Quote:

---

But is hydrostatic shock something to be considered or is it a myth?

---

I've never shot a tiger.

However, when shooting an aquaeous medium, hydraulic effect can be easily observed as I have done on many occaisions in testing bullets in my media.

That does not mean that a cartridge that produces the most dramatic effect on water-based media is going to necessarily produce the best killing or stopping results on any given animal. Penetration and the ability of the bullet to break bone, etc must be adequate as well.

The best way I know to "draw the picture" for you is to contrast the hydraulic effect of round-nose sixgun bullets {.e.g 700-1200 fps} with high velocity rifle rounds {by that I mean .e.g .30-06, etc}. Many sixgun bullets will penetrate an identical depth to the high velocity rounds in ballistic media. However, when shooting water, for example, the effect of the strike is very much different between the two types of rounds. Where a sixgun bullet may penetrate, the effect on the media is much less than with the "rifle" rounds. It is easily observable and it is dramatic.

It is much more difficult to compare the effect of rifle rounds that are closer in velocity to each other than the extremes represented by the round nose sixgun bullet and the rifle round. Just exactly where the effect of "hydraulic shock" or whatever you want to call it occurs is difficult to say. Military testing and combat experience indicates that the shift from "heavy, slow" round nose military bullets in the 2000 fps range to "light, fast" spitzers of 2400 + fps {after the introduction of the German 154 grain "S" bullet at 2800 fps c. 1905} brought with it a dramatic increase in traumatic hydraulic effect.

There, clear as mud!!

--------------------
What are the Rosary, the Cross or the Crucifix other than tools to help maintain the fortress of our faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

Post Extras