Holy crap! Death by shock wave.

Wow

This Aggie has a different observation

87txag said:

---

Holy crap! Death by shock wave.

---

No

No thanks. I'll stick to my .270 through the vitals.

Austin Ag said:

---

This Aggie has a different observation

---

While i agree that a near miss will not do anything other than make ya piss yourself, hitting you in a location would otherwise be non-lethal could very well kill you due to the vortex.

Air density is too low and cause very little momentum loss to a bullet (through drag) while the velocity/mass of the bullet this size going through something more dense like soft tissue and blood will create a large momentum loss and transfer a lot of energy to the surrounding tissue/organs.

This is neglecting the idea of bullet expansion/shrapnel but the more deceleration caused (drag again), the more energy will be left in the body through vortices

So if the near miss isn't fatal what caused the deer to die in the OP video?

Fishin Texas Aggie 05 said:

---

So if the near miss isn't fatal what caused the deer to die in the OP video?

---

He didn't miss it.

The eyeballs weren't "sucked out" by the bullet passing, he hit that deer in the left eye socket and it exited the right.

If 50 bmg had a "shockwave" capable of killing a deer and sucking out its eyeballs, it would rip the paper and cardboard right off the target frame when you shot it. But it doesn't, it leaves neat little .5 inch holes.

Video is stupid.

Yep, I saw this video on a different message board as well and their conclusion was he shot it through one eye and exited the other. Their reference for a .50 bmg not having a lethal concussion? The demolition ranch video above, glad to see an Aggie doing good work and educating folks!

That old man is an idiot.

The real question is:

What would a near miss do to a hog's nuts?

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

The real question is:

What would a near miss do to a hog's nuts?

---

I feel like this is something we need to find out

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

The real question is:

What would a near miss do to a hog's nuts?

---

You could always do a Texas heart shot... For humane reasons.

Warren just re-confirmed my two cents that he is a washed up, attention hoar deush.

I had typed up an email to tell him so a few years ago when I saw his TV show and he pulverized the shoulders of a pronghorn with a .338 Lapua at 150 yards.

At the time I didn't hit send. Should have.

that was keith warren?

hadn't seen him for awhile and although I'm no spring chicken, he's ummm, aged quite a bit

and that doe looked like it still had an eyeball

redass1876 said:

---

Air density is too low and cause very little momentum loss to a bullet (through drag) while the velocity/mass of the bullet this size going through something more dense like soft tissue and blood will create a large momentum loss and transfer a lot of energy to the surrounding tissue/organs.

---

There are certain key buzz words that come up again and again when people start talking about outdated and incorrect concepts regarding how bullets behave in tissue.

This is one of them.

Start with Dr. Facklers work on temporary and permanent wound cavities to start.

A good quote from one of his papers on the subject:

Quote:

---

Serious misunderstanding has been generated by looking upon "kinetic energy transfer" from projectile to tissue as a mechanism of injury. In spite of data to the contrary (1, 63), many assume that the amount of "kinetic energy deposit" in the body by a projectile is a measure of damage (2-5, 36, 37, 40). Such opinions ignore the direct interaction of projectile and tissue that is the crux of wound ballistics. Wounds that result in a given amount of "kinetic energy deposit" may differ widely.

---

Energy transfer is not a good metric of tissue damage or bullet effectiveness.

Idiots. Sorry. But idiots.

If we are serious about maintaining our hunting rights for our grandchildren we are gonna need more Steven Rinellas and fewer Keith Warrens in the world.

Guy's a joke. Trying to be a sniper on a doe. Why not Shoot paper?

No respect and think he's a ******. Never liked that guy.

BenderRodriguez said:

---

redass1876 said:

---

Air density is too low and cause very little momentum loss to a bullet (through drag) while the velocity/mass of the bullet this size going through something more dense like soft tissue and blood will create a large momentum loss and transfer a lot of energy to the surrounding tissue/organs.

---

There are certain key buzz words that come up again and again when people start talking about outdated and incorrect concepts regarding how bullets behave in tissue.

This is one of them.

Start with Dr. Facklers work on temporary and permanent wound cavities to start.

A good quote from one of his papers on the subject:

Quote:

---

Serious misunderstanding has been generated by looking upon "kinetic energy transfer" from projectile to tissue as a mechanism of injury. In spite of data to the contrary (1, 63), many assume that the amount of "kinetic energy deposit" in the body by a projectile is a measure of damage (2-5, 36, 37, 40). Such opinions ignore the direct interaction of projectile and tissue that is the crux of wound ballistics. Wounds that result in a given amount of "kinetic energy deposit" may differ widely.

---

Energy transfer is not a good metric of tissue damage or bullet effectiveness.

---

Just leave it as the law of conservation of momentum then... .All deceleration of the bullet inside the target relative to the bullet's mass will be transferred to the mass that it is passing through. That much is not even debatable

redass1876 said:

---

Just leave it as the law of conservation of momentum then... .All deceleration of the bullet inside the target relative to the bullet's mass will be transferred to the mass that it is passing through. That much is not even debatable

---

.....or just double down on bad info instead of researching what I'd provided. Either/or.

I'm not arguing energy transfer doesn't occur. It just doesn't really matter when it comes to wound ballistics....as even 5 minutes of looking into any of the research done on ballistics and how bullets behave in tissue over the last few decades would show you.

The reason the deer looks so intact here is despite all the "energy transfer" that occurred when the bullet passed through the deer, the round did not tumble or yaw, creating a very small permanent wound cavity, allowing this guy to create a fake ass video trying to claim the deer died from the shockwave of a near miss.

The deer was headshot, the round icepicked right through, and the minimal amount of visible damage is because tissue is resilient and temporary wound cavities created by "energy transfer" don't matter much. The .50 hole right through the eye on the other hand, does matter.

BMCaginLTX said:

---

If we are serious about maintaining our hunting rights for our grandchildren we are gonna need more Steven Rinellas and fewer Keith Warrens in the world.

---

I wish I could give you more blue stars

Keith Warren is an idiot. He was going around a couple years ago pretty much telling everyone that CWD was government conspiracy.

Energy transfer will be mechanical and thermal. The thermal component is negligible and because flesh is mostly water it can absorb a lot of thermal energy with relatively little temperature change.

The mechanical component is of course the bullet trying to flow through the target at high velocity, but the flesh can't flow out of the way fast enough, which builds up a sort of "bow wave" of compressed flesh ahead of the bullet that traumatizes a larger diameter of tissue than the expanding diameter of the bullet.

This effect causes internal stretching and tearing as it passes through, but flesh is some tough, resilient stuff.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

This effect causes internal stretching and tearing as it passes through,

---

I have the same effect.

BenderRodriguez said:

---

redass1876 said:

---

Just leave it as the law of conservation of momentum then... .All deceleration of the bullet inside the target relative to the bullet's mass will be transferred to the mass that it is passing through. That much is not even debatable

---

.....or just double down on bad info instead of researching what I'd provided. Either/or.

I'm not arguing energy transfer doesn't occur. It just doesn't really matter when it comes to wound ballistics....as even 5 minutes of looking into any of the research done on ballistics and how bullets behave in tissue over the last few decades would show you.

The reason the deer looks so intact here is despite all the "energy transfer" that occurred when the bullet passed through the deer, the round did not tumble or yaw, creating a very small permanent wound cavity, allowing this guy to create a fake ass video trying to claim the deer died from the shockwave of a near miss.

The deer was headshot, the round icepicked right through, and the minimal amount of visible damage is because tissue is resilient and temporary wound cavities created by "energy transfer" don't matter much. The .50 hole right through the eye on the other hand, does matter.

---

You have to work fairly hard to de-stabilize a projectile enough to get a tumble or yaw effect. Most of the time it requires hitting something solid - bone is ideal. Even huge chunks of flesh sometimes aren't enough to really cause enough distortion in a projectile path (excluding any designed expansion, fragmentation or other means of ballistic modification) to get a tumble or yaw effect. Most of the time the projectile has to be at or near trans-sonic to get such an effect.

A .50BMG at 60 yards isn't going to notice something as marginal as a deer eye socket. Especially when it's a FMJ round that will punch through 1/2" A36 plate at 500 yards.

schmellba99 said:

---

A .50BMG at 60 yards isn't going to notice something as marginal as a deer eye socket.

---

this is pretty much all that needs to be said. it just reiterates that Keith Warren an idiot, a liar or both.

AggieChemist said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

This effect causes internal stretching and tearing as it passes through,

---

I have the same effect.

---

No one wants to talk about you putting on your pants in the morning.

Keith Warren. Never liked the guy. Seemed to me that he was always flippant about taking animals lives. Just never liked his demeanor about hunting in general with all the canned hunts he was on.

To act like that was some sort of accomplishment is silly.

If he wants to examine head shots and pretend he's some sort of sniper, he could go to Syria

Irish_Man said:

---

That old man is an idiot.

---

I agree. That is seriously ******ed to shoot a doe with a 50 caliber. What an idiot.

DayAg! said:

---

Keith Warren. Never liked the guy. Seemed to me that he was always flippant about taking animals lives. Just never liked his demeanor about hunting in general with all the canned hunts he was on.

---

Yeah, that whole video really just rubbed me the wrong way. I really only watched because I expected to see an absolute bloody wreck made out of that doe's head.

And for this guy who holds himself out as an expert on guns and hunting to not recognize that his shot blasted straight through the eyes is just so freaking absurd I don't know where to begin.

I probably have less knowledge when it comes to firearms and ballistics than 90% of the dudes on here but it's pretty damn clear what happened.