Federal HST- Impressive performance!

[USSA-1]

Marcus,

Have you seen some of these wound ballistic workshop results using the Federal HST rounds? If these results are valid (and they seem to be), this round is blowing the general expansion averages for calibers out the window!

High .80's for 9mm and .99's and higher for the 45's. I've been a Gold Dot fan for over a decade, but it might be time to jump ship.

http://le.atk.com/general/irl/woundballistics.aspx

Any thoughts?

[Marcus L.]

The ATK testing does make the HST look like a quantum leap in bullet technology. However, since ATK is essentially advertising Federal and CCI Speer ammunition my bias alert starts beeping at me. Their testing forum is a a LE sales convention to get the attending agencies to buy their product versus the competition. Their testing shows the Gold Dot beating out the Ranger Talon in several cases in expansion and that has never been the case for the Gold Dot. The GD has always been a better penetrator than expander. If you go to Winchester's website, their numbers seem to be more honest. A lot of their loads didn't do all that well and failed one or more of the FBI protocols........what kinda salesman would put up numbers like that unless they were being honest?

Dr. Roberts and his team tested the popular loads such as HST, Ranger Talon, Gold Dot, Golden Saber, and others. In his testing the HST was very similar to the other barbed expander......the Winchester Ranger Talon(SXT). His impression from his testing was that he thought the Talons were still a better overall load. They have no financial gain, and they have no bias to promote one brand over another. Hopefully Doc will correct me if I'm wrong.

Personally, I like Federal's loads very much. I normally carry their Tactical Bonded series for duty use. Federal designed the TB to make up for the standard HST's problem with shooting through barriers such as windshields. However, I am a little skeptical of the HST having that level of expansion based on past unbias testing and who's doing the testing. I think it's just as good as the Talon in terms of expansion, and Federal's bonded loads seem to have better expansion than the Gold Dots.

[Jim from Houston]

People have asked Dr Roberts about the HST versus Ranger T differences in the past, and his usual response is that when doing terminal ballistics tests, you need to shoot a sample of the rounds (like 5 shots of each type) and use the average performance as a gauge...if you look at the different ballistics workshops, the expansion for the HST rounds (while always more than Ranger T) is often all over the board...sometimes the .45 expands to .80, sometimes it expands to an inch...if you were to do the averages, I think there's much less of a difference between the HST and Ranger T...in its favor, the HST does seem to hold together better through auto glass in the tests I've seen data from...but I think the general consensus among folks in the know is that both are excellent rounds, and if both function well and are accurate in your particular weapon, you should probably just buy whichever you can get cheaper...

[Glock17JHP]

I tested Federal HST's, Speer Gold Dots and Winchester Ranger 'T', all in 147 grain HP configuration, using a Glock 17...

Although the Federal HST was pretty consistent, the Speer Gold Dot was a lot more consistent. The main reason I didn't like the Federal HST is that I felt that the penetration is a bit too shallow, due to expansion that I think is a bit excessive. The Speer Gold Dot had the opposite problem, I wish it expanded to a larger diameter.

The Winchester Ranger 'T' wasn't as pretty as the Federal HST and Speer Gold Dot after expansion, but it has better expanded diameter than the Speer Gold Dot, and better penetration depth than the Federal HST.

For the above reasons, all based on MY testing, I choose Winchester Ranger 'T' 147 grain RA9T...

[Marcus L.]

The main reason I didn't like the Federal HST is that I felt that the penetration is a bit too shallow, due to expansion that I think is a bit excessive.

That is a very accurate observation. Simply put, a 147gr 9mm bullet can be made to expand to .45acp levels, but it would not have enough momentum behind it to allow the bullet to penetrate up to 12"(unless the gel was calibrated wrong). The resistant force is too great for the bullet's low momentum to overcome. Which is why there is an expansion threshold for each caliber which is the ideal combination of penetration and expansion. Velocity makes little difference here either as we can observe in the case of the .357sig which expands to 9mm levels(around .62-.65"), but because it has similar or identical mass it does not penetrate any deeper than the 9mm. The .357magnum can utilize 158gr-180gr bullets which greatly increase its overall momentum and penetrate very deeply, but due to the caliber limitations in bullet construction it simpily will not expand beyond the .65-.68" threshold before the petals fold back and hug the bullet truck. When shooting soft targets, it would have made a lot more sense just to increase your caliber size to a .40S&W which is capable of creating a larger hole expanded or not.

The only way to increase the size of the hole made and penetrate to adequate depths with consistant reliability is to increase the caliber size and bullet mass. Of the common service calibers that consistanly penetrate 12-13" in bare gel:
-9mm expands .61-.65"
-.357sig expands .61-.65"
-.40S&W expands .66-70"
-.45acp expands .70-.75"

Occasionall you'll get more or less, but the vast majority of tested loads will not exceed these thresholds and still maintain ideal penetration. These restrictions are not so much dependent on weapons technology, so much as they are dependent on the limitations of physics.

[Glock17JHP]

The .357magnum can utilize 158gr-180gr bullets which greatly increase its overall momentum and penetrate very deeply, but due to the caliber limitations in bullet construction it simpily will not expand beyond the .65-.68" threshold before the petals fold back and hug the bullet truck.

Agree with your previous post overall... but the Winchester Supreme Partition Gold 180 grain JHP may be one of the only exceptions to the above comment on .357 Magnum loads. I consider that load in a class by itself!!! The petals don't fold back past about 90 degrees...

[Marcus L.]

Agree with your previous post overall... but the Winchester Supreme Partition Gold 180 grain JHP may be one of the only exceptions to the above comment on .357 Magnum loads. I consider that load in a class by itself!!! The petals don't fold back past about 90 degrees...

I haven't seen any stats on that load. Do you have any numbers? Definately an expensive bullet none the less with the complex construction. The only places I've seen this round for sale it runs for no less that $1.60 a shot versus a Ranger Talon which run for about $.40 a shot. Now days Gold Dots and other modern bonded loads run for about $.50 a shot.

http://www.winchester.com/products/catalog/handgundetail.aspx?symbol=S357P&cart=MzU3IE1hZ251bQ==&bn=5

Doesn't look like Winchester makes it for anything other than revolver hunting loads with very high sectional density and bullet weight. The bullet length would probably be too long for the common service calibers. At 180gr the .357mag load has a sectional density of .204 which is up there with a rifle bullet. Just for comparison, a 125gr .357mag/.357sig bullet has a SD of .142. The heaviest weight 9mm, .40S&W, and .45acp bullets don't exceed .17. Keep in mind, that is for a typical 180gr with a full lead core. The Partitian Gold has a copper divider which would lengthen the bullet even more. Probably why it is only used in revolver calibers with lots of case space. For 10mm, you'd need a 230gr bullet to match that SD, but for Partitian Gold the copper divider might lengthen the bullet beyond the case capacity.

[Jim from Houston]

Marcus - Winchester used to offer the Partition Gold for service calibers in their Ranger line...a 124 gr 9mm called the "RA91P" and a 165gr .40 called "RA401P". Both are included on DocGKR's list of recommended loads...unfortunately, as with many good things in life, folks didn't appreciate them, they were expensive, and so Winchester cancelled them...I think they were under pressure to go with a "Bonded" line instead in order to compete with all of the ATK products...so voila, now instead of SXT and Partition Gold, we have T-Series and Ranger Bonded...

Interestingly, Winchester's other heavy hunting revolver bullet, which they only offer in large Magnum calibers, is the "Platinum Tip" which is actually the same bullet as the SXT/T-Series...

Here's an old Winchester web page that I found that has some Partition Gold Test Data...check out that RA401P performance against auto glass...looks pretty good! The 9mm doesn't look quite as impressive through glass...too bad they had to go away though...more options are always nice...

http://www.winchester.com/LawEnforcement/testing/testing_pg.aspx

[Marcus L.]

Those are some impressive numbers, Jim. Looks like Winchester really engineered a superior bullet design. Unfortunately, it seems to cost 3-4 times as much to produce it over the other common defensive loads on the market. When you weigh the cost to benefit ratio, it doesn't make logical sense to use it.

[Glock17JHP]

Marcus L,

Email me through this site, and give me your email address...
I will email my .357 Magnum data to you that includes the Winchester Partition Gold, including 2 pictures...

[trunkmonkey]

The ATK testing does make the HST look like a quantum leap in bullet technology. However, since ATK is essentially advertising Federal and CCI Speer ammunition my bias alert starts beeping at me. Their testing forum is a a LE sales convention to get the attending agencies to buy their product versus the competition. Their testing shows the Gold Dot beating out the Ranger Talon in several cases in expansion and that has never been the case for the Gold Dot. The GD has always been a better penetrator than expander. If you go to Winchester's website, their numbers seem to be more honest. A lot of their loads didn't do all that well and failed one or more of the FBI protocols........what kinda salesman would put up numbers like that unless they were being honest?

Dr. Roberts and his team tested the popular loads such as HST, Ranger Talon, Gold Dot, Golden Saber, and others. In his testing the HST was very similar to the other barbed expander......the Winchester Ranger Talon(SXT). His impression from his testing was that he thought the Talons were still a better overall load. They have no financial gain, and they have no bias to promote one brand over another. Hopefully Doc will correct me if I'm wrong.

Personally, I like Federal's loads very much. I normally carry their Tactical Bonded series for duty use. Federal designed the TB to make up for the standard HST's problem with shooting through barriers such as windshields. However, I am a little skeptical of the HST having that level of expansion based on past unbias testing and who's doing the testing. I think it's just as good as the Talon in terms of expansion, and Federal's bonded loads seem to have better expansion than the Gold Dots.


If it matters I've been to one of these workshops. Even though yes it was basically ATK advertising, we fired all the popular rounds and the HST and gold dot
were obviously the best. With the HST rounds standing out.

This was into calibrated gelatin, using pistols and rifles that random guys brought with them, not company weapons. And the shooter was just some guy that attended.

Everyone can take from the experience whatever they want, but the results were obvious.

And when they show pictures of what the HST round looks like expanded in their ads they are not exaggerating at all.

I already have carried gold dot for quite a while. Going to that seminar made me an HST believer. However I don't think
anyone could go wrong choosing either round.

[Glock17JHP]

Trunkmonkey,

I would assume you currently have or soon plan to have the HST in your favorite handgun... correct?

If yes, would you please share with us the weapon/load combination you have or will soon have?

Do you know the expected penetration/expansion from this specific weapon/load combination, perhaps from your personally witnessing the testing you referred to above?

And finally, are you happy with just the expansion characteristics of this load, or... are you happy with both the penetration and expansion characteristics?

Please elaborate as much as you are willing to on these answers... more is better...

[trunkmonkey]

Yes I'm running 155gr HST in .40 and 147gr HST in 9mm currently in glock 17/22's.

I can't make exact quotes on the performance but will say they were meticulous in recording the results. Not like they were just writing down the best numbers.

ATK has a few of the workshop results logged on their website from different demonstrations they have done. You can find the raw data your looking for on there. I found the other tests to accurately represent what I witnessed also.

Matter of fact they used my glock 17 to do the test firing for all the 9mm shots.

I was extremely impressed with the performance of the HST. Gold Dot was a close 2nd. Anyone that likes the characteristics of the gold dot rounds I believe would be even more happy with both increased expansion and penetration of the HST rounds over most of the same gr and caliber gold dot rounds.

We fired into bare gelatin, through glass, and through heavy clothing.

I found the results to be very upfront and obvious. With the HST coming out on top pretty much all the time. We fired 9mm, .40,.45, and 5.56.

http://le.atk.com/general/irl/woundballistics.aspx

I'm very happy with everything about the HST's

We also fired the EFMJ rounds which were pretty cool. Certainly a good choice in weapons that may have feeding problems with hollow point rounds but where more than just a standard FMJ is needed.

Expansion was right in between a FMJ and a hollowpoint. As well as penetration being in between both.

[Glock17JHP]

Trunkmonkey,

I have looked at all of the .PDF's ATK puts on their website... I also understand that you were there and witnessed the testing firsthand. However, I was not there, and am not sure how their gelatin was prepared, and have a questioning attitude about the calibration, also. Gelatin preparation and calibration are critical, and you don't just calibrate to give the gelatin block an 'OK'. The calibration shots need to be performed both before and after all shots in a block, and the data from the calibration velocity and depth then needs to be figured into the penetration depths to correct the numbers to what reality would really be. Each block needs to be calibrated, twice.

In the most recent event listed (Fort Collins 6-26-08), there were 52 shots fired, according to the data sheets. What concerns me is that the only data from the so-called calibration says: 5 Shot BB Avg: 3.5

So, it appears that only 5 BB's were fired. I would guess that there were more than 5 gelatin blocks fired into. I don't think this testing is being done in a way the IWBA would have approved, and we would have listed both calibration shot velocities and penetrations for each calibration shot fired.

I think ATK knows better, too...

Lastly, I noticed in this particular test event (Fort Collins 6-26-08), when they tested 9mm ammunition they used 147 grain loads in the Federal HST and the Remington Golden Saber, and they were non +P loads. For the Speer Gold Dot and Winchester Ranger, however, they used 124 and 127 grains, respectively... and they were +P loads. This is sort of an 'apples to oranges' sort of thing to me. They should compare 147 grain loads in all 4 loads.

[DRT]

Just curious, why did you choose the 155gr version of the HST?

In my personal, unscientific testing with clothing in front of H20-filled jugs, the heavier HSTs open both larger and more robustly. Additionally, per email feedback from an ATK engineer, the heavier HSTs do better through glass than their lighter counterparts.

Right now, I have 180gr HSTs in all my .40 weapons (except on duty, when I use 165gr GD, as issued/required). I also like the 180gr Ranger and would use either with equivalent confidence.

[Marcus L.]

Just to add, the 155gr HST did NOT pass the independent testing performed by Robert's team. Due to the 155gr bullet's poor sectional density, it's momentum is too low resulting in poor penetration once it expands. The only 155gr load that did pass was the Speer Gold Dot which like all bonded bullets, doesn't expand as much resulting in better penetration.

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887

Glock17JHP makes some very valid points. There are ways to purposefully throw off a gel test such as leaving the blocks out of temperature too long, slighly wet denim or heavy clothing(or lace with petrolleum jelly), .....ect to change the performance of a particular load. These little things would not be noticed by someone just observing the testing. I've noticed such discrepancies on internet testing before. Remington claimed that their Golden Sabers were supieror loads with excellent expansion that rivaled the competition about 10 years ago. They even had their own gel tests which showed superior expansion and penetration. Independent testing proved otherwise.

This is why it is ALWAYS much more logical to seek out testing data by independent facilities that are known for using accurate proceedures and have no financial benefit in regard to the results. Such facilities would be the FBI, Firearms Institute, or Dr. Robert's team. The HST by all unbias accounts is just like all the other top loads and doesn't eclispe them like the ATK testing shows.

[trunkmonkey]

ok ok gents. Let say the gelatin was not calibrated properly.

Well then it wasn't calibrated properly for ALL the different ammo tested.
Would that not put them all on the same playing field??

For arguements sake say the tests were dicked with. Well they were like that for ALL the rounds we tested then. If they did it wrong, they did it wrong for ALL the rounds tested.

Would the IWBA approve, maybe. maybe not. Hell I don't know.

What I can say is it was a level playing field for all rounds tested and which one was coming out on top. And like I said before the gold dot's were damn near as good.

There was no big "setup" going on here to make that round look good. We fire more than a few non ATK produced rounds that guys brought with them too just so guys could see what their own carry loads were doing.

I chose the 155gr .40 HST because I didn't mind giving up a slight amount of expansion for a little more penetration. And for what it's worth the 180's were a bitch to find when I started carrying HST. But I'll probably switch over to the heavier load when I rotate the ammo out. No rush.

What can I say, seek out and attend a demonstration. If your impressed cool, if not, that's cool too.

I don't think that the HST eclipses all other rounds, but I do think it edges out most of them.

I'd carry gold dot or HST without thinking twice.

I'm just joe shmuck that attended and is writing his observations.

[ToddG]

Just to add, the 155gr HST did NOT pass the independent testing performed by Robert's team. Due to the 155gr bullet's poor sectional density, it's momentum is too low resulting in poor penetration once it expands. The only 155gr load that did pass was the Speer Gold Dot which like all bonded bullets, doesn't expand as much resulting in better penetration.

Do we know for certain that Doctor Roberts tested the 155gr HST? The fact that a load isn't on his list could mean he hasn't shot any for detailed testing yet. Last I knew, for example, that was the case with 124gr +p HST.

[Marcus L.]

Do we know for certain that Doctor Roberts tested the 155gr HST? The fact that a load isn't on his list could mean he hasn't shot any for detailed testing yet. Last I knew, for example, that was the case with 124gr +p HST.

I came across some Firearms Institute testing from early 2008 on some HST loads:

9mm Fed 147 gr JHP HST (P9HST2) from G17:
BG: vel=1037f/s, pen=11.9”, RD=0.64”, RW=147.8gr
4 layer denim: vel=1049f/s, pen=14.7”, RD=0.54”, RW=147.5gr
auto windshield: vel=1042 f/s, pen=13.4”, RD=0.53”, RW=140.4gr

.40 S&W Fed 180 gr JHP HST (P40HST1) from S&W 4006
BG: vel=960 f/s, pen=12.6”, RD=0.65”, RW=181.1gr
4 layer denim: vel=961 f/s, pen=15.6”, RD=0.62, 181.3 gr
auto windshield: vel=904 f/s, pen=15.2”, RD=0.47”, RW=180.4gr

.45 ACP Fed 230 gr +P JHP HST (P45HST1) from 1911
BG: vel=926 f/s, pen=12.6”, RD=0.74”, RW=231.8gr
4 layer denim: vel=915 f/s, pen=15.4”, RD=0.67, 231.1 gr
auto windshield: vel=918 f/s, pen=19.7”, RD=0.54”, RW=228.6gr


So, definately not anywhere near the numbers that the ATK testers were claiming. With regard to the 155gr HST, hopefully Dr. Roberts can answer that. I recently read an old thread on Tactical Forums where Doc said that they had not tested the 165gr HST because there was little demand for it.

Until we can clarify that the 155gr HST did not pass the testing for certain, ignore my previous post on it.

[PA PATRIOT]

I hope one day maybe the forums ballistics experts could test my PD's duty loads and see what result s occur.

Federal Tactical HST 9mm 147gr H/P...Glock Model-17
Federal Tactical HST .40S&W 165gr H/P..Glock Model-22
Federal Tactical HST .45acp 230gr H/P..Glock Model-21

[DocGKR]

The HST test results noted above are actually ones we did, not Firearms Institute:


9mm Fed 147 gr JHP HST (P9HST2) from G17:
BG: vel=1037f/s, pen=11.9”, RD=0.64”, RW=147.8gr
4 layer denim: vel=1049f/s, pen=14.7”, RD=0.54”, RW=147.5gr
auto windshield: vel=1042 f/s, pen=13.4”, RD=0.53”, RW=140.4gr

.40 S&W Fed 180 gr JHP HST (P40HST1) from S&W 4006
BG: vel=960 f/s, pen=12.6”, RD=0.65”, RW=181.1gr
4 layer denim: vel=961 f/s, pen=15.6”, RD=0.62, 181.3 gr
auto windshield: vel=904 f/s, pen=15.2”, RD=0.47”, RW=180.4gr

.45 ACP Fed 230 gr +P JHP HST (P45HST1) from 1911
BG: vel=926 f/s, pen=12.6”, RD=0.74”, RW=231.8gr
4 layer denim: vel=915 f/s, pen=15.4”, RD=0.67, 231.1 gr
auto windshield: vel=918 f/s, pen=19.7”, RD=0.54”, RW=228.6gr

Keep in mind that unless we have a specific question or interest, the tests we perform are at the request of various LE agencies and military organizations--if they don't ask for it, we don't test it. Since almost every LE agency out here uses the 9mm 147 gr and .40 180 gr, we have not had any requests to test the 9 mm 124 gr +P HST or the .40 155 or 165 gr HST loads.

Note, that after a decade of Ranger Talon use, our largest agency here has gone to the HST ammo noted above. The switch was made because of an inability to acquire sufficient quantities of Ranger Talon in a timely manner, NOT due to any performance problems with the Ranger Talon. To date, OIS incident data indicates the HST performs as well as the Ranger Talon it replaced.

Since there appears to be confusion on how to assess handgun terminal performance criteria, I have posted some info on this subject at: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=26028

[Glock17JHP]

Good information...thanks DocGKR...

[Glock17JHP]

One other reason to prefer Winchester Ranger 147 grain JHP over the Federal HST 147 grain JHP...

RECOIL...

The HST had noticeably MORE recoil than the Ranger when I did my testing...

[DocGKR]

You mean 9 mm has recoil???

[ToddG]

In a Glock, apparently it does. :cool:

[DocGKR]

Haven't noticed it in my G19...

[Glock17JHP]

COMPARATIVE recoil... :rolleyes:

If you have no recoil, your magazine is empty...

[CarlosDJackal]

You mean 9 mm has recoil???

I never noticed since I use recoil-dampening pads on all my handguns.

[Buckeye]

What does "HST" mean? I've looked on the Federal website and couldn't find this bullet.

While we're at it, is there a reference chart anywhere for all of the bullet acronyms? I've been shooting for years but have only recently started taking a serious look at ballistics. Some of the bullet types, I just can't figure out!

Thanks all.

[ToddG]

Reportedly it is "Hi-Shok Two." Last I knew, ATK's official statement was that it didn't stand for anything.

[Buckeye]

Is this an LE only round?

[Glock17JHP]

I would guess that 'H' stands for 'Hi-' or 'Hydro-' or 'Hydra-'...
I would guess that 'S' stands for 'Shok' or 'Shock'...
And... I would guess that 'T' stands for 'Technology'...

[DocGKR]

When it was developed, the design engineer told me, "Hi-Shok Two".

[Glock17JHP]

'Hi-Shok Two' it is, then...

[Gomez]

Just one person's experience with one ATK wound ballistics workshop in Fort Worth , but the first gelatin block was calibrated initially at the beginning but the other blocks sat outside until they were shot and were not calibrated or the temp checked prior to use. I'm fairly certain that they were warmer than they should have been and without calibration the data was suspect, at best.

The HST is a solid bullet design but the ATK workshop data should not be considered sacrosanct.

[Glock17JHP]

Gomez,

You are correct, the data from the warmer blocks would make the bullets seem to penetrate further.

The entire procedure should actually be suspect...

[tpd223]

Can't talk about it yet but the 147gr HST seems to penetrate just fine in my observation.

[Zhukov]

I've been having a discussion with a guy over on Arfcom who has shown problems with 147gr HSTs when shooting them into water. Here is the pic he posted:

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m254/duggan12/BulletTest02.jpg

He also fired 115gr DPX and 124gr +P HST and 124gr GDHPs which all expanded perfectly. The gun used is a 3.5" M&P supcompact.

This is kind of unsettling. Would there be any reason to expect the 147gr HSTs to have lost enough velocity out of a 3.5" barrel to not expand properly?

[ETA] Link to thread: http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=20&t=72812&page=1#bottom

[Glock17JHP]

I would not expect there to be a good reason for lack of expansion from a 3.5 inch barrel... the velocity shouldn't be that much lower than say from a Glock 17...

[PA PATRIOT]

:(:confused::eek:

[Glock17JHP]

I've been having a discussion with a guy over on Arfcom who has shown problems with 147gr HSTs when shooting them into water. Here is the pic he posted:

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m254/duggan12/BulletTest02.jpg

He also fired 115gr DPX and 124gr +P HST and 124gr GDHPs which all expanded perfectly. The gun used is a 3.5" M&P supcompact.

This is kind of unsettling. Would there be any reason to expect the 147gr HSTs to have lost enough velocity out of a 3.5" barrel to not expand properly?

[ETA] Link to thread: http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=20&t=72812&page=1#bottom

Those 3 expanded bullets look very different one from the other...

Are they from the same box/lot?

I tested that HST load in water with extremely consistent results!!!

When you say he shot them into water, was it vertically into a tank, or horizontal through containers? If containers, specifically what type of containers? The answer to these questions may explain the problem...

[snubbie K]

I'm not sure what the deal is with that round either. I'd like to have it explored further myself.

Still..........let me add this. I've seen other rounds that occasionally acted abnormally in testing - including a few God Dots as a matter of fact. I've seen some that failed to open at all and sailed right on through, as it were. I've seen some that lost their tip. I've seen one that over mushroomed and folded back on itself.

I've got to say that this, perhaps "worse case example", of an HST test is still the deadliest looking chunk of metal of all the "failures" I've seen.

My 2 cents worth!

[Marcus L.]

I was thinking the same thing, Glock17JHP. If he shot them through containers, it is important to know just how tough those containers were. Some plastics can plug the hollowpoint resulting in poor expansion, or if the container is hard it can smash the point enough to prevent good expansion.

[Zhukov]

Those 3 expanded bullets look very different one from the other...

Are they from the same box/lot?

I tested that HST load in water with extremely consistent results!!!

When you say he shot them into water, was it vertically into a tank, or horizontal through containers? If containers, specifically what type of containers? The answer to these questions may explain the problem...

He said he shot them in a metal can 23" tall filled 22" with water. Since he shot the can multiple times, I assume he did not shoot them horizontally and he specifically mentioned that the bottom of the can was not dented. That means they were shot vertically down. The other bullets he tried (124gr +P HST and 115gr DPX) worked perfectly. I don't think this was from multiple lots, but I can find out.

[DocGKR]

Bullets do weird things. A few years ago, an agency here had a couple of lots of RA45T that would not expand in the 4 layer denim testing--it turned out that the die used to stamp the jacket notches was dull, so the notches were not properly cut. Increasing the velocity solved the problem, whether the notches were dull or sharp, so the agency adopted RA45TP and had no more problems...

There have been several OIS incidents in this area recently where 147 gr HST fired from 4" barrels worked flawlessly--the recovered projectiles looked exactly like those in 4 layer denim testing. TPD223 also referenced some information earlier in the thread where 9 mm 147 gr HST recently worked as designed in another part of the country...

[Glock17JHP]

My water-testing has been in a tank that is roughly 4 feet deep, I am surprised the other fella used a can only about 1/2 that depth. I am surprised the bottow was undented, but that would also not be obvious under many conditions.

I have also found that shooting vertically is not as simple as some may suspect. It can take a lot of practice for some folks to shoot truly vertical... I often use a 'spotter' myself. If the bullet enters the water at enough of an angle, expansion will not be symetrical... and with some 'less robust' bullet designs, this will cause 'ugly' tilted mushrooms similar to those in the pictures. Another problem can result if you do not delay enough between shots to allow the bubbles generated in the water to dissipate, even though it only takes a few of seconds. Another issue depends on what is used over the top opening to stop 'splashes'...

In fact, water in general tends to be more forceful at expanding bullets than does either gelatin/tissue...

[Zhukov]

Good points, Glock17. I can't answer the questions, as I'm an intermediary. The only thing to counter your idea is that the other bullets he tested expanded fine. :confused:

[Glock17JHP]

Perhaps this would indicate a design that is not 'robust'... :confused:

[DRT]

....the recovered projectiles looked exactly like those in 4 layer denim testing. ...

Were the recipients wearing heavy clothing? I suppose it varies with circumstances but dont most recovered bullets typically resemble something in between BG and 4LD?

[DocGKR]

Light to medium weight clothing. The recovered projectiles from OIS incidents I've seen appear more like those from 4LD than BG test shots...

HST is a robust expanding JHP, as noted in the 4LD testing--one anonymous, anomalous test of skeptical methodology is not going to leave me too concerned...

[Glock17JHP]

Doc,

When I theorized that the HST 147 grain 9mm may not be a robust design, I was meaning that perhaps the jacket/core design is not real 'durable' but maybe instead it is a bit on the 'fragile' side... fragile meaning it is inconsistent at least in water testing if the angle of attack varies too much from 90 degrees?

I'm thinking the Ranger 147 grain 9mm may be more robust ('heavy duty' is perhaps better wording), since the leading edge of the rim around the HP cavity has the jacket going up to the rim and then down into the cavity, and the HST has the jacket merely coming up to the leading edge of the rim and stopping there. So the leading edge around the HP rim would be more protected and less fragile on the Ranger than the HST? And the Ranger may be less prone to uneven expansion perhaps than the HST, whose jacket design around the HP leading edge might allow the water to flow in hydraulically between the jacket and the core, thereby creating this uneven expansion?

It's really late, and I'm really tired... am I making sense here???

[Jim from Houston]

Hello. This is my first post here. Dr Roberts said that the bullet was christened "High-Shock Two" by the ammunition designer. Could I/we please get some information on who that is?

That is one of the most interesting things in bullet design. More specifically, which bullet inspired him the most?

Thank you.

HST is, I believe, one of Tom Burczynski's designs...if you Google that name, you'll find lots of info about his work...others rounds he had a hand in, or designed include (I think) Hydrashok, PMC Starfire, and Federal EFMJ...I'd certainly go with HST over one of those others, but you can see design elements shared among some of those different rounds.

Here are some background articles that I found by poking around on Google:

http://www.allbusiness.com/management/1034320-1.html

http://www.thegunzone.com/efmj.html

[Doc Safari]

Federal HST 180 gr JHP (P40HST1) versus .40 S&W Hi Shok Ammo by Federal Classic - 180gr JHP?


What are the differences?

I'm assuming the HST has better performance based on some posts I've read here, but finding info on specific contrasts hasn't turned up much.

[DocGKR]

The Hi-Shok is a nearly 30 year old design that was engineered prior to knowledge about barriers and robust expansion. As a result, it often tends to plug up and act like FMJ projectiles when shot through heavy clothing; they also often have significant degradation in terminal performance after first passing through intermediate barriers. Modern ammunition (like HST) which has been designed for robust expansion against clothing and intermediate barriers is significantly superior to the older designs.

[vicious_cb]

Light to medium weight clothing. The recovered projectiles from OIS incidents I've seen appear more like those from 4LD than BG test shots...


Does this apply to only the HST line or to the other well performing JHPs on your list as well?

[chapperjoe]

I'm sure everyone here knows this, but just in case:

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-immigration-agents-are-loading-up-on-as-many-as-450-million-new-rounds-of-ammo-2012-3

http://atk.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=25280&item=124123

[DocGKR]

Pretty typical for most loads...

[Glock17JHP]

Good to know, Doc...
Would you still choose either between the Federal HST or Winchester Ranger 9mm in 147 grain weight, without a preference for one over the other? I am asking because I think I recall you feeling OK with either some time ago, unless availability was better for one versus the other. I just wondered if passage of time gave you a preference of one over the other.
Another question, please... in 9mm 147 grain weight... the HST seems to expand a bit more and penetrate a bit less compared to the Ranger in my experience. Is this what you have seen also?
Thanks for your time, sir.

[DocGKR]

Both work perfectly well and I am comfortable using either. The last batch I purchased for my personal use were the Fed 147 gr.

[PA PATRIOT]

The Hi-Shok is a nearly 30 year old design that was engineered prior to knowledge about barriers and robust expansion. As a result, it often tends to plug up and act like FMJ projectiles when shot through heavy clothing; they also often have significant degradation in terminal performance after first passing through intermediate barriers. Modern ammunition (like HST) which has been designed for robust expansion against clothing and intermediate barriers is significantly superior to the older designs.

DocGKR.

Would it be correct to say that current Hi-Shok design has had enhancements over the past 30 years due to feed back from end users such as PD's to better meet usage parameters?

My PD used the Classic Hi-Shok BP9 115gr H/P's for many years and I have seen physical design changes over the different contract years with velocity, flash, jacket scoring, hollow point diameter and depth.

I would think that continuing design improvements is a must even with the cheaper bulk contract lines such as the Federal Classic Hi-Shok to keep the cash strap PD's buying Federal products.

Now I'M not saying that the current Classic Hi-Shok line is serious competition for the HST but it is surely better then the Original 30yr old design thats always quoted during comparisons.

[DocGKR]

We have not noticed any major improvements.

[tpd223]

Light to medium weight clothing. The recovered projectiles from OIS incidents I've seen appear more like those from 4LD than BG test shots...


That has been my observation as well with a few loads that I have seen used numerous times in OISs, mostly 124gr +P Gold Dot, although the non-expansion of various JHPs in street shootings/homicide cases that I have worked bears this out as well.

I can't speak to the Federal bullet, but the 115gr Winchester Silvertip has not changed one bit from the days of the FBI/Miami shootout. I had heard several times that it had been "updated" after that event. Straight from Winchester they advise it had not.
Just one example.

[Beat Trash]

I've been having a discussion with a guy over on Arfcom who has shown problems with 147gr HSTs when shooting them into water. Here is the pic he posted:

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m254/duggan12/BulletTest02.jpg

He also fired 115gr DPX and 124gr +P HST and 124gr GDHPs which all expanded perfectly. The gun used is a 3.5" M&P supcompact.

This is kind of unsettling. Would there be any reason to expect the 147gr HSTs to have lost enough velocity out of a 3.5" barrel to not expand properly?

[ETA] Link to thread: http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=20&t=72812&page=1#bottom
My agency hosted ballistics workshops last November. ATK was first. The 147gr HST load was what I was really interested in from them. Main test gun was an issued 4" M&P. We also conducted bare gel tests using a 3.5" M&P9c and a 3" Kahr PM9. This was done to see the effect of velocity loss from a shorter barrel, when compared to the bare gel shots from the 4" gun. Short answer, 4" to 3.5" no difference. When going down to the 3" gun, there was some difference. But very little, maybe an increase in penetration of .5".

The interesting thing occurred the following week when Wincheester came out. We kept the actual box of ammunition from ATK and reshot the 147 gr HST against the Winchester 147gr Ranger T loading. In one test we had two failures of the HST to expand. One round looked like the round pictured. I asked for the test to be reshot. The second time the round failed to expand at all. The thing looked like an unfired bullet.

My agency ended up switching to the Winchester loading. While the failure to expand did play into the decision, it wasn't the main factor.

I'm not a ballistic engineer. But I do know that when dealing with bullets, sometimes weird shit happens. It's because of this concept that I'd still have no issues carrying the 147 HST in my guns.

If I were buying carry ammunition and had to choose between the Winchester 147 gr Ranger-T loading and the Federal 147gr HST, I probably buy which ever one was cheaper.

There are no magic bullets. If the round fails to expand then shoot them again!

[Abraxas]

-one anonymous, anomalous test of skeptical methodology is not going to leave me too concerned... Ah yes there it is, logic. Why would you want to cloud an issue with facts, this is the internet.This is where some story from "some guy" is supposed to mean as much or more than real testing and real world results

[Voodoo_Man]

not going to mention any info on who/how/what/etc (keeping opsec in tact) but this is a .45 HST round pulled from someone

http://i1081.photobucket.com/albums/j341/shevon_vspec/phone/IMG_20120316_230652.jpg?t=1331953813

Good stuff right there if you ask me.