Guy Sagi writes about HST and Hydra Shok

[Tokarev]

https://www.wideners.com/blog/federa...vs-hydra-shok/

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[OlongJohnson]

I'd be more interested to see it in real gel, and compare standard pressure against standard pressure.

[the Schwartz]

I'd be more interested to see it in real gel, and compare standard pressure against standard pressure.

Same here.

Every time I hear about a ''gel test'' and see that—yet again—that damnable polymer shit has been used, well...I feel like a kid who has unwrapped a present on Christmas morning only to discover that Santa strangled the puppy I was s'posed to get and left it in the box instead of a toy. /grim humor

[BehindBlueI's]

It’s not uncommon to hear claims that Hydra-Shok sometimes exhibits unreliable expansion after passing through clothing or other barriers.

Those claims are true, especially in big/slow like standard pressure .45 Auto.

[03RN]

Those claims are true, especially in big/slow like standard pressure .45 Auto.

Iirc the .357s actually do pretty well.

[BehindBlueI's]

Iirc the .357s actually do pretty well.

.357 magnum is the only cartridge I personally use them for. Light/fast makes them work...but they probably still will not stay in a human body when fired from a duty sized revolver.

[jetfire]

I'd be more interested to see it in real gel, and compare standard pressure against standard pressure.

The readily available nature and proliferation of Clear Ballistics product has produced an interesting side result; namely that we now have an enormous amount of information that's been collected by both amateurs and professionals shooting various rounds into it. We've learned a lot of interesting stuff too; for example the Clear Ballistics products don't work great with rifle rounds, but generally work well with pistol rounds. We've also seen that rounds that are known excellent performers such as HST, Gold Dots, etc, perform excellently in Clear Ballistics as they do in 10% gel and inside of people. We've also seen that pistol rounds that don't perform well in 10% gel and are known to not perform well in real shootings also don't perform well in the Clear Ballistics product.

If we understand the limits of the clear ballistics product, that it's not ordnance gel and definitely won't work correctly with rifle rounds, what we do have is a quality controlled product that we have a massive database of relevant, side by side comparisons of many different types of pistol ammo.

[Brian T]

Both bullet designs have been around the block and have a track record of performance.

Both cartridges perform the self-defense bullet mission with enviable dexterity.

Both bullets shine in the FBI testing protocol that has become the industry’s gold standard for terminal performance.

In our Hydra-Shok ballistic test, we fired five rounds using a Glock 45 pistol with a 4″ barrel. The ammunition used was Federal Premium LE Hydra-Shok 124gr JHP. We used the FBI standard distance of 10ft, shooting into two gel blocks with a four-layer fabric barrier. One round fully expanded, four showed partial expansion, and all captured some of the fabric material in the well.

Hmmmm....

[the Schwartz]

Thank you for posting this.

The widespread misinformation relating to the clear ballistics clear polymer gel product seem to ''make the 'rounds'' every few months and it is always a good opportunity to revisit the deficiencies/failures of the clear polymer gel product whenever they're resurrected.

The readily available nature and proliferation of Clear Ballistics product has produced an interesting side result; namely that we now have an enormous amount of information that's been collected by both amateurs and professionals shooting various rounds into it. We've learned a lot of interesting stuff too; for example the Clear Ballistics products don't work great with rifle rounds, but generally work well with pistol rounds. We've also seen that rounds that are known excellent performers such as HST, Gold Dots, etc, perform excellently in Clear Ballistics as they do in 10% gel and inside of people. We've also seen that pistol rounds that don't perform well in 10% gel and are known to not perform well in real shootings also don't perform well in the Clear Ballistics product.

A massive database of bad data is still composed of bad data. Massive quantities of bad data do not suddenly become valid data simply because of its size.

The clear polymer gel products do not work well at all with pistol rounds. The so-called ''limits'' of the clear polymer gel product render it useless in every imaginable way.

If we understand the limits of the clear ballistics product, that it's not ordnance gel and definitely won't work correctly with rifle rounds, what we do have is a quality controlled product that we have a massive database of relevant, side by side comparisons of many different types of pistol ammo.

It has also come to light that the manufacturer often alters the formulation of the clear polymer gel product which comprises the repeatability of tests conducted in that substance; this is the very essence of non-existent quality-control.

To begin with...

The dynamic pressure produced at impact in the clear synthetic gelatin product is on the order of 25% - 30% less than that produced in validated 10% ordnance gelatin. Because of this, projectile expansion occurring in the clear synthetic gelatin product will be commensurately less than that produced in shear-validated 10% ordnance gelatin. For this reason, the use of a scaling constant proposed as a means of converting test data taken from the clear polymer gel to its equivalent performance in 10% ordnance gelatin has been shown to be inappropriate by John Ervin in his video (listed below). This is because the diminished expansion that occurs in the clear polymer gel product cannot be accounted for by such a simple method—at least not with a simple linear conversion factor.

Including the 3-part series written by Mike Wood in the online magazine, PoliceOne, those who've been able to discount both claims made by Clear Ballistics Gel, LLC that their clear polymer gel product 1.) shear response-validates correctly against a BB fired into it at 591±13 fps, and 2.) accurately represents the terminal ballistic behavior (specifically, projectile expansion and maximum penetration depth which are inextricably interdependent) of projectiles now consists of at least three independent sources:

1.) PoliceOne/Mike Wood: https://www.policeone.com/police-pro...kEYB93TAd5o6J/

2.) Brassfetcher/John Ervin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pqPBnSYTIc

3.) TheChoppingBlock/Andrew Butts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJF-...ature=emb_logo

Then, there are real, undeniable, examples of the clear polymer gel product being sold by Clear Ballistics like this one (seen from 0:08 to 0:12 in the video) produced by ShootingTheBull410—

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czsd-v5sm3s

—that show pistol projectiles rebounding several inches rearward and coming to rest at a depth that is far shallower than their actual maximum penetration depth.

In the specific case cited, the test projectile reaches its maximum penetration depth of 18 inches in the Clear Ballistics polymer product at 8 seconds into the video—



—and then rebounds inside the temporary cavity to a depth of 13.5 inches where it remains at rest at 12 seconds into the video—



—which constitutes a 25% loss of maximum terminal penetration depth all due to the insufficient physical-material response of the Clear Ballistics clear polymer gel product.

The failure of the Clear Ballistics Gel clear polymer gel product to correctly represent the temporary and permanent cavitation produced by projectiles being tested in it is due to the fact that the Clear Ballistics Gel polymer product (which is composed of a tri-block copolymer plasticized by a paraffinnic processing oil) has a much lower strain-energy storage and loss modulus than properly prepared 10% ordnance gelatin.

The well-documented material response deficiencies in the Clear Ballistics Gel product results in the projectile rebound behavior seen in the video linked above. (and elsewhere in other videos on the 'net)

Furthermore, as the Clear Ballistics Gel clear polymer gel product is recycled for re-use as per the process recommended by the manufacturer, the shear-response properties and the formulation of the product itself change as volatiles in its composition are driven off during the ''remelt/recast process'' resulting in constantly changing physical-material properties of the clear polymer gel product. So, even if terminal ballistic testing is confined to any one given production lot of the Clear Ballistics Gel product, test results will also vary over the course of that one lot's use as that particular lot Clear Ballistics Gel product "evolves" during repeated recycling of it over its lifetime.

Given the expense (approximately $130.00) of just one 16 in. × 6 in. × 6 in. block of the Clear Ballistics Gel product and its failure to live up to any of the manufacturer's claims that their product 1.) shear response-validates correctly, 2.) accurately represents the terminal ballistic expansion and penetration of a projectile passing through it, and 3.) its ability to be recycled without altering its physical-mechanical properties, there seems to be no real advantage to relying upon the Clear Ballistics Gel product for such testing.

The more closely the Clear Ballistics product is examined, the more issues come to light. All of it suggests that the CBG product is a failure. I suspect that, so long as people are willing to buy the Clear Ballistics Gel product without questioning its technical relevance and accuracy, they'll keep selling it and the 'net will continue to be swamped with waves of this sort of dubious testing.

[EVP]

I don’t know who Guy Sagi is but I don’t understand the final word in his test conclusion. The HST perform better(which everyone knows) but it comes down to different calibers and availability?


The work and detail that the FBI and other agencies have done is were I would put my trust in when examining testing data.


I am pretty basic when selecting defensive ammo and stick to Docs advice. Get ammo(on the list) in sufficient quality, vet it your guns, and forget about the small differences between them and shift focus to proficiency.