Today I finished shooting my last box of "old" Federal 230gr 45ACP Hydrashok which I purchased back in 1993 and open a "new" box of same ammo which I purchased about 6 months ago. I noticed the nose profile of the "new" ammo has changed to more round shape compared to the truncated shape of the "old" ammo. When did this change occure and has anybody notice any other difference between the "old" and the "new" Hydrashok design?
New Federal 45ACP Hydrashok?
- Thread starter taco
- Start date
parabellum
New member
There have actually been three different profiles of the 230 grain Hydrashok projectile. The first ones had the truncated cone type appearance as the ones you purchased in '93, but had a wider hollowpoint cavity. The last change, with the more rounded profile took place probably around '96, I think. As I understand it, this change was implemented to improve feed reliabilty, although I never had any problems with the older Hydrashoks in my Sig 220 and Smith 4506.
I love Federal's product. They are not a company to rest on their laurels. I have some 9BP ammo from 1981 or 2. You would not recognize it when compared to the projectile shape of today's 9BP.
I love Federal's product. They are not a company to rest on their laurels. I have some 9BP ammo from 1981 or 2. You would not recognize it when compared to the projectile shape of today's 9BP.
I have shot 500 rounds of this "old" Hydrashok in my Sig220, Kimber Target and Kimber Ultra Carry and don't remember a single problem of any kind. This is my carry ammo for the Sig and Kimber Target (Federal Personal Defense ammo for the Ultra Carry). Is there any performance difference (penetration, velocity, expansion, etc.) between "old" and "new" Hydrashok?
P
PreserveFreedom
Guest
If it works, go with it! Round is better when dealing with 1911 design.
I don't know how well the old Hydrashok performed as I've only fired the newer round through my Glock 21. It's the lower grain round, 135 if I remember correctly.
It almost completely penetrated one thick phonebook, and 50% of the time I fired it into said phonebook, the copper jacket peeled completely off. That might just be a result of the media I fired it into though.
It's a nasty round to be sure, I wouldn't want to get hit with one. That's why I have them in my Glock.
It almost completely penetrated one thick phonebook, and 50% of the time I fired it into said phonebook, the copper jacket peeled completely off. That might just be a result of the media I fired it into though.
It's a nasty round to be sure, I wouldn't want to get hit with one. That's why I have them in my Glock.
I used to get high angle feed jams in one of my 1911's with the old 230gr truncated cone Hydra-Shok bullet. Since Federal switched to the hardball profile that problem is gone.
The 1911 was designed around ball ammo, the closer you stay to that profile, the better your reliability will be.
------------------
Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war.
The 1911 was designed around ball ammo, the closer you stay to that profile, the better your reliability will be.
------------------
Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war.
parabellum
New member
taco, as I understand it, both changes were implemeneted to improve feed reliability. While there may be some subtle distinctions in terminal ballistics among the three, I would think any generation of 230 grain Hydrashok is a world class performer.