Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 6/29/2003 11:35:44 AM EDT
Anyone have comments on this load?

1.What about the one stop shot percentage, how does this compare to other .45 loads and finally:

2. How is the recoil compared to the other loads?

Thanks
M4-AK
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 6:12:04 PM EDT
165gr is what I use. The 165gr has more velocity and energy than the 230gr. They also expand more fully than the 230 and will fragment to a minor extent. The one-shot-stop percentage is about the same (+/- 95%) and the difference in recoil won't be noticed.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 5:54:38 AM EDT
I have tested quite a few. Expansion is pretty good, however, it is very lacking in penetration. I prefer penetration over expansion every time, if I could only have one or the other. Expansion doesnt do any good if the bullet never reaches the vitals. Personal preference on my part.
Link Posted: 7/5/2003 6:26:15 AM EDT
I haven't found much info on these loads. Do they make other calibers and are they too reduced bullet weight?

M4-AK
Link Posted: 7/14/2003 9:31:50 PM EDT
Guys, be careful with this one shot stop stuff. If you are depending on the Marshall and Sanow data, you have a very poor source indeed. While it would be remarkable to create such a list if it was accurate, their methods of arriving at those stopping percentages are outrageous.

They write these book and they sell because people in general don't like doing work. So it's popular to just pick up a book, turn to page 98 and see the stopping power % of a particular round. And this type of thing is very popular because it doesn't require any thinking or work. But I can assure you that this M&S stuff is not anything close to resembling science. Nor are either of them qualified to evaluate ammo. So be very careful when using M&S data to help you choose defensive ammo. If you need further clarification, let me know and I will provide you with some links that will show you just how ridiculous their claims are.

Also, be careful with this "energy" stuff. Energy transfer has nothing to do with the ability of a bullet to incapacitate a threat. The only two ways that guarantee that outcome are either a direct CNS hit or a wound that results in rapid and massive blood loss. Therefore you need a bullet that is capable of penetrating deep enough to assure it can reach deep blood vessels and organs from any angle the shot comes in from. The FBI's minimum standard for penetration is 12" and I feel that this is a good standard. Next is the bullet itself. If you have a bullet capable of expanding to twice it's original diameter, you will crush far more tissue, thus creating more bleeding. But good expansion without adequate penetration is not sufficient. You need both. Those are the two biggest factors (other than shot placement...which is most critical) in rapidly stopping a threat. With high velocity high powered rifle rounds, there is also a chance for a "shock wave" to affect the spine and drop an animal/person if it passes close enough to the spine. But the handgun just isn't enough to create this effect.

For anyone who thinks energy is a factor, think about this....what would happen if you filled a box full of wet newspapers then fired a .300 Win Mag into it? If energy really played a role as many claim, wouldn't it move the box? Yet this doesn't happen. To take this a step farther, there was a video of these two guys testing out some new body armor a year or two ago. One was wearing a vest designed to stop the .308 round. So his partner shoots him in the chest while he was wearing that vest at point blank range (yeah, pretty stupid eh?). He absorbed the full impact of the round and wasn't even slightly knocked off balance. Where was the energy transfer here? And the next time you shoot a deer and it falls dead, walk up to it and shoot it again. If energy transfer is present the deer will be moved in some way visibly. Yet this won't happen. In other words, energy is just a myth and plays no real role in the ability to bring down an attacker.

There are tons of myths and misinformation floating around anymore. But if you want some accurate data that can be reproduced and correlates to what happens on the streets, I suggest you check out www.tacticalforums.com. The folks there use sound logic when assessing ammo performance and are qualified to give answers about such topics. Another excellent source of data is www.firearmstactical.com.

Oh, and to answer the original question, I am not impressed by the Hydra-Shok. The 230 gr Winchester Ranger and Speer Gold Dots are much better performing loads.

-Charging Handle
Link Posted: 7/24/2003 6:18:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
Guys, be careful with this one shot stop stuff. If you are depending on the Marshall and Sanow data, you have a very poor source indeed. While it would be remarkable to create such a list if it was accurate, their methods of arriving at those stopping percentages are outrageous.

They write these book and they sell because people in general don't like doing work. So it's popular to just pick up a book, turn to page 98 and see the stopping power % of a particular round. And this type of thing is very popular because it doesn't require any thinking or work. But I can assure you that this M&S stuff is not anything close to resembling science. Nor are either of them qualified to evaluate ammo. So be very careful when using M&S data to help you choose defensive ammo. If you need further clarification, let me know and I will provide you with some links that will show you just how ridiculous their claims are.

Also, be careful with this "energy" stuff. Energy transfer has nothing to do with the ability of a bullet to incapacitate a threat. The only two ways that guarantee that outcome are either a direct CNS hit or a wound that results in rapid and massive blood loss. Therefore you need a bullet that is capable of penetrating deep enough to assure it can reach deep blood vessels and organs from any angle the shot comes in from. The FBI's minimum standard for penetration is 12" and I feel that this is a good standard. Next is the bullet itself. If you have a bullet capable of expanding to twice it's original diameter, you will crush far more tissue, thus creating more bleeding. But good expansion without adequate penetration is not sufficient. You need both. Those are the two biggest factors (other than shot placement...which is most critical) in rapidly stopping a threat. With high velocity high powered rifle rounds, there is also a chance for a "shock wave" to affect the spine and drop an animal/person if it passes close enough to the spine. But the handgun just isn't enough to create this effect.

For anyone who thinks energy is a factor, think about this....what would happen if you filled a box full of wet newspapers then fired a .300 Win Mag into it? If energy really played a role as many claim, wouldn't it move the box? Yet this doesn't happen. To take this a step farther, there was a video of these two guys testing out some new body armor a year or two ago. One was wearing a vest designed to stop the .308 round. So his partner shoots him in the chest while he was wearing that vest at point blank range (yeah, pretty stupid eh?). He absorbed the full impact of the round and wasn't even slightly knocked off balance. Where was the energy transfer here? And the next time you shoot a deer and it falls dead, walk up to it and shoot it again. If energy transfer is present the deer will be moved in some way visibly. Yet this won't happen. In other words, energy is just a myth and plays no real role in the ability to bring down an attacker.

There are tons of myths and misinformation floating around anymore. But if you want some accurate data that can be reproduced and correlates to what happens on the streets, I suggest you check out www.tacticalforums.com. The folks there use sound logic when assessing ammo performance and are qualified to give answers about such topics. Another excellent source of data is www.firearmstactical.com.

Oh, and to answer the original question, I am not impressed by the Hydra-Shok. The 230 gr Winchester Ranger and Speer Gold Dots are much better performing loads.

-Charging Handle





Thank you! Now I don't have to type it.
Top Top