Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Hydra-Shok Deep Review

  1. #11
    Hammertime
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Desert Southwest
    Quote Originally Posted by WDR View Post
    I spy a Gadget.

    How cool! @Tom_Jones one for your collection.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Tokarev View Post
    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.
    Last edited by the Schwartz; 08-15-2019 at 05:02 PM.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by the Schwartz View Post

    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

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Tokarev View Post
    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.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.

  5. #15
    Member OMWAG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Aston, PA
    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

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by OMWAG View Post
    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.

  7. #17
    Member OMWAG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Aston, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by Velo Dog View Post
    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.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Velo Dog View Post
    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.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.

  9. #19
    Member Balisong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Arizona
    Quote Originally Posted by Tokarev View Post
    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.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Balisong View Post
    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

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
  •