Editing Hydrostatic shock (section)

{{Short description|Controversial theory in terminal ballistics}}
{{distinguish|Hydraulic shock}}

[[Image:TBIpwave.jpg|400px|right|thumb|Average time until incapacitation decreases rapidly with pressure wave magnitude as magnitudes approach {{convert|500|psi|abbr=on}}. See: ''Links between traumatic brain injury and ballistic pressure waves originating in the thoracic cavity and extremities.'' Brain Injury 21(7): 657–662, 2007.<ref name="fn_(110)"/>]]
 
'''Hydrostatic shock''', also known as '''hydro-shock''', is the controversial concept that a penetrating projectile (such as a bullet) can produce a pressure wave that causes "remote neural damage", "subtle damage in neural tissues" and "rapid effects" in living targets.<ref name="arxiv.org" /><ref>Deadly fighting skills of the world, Steve Crawford (1999) pp. 68–69</ref><ref>AK-47: the weapon that changed the face of the war, Larry Kahaner, John Wiley and Sons (2007) p. 32</ref> It has also been suggested that pressure wave effects can cause indirect bone fractures at a distance from the projectile path, although it was later demonstrated that indirect bone fractures are caused by temporary cavity effects (strain placed on the bone by the radial tissue displacement produced by the temporary cavity formation).<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257599993|title=Determining the wounding effects of ballistic projectiles to inform future injury models: a systematic review|last=John Breeze, A J Sedman, G R James, T W Newbery, A E Hepper|date=December 23, 2014}}</ref>

Proponents of the concept argue that hydrostatic shock can produce remote neural damage and produce incapacitation more quickly than blood loss effects.<ref name="arxiv.org">{{cite arXiv | eprint = 0803.3051 |title=Scientific Evidence for Hydrostatic Shock | author1 = Michael Courtney | author2 = Amy Courtney | class = physics.med-ph | year = 2008}}</ref> In arguments about the differences in [[stopping power]] between [[caliber]]s and between [[cartridge (firearms)|cartridge]] models, proponents of cartridges that are "light and fast" (such as the [[9×19mm Parabellum]]) versus cartridges that are "slow and heavy" (such as the [[.45 ACP]]) often refer to this phenomenon.

[[Martin Fackler]] has argued that sonic pressure waves do not cause tissue disruption and that temporary cavity formation is the actual cause of tissue disruption mistakenly ascribed to sonic pressure waves.<ref name="fn_(9)">{{cite web|url=http://www.btammolabs.com/fackler/shock_wave_myth.pdf|title=The Shockwave Myth|work=Fackler ML: Literature Review and Comment. Wound Ballistics Review Winter 1991: pp38–40.|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080528021652/http://www.btammolabs.com/fackler/shock_wave_myth.pdf|archive-date=May 28, 2008|url-status=usurped|access-date=April 11, 2007}}</ref> One review noted that strong opinion divided papers on whether the pressure wave contributes to wound injury.<ref name=":0" /> It ultimately concluded that no "conclusive evidence could be found for permanent pathological effects produced by the pressure wave".