Armory Sponsor
Posted: 8/1/2004 4:25:30 PM EDT
|
I'm sure this horse has been beat to death, so if anyone has a link to the older threads on this sibject that would suffice. Tell me about HydraShok? What makes it so great? Can you get it in .223/5.56mm & .308? What is the difference between the .357 Magnum and .357 Sig? I looks at pictures and the Magnum looks longer than the Sig... Does that mean it's a better round or that is has more stopping power? Thanks guys. 
|
|
Hydrashoks were designed with the small post in he enter of the hollowpoint section of the bullet. This was (is) supposedly to prevent filling of the nose cavity with clothing (like a winter parka) that would hinder if not prevent mushrooming of the HP when it hits the perp. Does it work? Studies seem to show it does. Different companies take different solutions to the heavy winter clothing problem. Gold Dot, for example uses their infamous "flying ashtray" design. I don't recall what Golden Sabre uses. I'm fairly certain they're available only in handgun calibers. HPs do not feed well in rifle ammo. They tend to favor soft points or "ballistic" tip styles, IIRC. |
|
Thanks BC... I was wondering what the function of that little post was. I didn't know winter clothing was such an issue... sounds like it almost functions like budget body armor. Are the Hydrashoks supposed to defeat body armor as well, or is selling ammo that makes that claim only limited to LEO? |
A good Class 3 vest will stop anything up to & including a .44magnum. There used to be a guy who made these vests & did a video of shooting himself in the chest & the vest stopped it. Pretty impressive, IMO. The Hydra-shok design had nothing at all to do with penetrating vests. It was simply factoring in winter clothing as worn by those in Maine & other cold ass places. All the clothing would do is prevent mushrooming of the bullet once it entered the body, nothing more. Virtually ANY rifle caliber from .218 Bee & up can & will penetrate a vest. Just as a .22LR can be known as a so-called "cop killer" bullet if that is what the cop is shot in the head or heart with. I'm sure there's some sort of special handgun ammo out there that can bust thru a vest, the new 5.something mm from FN springs to mind. But ammo for that is indeed limited to LEO. You'll find some old timers who say the Federal Nyclad ammo was the best ever made. Federal still makes a lot of it too. If you don't mind me asking, why all the interest in the vest penetration? |
The .357 Sig is a necked-down round in a shorter case (40 S&W necked to .357 I believe), to allow for use in automatics without having to have a huge grip to hold the magazines. Ballistically it is supposed to be similar to the .357 Magnum. Woody |
Actually, it's more or less the opposite of this. The Hydra-Shok bullet design was created by Tom Burczynski in the mid-70s, and was licensed and slightly refined by Federal in the mid-80s. It was the first of the 3rd Generation of hollow-point bullet designs. The purpose of the center post was to force material (i.e., flesh) entering the hollowpoint to impart pressure to the sides of the hollowpoint, helping to ensure bullet expansion. Simple fluid dynamics. Very early gelatin testing (late 80s/early 90s) proved the Hydra-Shok to be extremely reliable at expansion when fired into bare gelatin, and greatly enhanced the Hydra-Shok's (and Federal's) reputation. Since then, thousands of real-world shootings have occured with this bullet, which is still carried by many police departments today. But a trend developed with many 3rd-Gen JHP bullets: they generally worked well against the very-lightly or non-clothed, but against heavier-clothed individuals, there were frequent problems with the bullets failing to expand. This problem was especially noted (but in no way limited to) the Hydra-Shok bullet. Modern IWBA testing protocols are much more extensive than early tests, and include tests against bare gelatin, "clothed" gelatin (4 layers of denim), and gelatin behind several types of barriers, including interior walls, automobile-type sheet steel, and auto windshield glass. In other words, these tests much better reflect the wide range of circumstances likely to be faced by police, military, and civilian shooters in the real world. The Hydra-Shok does poorly in IWBA testing. While being a top design of its day, modern testing has raised the bar significantly, based on thousands of real-world examples of failures of (primarily) 3rd-Gen JHP bullets (in pistols). The Hydra-Shok continues to have significant problems expanding in the denim tests, as well has in a number of the barrier tests. The center post, which was the design's innovation, is also responsible for the clogging problems. The top performing bullet designs, all 4th-Gen designs that were developed or modified based on modern testing, are: - Winchester "Ranger-T" line (LEO-Only) - Federal "Tactical" line (LEO-Only) - Speer "Gold Dot" In each case, these are bonded-core bullets and have had their hollow-point mouths redesigned to reduce the chances of clogging, along with other subtle but important improvements. Rifle bullets, typically having 2.5 to 3 times the velocity, use very different wounding mechanisms, so pistol bullet designs are not appropriate. The 357SIG is based on the concept of necking down a .40S&W casing down to hold a 9mm bullet. The idea was to replicate as close as possible the 125gr JHP .357Mag loading in a cartridge suitable for use in an auto pistol. And indeed, it does come very close. The problem, though, is that the 125gr JHP .357Mag's status comes from the 70's and early 80's, when it was the best performing police round. Back then, 95+% of police departments used revolvers, commonly .357Mags (often loaded with .38 +Ps instead of .357) or .38s, with a very few using either 9mm pistols with 2nd-Gen JHPs or .45s with 230gr FMJs. Compared to modern 9mm loadings, the best .357Mag and 357SIG loads provide virtually identical performance to the 9mm. While both loads indeed give more velocity, the actual wound created by the bullet is indistinguishable from a like 9mm. Which means that the 357SIG's performance is good, but not as good as the .40S&W, and it has all of the same disadvantages vs the 9mm as the .40 does (reduced capacity, increased recoil, muzzle flip, flash, and blast). Thus, you're better off with either a 9mm or a .40, depending on which characteristics you deem best for you: improved capcity and controlability (9mm) or improved terminal performance (.40). *All of the above assumes you are choosing bullets based on their suitability for combat vs. humans. For example, the .357Mag's design allows it to be (with an appropriate load) a much better round for hunting medium-sized animals such as deer or hogs than any 9mm, .40, or 357SIG load. These non-combat criteria are NOT considered when evaluating defensive/duty loads, as they aren't of any relevance to that use. -Troy |
No interest in defating body armor... just wondering if that is what the design intent of Hydrashok`was. Personally I think the best bullet for defeating body armor is the one that hits the target in the face. 
Troy, do you read the Ammo Bible on the shitter or what? Ok, so the way I'm reading you (because sometimes I need it broken down Barney style...) is that Hydrashok doesn't live up to it's claim? Is it worth the extra $$ to buy it for HD? The reason I was asking about rounds... I'm checking out revolvers. I'm trying to steer clear of 9mm for its reputation of low lethality. I considered 45 ACP so I could cross load rounds between the wheel gun and the 1911, but I'm not crazy about needing the half-moon clips. So then I started focusing on .357 Magnum based on it's 80's rep. I like the 7 & 8 rounders, so I think larger than .357 Mag is pretty much out. Are you saying .357 Mag is better for knocking over antelope than a person? Or that it's that powerful that since it's made to knock down animals it's sure to get the desired effect in an HD scenario? |
What I'm saying is that HSs are older, less sophisticated bullets than what is currently available, and that they do not pass IWBA testing requirements. In other words, they aren't the best choice. Use Speer Gold Dots instead; they cost the same or less, are readily available to civilians, and they are better performers all-around. Choose the heaviest-bullet-for caliber loads, as these are consistantly the best performers. Obviously, if you can get Ranger-T (not SXT) or Federal Tactical, those will be good too, but they are much harder to get.
The best .357Mag loads (for defensive use) are no better than the best 9mm loads. Yes, velocity is higher with the .357Mag, but that simply doesn't translate into greater wounding, due to the limitiations of the bullets themselves. Either caliber are certainly acceptable for defense loads, but the simple fact is that larger diameter bullets cause larger wounds (assuming you've chosen one of the top loads for that caliber). .40S&W is better than 9mm/.357Mag, and .45ACP is better than .40S&W. But, there are other considerations to make. Ammo capacity, frame/grip size of the guns that fire that load, recoil, muzzle flip, blast/flash, and so on. You need to determine the best balance for you. A single .45 bullet will do about 20% more damage compared to 9mm, but a full-size 1911 will carry 8-9 rounds, whereas a smaller, lighter Glock 17 will carry 17-18 rounds of 9mm. You have to make this decision for yourself, evaluating all of the parameters that affect the decision.
I'm saying that this is NOT the case. Many people falsely assume that "performance vs some animal" = "performance vs humans". FBI and IWBA terminal ballistic protocols are designed to find loads that are optimal for combat against humans. The physiology of a deer, a pig, a wolf, or whatever, will be VERY different than a human, so what is ideal for one will not be ideal for another. Most hunting loads require more penetration than is needed or safe for a duty load, for example, and many are designed to cause more of the damage at a greater wound depth than is desireable in a defensive. The current protocols are internationally recognized and have been developed and refined over a 25 year period, using every bit of real-world feedback available. They are your best guide for choosing a defensive load, regardless of caliber. -Troy |
Doesn't the velocity that the bullet is traveling (in the case of 9mm vs. .357) mean it will take more with it causing a larger exit wound? If the terminal ballistics of 9mm and .357 aren't really that much diffferent why even have the two different rounds? Is it because the .357 will travel further before dropping, giving you a farther range of lethality than a 9mm? What about .44 magnum vs. .45 ACP or .45 Colt? Same thing? Now that you've said that the .357 Magnum isn't that much different from a 9mm, I'm certainly reconsidering my options. I was under the impression that the .357 was comparable to a .45 in lethality. When it comes to a revolver, given their limited load capacity, I want it to spit a bullet out that will immobilize regardless of where it hits the target. In an auto, I can understand the pros of having a smaller load, like a 9mm, in that you have better control and more capacity. If you're a good shot then you are certainly in a better position than with a larger load/lesser capacity. Of course, in fantasy land I'd have one of everything and it wouldn't be an issue.  Unfortunately my membership at the fantasy land range ran out a long time ago. Thanks again for the info... always appreciated. |
When it comes to TERMINAL ballistics (meaning, the bullet has hit something, and you're studying what happens once it does), velocity is part of the energy equation, and gives the bullet the ability to do work. BUT, how that energy is used is based on the size, weight (mass), and design of the bullet. While it isn't uncommon for .357Mag bullets to be traveling 100-150 fps faster than 9mm +P+ rounds, the fact is that the bullet is still nearly identical, and the bullet really isn't able to do much extra with that velocity. Think about it: if both bullets, which start at the same diameter, hit and expand at about the same point, and penetrate to about the same depth, why would one do more damage than another? Tests show that it won't. The .357Mag won its reputation in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, when the comparison was mostly limited to .38s, .357Mags, a few 9mms, and .45 FMJs. Think of it in terms of cars: 60's muscle cars had lots of power and could go real fast in a straight line, but handled poorly (at best) in turns, got horrible gas mileage, and were quite unsafe. Many of today's top performance cars can equal or best the straight-line performance of those cars, but they ALSO handle much better, are infinitely safer, get much better mileage, and are much more friendly to the environment. Cars that were the top performers in those days (GTO, GTX, Charger, etc.) wouldn't hold a candle to a modern Corvette, Turbo Supra, or Acura NS-X, even though these new cars aren't that much faster, but because those cars have much improved their all-around performance. Same with bullet designs.
Lots of reasons for the .357. First, the much larger case gives it the ability to be loaded with much heavier (longer) bullets and still have plenty of room for powder. While this won't help you in a combat situation, that's exactly what you need for, say, hunting wild pigs. Or, maybe you want to shoot silouettes, and need a heavy bullet to knock those targets over at distance. .357 revolvers are also commonly available with long barrels (that you'd never want on a defensive gun) that take even more advantage of the case capacity. The 9mm is much more limited in these areas, yet is still a fine combat caliber. Better, in fact (IMO), because it's much smaller and much more suited for high-capacity pistols. Its extremely size-efficient.
Again, for defensive purposes, these are close enough that terminal performance would be near identical with loads ideal for defensive use. HOWEVER, very few good loads for defensive use are available in .44 Mag or .45 Colt (compared to .45 ACP permance). In order to keep the .44 under the 18" penetration maximum, you'd need to down-load the ammo to medium-strength .44 Spl. pressures, and the only suitable bullet that I'm aware of is the Speer Gold Dot. I seriously doubt that any other bullet in this caliber could pass the IWBA test protocols. .45 Colt is even worse in this regard; nearly all loads are either round-nose lead or heavy, deep-penetrating hunting loads. These guns have lots of power, but no way to use it well (in a combat context; they are much better suited to the hunting role). Again, no one is saying that these guns can't or won't kill. Of course they will, and have. But there have been many situations where they have failed to stop a bad guy in time to keep the bad guy from hurting the good guy. The IWBA protocols are designed to find loads that will work reliably in nearly ANY situation, not just one that puts you at an advantage.
Objectively, it is not. But, often, those using a 6-shot .357 take the time to aim and are a bit more careful with their shots, knowing that they must make each shot count. Many folks with auto pistols assume (falsely, in most cases) that their gun's higher capacity will make up for poor shooting. Be careful, because many "unweighted" statistics will reflect this bias.
There is no such caliber in any handgun. ALL handgun rounds are inherently weak (and I say this as someone who has fired more than a hundred rounds of .454 Casull) compared to nearly any centerfire rifle cartridge. Shot placement will ALWAYS be critical, and always difficult to achieve in a real firefight, because the bad guy isn't likely to stand at attention facing you while you shoot at him, like the silouette targets at the range. Larger bullets that damage more tissue in a wider path can sometimes make up for *slight* errors in aim, but mostly they just increase the rate of blood loss and the onset of shock. If you hit someone in a non-vital area with anything handgun round, there's a good chance that your attacker will continue to fight you, and that's what we're trying to prevent. Proper load selection is one big component, but shot placement is (at least) as important.
Again, equipment and load selection are important; they make sure you aren't *starting* at a needless disadvantage. Beyond that, mindset and training are everything. Even with the best gear and a 14-round Glock 21, I wouldn't choose to face Chuck Taylor, even if he was armed only with a match-lock pistol. I'm a fairly decent pistol shot, but he's a master, and WAY out of my league, even with poor equipment. -Troy |
Armory Sponsor