Hahaha I remember those debates, those two guys tried to ruin the careers of anyone who said otherwise. My neighbor did the documentation work on eyeballs. If you've ever been punched in the gut or chest and then saw stars, got vertigo or blacked out vision, that is remote wounding. He worked in the same operating room has the doctors documenting liver damage.In the early 2000s all you had to do was say "hydrostatic shock" to really, really upset Dr. Roberts and most of the other people studying wound ballistics. "Remote Wounding" would do it too. They had no problem with damage a few inches from the bullet track, but there was one guy (Courtney maybe?) who kept saying that you could shoot an animal in the leg and the hydrostatic shock would cause the blood vessels in its brain to explode. They HATED that guy.
This is an interesting idea, one that I hadn't given much thought to.Do you know if anyone has tried the 350 Legend from a short barrel. It has a .357 bullet and a lot more powder behind it. Hodgdon list 24-30gr of powder. The bullets aren't as sleek as the 300, but the larger diameter bullet should make better use of the powder.
I was thinking about the 350 Legend for your 8" weapon. Its sales numbers are certainly nowhere near .223, but being pretty much a straight-walled .223 case that is 43mm long, it would seem much more potent your other options. It seems to hold about 50% more of the same powders that a supersonic 300 BO uses, at least according to Hodgdon.I do not but should work well on deer and hogs. I never run across anyone shooting the 450 BM, 458 Socom, 30RAR or anything like that. I would like to see the real sales numbers of those rounds.
Not saying that at all. Just saying that if you put a gun shot victim in front of the average doctor, they wouldn't know what they were shot with.So pistol calibers kill better than rifle calibers?
I haven't read everything else posted, but my statement was referring to the average ER doctor, not to a battle field medic/doctor/surgeon etc.You probably know this stuff, but just in case.... Going back to what Dr. Martin Fackler and Dr. Gary Roberts said a number of years ago, it has to do with the amount of stretch from the temporary cavity (TC). If the temp cavity is too small (handgun rounds), pretty much everything returns to its original location unharmed. The only permanent damage is what the bullet cut and crushed on its way though. If the TC is large enough, some tissues tear before they return. If there are fragments that cut the tissue while it is stretched, the damage can be much worse. WHEN 5.56 fragments, that's why it is so deadly (it didn't alway fragment, though). That is also why the proposed military bullets for the 6.8 SPC all fragmented. Surgeons like Fackler who actually worked with combat injuries made the distinction between simple "pistol-like injuries" and the more complex "rifle-like" injuries that often had more widespread damage. The pistol bullet needs to hit the vital organ whereas the rifle bullet just needs to get close enough while traveling fast enough.
The recent rule of thumb for "rifle-like effects" has become 2200 fps (one of the hunting ammo makers recently stated that on a video), the real world is more complicated than that. It is combination of effective frontal area and speed as well as exactly what tissue the bullet is passing through. An expanded bullet has an increased effective frontal area as does a FMJ when traveling sideways. Years ago, I asked Dr. Roberts about .30 carbine and he said that it showed "rifle-like" wounding, fwiw. He also said that an expanding .44mag out of a carbine caused rifle-like wounds. My understanding is that the large diameter of the mushrooming bullet makes up for the lower velocity.
Duncan MacPherson wrote an article in the Wound Ballistics Review an number of years ago about the "stunning effect" of high-velocity rifle rounds. He stated that if a bullet traveling at high velocity passes near the spine, the force of the moving tissue from the TC smashes into the spine, essentially causing enough blunt force trauma to stun the animal. Often it is stunned long enough to bleed out before it can recover and run off. This explains some DRT's that miss the spine but manage to drop the animal. Apparently this surprised a lot of hunters who switched from 30-30's to .270's in the 1920's and 30's
You are right. I have seen articles that talk about that. One of the things that was noted was that relatively few ER Docs have actually treated patients who have been shot by a rifle because the victims are usually dead before they arrive. I am not trying to be funny, although it sounds like the setup to a joke. A lot of rifle accidents happen out in the woods, far away from medical care and the wounds are often severe.I haven't read everything else posted, but my statement was referring to the average ER doctor, not to a battle field medic/doctor/surgeon etc.
Right. The 350 Legend holds about twice the amount of powder. It also can run at a higher pressure. It is a considerable step up from from the .357 Mag.Another way to look at it is that an 8" 350 legend would be more potent than a 6" .357 Magnum with a much higher capacity right?
And it would offer damn near rifle like wounding properties. That is assuming the short barrel didn't give up too much velocity. They advertise most of the rounds at around 2300 or so. Not sure what test barrel length that is with though. I would assume pretty good barrier penetration as well.Right. The 350 Legend holds about twice the amount of powder. It also can run at a higher pressure. It is a considerable step up from from the .357 Mag.
Exactly. "Remote wounding" is real, but "Hydrostatic" shock gets blown out of proportion, pun intended. The human body is elastic and just like a rubber band has its limits and can break or have no effect. The further away you get from the point of impact (and depending on the magnitude), the pressure wave gets absorbed and has less effect. It's not going to make the brain explode. Any damage to the brain or other organs will be from the smallest of blood vessels that may get ruptured. You'll do far more damage banging your head against the wall.I'll tell you that most ER docs don't care what caliber/type was involved. It doesn't change much. You assess the patient and intervene based on what is in front of you. As is noted if you sift through the hunting forum, the same round can have vastly different effects based on the situation/angle of impact/range/etc.
Decades ago as a young SF medic wannabee we watched army research films and >1900fps was the magic number with FMJs for the difference between the temporary wound cavity and permanent. They would have cow arteries/veins stretched in a medium and generally pistol rounds would literally shove arteries aside with anything but a direct hit. A rifle round would explode the same examples. I won't go into specifics but in our more advanced trauma training, controlled wounding would not generate the same effect necessarily.
Shot placement definitely seems to make the most difference (nothing new there).
Perhaps I did not state the concepts clearly which I was trying to convey (unless your question is rhetorical). Rifle rounds have much higher KE and much higher Velocity. It's that combination that causes a massive hydrostatic pressure wave because the soft tissue can only be moved out of the way so far and stretched so far before tearing, being mostly water.Why do all the doctors say pistol wounds don't do that much damage but rifle rounds destroy much more?