There once was a time, before I found sites like this and Tactical Forums, when I believed the ammo marketing hype. Back in those dark days, I carried Hydra-Shoks in my Kimber. Now that I know better, I carry other ammo, usually Gold Dot JHPs.

However, I found a partial box of 230 grain Hydra-Shoks in my ammo cabinet today, and decided to try them out in my Fackler Box. All shot were at 5 yards. The first water bag in the Fackler Box was covered with two layers of fabric from a Fruit-of-the-Loom cotton t-shirt. The chronograph was 3 yards from the muzzle.

A total of four shots (all I had on hand) were fired.

Weapon: Kimber Custom
Caliber: .45 ACP
Barrel Length: 5"
Ambient Temp: 69 F
Humidity 30%
Ammuntion: 230 gr. Hydra-Shok P45HS1
Lot #: Unreadable (Hey, it's an old box)
Average Velocity: 881 fps
Velocity Std. Dev: 11.2 fps
Average Penetration: 14.5"
Penetration Std Dev: 1.6"

While the Hydra-Shoks met the minimum penetration standard of 12 inches, their performance was very unpredictable. One round shed its jacket completely. Another plugged with fabric and failed to expand at all. I would not want to put my life on the line with this ammo in by weapon. Please note that this was NOT the standard 4-layer denim test. The hollow point plugged passing through just two layers of thin cotton t-shirt fabric. Not impressive at all.

There you have it: 50% of my admittedly small sample exhibited some type of terminal performance problem.

A picture of all four recovered rounds:



The plugged hollow point of shot number 3:

Interesting....thanks

Nice information and pictures.  Thanks.

The fabric clogging issue is one of the reasons why my Father's PD stopped issuing HydraShoks for their duty pistols. Their remaining stockpile of HydraShoks are used for training, and Winchester Rangers are their new carry ammo.

I used to use Hydra Shok 124gr 9mm in my carry gun and switched to 100gr pow'r ball.   I switched because I didn't want to have any problems like you had with the plugged hollowpoint.  It's nice to see evidence to back up my thinking.  Thanks for taking the time and effort to do the testing and for posting the pics!

I guess I'm the jerk that has to say, this is not remotely useful. Interesting, but not useful.

First, you didn't fire nearly enough rounds to come to any conclusions at all about the performance of Hydra-Shoks. For instance, out of 100 rounds, these might have been the only ones that performed just like this. The others might have been flawless or they might have been worse. You also don't know if this was just a bad lot.

Second, jacket separation tends to occur more frequently in water. You can only account for this by comparing to the same bullet in different media.

Third, you did not do any comparisons with other ammo to see how they perform under similar conditions. Your Gold Dots might do worse, they might do better. (I like Gold Dots by the way and have started using them for a lot of my handguns.)

Those are just the things that come to mind off the top of my head.

So, this kind of thing is fun to do, and I'm not saying you shouldn't post it. What I'm saying is, at most it is worth a "would you look at that." I like looking at photos of bullets and how they opened or failed to open in different situations. Hunting photos, gelatin, water, wet pack, you name it, they are fascinating.

But no conclusions can be drawn under these circumstances, as you seem to have done.

Glass half full or half empty?  I looked at the picture, and since I saw that three out of four expanded nicely, I thought the ammo worked well.  I always find it amusing how differently people think.z

If a bullet penetrates well and expands as designed, who cares if the jacket separates? Isn't the jacket to prevent fouling of the barrel in the first place?

Quoted: <SNIP> But no conclusions can be drawn under these circumstances, as you seem to have done.

These results, by themselves, are probably not enough to draw conclusions.

As Troy has stated, however, they match up perfectly with many other test results, inclusing some by old_painless and his "Box O'Truth" here on Arfcom. The Hydrashocks in that test failed miserably as well when fired through a cloth barrier.

In conclusion - the above results ARE representative of the Hydrashocks' performance.

Someone posted a thread in GD asking what ammo is best. A bunch of people responded, and Hydrashocks were quite common. I added a reply asking people to state WHY they think their ammo choice was the best. I figured that if you were picking certain ammunition on which your life could potentially depend, you ought to have done your research as well. Only one person gave their reason FWIW, leading me to believe that the vast majority of folks really haven't done any research except reading the marketing hype printed on ammo boxes.

Quoted: I guess I'm the jerk that has to say, this is not remotely useful. Interesting, but not useful. First, you didn't fire nearly enough rounds to come to any conclusions at all about the performance of Hydra-Shoks. For instance, out of 100 rounds, these might have been the only ones that performed just like this. The others might have been flawless or they might have been worse. You also don't know if this was just a bad lot. Second, jacket separation tends to occur more frequently in water. You can only account for this by comparing to the same bullet in different media. Third, you did not do any comparisons with other ammo to see how they perform under similar conditions. Your Gold Dots might do worse, they might do better. (I like Gold Dots by the way and have started using them for a lot of my handguns.) Those are just the things that come to mind off the top of my head. So, this kind of thing is fun to do, and I'm not saying you shouldn't post it. What I'm saying is, at most it is worth a "would you look at that." I like looking at photos of bullets and how they opened or failed to open in different situations. Hunting photos, gelatin, water, wet pack, you name it, they are fascinating. But no conclusions can be drawn under these circumstances, as you seem to have done.

Actually, I did test other ammo at the same time yesterday. Both the Gold Dots and cheapo Wal Mart Winchester Valu-Pak hollow points passed the test. Neither of these showed jacket separation or clogging.

As for the bad lot hypothesis, this test merely duplicates what has been seen already in dozens of tests done by independent labs, the FBI, etc. Troy has already pointed this out.

Finally, while I explained the reason for the small sample size, it is YOU who are drawing an incorrect statistical conclusion. The 90% confidence interval, based on my very small sample size, is 12% to 75%. This means we can expect at least 1 round, and as many as 75, per hundred  to fail under these circumstances! I don't know about you, but even a 10% chance is too high when other ammo that performs much more reliably is available.

BTW, I use and teach intermediate to advanced statistics as my day job.

Of course, we can put this argument to rest: Just IM me and I will send you my mailing address. You can send me 100 rounds of Hydra-Shoks (from different lots), and I will test them and post the results.

Quoted: BTW, I use and teach intermediate to advanced statistics as my day job.

Can you put that in terms of a null and alternate hypothesis and do a sampled t-square analysis of the whole thing?

Quoted: Quoted: BTW, I use and teach intermediate to advanced statistics as my day job. Can you put that in terms of a null and alternate hypothesis and do a sampled t-square analysis of the whole thing?

You right, it has to be a t distribution, as the sample is less than 30, and/or we dont know the population SD, only the sample SD. Grrrr, dont remind me about this stuff! I hated my Business Stats class.

.45 acp shoks are ok, but as stated there are better rounds available today.

Quoted: I don't know about you, but even a 1% chance is too high when other ammo that performs much more reliably is available.

But there is still a failure rate for the other types of handgun projectiles too.......

Right?

I don't use hydro's, I used to carry Golden Sabres and they were "old tech" too.  I now carry 230gr Gold Dot's.

I never lost sleep because at the end of the day I knew that if I shot someone with my handgun they were ALWAYS going to have at least 12" long wound .45" in diameter.

.60" or more is always BETTER, but I'm not sure that an average assailant can just "walk off" two or three .45" holes......

Though I do appreciate the graphical representation that reinforces my switch from old tech to new tech.....

Why would I want to use a T-squared test? The failure to expand issue is not a multivariate study.

It is a straight forward binary distribution question. Hence, the 1-Proportion test is entirely appropriate. The null hypothesis is the 4 round sample has a true proportion defective of 1%. The alternate is that the true proportion is not 1%. At the 5% level, there is no difference. We accept the null.

Quoted: Quoted: I don't know about you, but even a 1% chance is too high when other ammo that performs much more reliably is available. But there is still a failure rate for the other types of handgun projectiles too....... Right? I don't use hydro's, I used to carry Golden Sabres and they were "old tech" too.  I now carry 230gr Gold Dot's. I never lost sleep because at the end of the day I knew that if I shot someone with my handgun they were ALWAYS going to have at least 12" long wound .45" in diameter. .60" or more is always BETTER, but I'm not sure that an average assailant can just "walk off" two or three .45" holes...... Though I do appreciate the graphical representation that reinforces my switch from old tech to new tech.....

Not a flame. For informational purposes only: An unexpanded .45 round will NOT leave a .45" diameter hole. Most tissue is quite elastic and the actual crush cavity diameter is a bit smaller than .45".

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't know about you, but even a 1% chance is too high when other ammo that performs much more reliably is available. But there is still a failure rate for the other types of handgun projectiles too....... Right? I don't use hydro's, I used to carry Golden Sabres and they were "old tech" too.  I now carry 230gr Gold Dot's. I never lost sleep because at the end of the day I knew that if I shot someone with my handgun they were ALWAYS going to have at least 12" long wound .45" in diameter. .60" or more is always BETTER, but I'm not sure that an average assailant can just "walk off" two or three .45" holes...... Though I do appreciate the graphical representation that reinforces my switch from old tech to new tech..... Not a flame. For informational purposes only: An unexpanded .45 round will NOT leave a .45" diameter hole. Most tissue is quite elastic and the actual crush cavity diameter is a bit smaller than .45".

OK, assuming no deformation of the round it initially cuts a path .45" and then the tissue contracts back leaving a permanent wound channel something less than .45".

My version rolls off the tongue a bit easier.

Or even an abbreviated version that discounts actual wound channel since I can forsee even more discussion about "this or that" - :

I'm not sure that an average assailant can just "walk off" three .45acp strikes to COM.

I'm not sure that an average assailant can just "walk off" three .45acp strikes to COM.

If he does it's "Feet don't fail me now!"

Thanks for the interesting data and the statistical reminders.

For interested readers, see U.S. Department of Justice Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness for additional information.

Quoted: I never lost sleep because at the end of the day I knew that if I shot someone with my handgun they were ALWAYS going to have at least 12" long wound .45" in diameter. .60" or more is always BETTER, but I'm not sure that an average assailant can just "walk off" two or three .45" holes...... Though I do appreciate the graphical representation that reinforces my switch from old tech to new tech.....

Like you said - bigger is better. If you're carrying ammo to defend your life with, then you might as well make it the best there is. I agree that 3 COM hits are going to be hard to shrug off, but you never know if they're on meth or something like that, or you may not get good COM hits. Either way, we both agree that bigger holes are better.

My buddies step dad ended a robbery with ball ammo.

Your test makes you distrust hydra-shocks.

Show me real life data that shows people more efficiently defended themselves with something other than hydra-shocks and Ill switch.

Yeah the buddy Waldo mentions is me. My stepdad forgot to change out his range ammo to his carry ammo and woulnd up shooting the guy 3 time with ball ammo. Once in the stomach when the guy started coming at him and when they were on the ground fighting  he shot him in the arm and then when the bad guy was trying to point the gun back at my stepdad he moved the gun back to the badguys forehead and shot him in the center of the forehead. It took the guy 3 days to die at the hospital and I consider my stepdad a very lucky man that day and someone was deff. looking out for him.

And btw before anyone tries to bust my or his balls he knows he should have switched out the ammo but he forgot to and this is how it ended.

Quoted: My buddies step dad ended a robbery with ball ammo. Your test makes you distrust hydra-shocks. Show me real life data that shows people more efficiently defended themselves with something other than hydra-shocks and Ill switch.

Here's the deal: A .22, heck a BB,  can stop an assailant IF the conditions are right.

What some of us are saying is that IF you have a choice, a bigger hole is a better way to guarantee CONSISTENT results. If you accept that premise, then the best way to make a bigger hole is by choosing a bullet which consistently expands and penetrates about 12".

The Hydrashocks probably work 90% of the time. If you had a choice, wouldn't you pick a bullet that works 99% of the time?

[Edited for spelling]

Quoted: Quoted: My buddies step dad ended a robbery with ball ammo. Your test makes you distrust hydra-shocks. Show me real life data that shows people more efficiently defended themselves with something other than hydra-shocks and Ill switch. Here's the deal: A .22, heck a BB,  can stop an assailant IF the conditions are right. What some of us are saying is that IF you have a choice, a bigger hole is a better way to guarantee CONSISTENT results. If you accept that premise, then the best way to make a bigger hole is by choosing a bullet which consistently expands and penetrates about 12". The Hydrashocks probably work 90% of the time. If you had a choice, wouldn't you pick a bullet that works 99% of the time? [Edited for spelling]

No doubt, but you say probably and you base it off of shooting water bottles, all that makes is a mess. Get some real world results.

I think I'll line up some bottles and throw a carhart jacket over them and shoot a hydrashok through it. I bet it expands and doesnt have any lint in it. I can get different results every time.

Quoted: No doubt, but you say probably and you base it off of shooting water bottles, all that makes is a mess. Get some real world results. I think I'll line up some bottles and throw a carhart jacket over them and shoot a hydrashok through it. I bet it expands and doesnt have any lint in it. I can get different results every time.

The best predictor of a bullet's terminal performance is properly calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin.

Water has been shown to accurately model a bullet's performance as far as expansion is concerned. Said bullets penetrate between 150-200% deeper into water than they would in tissue. If you're talking about checking out how well a bullet will expand, then water IS a valid test medium. I suggest you read a little more of the literature before scoffing at other people's test results.

Even when shooting into properly calibrated gelatin, the point is that Hydrashocks WILL fail to expand a significant amount of the time. Newer bullet designs, such as the Winchester Ranger T and Speer Gold Dot consistently expand during the same tests.

Quoted: Quoted: I guess I'm the jerk that has to say, this is not remotely useful. Interesting, but not useful. First, you didn't fire nearly enough rounds to come to any conclusions at all about the performance of Hydra-Shoks. For instance, out of 100 rounds, these might have been the only ones that performed just like this. The others might have been flawless or they might have been worse. You also don't know if this was just a bad lot. Second, jacket separation tends to occur more frequently in water. You can only account for this by comparing to the same bullet in different media. Third, you did not do any comparisons with other ammo to see how they perform under similar conditions. Your Gold Dots might do worse, they might do better. (I like Gold Dots by the way and have started using them for a lot of my handguns.) Those are just the things that come to mind off the top of my head. So, this kind of thing is fun to do, and I'm not saying you shouldn't post it. What I'm saying is, at most it is worth a "would you look at that." I like looking at photos of bullets and how they opened or failed to open in different situations. Hunting photos, gelatin, water, wet pack, you name it, they are fascinating. But no conclusions can be drawn under these circumstances, as you seem to have done. Actually, I did test other ammo at the same time yesterday. Both the Gold Dots and cheapo Wal Mart Winchester Valu-Pak hollow points passed the test. Neither of these showed jacket separation or clogging. As for the bad lot hypothesis, this test merely duplicates what has been seen already in dozens of tests done by independent labs, the FBI, etc. Troy has already pointed this out. Finally, while I explained the reason for the small sample size, it is YOU who are drawing an incorrect statistical conclusion. The 90% confidence interval, based on my very small sample size, is 1.2% to 75%. This means we can expect at least 1 round, and as many as 75, per hundred  to fail under these circumstances! I don't know about you, but even a 1% chance is too high when other ammo that performs much more reliably is available. BTW, I use and teach intermediate to advanced statistics as my day job. Of course, we can put this argument to rest: Just IM me and I will send you my mailing address. You can send me 100 rounds of Hydra-Shoks (from different lots), and I will test them and post the results.

So, the other tests to which you refer  -- now, not in the original post -- do offer useful information. I have no objection to that.

You "explained the small sample size" by noting that it was all you had on hand. That doesn't make it an adequate sample size.

Testing 100 rounds -- even 100 rounds each from different lots, much less 100 rounds divided by different lots -- might be indicative, but inconclusive. I hope the ammo manufacturers are doing better QA than that.

You might as well apply a 99% confidence interval, if you are just going to pull figures out of your hat. If Mr. Gallup calls 10 people with his next poll, he can apply whatever confidence interval he wants to the numbers he gets, it's still not valid. You have to look at the confidence level as well as the interval.

Or, to sum it all up, the best statistical analysis in the world, applied to a flawed experimental design, is meaningless. "Flawed experimental design" is a generous description. There was no experimental design. You shot 4 rounds into water and took pictures.

Again -- it's interesting, I'm glad you posted, these are  nice photos, you can make a convincing claim that these photos are in agreement with data that you have seen elsewhere, but: you stated conclusions _based_on_this_data_  -- which this data cannot substantiate.  That's all. I'm done.

Hmmm... expansion tests, even of insufficient sample size are all well and good.

HOWEVER you cannot deny that a properly placed round against a hostile target will do "damage".

The "1 shot stop" is a myth.  I think we can all agree on that.

So, if you have ammuntion sufficient quality and caliber, and you do your job with correct shot placement, you will stop the threat, or at least be the last victom the threat ever attacks.  

Quoted: Quoted: The "1 shot stop" is a myth.  I think we can all agree on that. Even if we didnt, who wants to be dumb enough to test the theory? Shoot well, shoot often.

Two to the Chest one to the head

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The "1 shot stop" is a myth.  I think we can all agree on that. Even if we didnt, who wants to be dumb enough to test the theory? Shoot well, shoot often. Two to the Chest one to the head

And keep on shooting until they're dead...

Quoted: So, the other tests to which you refer  -- now, not in the original post -- do offer useful information. I have no objection to that. You "explained the small sample size" by noting that it was all you had on hand. That doesn't make it an adequate sample size. Testing 100 rounds -- even 100 rounds each from different lots, much less 100 rounds divided by different lots -- might be indicative, but inconclusive. I hope the ammo manufacturers are doing better QA than that. You might as well apply a 99% confidence interval, if you are just going to pull figures out of your hat. If Mr. Gallup calls 10 people with his next poll, he can apply whatever confidence interval he wants to the numbers he gets, it's still not valid. You have to look at the confidence level as well as the interval. Or, to sum it all up, the best statistical analysis in the world, applied to a flawed experimental design, is meaningless. "Flawed experimental design" is a generous description. There was no experimental design. You shot 4 rounds into water and took pictures. Again -- it's interesting, I'm glad you posted, these are  nice photos, you can make a convincing claim that these photos are in agreement with data that you have seen elsewhere, but: you stated conclusions _based_on_this_data_  -- which this data cannot substantiate.  That's all. I'm done.

Most ballistic laboratory testing is done with only 5 round samples. They do not test hundreds, or even dozens of rounds to determine the performance characteristics of a given round. These test also use the same lot of ammo, so that lot-to-lot variation does not confound the results.

Inferential statistics is based upon the premise that small samples, if used properly, can give us useful information about population parameters. Since Gallup wants extreme precision, usually low single-digit margin of error, they use relatively large samples. Of coures, 500 people to determine the likely outcome of the voting of 100 million is still a relatively TINY sample size.  

I did not  just "shoot some water." as you imply. The experiment was planned. Water was used as the test medium because it is an accepted substitute for ballistic gelatin when testing for expansion (see Duncan MacPherson's book "Bullet Penetration"). As many noise variables as possible were controlled: Ambient temperature (all shots taken within 45 minutes on same day), temperature of the water (53 degrees), distance to first water bag (five yards from muzzle), ammo lot (single lot), weapon used (same gun), type of fabric cover (sections from the same t-shirt), measurement system variation (same person took all measures using the same instruments), etc. All shots were chronographed to check for wide velocity variations (none indicated).

1 more round would have given me the same sample size as that used in most scientifically accepted ballistic tests. The addition of a single round to the test would have narrowed the range of the 90% confidence interval by 13%. The probability that one additional shot, if it expanded, would change the true proportion of failures from 25% (the actual observed proportion) was less than 0.01% at the 5% confidence level (actual P-value = 1.000).

I stand by test, and by my conclusions.

Quoted: I did not  just "shoot some water." as you imply. The experiment was planned. Water was used as the test medium because it is an accepted substitute for ballistic gelatin when testing for expansion (see Duncan MacPherson's book "Bullet Penetration"). As many noise variables as possible were controlled: Ambient temperature (all shots taken within 45 minutes on same day), temperature of the water (53 degrees), distance to first water bag (five yards from muzzle), ammo lot (single lot), weapon used (same gun), type of fabric cover (sections from the same t-shirt), measurement system variation (same person took all measures using the same instruments), etc. All shots were chronographed to check for wide velocity variations (none indicated). 1 more round would have given me the same sample size as that used in most scientifically accepted ballistic tests. The addition of a single round to the test would have narrowed the range of the 90% confidence interval by 13%. The probability that one additional shot, if it expanded, would change the true proportion of failures from 25% (the actual observed proportion) was less than 0.01% (actual P-value = 1.000).

Sniff. I'm shedding a little tear here.

You make me proud. I'm an electrical engineer by trade, but I stand united with you in all our nerdness!  

Quoted: Quoted: No doubt, but you say probably and you base it off of shooting water bottles, all that makes is a mess. Get some real world results. I think I'll line up some bottles and throw a carhart jacket over them and shoot a hydrashok through it. I bet it expands and doesnt have any lint in it. I can get different results every time. The best predictor of a bullet's terminal performance is properly calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin. Water has been shown to accurately model a bullet's performance as far as expansion is concerned. Said bullets penetrate between 150-200% deeper into water than they would in tissue. If you're talking about checking out how well a bullet will expand, then water IS a valid test medium. I suggest you read a little more of the literature before scoffing at other people's test results. Even when shooting into properly calibrated gelatin, the point is that Hydrashocks WILL fail to expand a significant amount of the time. Newer bullet designs, such as the Winchester Ranger T and Speer Gold Dot consistently expand during the same tests.

Your right, water IS a valid test medium. However, shooting a few rounds through a t-shirt into water and calling it a test worthy of a brand changing decision amuses me. You should read literature on experiments, people who do them and write the 80 page reports would fall out of their chairs reading of the back yard scientists here.

There are to many real world factors that could change this test dramatically. Carry what you want and do all the tests you want. I will carry whatever ammo I please, with complete disregard for backyard testing. I will spend my time making well placed shots under stress.

Quoted: Your right, water IS a valid test medium. However, shooting a few rounds through a t-shirt into water and calling it a test worthy of a brand changing decision amuses me. You should read literature on experiments, people who do them and write the 80 page reports would fall out of their chairs reading of the back yard scientists here. There are to many real world factors that could change this test dramatically. Carry what you want and do all the tests you want. I will carry whatever ammo I please, with complete disregard for backyard testing. I will spend my time making well placed shots under stress.

PAEBR332's tests exactly mirror those found during more scientific testing. Head on over to tacticalforums.com and do the research. Hydrashocks are inferior, not just because some "backyard" testing has found them to be so.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No doubt, but you say probably and you base it off of shooting water bottles, all that makes is a mess. Get some real world results. I think I'll line up some bottles and throw a carhart jacket over them and shoot a hydrashok through it. I bet it expands and doesnt have any lint in it. I can get different results every time. The best predictor of a bullet's terminal performance is properly calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin. Water has been shown to accurately model a bullet's performance as far as expansion is concerned. Said bullets penetrate between 150-200% deeper into water than they would in tissue. If you're talking about checking out how well a bullet will expand, then water IS a valid test medium. I suggest you read a little more of the literature before scoffing at other people's test results. Even when shooting into properly calibrated gelatin, the point is that Hydrashocks WILL fail to expand a significant amount of the time. Newer bullet designs, such as the Winchester Ranger T and Speer Gold Dot consistently expand during the same tests. Your right, water IS a valid test medium. However, shooting a few rounds through a t-shirt into water and calling it a test worthy of a brand changing decision amuses me. You should read literature on experiments, people who do them and write the 80 page reports would fall out of their chairs reading of the back yard scientists here. There are to many real world factors that could change this test dramatically. Carry what you want and do all the tests you want. I will carry whatever ammo I please, with complete disregard for backyard testing. I will spend my time making well placed shots under stress.

Um, I teach people how to do experiments as a key part of my job.  I teach and use a variety of experimental methodologies: Evolutionary Operations, OFAT, Taguchi Methods, Full Factorials, Fractional Factorials, Folded Designs, Plackett-Burman Screening experiments,  Central Composite Designs, Box-Behnken Designs, Simplex Centroids, Simplex Lattices, and Extreme Vertices.

I laugh at people who think this was somehow a complex experiment. It had but one factor being tested, all other variables being controlled. I measured two continous responses: Penetration and expanded diameter, and two discrete outputs - expansion and jacket separation (both simple binomial responses).

Carry whatever ammo you wish. I carry what I know expands and penetrates from MY guns, since I have done the experimentation to prove it to my satisfaction. YMMV

There are always people who believe marketing hypes then actual experiment results. If you think the experiment done by PAEBR332 is not "scientific" compare to test done by more credited ammo researchers, fine. But with the fact that other test results had already proven that Hydra Shok is a poor performer compare to rounds like Gold Dot and Ranger T, and yet one still choose to use Hydra-Shok IMO is dumb at minimum. After seeing all the test results available to me, all my primary mag are now filled with Ranger T and backup mags with Gold Dot. My Hydra Shoks that I used to have got dump down the range the day I got my Ranger T and Gold Dot order in. It does gave me some good brass for reloading practice rounds though.

Real world results? I am not about to go on a killing rampage to see how these rounds work

Well PAEBR332, I , for one, admire your spunk.

It takes a man with callouses on his feelings to do a real world experiment and post his results.  You will always find a few that will find fault with something everything you have done.

But you were out there, SHOOTING, not sitting on your butt theorizing.

Good for you.

(Oh, and by the way, my tests agree with yours. )

Good job.  Thanks.

Quoted: ...cheapo Wal Mart Winchester Valu-Pak hollow points passed the test.

WHOOHOO!! It's what I have in my .45!

Quoted: Well PAEBR332, I , for one, admire your spunk. It takes a man with callouses on his feelings to do a real world experiment and post his results.  You will always find a few that will find fault with something everything you have done. But you were out there, SHOOTING, not sitting on your butt theorizing. Good for you. (Oh, and by the way, my tests agree with yours. ) Good job.  Thanks.

Thanks for the kind words O_P!

We agree on one other important point: Shooting things is fun.

I have the good fortune of living in the country, and can shoot off my back porch when the mood strikes. I was shooting my Kahr PM9 about three hours ago during a short break from work. One of the advantages of working from home.

I like the Federal Hydra Shok. It is very accurate in the guns I use it in. I use it exclusively in my carry guns. I will continue to do so until my current supply is exhausted.

Testing bullet performance with contraptions is interesting within its limitations. but there are many more variables present shooting living tissue than there are shooting a fackler box with a T-shirt draped over it.

I have shot several game animals with the same bullet in essentially the same place and the bullets that were recovered were all slightly different depending on what was in the path of the bullet.

The one animal that I shot with a federal .45 ACP 230 gr Hydra Shok would not have died any sooner had it been shot with anything else. The recovered bullet looked just like the factory advertisement.

In a self defense situation I would be happy with the t-shirt plugged bullet in the opening picture if it was a center of mass hit. I would also probably shoot more than once it I could.

If you have done tests before then you would have forseen that someone would have asked the following questions...

1. Where are the pictures of the other rounds?
2. What is the average diameter of all expanded rounds according to brand?
3. What is the percentage of all successfull rounds in each group?
4. Do we not get to see the data for the other rounds as far as the following fields are concerned?



Ammuntion:
Lot #:
Average Velocity:
Velocity Std. Dev:
Average Penetration:
Penetration Std Dev:

When you do a test with multiple variables and only post one result claiming the variable is no good you raise flags, your individual test has no data for the best, but your pointing your finger at the worst.

Certainly a man of your great experience and scientific testing background would know that in the scientific world a test of any variable with only 1 specific result released is seen as bias.

Hydra-shocks may not be the best, but trying a number of brands of ammo in a backyard test and saying hydrashocks are no good, yet not providing a variable to compare them to in YOUR test, isnt a test, its a bash.

Quoted: Carry what you want and do all the tests you want. I will carry whatever ammo I please, with complete disregard for backyard testing. I will spend my time making well placed shots under stress.

Are you a ninja too?

Quoted: If you have done tests before then you would have forseen that someone would have asked the following questions... Balh, blah, blah.

I've got an idea Waldo!

Why don't you do some tests, since you are the obvious expert, and take pics and post the results?

Quoted: Quoted: If you have done tests before then you would have forseen that someone would have asked the following questions... Balh, blah, blah. I've got an idea Waldo! Why don't you do some tests, since you are the obvious expert, and take pics and post the results?

Why dont I do some tests?

Because I am NOT an expert in balistics, however I do know a thing or two about providing equal evidence of all variables tested to prevent biased thinking or skewed data.

Saying this one doesnt work and here is why and a picture, then say what you did try that worked, without posting evidence of the variables that did work isnt a test, its a statement.

So people read the post and say "wow hydra-shocks dont work but the others do" by what standard are they being tested and how did the best bullet do in testing? What was the median performance? What was the diameter of all bullets when the test was finished?

This test shows a hydra-shock performance, what did the other bullets do? You must provide equal and fair evidence of all compareable variables. It doesnt take a bio-chemist to figure that out.

Quoted: Quoted: If you have done tests before then you would have forseen that someone would have asked the following questions... Balh, blah, blah. I've got an idea Waldo! Why don't you do some tests, since you are the obvious expert, and take pics and post the results?

Don't engage them.... there is simply no sense in arguing about this.  

I'd be very happy with any of the pictured examples WELL PLACED in a justified shoot...Just me.

Quoted: I like the Federal Hydra Shok. It is very accurate in the guns I use it in. I use it exclusively in my carry guns. I will continue to do so until my current supply is exhausted. Testing bullet performance with contraptions is interesting within its limitations. but there are many more variables present shooting living tissue than there are shooting a fackler box with a T-shirt draped over it. I have shot several game animals with the same bullet in essentially the same place and the bullets that were recovered were all slightly different depending on what was in the path of the bullet. The one animal that I shot with a federal .45 ACP 230 gr Hydra Shok would not have died any sooner had it been shot with anything else. The recovered bullet looked just like the factory advertisement. In a self defense situation I would be happy with the t-shirt plugged bullet in the opening picture if it was a center of mass hit. I would also probably shoot more than once it I could.

I'll try this one more time....

First, I'd like to address the "controlled experiment" versus "my one experience shooting a game animal" thing. To accurately predict a bullet's performance, you need to find a medium which correctly models living tissue. Properly calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin is that medium. Please read this article which discusses the performance of Winchester 147gr JHPs in ~28 actual police shootings. Note that the penetration depth and expanded diameter correlate very closely with the numbers obtained when the same bullet is fired into ordnance gelatin.

Now that that's out of the way - let's look at your ONE data point shooting an animal. The bullet performed as advertised. No arguing here. The point that some of us are making is that while the Hydrashock is a GOOD bullet, there are BETTER bullets out there. Noo one claims that the Hydrashocks don't work at all. They expand reliably more often than not. BUT - and this is the big one - they have a problem when they first have to penetrate layers of clothing. If you can guarantee that your assailant will not be wearing any clothes, then I'm sure the Hydrashocks will be a fine choice. Newer bullet designs specifically address the lack of expansion even after penetrating several different types of barriers. The FBI has a specific protocol it uses to choose if ammunition is acceptable.

That brings me to my next point. You say you'd be happy with a COM hit with the unexpanded bullet. I would be too. The question should be: Would you be happier with an even bigger hole? Or another way to state that: Would you be happy with the unexpanded bullet if it wasn't COM? I assume that we'd all like to get COM hits, but under stress situations that may not occur. The best way to guarantee results is to make as big of a hole as possible, which has a better chance of disrupting something vital. An excellent article which covers this is "The ideal police bullet".

Furthermore, and this is addressing Waldo0506 one more time - Dr. Roberts on Tacticalforums.com has specifically researched the poor performance of the Hydrashocks and it mirrors what this less-scientific experiment has shown. Take issue with PAEBR332's results, but if I have to pick between your assumptions and Dr. Robert's data, then make no mistake about it - I will not be carrying Hydrashocks.

[Edited to add] Ammolabs.com, before they became a paying-members-only site had data on the 230gr Hydrashocks. HALF of all bullets fired FAILED to expand after passing through only ONE layer of denim.

Quoting Dr. Roberts:

As I have said previously about older bullet designs, the Hydra-Shok was state of the art 10 or 15 years ago. The modern ammunition which has been designed for robust expansion against clothing and intermediate barriers is significantly superior to the older designs. In .45 ACP, the best performing bullets we currently see in our testing are the: Winchester 230 gr Ranger Talon (RA45T), Winchester 230 gr +P Ranger Talon (RA45TP), Federal 230 gr Tactical (LE45T1), and Speer 230 gr Gold Dot (23966).

Quoted: I'll try this one more time.... First, I'd like to address the "controlled experiment" versus "my one experience shooting a game animal" thing. To accurately predict a bullet's performance, you need to find a medium which correctly models living tissue. Properly calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin is that medium. when the same bullet is fired into ordnance gelatin. Now that that's out of the way - let's look at your ONE data point shooting an animal.

To clarify... I stated I had one experience shooting a live animal with a .45ACP Federal Hydra shok. I have shot more animals than that with other calibers.

One hunting season I shot 5 deer. All the deer were about the same size, distance away and were undisturbed at the time they were shot. All were shot in about the same place. All were shot with the same lot of ammo from the same box. All of the recovered bullets were deformed differently.

I have shot more animals than 5 deer & one cougar, but I'm not going to list them all here.  

I think that there are variables in living tissue and in shootings and in cartridge manufacturing and in bullet manufacturing, etc. I believe the best you can say about 10% ballistic gelatin is that it gives you very accurate data on how different bullets perform in 10% ballistic gelatin.

I do not have any gun fights under my belt, I do have significant hunting experience.


Have you been in a lot of gunfights?

I give up. Obviously no amount of scientific research is going to sway your opinion. Ordnance gelatin is just a farce. Carry on.

[Edited to add] No, I have not been in any gunfights, haven't even come close to any. That doesn't mean I can't quote data from actual gunshot wounds, such as in the first article I quoted which support my assertions.

Quoted: I give up. Obviously no amount of scientific research is going to sway your opinion. Ordnance gelatin is just a farce. Carry on. [Edited to add] No, I have not been in any gunfights, haven't even come close to any. That doesn't mean I can't quote data from actual gunshot wounds, such as in the first article I quoted which support my assertions.

Sure you could do that.

But who's gonna believe you?

They have killed thousands of people.  In Playstation 2.