I found interesting on the DVD was force on force training. The part that interested me was the BG was about 20 feet away when he pulls a knife and attacks. Even though the students knew it was going to happen, none could get a shot off before being stabbed.
PghJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2012, 15:07   #2
ABNAK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 645
Look at it this way: all other things being equal (shot placement, subject is or is not on drugs, same exact circumstances) the diameter of a bullet is miniscule in the equation. Granted, expanding HP's are preferable to FMJ, but the difference between a 9mm or 357Sig expanded to .58" and a .45ACP expanded to .75" is a minor factor in the "big picture". Sure, that .45ACP is making a hole .17" larger. Of equal velocity I guess I'd take the .45 for that reason.

However, given the *possibility* of hydrostatic shock/stretch cavity/BPW actually having an additive effect on a subject that would hasten the cessation of hostilities I would tend to lean towards the round that gave it to me. That's where velocity comes into play.

Choices?

357Sig in 125gr, preferably the hot-rodded "boutique" ones at 1400+fps

.40 in 150-155gr at 1200+fps

9mm +P in 124gr at 1250fps (maybe 1200fps). Second choice would be a 115gr +P+ at 1300+fps.

.45ACP +P in, well, no less than 185gr as long as it did it's tricks out of a smaller sized handgun for CCW (no larger than a Glock 19/23 for reference) ***Sidenote: I've heard the old Remington green/yellow box 185gr +P loads were pretty "dynamic", but IIRC that was out of a larger piece than I'd want to CCW.
__________________
"...there's a man with a gun over there, tellin' me I got to beware..."

11C2P '83-'87

Last edited by ABNAK; 10-19-2012 at 15:09..
ABNAK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2012, 15:55   #3
PEC-Memphis
Scottish Member
 
PEC-Memphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Doh ?
Posts: 3,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABNAK View Post
....the diameter of a bullet is miniscule in the equation. Granted, expanding HP's are preferable to FMJ, but the difference between a 9mm or 357Sig expanded to .58" and a .45ACP expanded to .75" is a minor factor in the "big picture". Sure, that .45ACP is making a hole .17" larger.
Shape plays a role here. Is the bullet shape going to push tissue aside (like a FMJ) or is it going to cut tissue it comes into contact with.

Shape also effects how much, and where, energy is transferred from the bullet to the target.

And it is really "hydrodynamic" rather than "hydrostatic" ....

And water, as well as other fluids, are actually compressible - contrary to the statement at the website.
__________________
To all members of our Armed Forces - past, present and future - thank you for your service to our country.

Last edited by PEC-Memphis; 10-19-2012 at 16:04..
PEC-Memphis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2012, 18:51   #4
cowboy1964
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 14,407
I don't even know where to begin with that. Even .380 ACP can create hydrostatic shock "on occasions"? What occasions would that be?

Last edited by cowboy1964; 10-19-2012 at 18:56..
cowboy1964 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2012, 18:57   #5
cowboy1964
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 14,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEC-Memphis View Post
And water, as well as other fluids, are actually compressible - contrary to the statement at the website.
Water can only be compressed a few percent tops and that's under extreme pressure. For ballistic purposes it can be considered incompressible.

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/compressibility.html

Last edited by cowboy1964; 10-19-2012 at 18:59..
cowboy1964 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2012, 21:24   #6
SCmasterblaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Hartford, Vermont
Posts: 15,846
Nice video

Thank you very much!
__________________
Gun Ownership Offers Freedom in Many Dimensions
SCmasterblaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2012, 23:18   #7
Henry's Dad
woof, woof
 
Henry's Dad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Upriver of 3 Mile Island
Posts: 750
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEC-Memphis View Post
And it is really "hydrodynamic" rather than "hydrostatic" ....

And water, as well as other fluids, are actually compressible - contrary to the statement at the website.
I always thought water was highly non-compressible.

This was the explanation I was given as a kid when making water balloons: have as little air as possible in the balloon so that it is more likely to burst when you throw it at someone. Too much air in the balloon and the air pocket absorbs the shock and won't burst.
Henry's Dad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2012, 23:44   #8
M 7
Senior Member
 
M 7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry's Dad View Post
I always thought water was highly non-compressible.

This was the explanation I was given as a kid when making water balloons: have as little air as possible in the balloon so that it is more likely to burst when you throw it at someone. Too much air in the balloon and the air pocket absorbs the shock and won't burst.
Nope, if it's got a bulk modulus, it's compressible.

And, yes, water has a bulk modulus.
__________________
For those who CCW: QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION
M 7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 02:43   #9
PghJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by M 7 View Post
Nope, if it's got a bulk modulus, it's compressible.

And, yes, water has a bulk modulus.
For our purposes the small compressibility of water is insignificant. In the video he had watermellons, which he shot with various rounds. He was up front in that they are not representations of humans, although they had the same water content. The rhine(sp)(skin) is very tuff. 45 ACP JHP's went through with little more than some cracking, 38 special was the same thing, but less cracking, 357 mag with JHP blew the water mellon completely apart. The 9mm JHP blew it apart a bit, but not nearly the same as the 357. He did not show a 40 S&W, but stated that the 357 magnum was the ultimate person stopper.

Last edited by PghJim; 10-20-2012 at 02:44..
PghJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 03:26   #10
digilo
Senior Member
 
digilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: texas
Posts: 303
When I read people saying that .45 only makes a .17" bigger hole than 9mm after expansion, I have to wonder what bullet weight has to do with all this.... it requires more of a counteracting force to expand 230 gr of lead than 125, this has to be accounted for somewhere in the wounding data.
__________________
Taste the wares, Email.
digilo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 05:59   #11
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by digilo View Post
When I read people saying that .45 only makes a .17" bigger hole than 9mm after expansion, I have to wonder what bullet weight has to do with all this.... it requires more of a counteracting force to expand 230 gr of lead than 125, this has to be accounted for somewhere in the wounding data.
There are other factors to consider besides the weight of the bullet. Diameter, frontal area and bullet construction are a few of these considerations. A 230 gr bullet in .45 caliber will have more frontal area than a 125 gr .357 upon contact with the counteracting force, as you put it. Thus, there is more of the media in contact with the bullet before expansion which is retarding it's movement. Also, as velocity doubles, retarding forces quadruple increasing the retarding force's ability to open the bullet. Some bullets are simply made weaker, regardless of weight, to open more easily or at lower velocities.
__________________
- Without idiots, there would be no baseline for common sense.

- "Our country went through a transition during the last election where the parasites came together and outnumbered the hosts." -jdavionic
uz2bUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 06:01   #12
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by cowboy1964 View Post
I don't even know where to begin with that. Even .380 ACP can create hydrostatic shock "on occasions"? What occasions would that be?
Probably when it expands rapidly in conjuction with very shallow penetration.
__________________
- Without idiots, there would be no baseline for common sense.

- "Our country went through a transition during the last election where the parasites came together and outnumbered the hosts." -jdavionic
uz2bUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 08:10   #13
RYT 2BER
Senior Member
 
RYT 2BER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: The Gunshine State
Posts: 2,518
Well than my 155 gr 10mm should ok
__________________
Unfortunately, with all the advances in medical science, there still just isnt any cure for "stupid".
RYT 2BER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 09:15   #14
Darkangel1846
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,678
Hydrostatic shock from a handgun......really? What nonsense!
__________________
Peter 5:8
"Be sober, be vigilant; Because your adversary the Devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking who he may devour."
Darkangel1846 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 11:23   #15
M 7
Senior Member
 
M 7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkangel1846 View Post
Hydrostatic shock from a handgun......really? What nonsense!
I agree. What a bunch of hokum.

I thought that such misconceptions (significant/meaningful hydrodynamic effect at handgun velocities- less than 1600fps) had gone the way of terms like "stopping power", "knockdown", and "energy dump".

S'pose not.
__________________
For those who CCW: QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION
M 7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 12:19   #16
SCmasterblaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Hartford, Vermont
Posts: 15,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by RYT 2BER View Post
Well than my 155 gr 10mm should ok
I'll be getting a .40 S&W soon.
__________________
Gun Ownership Offers Freedom in Many Dimensions
SCmasterblaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 13:57   #17
fastbolt
Senior Member
 
fastbolt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Within the lightning (Northern CA)
Posts: 9,382
An article providing a trip down memory lane, highlighting & combining some of the commonly promoted opinions I remember hearing starting back in the early 70's.

FWIW, training to function while experiencing the physiological reactions occurring during the hormonal fear response, and having deeply ingrained proper skills available so someone can continue to effectively function under those conditions, without having to stop and try to think about it, is something that has been receiving attention in recent years.
__________________
Sub Club #9; .40 S&W Club #1953; S&W Club #3913
Retired LE - firearms instructor/armorer

Last edited by fastbolt; 10-20-2012 at 16:51..
fastbolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 14:08   #18
M 7
Senior Member
 
M 7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by PghJim View Post
For our purposes the small compressibility of water is insignificant. In the video he had watermellons, which he shot with various rounds. He was up front in that they are not representations of humans, although they had the same water content. The rhine(sp)(skin) is very tuff. 45 ACP JHP's went through with little more than some cracking, 38 special was the same thing, but less cracking, 357 mag with JHP blew the water mellon completely apart. The 9mm JHP blew it apart a bit, but not nearly the same as the 357. He did not show a 40 S&W, but stated that the 357 magnum was the ultimate person stopper.
All that is fine and dandy, but I'd question the value of any conclusions drawn from shooting watermelons, let alone the remainder of the website. Drawing conclusions from an invalid test medium (watermelons in this case) after admitting that they are an invalid medium is laughable at best and an insult to his reader's/client's intelligence.

There's quite a bit wrong with that website, stuff that seems to make sense at first, but fails upon close examination like this-

Quote:
Those organs, especially water laden once like the liver or kidneys can be ruptured by the hydrostatic shock wave impulse.
Almost every organ in the human body is "water-laden" to some extent, but he confuses the water content with elasticity, tensile strength, and rigidity. The stomach, bladder, intestines, and bowels are even more "water-laden" than the liver and kidneys yet they are not subject to the same degree of rupture that the liver and kidneys are because those organs have greater rigidity and less elasticity than most of the other organs in the human body.

What a hot mess.

Quote:
But to say categorically that hydrostatic shock has ‘no affect on stopping power’ as the FBI did many years ago after the Miami shooting is simply and clearly not true.
So we are left with the question of how a hydrocrack shock wave is created that does result in better stopping power in a handgun cartridge.
"hydrocrack shock wave" ?



Seriously?

He's gonna misattribute what was said in the FBI report FBI Report- "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness" and then dismiss it as a result of shooting watermelons and after he trots out a term like "hydrocrack shock wave"?

Nah, no thanks.
__________________
For those who CCW: QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION

Last edited by M 7; 10-20-2012 at 14:10..
M 7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 14:09   #19
SCmasterblaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Hartford, Vermont
Posts: 15,846
For now

I am relying on my G17 and the WW 115gr JHP +p+.
__________________
Gun Ownership Offers Freedom in Many Dimensions
SCmasterblaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 14:26   #20
chargingzebra
Member
 
chargingzebra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastbolt View Post

FWIW, training to function while experiencing the physiological reactions occurring during the hormonal fear response, and having deeply ingrained proper skills available so someone can continue to effectively function under those conditions, without having to stop and try to think about it, is something that has been receiving attention in recent years.
Fastbolt hit the nail on the head. Skip your next gun purchase and invest in some quality stress shoot or force on force combat marksmanship training.

When things go south, a .50 cal in the hands of someone who is overcome with fear and adrenaline will be less effective than one with a .22 and a cool head. Caliber matters, but should be secondary to being able to perform in these types of situations.

Also, generally the larger the caliber the less rounds you can fit in the gun. I go with .40 for the fact that it offers a decent trade off of energy, mag capacity, speed and accuracy that I find best suits my needs.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
chargingzebra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 18:03   #21
PghJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,767
I basically believe Peyton is going from field experience of his and others. He never said water mellons were people, but neither is Gel. The balistic gel only gives you a consistant media. The Gel is not people either. The mellos are consistant and show a different aspect. He has seen and other have seen the sucessful effects of fast moving-high energy ammo and he believes that the hydrostatic shock (pressure) can explain it. Who knows, if it can tear apart the mellon shell that it does not even touch, why would it not cause some damage to nearby organs.

I am tempted to buy into some of this. After shooting several deer in my family with broadheads that are inch and a quarter to inch and a half, the permanent CC would be greater than the ammo we test and the penetration is max. However, after shooting a deer through boths lungs, you have to wait until the deer bleeds out somewhere before you try and find him, which can go about 45 minutes. Otherwise the wounded deer runs further away. Now add energy with a 44 magnum and the same shot placement will immediately put the deer down

Last edited by PghJim; 10-20-2012 at 18:06..
PghJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 19:12   #22
M 7
Senior Member
 
M 7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by PghJim View Post
I basically believe Peyton is going from field experience of his and others. He never said water mellons were people, but neither is Gel. The balistic gel only gives you a consistant media. The Gel is not people either. The mellos are consistant and show a different aspect.
Actually the gelatin is the only consistent medium and anyone operating under the belief that gelatin is identical to people is delusional- it is simply a soft tissue simulant and nothing more. Watermelons cannot be standardized for density and composition because they are highly variable in terms of rind thickness, pulp content, and ripeness- gelatin (and for that matter, water as a simulant) suffers none of these issues because they are isotropic (identical in all directions) materials.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PghJim View Post
He has seen and other have seen the sucessful effects of fast moving-high energy ammo and he believes that the hydrostatic shock (pressure) can explain it. Who knows, if it can tear apart the mellon shell that it does not even touch, why would it not cause some damage to nearby organs.
Because melon rind has neither the strength nor the elasticity of soft-tissue. You can break/tear apart melon rind with little effort using only your hands. Try that with visceral tissues of a deer like the lungs, stomach, intestines, bladder, kidney, liver, etc. the next time you are "elbow deep" in deer guts. (Ah, success! ) They are very tough (elastic strength) and in most cases require tremendous physical effort to tear them apart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PghJim View Post
I am tempted to buy into some of this. After shooting several deer in my family with broadheads that are inch and a quarter to inch and a half, the permanent CC would be greater than the ammo we test and the penetration is max. However, after shooting a deer through boths lungs, you have to wait until the deer bleeds out somewhere before you try and find him, which can go about 45 minutes. Otherwise the wounded deer runs further away. Now add energy with a 44 magnum and the same shot placement will immediately put the deer down
Unfortunately, the comparison between bullets and broadheads is not an "apples-to-apples" comparison- the broadhead produces exsanguination through laceration, the bullet does its job through crushed tissues (physical trauma) as well as a certain amount of exsanguination -kind of a "mixed bag", if you will.
__________________
For those who CCW: QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION
M 7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 19:50   #23
PghJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,767
Quote:
Actually the gelatin is the only consistent medium and anyone operating under the belief that gelatin is identical to people is delusional- it is simply a soft tissue simulant and nothing more. Watermelons cannot be standardized for density and composition because they are highly variable in terms of rind thickness, pulp content, and ripeness- gelatin (and for that matter, water as a simulant) suffers none of these issues because they are isotropic (identical in all directions) materials.
Depending on you use, water mellon can be consistant, particularly if they are calibrated


Quote:
Because melon rind has neither the strength nor the elasticity of soft-tissue. You can break/tear apart melon rind with little effort using only your hands. Try that with visceral tissues of a deer like the lungs, stomach, intestines, bladder, kidney, liver, etc. the next time you are "elbow deep" in deer guts. (Ah, success! ) They are very tough (elastic strength) and in most cases require tremendous physical effort to tear them apart.
You are missing the point, but oh what the hell. My wife did not want me to thaw out the liver, but it was not that difficult to tear, and I could not break apart a Mellon rine 4X4 with my hands. Anyone up for liver and onions?

Quote:
Unfortunately, the comparison between bullets and broadheads is not an "apples-to-apples" comparison- the broadhead produces exsanguination through laceration, the bullet does its job through crushed tissues (physical trauma) as well as a certain amount of exsanguination -kind of a "mixed bag", if you will.

My God, you are all over the place on this one. If you do not believe in hydro static then only your permanant crush cavity matters. You will only disable a person if you hit the head or the left ventricle of the heart. Bones can be painful. Otherwise he still can be a threat. To wait for exsanguination is impossiple. A determined person can withstand most single organ hits for a while. I actually think the damage done is greater with the arrow than a bullet, but it can be disputed. Answer me this, why do many people who are shot just collapse when there is no physiological explaination for it?

You still did not comment on my deer example, 44 mag Vs. arrow.

Last edited by PghJim; 10-20-2012 at 19:52..
PghJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 20:02   #24
cowboy1964
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 14,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by uz2bUSMC View Post
Probably when it expands rapidly in conjuction with very shallow penetration.
I can't see 200 ft lbs of energy creating enough hydrostatic shock to do anything of value. It's questionable what the threshold even is but most experts seem to think it doesn't even start until you get to 500 ft lbs. And of course the .380 ACP already has lame penetration to begin with, so you don't need even less.

Last edited by cowboy1964; 10-20-2012 at 20:02..
cowboy1964 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 20:15   #25
uz2bUSMC
10mm defender
 
uz2bUSMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: J-Ville NC
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by cowboy1964 View Post
I can't see 200 ft lbs of energy creating enough hydrostatic shock to do anything of value. It's questionable what the threshold even is but most experts seem to think it doesn't even start until you get to 500 ft lbs. And of course the .380 ACP already has lame penetration to begin with, so you don't need even less.
Nah, I don't think it will have anything of value, either...just simply saying... everything has a "shock" value, whether or not it's worth a damn is the question. I don't cosider the .380 to have any value in any area, really, let alone hydrodynamics.
__________________
- Without idiots, there would be no baseline for common sense.

- "Our country went through a transition during the last election where the parasites came together and outnumbered the hosts." -jdavionic
uz2bUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 18:01.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,317
444 Members
873 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42