Hydra-Shok Deep Review

[Tokarev]

Something I found this morning while making my usual rounds.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2019/8/14/field-tested-federal-hydra-shok-deep-personal-defense-ammunition/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0F1m5yv-4
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[WDR]

I spy a Gadget.

Its an interesting bullet, but I'm not sure its better than HST.

[Speederlander]

Here's another (tntoutdoors):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p02Q8cQ8e5A

[Velo Dog]

More testing of the 9mm Hydra-Shok Deep

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I-vL9ZPoTo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygu7-JjX0gg

Seems to perform well

[Redhat]

Why would they do this...introduce a competitor to their HST line?

Is it going to be more affordable or something?

[the Schwartz]

Why would they do this...introduce a competitor to their HST line?

Is it going to be more affordable or something?

Competition for marketshare.

[Tokarev]

Competition for marketshare.Classic Hydra-Shok is getting a little long in the tooth. Good ammo in 1988 but not so much in 2019. Hopefully the new Deep will replace the legacy bullet across the product line.



Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[the Schwartz]

Classic Hydra-Shok is getting a little long in the tooth. Good ammo in 1988 but not so much in 2019. Hopefully the new Deep will replace the legacy bullet across the product line.

It sure is.

As a young Deputy Sheriff in the late 80s, the 9mm Hydra Shok (in 147-grain "flavor") was the first ammunition that I was ever issued along with the S&W 5906. Despite the amount of "bad press" that it has received over the following decades, we never had a problem with it at all and never lost an officer over the time that I served with that agency.

After finding new (and much higher-paying) LE employment in late 1995, I was surprised to find that the issued ammunition (issued service weapon was the Sig P226), was the same Federal 9mm 147-grain Hydra Shok JHP as my prior employer and that my new agency had experienced the same great results with it.

I am hoping to see some independent testing of the new "Deep" iteration in 10% gelatin (of course) soon, hopefully across all calibers.

Do you have plans to do any testing?

[Tokarev]

Why would they do this...introduce a competitor to their HST line?

Is it going to be more affordable or something?


I imagine the same question was asked when the HST was introduced. Why make a bullet that competes against the Hydra-Shok.

[Tokarev]

Do you have plans to do any testing?

Nothing presently. I have been trying to keep an eye out locally but haven't been able to find any.

Actually what I'd kind of like to do is pull a couple and load them into 357 Mag. See if I can't get ~ 1,100 fps from a 2" snub. Mostly just curious but if I can get a relatively soft shooting 9mm +P load from a snub (and it works well in gel) I might email Federal.

[Doc_Glock]

I spy a Gadget.



How cool! Tom_Jones one for your collection.

[the Schwartz]

Nothing presently. I have been trying to keep an eye out locally but haven't been able to find any.

Actually what I'd kind of like to do is pull a couple and load them into 357 Mag. See if I can't get ~ 1,100 fps from a 2" snub. Mostly just curious but if I can get a relatively soft shooting 9mm +P load from a snub (and it works well in gel) I might email Federal.

That's an interesting idea.

IIRC, the Federal .38 Special 129-grain Hydra Shok +P offered erratic expansion from our snubs; even in our gelatin tests, it expanded less than 20% of the time.

Perhaps a 0.355" - .357" 147-grain HS-Deep (allowing that the design can produce as promised/hoped) at 1,100 fps is the answer; oughtta be plenty of "on-board horse-power" out of a load like that to drive expansion.

Hopefully, the under-bore dimensions will not play havoc with your testing. Bullets hitting gelatin at significant yaw really screw things up IME.

I've just completed water-testing of a few different light-weight 9mm JHPs (in the 80 - 90 grain range) with surprising results for inclusion in an article elsewhere and look forward to seeing what you come up with in your testing (in the high sectional-density realm) whenever you get around to doing it.

[Tokarev]

I've just completed water-testing of a few different light-weight 9mm JHPs (in the 80 - 90 grain range) with surprising results for inclusion in an article elsewhere and look forward to seeing what you come up with in your testing (in the high sectional-density realm) whenever you get around to doing it.

I messed around with a Barnes 380 bullet in a 9mm some time back. I don't remember exactly but don't think I ever got more than about 10" of penetration.


Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[the Schwartz]

I messed around with a Barnes 380 bullet in a 9mm some time back. I don't remember exactly but don't think I ever got more than about 10" of penetration.


Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk


That has been my experience with the light-weight bullets intended for the .380 fired from the 9mm, too. Post-expansion sectional density is directly dependent upon starting out with as much material (bullet mass) as possible and retaining as much of it as possible after expansion is completed to whatever degree that is.

If there ain't much there to begin, then there probably ain't gonna be much left afterwards either. :D

[OMWAG]

My EDC is a 9mm Walther PPS M2 with a 3.2 inch barrel. I consider barrel length critical in ammo testing (because it is.) I routinely look for new 9mm tests. Ammoquest on YouTube has extensively tested 9mm JHP as well as 380 out of short barrels. I used to load 147 gr Federal HST. After watching the Ammoquest 9mm test series I changed to Winchester Defend and practice with the accompanying Train ammo. The link is to the wrap up of the extensive testing. If noting else, it provokes some thought. For me it meant changing ammo


https://youtu.be/xc5n_JsY3aw

[Velo Dog]

My EDC is a 9mm Walther PPS M2 with a 3.2 inch barrel...After watching the Ammoquest 9mm test series I changed to Winchester Defend...https://youtu.be/xc5n_JsY3aw

Then you might be interested in this intermediate barrier testing of the 147gr. bonded Winchester from a 3.1" barrel

https://www.ammunitiontogo.com/lodge/barriers-and-ammo/

It is a good bullet.

[OMWAG]

Then you might be interested in this intermediate barrier testing of the 147gr. bonded Winchester from a 3.1" barrel

https://www.ammunitiontogo.com/lodge/barriers-and-ammo/

It is a good bullet.

Thanks for posting the link. Very informative video that makes me feel secure in my choice of ammo.

[the Schwartz]

Then you might be interested in this intermediate barrier testing of the 147gr. bonded Winchester from a 3.1" barrel

https://www.ammunitiontogo.com/lodge/barriers-and-ammo/

It is a good bullet.

Dang it. :(

I'd hoped that the linked test series was conducted using 10% gelatin instead of the CBG stuff that Lucky Gunner used in theirs.

[Balisong]

I imagine the same question was asked when the HST was introduced. Why make a bullet that competes against the Hydra-Shok.

More confusing to me is why the hell they still make Hydra Shok when the HST line seems to outperform it across the board in all areas, and has been well established for a long time now.

[mmc45414]

More confusing to me is why the hell they still make Hydra Shok when the HST line seems to outperform it across the board in all areas, and has been well established for a long time now.

It is probably something as simple as people continuing to buy it, and if they quit making it there is no guarantee they will switch that revenue to HST instead of another brand.


Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[Chuck Whitlock]

More confusing to me is why the hell they still make Hydra Shok when the HST line seems to outperform it across the board in all areas, and has been well established for a long time now.

HST = Hi-Shok Two

Hi-Shok was the legacy JHP such as the 9BP and 9PBLE.

https://www.sgammo.com/product/federal-ammo-sale/50-round-box-9mm-luger-federal-classic-hi-shok-115-grain-jhp-hollow-point-


Rebranding, ad infinitum.