Another terminal ballistics theory...see what you think
09-15-2006, 07:26 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,345
Another terminal ballistics theory...see what you think
So everyone one of us have either heard of or know from personal experience that some of the calibers that, on paper, aren't that impressive are pure gold when used within there respected purposes. To me, the 30-30, 6.5X55, and maybe even 7X57. I've heard some theories about the 'moderate' velocity contributing to this. I have read some very good things about lead cast bullet seeing no benefit from velocities over 1200fps...but I digress. All the moderate velocity theories preach a 'hang-time' or 'in-body time' as the missing link to the perfect non-magnum cartridge. I don't buy this at all.
Here's what I'm thinking: The 'moderate' velocities do seem to hold some magical attribute...maybe its nothing other than the fact that people will shoot better with less recoil. Maybe there's more to it. I've not been able to find actual photographs of ballistic gellatin BUT if I recall correctly from what few I have seen there are two wounds. The permanent wound channel and the large mushroom-ing hydrostatic wound. Now, I'm a nursing major believe it or not, and in my biology classes the teachers will every now and then say something useful. The human, and I presume most all mammals, body has numerous safety mechanisms that are nothing short of incredable. They alone could speak for a creationist's cause...but I digress, again! One of these mechanisms is a sped-up vasoconstriction and clotting effect on vessels that have been traumatized. The presise reason an absolutely razor-sharp broadhead is essential. If it had cut without 'pulling' or 'snagging' the tissue it will not illecit this response...and it will penetrate deeper. My theory has to do with the minamization (is that a word?) of tissue traumua...or rather a balance of mechanical trauma and hydrostatic trauma. The smaller the permanent wound channel, while still being adequate, is in realation to the hydrostatic mushroom trauma the less this response is triggered and you in essence are back to comparing a sharp broadhead to a dull broadhead. They both may make complete pass-through...the sharp one will do it with less energy (recoil and velocity) required. AND THE SHARP BROADHEAD STILL WINS IN A LETHALITY CONTEST. If you've taken the time to read this far go ahead and let me know what you think or if I need to clarify something. I'm just having fun brainstorming so you can rip this little theory all to pieces if you'd like.
Here's what I'm thinking: The 'moderate' velocities do seem to hold some magical attribute...maybe its nothing other than the fact that people will shoot better with less recoil. Maybe there's more to it. I've not been able to find actual photographs of ballistic gellatin BUT if I recall correctly from what few I have seen there are two wounds. The permanent wound channel and the large mushroom-ing hydrostatic wound. Now, I'm a nursing major believe it or not, and in my biology classes the teachers will every now and then say something useful. The human, and I presume most all mammals, body has numerous safety mechanisms that are nothing short of incredable. They alone could speak for a creationist's cause...but I digress, again! One of these mechanisms is a sped-up vasoconstriction and clotting effect on vessels that have been traumatized. The presise reason an absolutely razor-sharp broadhead is essential. If it had cut without 'pulling' or 'snagging' the tissue it will not illecit this response...and it will penetrate deeper. My theory has to do with the minamization (is that a word?) of tissue traumua...or rather a balance of mechanical trauma and hydrostatic trauma. The smaller the permanent wound channel, while still being adequate, is in realation to the hydrostatic mushroom trauma the less this response is triggered and you in essence are back to comparing a sharp broadhead to a dull broadhead. They both may make complete pass-through...the sharp one will do it with less energy (recoil and velocity) required. AND THE SHARP BROADHEAD STILL WINS IN A LETHALITY CONTEST. If you've taken the time to read this far go ahead and let me know what you think or if I need to clarify something. I'm just having fun brainstorming so you can rip this little theory all to pieces if you'd like.
