Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 110

Thread: Something to keep an eye out for: Hydra-Shok Deep .380

  1. #31
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Southern NV
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Dobbs View Post
    You just revived a curiosity on wadcutters vs auto glass. I'm guessing the factory swaged target loads would fail miserably on laminated glass, but would a relatively hard cast WC loaded to full power (say 800 fps or more) possibly make it? That's a test that should be done.
    From DocGKR in 2018 in the "Wadcutters vs. Hollowpoints for snubnose carry" thread:

    Question:

    Have you tested standard wadcutters through auto glass?
    Doc's answer:

    Of course.....about 2 decades ago. It is all about the hardness of the lead and the launch velocity when confronting glass. Harder lead WC's at 744 fps went 14"; softer lead WC's at 651 fps only went 9". Next time we gel test, I'll see if we can shoot some current factory WC's through some auto windshield glass.
    Last edited by SiriusBlunder; 01-16-2020 at 01:17 PM.

  2. #32
    FWIW, dropping a link to the Vista press release. Same copy, but there's an enlargeable photo where you can get a glimpse of (allegedly) the .380 P380HSD1 bullet/post design.

    http://media.vistaoutdoor.com/news/p...nd=5&year=2020

  3. #33
    Member Baldanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Rural North Central NC
    I don't even own a .380, but considering that .38+p HPs in 2" barrels are still riding that thin line between expansion and underpenetration, I don't see the reason to switch my rule of thumb of FMJ/non-expanding bullets for everything in .380 and under. Under bullets have smart materials, sensors, and brains enough to modulate optimal expansion and penetration, I think we are solidly on a plateau for terminal performance.

    I applaud attempts to boost performance, however. I'm no engineer. I would love to be wrong.
    REPETITION CREATES BELIEF
    REPETITION BUILDS THE SEPARATE WORLDS WE LIVE AND DIE IN
    NO EXCEPTIONS

  4. #34
    Member jd950's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    In the flyover zone
    I have somewhat grudgingly migrated from J frame .38 revolvers to a .380 in certain roles (on-duty backup and extreme lightweight concealed carry in low threat environments). I find they conceal easier and that I can shoot them better than I can a super light J frame, I can carry spare ammo more effectively and I can get one or two more rounds in the smaller size gun. I still have the J frames and still like them in certain situations, but I can carry a small 9 in most situations where I would carry a J frame, and can carry a .380 where the revolver won't easily fit.

    Clearly a compromise, but so is a 2" J frame. I have and will continue to watch .380 ammo developments with interest.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    In fairness, they aren't claiming a pass for auto glass, only bare gel and heavy clothing.
    Given that the .380 is not a commonly issued primary-issue caliber for LE field operations and the limits imposed by its lower power level, I am not sure that this new offering's ability to pass all of the F.B.I. test protocols was ever the goal of Federal/ATK.

    What I am getting at is that when/where departments/agencies do issue a weapon chambered in .380, it is done so most often in the capacity of a ''back-up'' weapon. Since ''back-up'' weapons are used under somewhat different circumstances than a primary duty weapon, perhaps the ability of the round to pass only those two protocols was all that Federal/ATK was interested in satisfying?
    ''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.

  6. #36
    Modding this sack of shit BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by the Schwartz View Post
    Given that the .380 is not a commonly issued primary-issue caliber for LE field operations and the limits imposed by its lower power level, I am not sure that this new offering's ability to pass all of the F.B.I. test protocols was ever the goal of Federal/ATK.

    What I am getting at is that when/where departments/agencies do issue a weapon chambered in .380, it is done so most often in the capacity of a ''back-up'' weapon. Since ''back-up'' weapons are used under somewhat different circumstances than a primary duty weapon, perhaps the ability of the round to pass only those two protocols was all that Federal/ATK was interested in satisfying?
    I doubt it was the goal, just the marketing looking like it was specifically written to make the casual reader think it had was the reason for that sidebar.

    I also get the notion of niche cartridges for niche uses. With the availability of so many solid 9mm offerings like the Shield available for on duty BUG use these days I don't know how much .380 fills that for on duty LEOs these days, but that's probably beyond the scope of the topic. For those who do elect to carry a .380, if this is an improvement then I welcome it.
    Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.

  7. #37
    Member jd950's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    In the flyover zone
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    With the availability of so many solid 9mm offerings like the Shield available for on duty BUG use these days I don't know how much .380 fills that for on duty LEOs these days
    Although I rarely wear a uniform, my P380 is almost unnoticeable on a vest carrier and also an easy fit in the front back pocket of jeans or dress slacks or uniform pants and it has replaced a Seecamp .32 in those roles. If one was so inclined, it can even go in little holster on a neck chain, although that is not my thing. Kind of a modern vest pocket gun, like the little .25 pistols were back in the old days. The other thing I like is that for the most part every gun I carry, on duty and off, is a DAO semi auto and I believe there is value in that. But yes, a niche gun really, and when carried, very very rarely the only gun carried.

    In a .380 I like the idea of good penetration with some possibility of some sort of ragged edge or expansion or something that might make it a little more likely to inspire greater blood loss and less likely to glance off bones than ball ammo. I don't care about windshields or car doors. I have been carrying Hornady XTP. I look forward to seeing some useful tests of this new round.

  8. #38
    Took these pics today at SHOT:





    Last edited by spyderco monkey; 01-22-2020 at 01:22 AM.

  9. #39
    Site Supporter ccmdfd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southeastern NC
    Does "heavy clothing" always refer to 4 layers denim, or are they allowed to use whatever they want for that definition?

    cc

  10. #40
    I seem to remember a thread on another forum a couple years back where a confirmed medical examiner and avid shooter agreed to answer a few questions and give his opinions on various calibers and bullet types. Anybody else see this? I could be wrong but iirc I think he said that a huge majority of the .380 he sees is FMJ (because those shot with SJHP’s tend to survive?). Hydra Shok deep seems pretty promising in other calibers, so if can really reach 12” consistently that would be very interesting indeed. There’s been so much talk the last few years about ammo tech advancement leading to much much better performance in 9mm, I always wondered if this would trickle down to .380 as well. . .

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
  •