You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
135gr Hydra-shok in 9mm, any good?
- Thread starter Doug S
- Start date
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Well, I can't give a direct answer on the comparison--haven't shot anybody, lately.
I was on a jury once where the coroner's report on the not-very-lamented indicated that of the five Hydra-Shok hits from a .38 snubbie, any one would have been sufficient.
If I had to make a truly wild guess, the heavier weight might possibly be, maybe, to slow the bullet down and not get over-expansion. That's about as weasel-worded as guess as I can guess...
FWIW, Art
I was on a jury once where the coroner's report on the not-very-lamented indicated that of the five Hydra-Shok hits from a .38 snubbie, any one would have been sufficient.
If I had to make a truly wild guess, the heavier weight might possibly be, maybe, to slow the bullet down and not get over-expansion. That's about as weasel-worded as guess as I can guess...
FWIW, Art
It's a classic compromise bullet, between the 124gn and the 147gn. I personally don't like them (the 135's) for a number of reasons.
Firstly, I called Federal to get some information from them, and they pretty much had nothing to say about the 135gn loading, but were all too willing to chat about the other two loads in 9mm.
Second, when I examined the two boxes that I had bought, I found that about half of the rounds had less than standard center posts, and a few had them missing all toghther!
Lastly, FTI tested them and showed how terrible they are in several standardized tests. The same tests, incidently, where the 124 and 147gn HydraShoks shined.
So, given that, I decided to just dump them downrange. WOW. S&W Sigma 9mm, in great, although 6000 rounds, condition. Placement at 25yd was about the same as any high performance loading, but the recoil was terrible! Much harsher than the other offerings. And EVERY ONE of the spent cases showed major bulging. I've never seen anything like it from any of my guns. I took the remaining box of bullets back to the load bench, took 'em apart (to use the brass), and put them up on the shelf as and example of "What Not To Buy", 'specially without knowledge of performance.
Stick with the proven 124 or 147gn loadings, your life is worth it.
Tom
------------------
A "Miss" is the ultimate overpenetration!
You can never be too rich, too skinny, or too well armed!
[This message has been edited by Banzai (edited April 02, 2000).]
Firstly, I called Federal to get some information from them, and they pretty much had nothing to say about the 135gn loading, but were all too willing to chat about the other two loads in 9mm.
Second, when I examined the two boxes that I had bought, I found that about half of the rounds had less than standard center posts, and a few had them missing all toghther!
Lastly, FTI tested them and showed how terrible they are in several standardized tests. The same tests, incidently, where the 124 and 147gn HydraShoks shined.
So, given that, I decided to just dump them downrange. WOW. S&W Sigma 9mm, in great, although 6000 rounds, condition. Placement at 25yd was about the same as any high performance loading, but the recoil was terrible! Much harsher than the other offerings. And EVERY ONE of the spent cases showed major bulging. I've never seen anything like it from any of my guns. I took the remaining box of bullets back to the load bench, took 'em apart (to use the brass), and put them up on the shelf as and example of "What Not To Buy", 'specially without knowledge of performance.
Stick with the proven 124 or 147gn loadings, your life is worth it.
Tom
------------------
A "Miss" is the ultimate overpenetration!
You can never be too rich, too skinny, or too well armed!
[This message has been edited by Banzai (edited April 02, 2000).]
It's my understanding that the answer depends somehat on what length barrel you have.
If you have a "compact" barrel ~3.x", then you will need the lighter bullet to develope the velocity needed to hit the top of the delivered force "bell curve". If you're using a full size 9mm with a 4+" barrel then you can utilize the barrel length and accommodate a heavier bullet.
I shoot almost exclusively 9mm's and will NOT use anything over a 124 grain in a pistol. The velocity for maximum bullet effectiveness is just not developed in a pistol barrel length. The 135 and 147 are more suited for carbines and subguns, both of which have a much longer barrel for development of the optimum velocity.
CMOS
------------------
GOA, TSRA, LEAA, NRA, SAF and I vote!
[This message has been edited by CMOS (edited April 02, 2000).]
If you have a "compact" barrel ~3.x", then you will need the lighter bullet to develope the velocity needed to hit the top of the delivered force "bell curve". If you're using a full size 9mm with a 4+" barrel then you can utilize the barrel length and accommodate a heavier bullet.
I shoot almost exclusively 9mm's and will NOT use anything over a 124 grain in a pistol. The velocity for maximum bullet effectiveness is just not developed in a pistol barrel length. The 135 and 147 are more suited for carbines and subguns, both of which have a much longer barrel for development of the optimum velocity.
CMOS
------------------
GOA, TSRA, LEAA, NRA, SAF and I vote!
[This message has been edited by CMOS (edited April 02, 2000).]
VictorLouis
New member
What the FBI carries? Puuullleeeese! They packed the 3" Model 13 for decades. I'm told that almost no other agency followed suit! DO NOT BET YOUR LIFE ON THAT AMMO!
There ARE far superior choices out there, like Federal's own 9BPLE.
There ARE far superior choices out there, like Federal's own 9BPLE.