Is hydrostatic shock a myth or relevant to handgun and/or rifle rounds when it comes to incapacitation? I thought it was proven to be a myth but then I read this article:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.3051.pdf
What are the opinions of the article and subject matter in general from our resident experts?
In my "research" of various forums etc. I found several threads some with people now on this board that told me what I'm looking for. Furthermore, I had no idea it was a sensitive topic. My apologies mods please delete the thread I'm not sure how to. Thanks.Originally Posted by Dcowboyscr
Last edited by Dcowboyscr; 07-16-2016 at 11:35 AM.
What did you find and why is it a sensitive topic?
"Customer is very particular" -- SIG Sauer
I've been under the assumption that hydrostatic shock was a disproven concept but needed reliable reference points for a debate I'm having with someone who believes the theory and thinks there's a big difference between the effectiveness of the handgun duty calibers. In researching I found that paper which totally confused me so I wanted to get a credible opinion from an expert like DOCGKR since I'd never heard of these people that wrote the article.
In further Googling I discovered that the subject had been heatedly debated between the educated experts who had disproven hydrostatic shock and people that just wanted to believe it with no real basis why. A couple threads were about as heated as the old caliber debates lol. After finding that I didn't want to open up a "can of worms" lol.
Thus I had already found the reference points to backup my belief that hydrostatic shock was a myth when it comes to handgun round incapacitation.
Yeah, if someone gets butthurt over the topic of hydrostatic shock they may want to re-examine their emotional well being. At the point in a debate when someone interjects emotion its because they have no more facts or evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock
Seems to me it can clearly be seen when observing a bullet entering a gelatin block. Call it what you will its still a transference of energy.
Last edited by Stone; 07-16-2016 at 06:47 PM.
Wikepedia < Experts in the field of wound ballistics
That Wiki is one of the worst I have looked at in awhile.
I am the owner of Agile/Training and Consulting
www.agiletactical.com
It would be sooo cool if it were true!
I really WANT to believe it, but the damn facts won't let me.
The question isn't whether Hydrostatic shock exists, it does, but rather whether hydrostatic shock and the temporary wound cavity it creates contribute to the incapacitation effects of small arms bullets, particularly handgun bullets. Per studies by the U.S. military, the FBI and other Federal LE Agencies, the answer is no.
I will now be quiet and wait for DocGKR to respond once the Forest Whitaker eye induced by this thread subsides
Last edited by HCM; 07-16-2016 at 09:24 PM.
That's because Courtney personally keeps rewriting the Wiki pages on terminal effects to promote himself and his research. It's like he checks these pages every day and ensures that he inputs his 2cents and deletes things from others when he can.
Reply With Quote