Is Hydrashock's Day In The Sun Over?
- Thread starter AZRoger
- Start date
Let's keep our posts at adult-level around here, please.Aguila Blanca
Staff
Your argument is like comparing a 1963 split window coupe to a 2015 Corvette. In 1963, the then-new split window coupe with mechanical fuel injection was one of the (if not THE) hottest American cars around, and certainly one of the most sought after.FairWarning said:
Today? The cheapest 2015 Corvette is orders of magnitude faster than the '63, handles infinitely better, and has far better brakes. Is the '63 still a classic and highly sought after? You bet. Is the 2015 a better vehicle in just about every possible aspect? Yes -- and nostalgia for the '63 split window can't change that.
Double Naught Spy
New member
I still meet old timers who chant "They all fall to hard ball."
I switched over from Hydrashoks to HSTs when I saw the gel test differences. Hydrashoks always had difficulty with clogging on clothing and failing to open.
FrankenMauser
New member
Don't give ATK more credit than they deserve.RickB said:
More bullets are changed to reduce manufacturing costs than to 'improve performance'.
You might be right!
Still, when people were shooting gelatin and goats, and doctoring real street numbers to measure bullet performance, 230gr .45 Hydra-shok was the gold standard.
When shot from 5" guns, one source reported 100% one-shot stops in actual shootings. I don't put much stock in that sort of stuff, but a round that was stopping people at a 95% clip in the '90s shouldn't have suddenly become less effective, and you really can't improve on 95%.
Are you telling me that thugs didn't wear denim in the '90s, or that they drove cars with considerably different window glass, or hid behind a different type of wallboard? All that's changed is the test procedures.
Still, when people were shooting gelatin and goats, and doctoring real street numbers to measure bullet performance, 230gr .45 Hydra-shok was the gold standard.
When shot from 5" guns, one source reported 100% one-shot stops in actual shootings. I don't put much stock in that sort of stuff, but a round that was stopping people at a 95% clip in the '90s shouldn't have suddenly become less effective, and you really can't improve on 95%.
Are you telling me that thugs didn't wear denim in the '90s, or that they drove cars with considerably different window glass, or hid behind a different type of wallboard? All that's changed is the test procedures.
Independent George
New member
Except those test procedures changed precisely because of field reports of failures to stop. Also, guns have also gotten smaller, so concealed carriers are shooting from barrels much shorter than the 4+ inch duty guns the hydraschocks were designed for. (Interestingly, when STB did his .380 tests, the hydrashocks actually performed better than most of the more modern bullets).
The point is, while newer doesn't necessarily equal better (and the gel tests have shown that newer is often worse, as with the G2's), you should be willing to move on when it is demonstrably the case.
Dragline45
New member
I did always find the denim tests to be a bit ridiculous. I honestly haven't seen many people wear denim jackets since the 90's including myself, so the reason they wrap gel in denim to simulate real world encounters escapes me, I think cotton would be a much better testing variable.
FairWarning
New member
Aquila Blanca said:
The difference in capabilities you used above would be more like comparing a .45 HST to a .22 LR RNL. If that were applicable, the Hydra-Shok would be completely irrelevant (it isn't).
Regarding the selling price, there is no reason for it to be at or near the same cost as newer generations of ammo, but the market will either support the price or not. I wouldn't buy more Hydra-Shok unless it was considerably cheaper than the newer ammo, but I definitely wouldn't feel underprotected carrying it. Put one center mass and your would-be attacker's day just went to hell in a hand bag.
Last edited:
Derbel McDillet
Moderator
See "Why Four Layers of Denim Cloth?" - http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/2006/04/02/0604-02a.htm
Last edited:
Stevie-Ray
New member
Exactly! Now, your chosen weapon shoots Hydra-Shocks perfectly, shot to shot, every time, with astounding groups. Everything else? Groups open up, no matter how much you don't want them to. Now, what do you shoot in that weapon?
Brotherbadger
New member
Agreed. HST is my go to. Hydrashocks will still work, but I feel there are better options out there.
For the LE/Gov market, according to what Federal promotes to that user market demographic? Pretty much, yes, it seems as though the Hydra-Shok's day is past.
For the private citizen market and the offerings available commercially? Then, no, it doesn't seem to be so.
Seems as though Federal has revised and refined the Hydra-Shok bullets and loadings over the years.
I remember when the 230gr .45 ACP Hydra-Shok was reportedly revised to make it feed better in the 45's commonly seen many years ago.
Nowadays, though, some of the different ballistic testing being used, especially the difficult IWBA 4-layer denim/gel test, has driven the major ammo companies who want a piece of the LE/Gov sales to offer some newer designs that are intended to provide more resistance to plugging, and potential for robust & consistent expansion, than the older Hydra-Shok design.
I think I came across a couple containers of at least 3-4 hundred (or more) rounds of 230gr .45 ACP Hydra-Shok when I was rummaging around in my ammo cabinets. I dimly remember putting them back sometime in maybe the early 90's.
I won't be moving them up to replace the Rem 230gr HPJ/BJHP Golden Sabres or Win 230gr T-Series (of which I have both RA45T & RA45TP versions), nor the small supply of Speer 230gr GDHP I have left over ... nor the Federal HST that's next up in the training/duty inventory where I work ... but I'd not lose sleep if I used them in any of my .45's at one time or another, either.
I'd be surprised if Federal discontinued the Hydra-Shok line in the immediate future. They've probably long since written off the cost of the equipment to make the bullets, and the bullet design probably still has a lot of name-recognition among older shooters who have used them over the years.
Last edited: