Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 99 of 99

Thread: I have always despised the .380.....but

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by jd950 View Post
    Although I consider the .380 to be far less than optimal, I confess that I do carry one in some situations. I am curious about the hydra shock. There are two versions of this, the P380HS1G and the P380HS1H. I assumed they were the same round packaged differently, but the "H" version can be obtained at lower cost, although the "G" version seems to be what departments who issue this stuff for backup guns seem to spec. Can anyone enlighten me on this?

    I am very leary of Hydra-Shock ammunition in any pistol caliber due to the “Special Comment Regarding the Use of Hydra-Shok Ammunition” Fackler MD, Martin L., IWBA Wound Ballistics Review, Volume 1 Number 4, page 38, wherein Dr. Fackler writes:

    “Because of the effect of the erect post which strikes tissue during bullet penetration before the expanded portion of the bullet, the permanent cavity made by the Hydra-Shok bullets is smaller than bullets of equal expanded diameter which do not have the post.

    This phenomena has been shown by high speed photographic studies and should be recognized intuitively by anyone with an inquisitive mind who truly understands bullet penetration mechanics. The post causes a temporary cavity: this means that the expanded part of the bullet strikes tissue that has already been driven aside somewhat. This bullet will penetrate slightly deeper because a CIRCULAR AREA OF THE BULLET AROUND THE BASE OF THE POST DOES NOT STRIKE TISSUE during the majority of the bullet’s penetrative path.”

    Dr.Fackler also states it can result in overpenetration (or adequate penetration in a 380 with an expanding JHP) which may be desirable in a 380, but the resulting smaller wound diameter MAY also be of concern for those wanting expansion from a 380. In this caliber the Hydra-Shok is a bit of a conundrum, as on one hand we need penetration, while also wanting expansion, and it would seem reasonable that someone choosing a jacketed hollowpoint would do so with the expectation of achieving good expansion. On the other hand, variability in 380 loads in general may make this a moot point in regards to Hydra-Shock ammunition.

    I have not seen any gel tests using properly prepared and controlled ballistic gel that would give us definitive results with this bullet from a 380. Hopefully Dr. Roberts will wade in here for a definitive answer. Until such time, I will not use Hydra-Shok in any pistol caliber, including 380. This includes the latest deep penetrating Hydra-Shok since it still has the post, albeit much wider than the original.

  2. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by RichY View Post
    I have not seen any gel tests using properly prepared and controlled ballistic gel that would give us definitive results with this bullet from a 380. Hopefully Dr. Roberts will wade in here for a definitive answer. Until such time, I will not use Hydra-Shok in any pistol caliber, including 380. This includes the latest deep penetrating Hydra-Shok since it still has the post, albeit much wider than the original.
    Doc spoke about the .380 Hydra Shok in post 22 in this thread. Hydra Shok is one of the few loads in .380 I would consider for carry and the only caliber for which I would use a Hydra Shok bullet.
    Last edited by SWAT Lt.; 05-31-2018 at 09:19 PM.

  3. #93
    I missed the mention of Hydra-Shok entirely. Good catch!

  4. #94
    Site Supporter HeavyDuty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Not very bright but does lack ambition
    Old topic, but it makes sense to ask here instead of starting a new thread.

    I recently picked up a 42 to supplement my old LCP for pocket carry. My preferred EDCs remain a 26 and a 43, but there are many times I have to take a step back to something more discrete.

    I’m trying to determine the hottest load .380 FMJ that I can easily find. Back in the day I’d look in the tables published every year in Gun Digest or the like, but I haven’t seen one of those in years. Is there a good resource on the web for compiled ballistic data, or do I need to hit each individual manufacturer’s website?
    Ken

    BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
    revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”

  5. #95
    Member Holmes375's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Wyoming - corner of No & Where
    You might take a look at the Underwood load with the Lehigh Xtreme Penetrator bullet. The Underwood +P load advertises the 90 gr bullet at 1200 fps, real world chrono from the Glock 42 is close to 1100 fps. They also offer the Lehigh bullet in a load rated as standard pressure that runs about 100 fps slower. I've shot quite a bit of the former through my G42 but have no experience with the latter. Using Paul Harrell-style meat targets, the Underwood/Lehigh load seems very effective. Performance through bone is very good with little tendency to deflect as sometimes seen with standard FMJ loads in similar test targets.

    Here's a MAC video running some gel & barrier tests with the ammo:

  6. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by HeavyDuty View Post
    I’m trying to determine the hottest load .380 FMJ that I can easily find. Back in the day I’d look in the tables published every year in Gun Digest or the like, but I haven’t seen one of those in years. Is there a good resource on the web for compiled ballistic data, or do I need to hit each individual manufacturer’s website?


    http://ballistics101.com/380_acp.php

  7. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by HeavyDuty View Post
    Old topic, but it makes sense to ask here instead of starting a new thread.

    I recently picked up a 42 to supplement my old LCP for pocket carry. My preferred EDCs remain a 26 and a 43, but there are many times I have to take a step back to something more discrete.

    I’m trying to determine the hottest load .380 FMJ that I can easily find. Back in the day I’d look in the tables published every year in Gun Digest or the like, but I haven’t seen one of those in years. Is there a good resource on the web for compiled ballistic data, or do I need to hit each individual manufacturer’s website?

    Hottest is not necessarily best function..... pressure curve and QC is what makes a semi function..... Boutique companies sell velocity to the LCD 's......One K minimum break in then 2-3 hundred of what you'll Cary with no problems.

  8. #98
    Site Supporter HeavyDuty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Not very bright but does lack ambition
    Quote Originally Posted by Velo Dog View Post
    Perfect, that’s exactly what I was looking for. Thanks!
    Ken

    BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
    revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”

  9. #99
    Site Supporter HeavyDuty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Not very bright but does lack ambition
    Quote Originally Posted by Navin Johnson View Post
    Hottest is not necessarily best function..... pressure curve and QC is what makes a semi function..... Boutique companies sell velocity to the LCD 's......One K minimum break in then 2-3 hundred of what you'll Cary with no problems.
    Thanks, but I was looking for a data source.
    Ken

    BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
    revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •