Glock Talk banner

Laughing-Lehigh Bullets, Theories, Hydrostatic Shock

4K views 34 replies 13 participants last post by  Railsplitter 
#1 ·
I find myself laughing every time I see Lehigh extreme defense or extreme penetrator ammo being pushed in various media formats. These bullets supposedly utilize hydrostatic shock, the exact thing so many people have claimed isn't significant at handgun velocities. So, I must ask, why are people wasting so much cash on these instead of just buying some FMJ?!

What do you think. Do the jello videos make you think this stuff is as good as a JHP or are you not sold?
 
#2 ·
I haven't seen any claims of hydrostatic shock, that is, the remote wounding effects from high pressure. I have seen really impressive gel tests of large permanent wound cavities. Like most people, I don't think gel tests are a be all, end all, just another data point. A data point the FBI pays attention to, so who am I to argue with all those smart guys who make a true science of this stuff.

If you look at the wound cavity in gel tests of many JHP's, it is much larger than the expansion of the HP. This is the same effect. Why is it valid for a JHP and not an new bullet design?
 
#3 ·
The design of these bullets uses hydraulic pressure to create damage. We've been told for years the velocities of pistol rounds were not high enough for the hydraulic pressure to cause any permanent damage.

Gel doesn't react to impacts the same way a body does. In my opinion, these bullets are over priced non-expanding projectiles that won't cause much more permanent damage than an FMJ.

Frankly, I'm not sure just how much better JHP bullets are than FMJ. I've seen some pretty nasty wounds both fatal and non-fatal from FMJ. I don't think a JHP causes enough additional damage to really change the outcome of a shooting. The bullets either go where they are supposed to go or they don't. I still buy and carry JHP though.
 
#7 · (Edited)
There can be enormous hydraulic effect on wound cavity at handgun velocities. The shape of the bullet traveling through the body makes a big difference on this effect. Anyone who has shot game with say a 40 caliber WFNGC bullet that left the muzzle at 1200fps will tell you the permanent would cavity can be 2-3 times the diameter of the bullet. That is the hydraulic action of the wide flat meplat traveling through the tissues. The same effect occurs on tissues when the flat plate surface of an expanded HP is traveling through at handgun velocity.

FMJ makes a poor wounding effect because the bullet does the exact opposite as the above, traveling through efficiently, creating much less hydraulic waves, almost as efficient as it does through the air. That is why FMJ penetrates so much more, it is leaving less energy in the tissue for any given inch of penetration.

You are sorely mistaken that FMJ wounds the same as JHP or WFN bullets. There are enormous differences in wound channel and disabling effects.

Frankly, while skepticism is generally a healthy thing, it appears you have misunderstood "what was always being told to you". There are decidedly dramatic hydraulic effects at handgun velocities, local wound cavity effects. That is very different than the notion of "hydrostatic shock", which is the remote wounding effects of enormous pressures, generally thought to only come into play, if at all, at rifle velocities.
 
#11 ·
FMJ round nose bullets are not very good at causing disruption, if you don't know that you don't know much about shooting critters.

When you shoot something with a wfn/lfn you will note that different organs react different, lungs are very soft.

Ignore anyone that says something about handgun velocities, what
is handgun velocities anyway? Some of my handguns shoot faster
than some rifles.

Does a snowplow throw the snow very far when it is only going five
MPS, how about fifty five MPH? That is kinda like fast and slow
boolits too. There is a difference between 1100 fps and 1500 fps
and the size of the meplat, everything adds up.

When you shoot critters at longer range you need more speed because bullets slow down a lot and have much less disruption
and also shoot flatter when faster, some bullets/boolits will slow
down more than four hundred fps in 100 yards.

I have a boolit mold for 45 cal and I thought the .30 meplat was
too small but when the fps is high it disrupts meat just fine, near
blew a deer heart in two pieces at 85 yards.

I have killed more than 1000 critters with many different calibers
and kinds of bullets/boolits, speed and meplats make a difference,
most HP bullets have a big meplat if you drive them fast enough
to open up.

Every hunter that uses different calibers and guns knows what I
am saying is true.

FWIW, people are critters too.
 
#12 ·
I think some of you are not fully comprehending what I'm writing. I'm not making the argument that a FMJ and JHP produce equal terminal ballistics. A JHP will surely produce better terminal ballistics. The JHP will not produce significantly better terminal ballistics to make a difference in the outcome of a shooting than an FMJ.

I base this on my own experience and basic science. No JHP will expand to such a greater diameter that is has a statistically greater chance of cutting something an FMJ would've missed. FMJ produces very serious and very lethal wounds. The higher the velocity of a projectile, the more dramatic the terminal performance difference between a non-expanding bullet and an expanding bullet will be. At typical handgun velocities, using non-fragmenting projectiles, the terminal performance difference is minimal.

A person shot in the upper thoracic cavity with an FMJ will still suffer very serious wounds to their vital organs very similarly to a person hit by a JHP. Can we adequately determine exactly what this difference is? No. Ethics prevents us from lining up death row inmates and shooting them each in precisely the same spot with different types of munitions. Real-world incidents aren't good sources of statistical scientific data because there are too many variables to make an accurate determination of what the true outcome was. A wound in the extremity from a JHP will have no greater effect than a wound from an FMJ. Will there be more terminal damage from expansion? Yes. Will that damage produce a different outcome than the damage caused by the FMJ? Very hard to tell.

Now, to these Lehigh bullets. I think they are gimmicky. They are expensive, don't expand at all, and produce nice looking gel results. Gel is more elastic than a human body. The human body is not a homogenous substance made up of consistent gel. The gel is a representation, merely a science experiment used to compare one projectile to another in a controlled scientific environment.

To accept these Lehigh bullets as terminally effective means that we have to accept hydraulic wounding abilities of handgun bullets, perhaps changing our view on the matter. For the longest time, even the lightest and fastest bullets were not believed to achieve any significant for of hydraulic wounding, nothing sufficient enough to produce permanent wounding. Some stretching, but nothing permanent.

Perhaps our initial thoughts on wounding are not accurate. Perhaps loading the heaviest-for-caliber bullet is not best because the lighter bullets do produce hydraulic wounding? I don't know. For now, I'm not sold on them. If you are going to load them you may as well load FMJ and get more for your money because I don't think they will produce better terminal performance and an FMJ will penetrate pretty well for a myriad of potential situations.

The jury is still out. This thread is looking for your opinions on the matter.
 
#13 ·
Maybe I "misunderstood" what you wrote because the title of your thread states you are laughing about hydrostatic shock effects. I haven't seen any claims of hydrostatic shock effects from Lehigh bullets.

I have seen claims and subsequent gel results that Lehigh bullets fluted flat nose design cut much larger wound channels than their diameter because of hydraulic action of that design.

Your supposition that there is no difference in the wounding effects and the disabling effects between FMJ and JHP or any other bullet shape in the outcome of a shooting is ludicrous.

The only merit I find in anything you have posted so far is the lack real world street results for the Lehigh XP and XD bullets, even in hunting applications. Short of those results, I wouldn't fault anyone for not wanting to use it as the last line of defense in SD settings.

I found Railsplitters logic of when and why he would use the rounds to be pretty sound.
 
#14 · (Edited)
Maybe I "misunderstood" what you wrote because the title of your thread states you are laughing about hydrostatic shock effects. I haven't seen any claims of hydrostatic shock effects from Lehigh bullets.

I have seen claims and subsequent gel results that Lehigh bullets fluted flat nose design cut much larger wound channels than their diameter because of hydraulic action of that design.

Your supposition that there is no difference in the wounding effects and the disabling effects between FMJ and JHP or any other bullet shape in the outcome of a shooting is ludicrous.

The only merit I find in anything you have posted so far is the lack real world street results for the Lehigh XP and XD bullets, even in hunting applications. Short of those results, I wouldn't fault anyone for not wanting to use it as the last line of defense in SD settings.

I found Railsplitters logic of when and why he would use the rounds to be pretty sound.
Hydraulic wounding and hydrostatic shock are one in the same. Lehigh Defense claims these bullets wound using fluid. Hydro and Hydra both mean water. These bullet designs use hydraulics to wound. Gel will show fluid dispersment differently than it will occur in a human body.

Again, you aren't comprehending what I'm writing. I never said there is no difference in terminal performance between JHP and FMJ. I said it is difficult to determine exactly how much more effective JHP ammunition is than FMJ ammunition.

A bullet through the heart, lungs, major blood vessel, central nervous system will produce the same result regardless of its design. It will produce a wound through a viral organ that is both potentially fatal and potentially incapacitating wound.

Determining the difference between the two designs is difficult. In the past 25 years when JHP have become more reliable and more widespread in their use,firearms training has greatly improved which in turn has helped to produce more effective shot placement. Also, people are now trained to shoot much faster and until the threat stops or is down. This typically results in a lot more rounds fired than the old training to fire a double tap or hammer and then reasses the situation. More effective fire on target and more rounds on target.

People tend to forget that FMJ has been killing people for over 100 years on the battlefield. I've seen people take FMJ to the boiler room and have a lethal/incapacitating wound. Fellow officers have shot suspects multiple times in the upper chest with 180gr Ranger T and not recieved incapacitations. One fellow took 16 rounds to the chest. He died 5 mins later. Another took 4 rounds to the upper chest, ceased hostility and then fought officers going into custody.

I was personally involved in another incident. Suspect shot 4 times with premium JHP in the abdomen. I had to go hand to hand with him to disarm him from the taser he stole and place him in custody.

An FMJ is effective when placed properly, same as a JHP. A JHP is just as ineffective as an FMJ when placed improperly. The terminal effect of a JHP is not magical and won't produce much different results from an FMJ with the same placement. We carry JHP because it gives us a slight edge and we can use any edge we can get.

This Lehigh stuff is gimmicky. It's expensive and won't produce a much more dramatic wounding effect than an FMJ in the real world. You'll have a 35 caliber hole going in and a 35 caliber hole coming out. If you're going to carry these just save your money and buy some quality FMJ.

These bullets will most likely never have a large amount of street results. I don't anticipate any major LEA adopting these rounds for the above listed reasons. Civilian use in gun fights will be minimal because these things are expensive and typically people who can afford this stuff won't be in situations where they need it, generally.

If we accept that pistol cartridges produce significant enough velocity to produce hydraulic or hydrostatic effect, which I'm not sure to what extent is possible given the low velocities, we should most definitely not use a monolithic non-expanding bullet design.

These bullets are so specialized in their use I don't see a practical defensive application for them. An offensive application perhaps when barriers in a given environment are know, but even then in an offensive role long arms will be utilized long before pistols are.
 
#15 · (Edited)
Hydraulic wounding and hydrostatic shock are one in the same. Lehigh Defense claims these bullets wound using fluid. Hydro and Hydra both mean water. These bullet designs use hydraulics to wound. Gel will show fluid dispersment differently than it will occur in a human body.

Again, you aren't comprehending what I'm writing. I never said there is no difference in terminal performance between JHP and FMJ. I said it is difficult to determine exactly how much more effective JHP ammunition is than FMJ ammunition.

A bullet through the heart, lungs, major blood vessel, central nervous system will produce the same result regardless of its design. It will produce a wound through a viral organ that is both potentially fatal and potentially incapacitating wound.

Determining the difference between the two designs is difficult. In the past 25 years when JHP have become more reliable and more widespread in their use. Firearms training has greatly improved which in turn has helped to produce more effective shot placement.

People tend to forget that FMJ has been killing people for over 100 years on the battle field. I've seen people take FMJ to the boiler room and have a lethal/incapacitating wound. Fellow officers have shot suspects multiple times in the upper chest with 180gr Ranger T and not recieved incapacitations. One fellow took 16 rounds to the chest. He died 5 mins later. Another took 4 rounds to the upper chest, ceased hostility and then fought officers going into custody.

I was personally involved in another incident. Suspect shot 4 times with premium JHP in the abdomen. I had to go hand to hand with him to disarm him from the taser he stole and place him in custody.

It really makes little difference. An FMJ can and is effective when placed properly, same as a JHP. A JHP is just as ineffective as an FMJ when placed improperly. The terminal effect of a JHP is not magical and won't produce much different results from an FMJ with the same placement. We carry JHP because it gives us a slight edge and we can use any edge we can get.

This Lehigh stuff is gimmicky. It's expensive and won't produce a much more dramatic sounding effect than an FMJ in the real world. You'll have a 35 caliber hole going in and a 35 caliber hole coming out. If you're going to carry these just save your money and buy some quality FMJ.

These bullets will most likely never have a large amount of street results. I don't anticipate any major LEA adopting these rounds for the above listed reasons. Civilian use in gun fights will be minimal because these things are expensive and typically people who can afford this stuff won't be in situations where they need it, generally.

If we accept that pistol cartridges produce significant enough velocity to produce hydraulic or hydrostatic effect, which I'm not sure to what extent is possible given the low velocities, we should most definitely not use a monolithic non-expanding bullet design.

These bullets are so specialized in their use I don't see a practical defensive application for them. An offensive application perhaps when barriers in a given environment are know, but even then in an offensive role long arms will be utilized long before pistols are.
I fundamentally disagree with most of what you posted and we could go on forever and nothing would change our points of view.

To net things down, you think the Lehigh XP/XD bullets are a gimmick with no value over FMJ. The fact that they are expensive only adds to your distrust to their "value".

My opinion, while guarded given the lack of anything other than Gel tests to look at, tests you discount fully, but which I do not, is that they may hold a lot of promise.

I think Railsplitter said it best, given the need for penetration, he choses Lehigh over FMJ. With the Lehigh at least you have the promise of some added wounding, with FMJ you know it will be minimal beyond the diameter of the projectile.

PS - Google "hydrostatic shock", it is the possibility for "remote wounding effects" that is hotly debated for rifle velocities and largely discounted for handgun velocities. Anyone that would argue a lack of local wounding effects owing to hydraulic forces at handgun velocities has never seen a wound produced by a wide flat point or JHP bullet. There can be very significant wounding effects from this hydraulic action. To argue that this will not change outcomes in shooting is again quite ludicrous.

PPS - I will quit dogging you on your thread. I have stated my opinion, in quite a few different ways. WW out.
 
#16 ·
I remember when we were shown an autopsy x-ray during one of the wound ballistics classes we hosted several years ago.

The deceased subject had been shot in the abdomen by a 125gr .357 Magnum revolver bullet (I believe it was a SJHP). The damaged tissue comprising the "wound track" was surprisingly large and relatively deep (compared to the anatomy of the subject), and there were some fragments scattered along the track, having been thrown radially outward, supposedly when the tissues had been stretched. The fragments were described as having caused some significant cutting/wounding action.

Personally, I had no problem with some reasonable degree of fragmentation resulting from expansion of some of yesterday's JHP revolver bullet designs. This is one of the reasons I have no particular preference for some of today's "bonded" pistol bullets. While I spent much of a career working in and around motor vehicles, vehicle glass as a potential intermediate barrier material never really caused me to lose much sleep. Bullet weight and velocity sometimes struck an acceptable medium when it came to defeating windshield or other auto glass back then.

FWIW, the retired federal agent who taught the classes said he'd investigated a lot of shootings occurring on federal reservations and installations over his career, and he'd always been been very impressed with the performance of the 125gr .357 magnum. However, he said that it was his personal opinion that if the service revolver had remained a mainstay for a while longer (before being replaced by service pistols), that he believed the 140-145gr JHP/SJHP Magnum revolver load might've eventually supplanted the 125gr bullets. He said from what he'd been able to see and learn, the slightly heavier 140-145gr JHP's appeared as though they would've offered the wounding/fragmentation capability of the 125gr revolver JHP bullets, but carried just a little deeper and further into major anatomical areas.

I still favor both 125gr SJHP and 145gr JHP's for my medium-bore .357 Magnum revolvers, given my druthers. Nowadays I have to be satisfied with the remaining stock of Rem 125gr SJHP and W-W 145gr STHP I built up over the years, and I really wish I'd have put back some of the Rem 140gr SJHP Magnum back when it was being made.

Now, my .44's are another story, having been a handloader for many years and having favored the fast-moving factory 180gr SJHP/JHP loads for my carry revolvers. When the 180's weren't easily available I had to make do with some of the 240gr JHP's (SJHP & Hydra-Shoks, etc), and later on the "medium load" W-W 210gr STHP Magnum, but I eventually stopped carrying the .44's due to penetration concerns in an urban environment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nanuk
#18 ·
I think a lot of folks get all wrapped up around the axle thinking that localized incompressible fluid effect, struck by a fast moving projectile, and the theorized BPW effect (postulated to cause injury remotely from the wound site, due to a spike in BP in vessels), are one and the same thing.

Also, the nature of the tissues, organs and other structures, and how they may be affected when violently displaced by a high speed penetrating wound, are difficult to predict. People aren't made out of a cookie cutter, and physiology, while the same "design", can vary a lot due to many unpredictable factors and influences. (The psychological factor can be hugely different, too, even if the wounding effect may be roughly the same.)

Sure, hunters have much more experience than most folks when it comes to observing the effects of gunshot wounds on different game, but even then the amount of "physiological effect" of wounding demonstrated and observed from one animal to another, and how they may react, is unpredictable.

The observations of wounding made by Dr Fackler were pretty ground breaking at the time, and there's been a lot of experience gained by trauma doc's and surgeons in both ER's and on foreign ground in the last couple of decades.

A close friend of mine is a retired Naval officer/surgeon. He still teaches for DoD and DHS and some other alphabet agencies. He also served as a "SWAT Doc" for a while, too. He's been a firearms trainer for many years, as well (having been connected as an instructor to a nationally recognized training facility). While he's a longtime 1911/.45 ACP aficionado, he's slowly made the transition to carrying 9's, and he doesn't seem to be losing any sleep worrying about any theorized subtle distinctions when it comes to the wounding potential in handgun calibers. Now, rifles, and he starts to offer some interesting info ... ;)
 
#19 ·
BTW, in response to your (OP) initial posting, I have no interest in the Lehigh or ARX or any other specialty .380 ammunition to try and bootstrap my LCP's into something more than they are with standard ball or JHP ammo.

That's me, though.
 
#21 ·
But haven't you been paying attention? With the right loads, certain handgun rounds become tactical nuclear weapons, causing instant stops with each and every megapowerful shot. Physics breaks down. As soon as they are fired, some handgun bullets no longer conform to the standard rules of space and time. Action and reaction? Not applicable. Magic bullets and fairy dust are impossible to quantify, we're told, but they're real nonetheless.
 
#22 ·
You're only saying that because I don't regurgitate everything someone on the internet says as the truth.

Your initial post seems to be pretty off base since this thread isn't about rifles and higher velocity handgun cartridges. It's about service calibers. 9mm, 40, 45, maybe 357Sig/Mag. Your assertions regarding velocity and wounding are in fact true. However, there is much debate about hydraulic wounding at lower service caliber velocity. (As you even stated in your own post.)

Seems some of you think this is an FMJ vs JHP thread. It isn't. I don't think these Lehigh Xtreme Defender/Penetrator bullets are worth the money. I don't think they'll perform as advertised in an actual situation when not being attacked by a 6x6x16 gel block.

Im open to new things. Im not married to one philosophy or the other. If proof can be shown via science or autopsy of actual permanent wounding, I'll adjust my opinion.

Simply stating I don't know anything about this because I have a differing opinion doesn't mean that's true.

It seems every couple years a new wonder bullet is developed and people cling to them for a while and then something new comes along. I think this is a fad.
 
#23 · (Edited)
While we are on the subject here are two examples of what the Xtreme Penetrator can do. I would not recommend these for general SD use but they obviously live up to their name. In the first video an XP easily defeats level IIA body armor, in the second it defeats 1.25 inch thick bullet proof glass! Please note the ammo in both videos is made by Underwood Ammo and is appropriately warm.
 
#26 ·
I have some in 357 SIG and 45 Super, I got them for their ability to penetrate not some mythical ability to stop an attacker. I've shot them into a couple of types of commonly found hard media, the kind of stuff that's ordinary and would be used for cover. Sheetmetal, autoglass etc. They perform very well, better than standard fmj, that's good enough for me.
 
#31 · (Edited)
Perhaps the penetrators have a place in a very specific role. I'm not sure how applicable it is to everyday self defense,but perhaps they have some use. I'm still not sold on the defenders.
The Xtreme Defenders would be a good choice if you lived in Alaska or Minnesota where heavy clothing would clog a hollow point round. Both of these rounds are useful for specific purposes, I see them as valuable supplements to my regular carry ammo.
 
#32 ·
According to scientific study a round has to go somewhere between 2,500-2,600 f.p.s. to cause enough shock to stretch tissue beyond it's elastic limits. This hydrostatic shock crap has been around for years. You need rifle velocity in most elastic tissue to get any real effect from it.
Hand gun bullets only damage by their frontal area. The tissue they come into contact with except for non-elastic tissue such as the liver. Several companies are selling low for caliber weight bullets going at high speed for the caliber.
What they usually do is make a shallow, nasty crater when they hit. But you need deep penetration to reach vitals. Those who treat battlefield wounds will tell you they don't know if someone shot by a handgun of 9mm or .45 caliber until they remove the bullet.
The wounds are similar. Believe in the hype if you want to. It doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny.
But someone is always looking for a magic bullet. And the hype does sell bullets.
 
#33 ·
Stop adding logic to the mixture of caliber manure that's being spread thick around here.
 
#35 ·
According to scientific study a round has to go somewhere between 2,500-2,600 f.p.s. to cause enough shock to stretch tissue beyond it's elastic limits. This hydrostatic shock crap has been around for years. You need rifle velocity in most elastic tissue to get any real effect from it.
Hand gun bullets only damage by their frontal area. The tissue they come into contact with except for non-elastic tissue such as the liver. Several companies are selling low for caliber weight bullets going at high speed for the caliber.
What they usually do is make a shallow, nasty crater when they hit. But you need deep penetration to reach vitals. Those who treat battlefield wounds will tell you they don't know if someone shot by a handgun of 9mm or .45 caliber until they remove the bullet.
The wounds are similar. Believe in the hype if you want to. It doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny.
But someone is always looking for a magic bullet. And the hype does sell bullets.
According to the study you quote even a 30-30 rifle wouldn't cause hydrostatic damage? But in any event shock is not measured by tissue ripping, that would be more the result of blunt force trauma. Shock is more correlated with bullet speed impact which temporarily stuns muscle and nerve tissue in the immediate area of impact causing a degree of function loss. A rifle bullet will cause more shock than a pistol round but there is no speed at which shock starts or stops it just increases with speed. Significant shock like effects start becoming apparent at 357 Magnum speeds and increase from there to the point where basically a glorified .22 round at 3000+ fps velocity is used by our armed forces. The bullet that can cause shock and trauma with adequate penetration offers the best balance of performance.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top