-
February 13th, 2014, 06:25 PM
#121
Has too much time on their hands
Originally Posted by
Blackwolf
I have never nor would consider shooting a deer with a 444 marlin. If it will drop a large black bear or grizzly then its a little big for a deer. Why not a 45-70? Same use...Just too big
It seems like you don't know much about caliber. A 45-70 is a slow bullet that's why it doesn't do much damage unless, like any other calibers, you hit a bone. But because of his weight has a really good knock down power and reduce lungs to slush.
You should do your homework a little bit better, IMO.
-
February 13th, 2014 06:25 PM
# ADS
-
February 13th, 2014, 06:40 PM
#122
Hmmm... I am not all that convinced that hydrostatic shock is a myth. I am the first to agree that the internet is not the absolute truth source, however it seems that the links and references in this Wikipedia article tend to support it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock
There is room for all God's creatures - right next to the mashed potatoes!
-
February 13th, 2014, 06:45 PM
#123
From the links and references provided in the Wikipedia link, I believe this article is highly salient to this discussion.
http://www.ballisticstudies.com/Know...e+Killing.html
I like this
In conclusion, with ideal shot placement and utilizing a cartridge with sufficient power to penetrate the vitals of intended game, we can destroy the CNS and cause an instant kill - however this is often idealistic and unrealistic. With less than ideal shot placement, high velocity can initiate hydrostatic shock and hydraulic wounding to help ensure fast kills out to ordinary hunting ranges (300 yards). In the absence of high velocity, a fragmentary projectile can ensure fast killing via hydraulic shock and wide (mechanical) wounding, producing fast bleeding. In all instances, bullet weight and bullet construction need to be matched to the job at hand.
There is room for all God's creatures - right next to the mashed potatoes!
-
February 13th, 2014, 06:48 PM
#124
Originally Posted by
Blackwolf
Since you have debunked a world class authority, I assume you have better proof, and you are considered an expert in this feild???
Can you point to a single paper by Chuck Hawks on wounding effects published in the medical literature? No?
I guess he's not a world-class authority on how bullets kill, then. If you were looking for expert opinion, rather than the opinion of some guy who writes about guns, you might start with Martin Fackler.
Bullets cause wounding by two mechanisms: what they hit directly, and what they damage by temporary cavitation. Temporary cavitation -- the big cavity the bullet blows by "shock," which closes almost immediately -- is not the same thing as "hydrostatic shock." Most parts of the body are not significantly damaged by temporary cavitation, so it comes down to this: either the bullet hits the animal where it immediately causes massive damage to heart or brain, or the bullet hits somewhere else and the animal bleeds to death.
I don't need to be a world-class authority on this. I only need to be able to evaluate which evidence is good, and which is bad. On that note, this paper covers the territory.
http://www.hsj.gr/volume4/issue4/445.pdf
"The language of dogs and birds teaches you your own language."
-- Jim Harrison (1937 - 2016)
-
February 13th, 2014, 06:53 PM
#125
Originally Posted by
DGearyFTE
Hmmm... I am not all that convinced that hydrostatic shock is a myth. I am the first to agree that the internet is not the absolute truth source, however it seems that the links and references in this Wikipedia article tend to support it
Hydrostatic shock would be most likely to cause significant injury when temporary cavitation affected the heart. But in this case, the wound would be non-survivable regardless.
I don't think you'll find many cases where you see death by hydrostatic shock associated with a minor or survivable wound.
"The language of dogs and birds teaches you your own language."
-- Jim Harrison (1937 - 2016)
-
February 13th, 2014, 07:13 PM
#126
Originally Posted by
welsh
I don't think you'll find many cases where you see death by hydrostatic shock associated with a minor or survivable wound.
Agreed. If I am understanding what I am reading I see that a combination of terminal effects are at play. As it relates to the OP of what is humane IMO from reading there are a number of things that can be done by the hunter to help ensure a quick kill. Shot placement, selection of proper cartridge used at a range suitable for its ability to retain and deliver energy and a plan to make a second shot if the first doesn't go well.
There has been a lot of back and forth in this thread but I must say that I have learned from the discussion heated that it may have been at times.
There is room for all God's creatures - right next to the mashed potatoes!
-
February 13th, 2014, 07:14 PM
#127
OMG . Who goes through medical journals to find out what is a humane shot and whether it is a hydrostatic shock or hydraulic shock an animal dies by . Actually the medical field is one of the most flawed ones on earth and no two so called experts agree . Just shoot them in the head and watch their eyes bug out in shock . Down for the count each and every time .
TD
-
February 13th, 2014, 07:18 PM
#128
Originally Posted by
400bigbear
OMG . Who goes through medical journals to find out what is a humane shot ....
Nobody. Did it strike you that I might be interested in this for other reasons?
"The language of dogs and birds teaches you your own language."
-- Jim Harrison (1937 - 2016)
-
February 13th, 2014, 07:36 PM
#129
Originally Posted by
DGearyFTE
Agreed. If I am understanding what I am reading I see that a combination of terminal effects are at play. As it relates to the OP of what is humane IMO from reading there are a number of things that can be done by the hunter to help ensure a quick kill. Shot placement, selection of proper cartridge used at a range suitable for its ability to retain and deliver energy and a plan to make a second shot if the first doesn't go well.
There has been a lot of back and forth in this thread but I must say that I have learned from the discussion heated that it may have been at times.
my thoughts exactly. trouble is people generally on this board tend to think that to accomplish proper shot placement, one only needs to hit a pie plate at 25 yards. At least with most of your 6 shots. All the rest is just legalities as far as caliber to be used, but really they don't agree with the law anyway. In my opinion
Last edited by Blackwolf; February 13th, 2014 at 07:39 PM.
-
February 13th, 2014, 07:41 PM
#130
No I didn't Welsh because I'm just thinking about the original intent of the thread . And your arguing a point . Are you now saying it has nothing to do with what is a humane shot ?
TD