You continue to state that you provide facts, but then fail to provide those facts or answer simple questions. So, I will ask again. Where did this "generally accepted" minimum recommended ft-lb threshold come from and what actual research, scientific or otherwise, was used to come up with it? Also, how many ft-lbs of energy is required to push a bullet 12-18" into an elk?
As for the posting regarding hydrostatic shock and hydraulic shock, I am quite familiar with Nathan's work. I have read it quite often. I do however wonder why it is that you believe what he has written without a shred of doubt, however casually dismiss the experiences and write ups of the member here, some who are even published (perish the thought).
Along with the loss of consciousness, the projectile has also created a large wound channel, draining all of the body’s blood within several seconds. The loss of blood and damage to vital organs cause death to the animal before it has the chance to regain consciousness. This action creates the illusion that the projectile has knocked its victim to the ground, killing it instantly. More careful examination shows that the shot caused coma, followed by blood loss, followed by death.
So, even Nathan agrees that hydrostatic shock isn't what kills. It is blood loss, plain and simple. The shock only keeps the animal static until death occurs.
A heavy yet soft and frangible or partially frangible projectile (loses some weight) may not deliver hydrostatic shock very far depending on game body weights, but providing the cluster is dense enough, it will be capable of rendering deep, broad and highly traumatic wounding across a wide range of body weights. Good frangible bullet designs can continue to produce mechanical wounding and a measure of hydraulic shock down to impact velocities of 1600fps with some exceptional projectiles continuing to produce excellent performance down to velocities as low as 1400fps.
And here we see Nathan also using the same unit of measurement that most of the people who you are disagreeing with on this thread. Namely bullet velocity. I wonder why that is?
Bla bla bla, i guess you have a reading comprehension deficit as well. The link i just sent states multiple scientific studies on hydraulic and hydrostatic shock. Actual peer reviewed studies.
Arrows spears and knives do not cause either of those nor a secondary wound cavity. So you're wrong. Guys are keen on chasing velocity because it extends range and minimizes wind drift and other variables, not because it increases wounding with an arrow. With an arrow there's zero difference in the wound it creates whether its going 10 feet per second, or 400 feet per second. Arrows and spears dont drop animals in thier tracks unless they hit the brain or spine, because they dont produce hydraulic shock. So you're wrong on those points. However I agreed that lack of oxygen due to wounding is what kills.
So I am wrong on what points? That hydraulic and hydrostatic shock don't actually kill an animal? They don't and the abstract (and the actual papers that were used to create that abstract) as well as your other trusted source, Nathan, agrees. Also, if those things do actually kill, how can you then agree that lack of oxygen to the brain due to wounding is what kills? You continue to state that those who disagree with you have a reading comprehension problem, but is pretty difficult to grasp the meaning of something when you cannot even be coherent in your responses, or you continue to post conflicting information.
How do you go about proving penetration ability? By using a consisting media similar to tissue, like ballistics gel with bone and hide on it. Theres plenty of scientifice and engineering studies out there showing exactly what ive said. Guessing you have never seen that testing or data yourself? Or you believe Billy Bob's claims of killing elk at 500yards with a 22 lr?
There is no ballistic gel test that can replicate game animals in their entirety. As for "scientific and engineering studies", there are actually not as many as you think. Most of the ones you are probably thinking of are done by bullet manufacturers and are hardly scientific. The FBI study on handgun bullet penetration is probably the most famous one that I would call "scientific".
Other testing also done by shooting animals, typically goats or pigs and dissecting the bullet path. Terminal ballistics research site has plenty data directly from goat culling. The fbi and department of defense also have testing data using pigs and goats, before transitioning to ballistics gel. Plenty of data and facts out there, which I've quoted. Sorry they dont support your opinion.
And here we get to the real meat. So you agree that testing in animals, and documenting the findings is a form of study and fact. So, why then do you no believe the pages and pages of data in various threads on this forum? I suppose it is because a couple hundred people got together via some dark-web social media site and conspired to try to change years of "generally accepted" information in the hopes that more people would go out and wound elk, deer, caribou, bears, and other game animals, right?
Welcome back to the forum redneckbmxer. I wonder how long you will last this time.
