Actually, Adama, this myth rises from a stance bearing less common sense than the so-called hydrostatic shock theory. It rises from the misconception that a bullet inflicts damage only due to its speed. A bullet, or any other projectile, inflicts damage due to the mechanical energy that it carries, related to both the speed and the mass it has. The hydrostatic shock is neither a theory nor a hallucination, Adama. It's a physical factor comprised in any mechanical dispersion phenomena, where liquids or liquid-based substances are the trasmitting media. But regarding ballistics, it's dependant on the situational generality in order to turn out a significant factor of wound mechanics, or not. However there are not many opportunities to poll around survivors of shot wounds (not because there are not many survivors but because they don't give a damn about wound ballistics at the moment they get shot), there is anyway a significant chance of study in corpses. Forensics have a significant interest in wound ballistics. Yes, there are unsustained claims of advocates of light calibers that say that hydrostatic shock empowers the ballistics of a small round and therefore they're useful for combat or something, you pick the claim. And they're generally wrong, cause actually hydrostatic shock is noticed with high energy ammunition, most likely mid- to big-calibered rounds of the highest mass threshold in their respective categories, and rounds from high powered rifles. Hydrostatic shock, is present in each and every gunshot and gun wound, but it's measurably significant according to the whole of the factors involving the event, such as shot distance, caliber, bullet impact mechanics, bullet speed at the impact point, bullet weight, target resistance, angle of impact, and the breaking/penetration ratio. All of them are involved in the absortion of the mechanical energy of the projectile, which is in the end the prime factor of wound ballistics. Now, this "remote wounding" doesn't involve things like breaking a bone in the leg when getting shot near the collar bone. Most likely, it involves the chance of things like injuring the brachial plexus when getting shot in the lower chest, or even in the abdomen. It will essentially depend on the intensity of shockwaves dispersed into the body, not easily defined the latter just on a mention of caliber. But, again, on the whole situational generality of the event. This "remote wounding" is generally noticed with the use of high-energy ammunition at medium or short range. In a sideline, mechanical wave dispersion is so a reality that this is the reason that however feasible it is to shoot a firearm when being underwater, it is generally unwise. When Glock released a pistol model that can be shot underwater, said feature was intended as a last-resort option, not as a mainstream application. Cause for one, being water a more dense media than air, if the shooter has the head submersed as well at the moment of shooting, he's likely to get deaf because of the ballistic crack. And for the other, one of the first testers of this type of application was peeing with blood a couple of hours later, and taken to the hospital to discover kidney injure due to the mechanical vibrations of the ballistic crack. This same type of mechanical dispersion can be detected throughout the human body, but as I said, its effects will be dependant on the general factors.