View Full Version : What is wrong with Hydrashok?
Zuhukov,
In thread '5.7x28 fanboys are irritating' you said 'I encounter the same thing with people defending the HydraShok'.
What do you feel is wrong with Hydrashok?
Thanks in advance.
Alistaire
Older bullet designs like the Silver Tip, Hydra-Shok, and Black Talon were state of the art 15 or 20 years ago. These older bullets tend 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 which has been designed for robust expansion against clothing and intermediate barriers is significantly superior to the older designs. The bullets in the Federal Classic and Hydrashok line are outperformed by other ATK products such as the Federal Tactical and HST, as well as the Speer Gold Dot; likewise Winchester Ranger Talons are far superior to the old Black Talons or civilian SXT's.
Thanks. It looks like HST and Federal Tactical are LE only. (I'm not). Perhaps I'll migrate to Gold Dots.
CaptainDooley
05-28-09, 19:18
Incorrect. Federal wants to market them to LE only. I use only HSTs in my 1911 (because it's the only defensive round I've shot enough to know it works every time) and I'm a video director at a church (in other words - the furthest thing from LEO). There are several places that sell HST when they are instock, I usually get mine from ammunitiontogo.com.
Thanks, they seem to be out of HST. Natchez didn't have any either.
Rampant Colt
05-29-09, 15:37
Some folks over at Glocktalk [snowman92D among others] vigorously defend that bullet design indicating its superior street record in police-involved shootings.
What's the story on HS street-involved shootings?
In this area, the HST seems to be working at least as well as the previously issued Ranger Talon. We use them interchangeably, depending on which company has the current contract.
Rampant Colt
05-29-09, 15:52
In this area, the HST seems to be working at least as well as the previously issued Ranger Talon. We use them interchangeably, depending on which company has the current contract.
Hydra-Shok street-involved shootings, not HST
Unfortunately Evan Marshall's street statistics have not been updated for several years. Thus improved performance by newer designs will not appear in his statistics. Having laboratory tests and street statistics was the best of both worlds. (Ok, second best. The best is never getting into a gunfight.)
Evan Marshall's street statistics have been debunked as nonsense years ago.
Let me ask you this, Alistaire. If there was a shooting where someone had to be shot in the chest more than once, would you count it as a failure to produce a one-shot stop?
Someone correct me if I am wrong. Wasn't that nonsense by Sanow and Marshall debunked as being a bunch of garbage?
Unfortunately Evan Marshall's street statistics have not been updated for several years. Thus improved performance by newer designs will not appear in his statistics. Having laboratory tests and street statistics was the best of both worlds. (Ok, second best. The best is never getting into a gunfight.)
You're not wrong, IG.
I am interested in knowing from Alistaire ff he would consider a shooting where someone had was shot in the chest once and failed to stop so he had to be shot repeated times a failure to produce a one-shot stop.
Littlebear
05-30-09, 09:17
Someone correct me if I am wrong. Wasn't that nonsense by Sanow and Marshall debunked as being a bunch of garbage?
Indeed, these guys made a nice income with that bunk. I would much rather rely on DocGRK's data. The "one shot stop" theory is so blattantly flawed.
CaptainDooley
05-30-09, 09:51
Why would you only shoot someone once? I mean, you're trying to stop a threat right? It's not precision target practice where you want to have each squeeze be a perfect shot... I guess I've just never understood the whole mindset that says this is important.
Why would you only shoot someone once? I mean, you're trying to stop a threat right? It's not precision target practice where you want to have each squeeze be a perfect shot... I guess I've just never understood the whole mindset that says this is important.
It relates to the methodology of Marshall's One-shot stop statistics.
CaptainDooley
05-30-09, 10:33
I understand that about Marshall's work, I'm just saying I've never understood the facination with finding the "one-stop shot". I'm going to keep pulling that trigger until the threat falls off the front sight, not shoot once and evaluate.
You're not wrong, IG.
I am interested in knowing from Alistaire ff he would consider a shooting where someone had was shot in the chest once and failed to stop so he had to be shot repeated times a failure to produce a one-shot stop.
I'm am not sure what you are asking, but I'll try to explain 'one shot stop' as Marshall uses it.
The percentage of 'one shot stops' is a measure of effectiveness of the bullet design. Example: Suppose you line up 100 men and shoot each one once in the chest with 22LR and 10 of them fall down. That is 10% one shot stops. Now suppose you take their twin brothers and do the same thing using a .357 magnum, and 85 of the fall down. That is 85% one shot stops. By this measure the .357 is a better performer.
He is not saying "shoot them once". He is saying that a bullet with a higher percentage of 'one shot stops' will be more effective at bringing down the bad guy, but you still have to keep shooting until he falls down.
One of the big complaints about Marshall's studies is that he discards victims with multiple wounds. This correct, statisically. Suppose you shoot a man with a 22LR and a .357, and he falls down. Which bullet gets the credit? The 22? The .357 or maybe it took both to do the job. You just don't know so you must discard all multiple wound shootings. This upsets a lot of people who are not familiar with statistical methods.
As an engineer, his methods as published in his books seem correct to me. I am not a statistician; professional statisticians may have complaints about his methods that I have not seen.
Another complaint is that Marshall invented his data. I have never met Marshall and did not spend time hanging around his house at night when I imagine he would have been studying the data if he did so. My casual browsing of these charges on the internet suggests to me that the persons making these charges were not in a position to directly observe his actions either. I could easily have missed an authoratative person making a documentable charge.
Another source of difficulty is that several respected people have theories about wounding mechanisms (crush cavity vs temporary stretch cavity) that sometimes appear to be contradicted by Marshall's data. Statistics are not perfect, somethines you get results that seem wrong but you can't figure out why.
One cause of problems is that the 'one shot stop' does not measure bullet effectiveness. It measures the effectiveness of the bullet-shooter-shootee.
Some cartridges may appeal to people who practice alot and shoot opponents in vital areas like the central nervous system, where another cartridge may appeal to casual shooters who do not practice and shoot people in non-vital areas. Or maybe one cartridge is sold in areas where shootees are likely to be using designer drugs and the other sold in areas where shootees are not using drugs.
These effects can cause no end of controversy.
I'm am not sure what you are asking, but I'll try to explain 'one shot stop' as Marshall uses it.
The percentage of 'one shot stops' is a measure of effectiveness of the bullet design. Example: Suppose you line up 100 men and shoot each one once in the chest with 22LR and 10 of them fall down. That is 10% one shot stops. Now suppose you take their twin brothers and do the same thing using a .357 magnum, and 85 of the fall down. That is 85% one shot stops. By this measure the .357 is a better performer.
Without getting into the lack of credibility of their data, Marshall and Sanow's criteria for determining a one-shot stop in statisical and logical nonsense, as if someone who is shot once and not put down is not counted as a one-shot failure.
from page 161 of their book STREET STOPPERS:
“Multiple hits were also discarded. Again, we did not think it a fair indicator of a round’s performance if we included shootings where, for example, an individual took six hollowpoints in the upper thoracic cavity and then collapsed. How could we include these with incidents where a single round was effective?”
So by their own admission they also exclude EVERY situation where one or more rounds were fired and a person was not stopped so more rounds had to be fired.
What they did is creat a formula that claims to calculate one-shot stops but is grossly flawed because it deliberately excludes the most common one-shot failures--all situtations where one shot is fired and it fails to stop someone so additional shots need to be fired.
Their one shot stop numbers are meaningless because they do not factor situations when one shot was not enough to stop someone and more shots had to be fired.
Successes are meaningless unless you factor in failures. And Marshall & Sanow’s numbers do not factor in a major number of failures, therefore they have no meaning.
I understand that about Marshall's work, I'm just saying I've never understood the facination with finding the "one-stop shot". I'm going to keep pulling that trigger until the threat falls off the front sight, not shoot once and evaluate.
Marshall & Sanow's work dates back to the 1980s, when it wasn't possible to get the amount of info on shootings as it is now. The one-shot stop was seen as a measurement of a round's effectiveness. Then people discovered that their data was suspect and they failed to count any shootings that took more than one shot as a one-shot failure--so you had these rounds that had absurd one-shot stop percentages into the 90% range.
Notice that you have not seen any of their one-shot stop figures in gun magazines for at least 10 years? This is because people wised up.
Here are some links that explain more falacies of their work. The biggest problem with some of the critics is that they do not explain things in a simple matter.
Another problem is where are you getting all these people shot only once with handguns. In some cases they claimed to have like have over 500 shootings with one specific load by one company where someone dropped with one shot (of course they never tell you how many they did not count because more than one shot was required).
Here are some links that further disprove the one-shot stop statistics:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/streetstoppers.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/sanow-strikes-out.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/undeniable-evidence.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-statistical-analysis.htm
MashalL & Sanow will not let anyone see the supposed files of their actual shootings.
As it happens, many agencies who Marshall and Sanow claim to have gotten their shootings from have come forward and said that not only did they not provide any information to Marshall & Sanow, but that the shootings that Marshall and Sanow have attributed to them do not match any of the shootings that they have on record. Credibility of data is key in any study, and Marshall and Sanow have shown that they have none.
The July 1992 Law and Order Magazine has several letters to the editor, as well as a statement by the magazines’ editor, further illustrating the lack of truth and serious errors in the Marshall and Sanow “data”. Several papers have been published in the peer reviewed IWBA “Wound Ballistics Review” which have discussed the lack of credibility of Marshall and Sanow. It was clear in our review and in from the investigations by others that Marshall & Sanow had lied, fabricated data, and did not follow scientific protocols. Their information is fraudulent and meaningless. Please do not stake your life on this garbage.”
In response to Sanow’s criticism of the 9mm WW 147 grain JHP bullet, SGT Mike Dunlap, Rangemaster at Amarillo, TX, PD contacted every department for which Sanow claimed poor results with this bullet in his “anti-subsonic” articles. Mike submitted his results to Law and Order: they showed that Sanow had misrepresented what these departments found.
In the November 1992 issue, Law and Order published three letters contradicting Sanow’s “data” (p. 90). SGT William Porter, head of the Michigan State Police Marksmanship Unit wrote, “I hope that those who read this article will not be influenced by what Sanow wrote about what happened in the Michigan State Police shooting, because it didn’t happen that way.” In a note introducing these letters, Bruce Cameron, Editorial Director of Law and Order wrote, concerning Sanow’s article, “...we do apologize for printing information that has proven to be in error.”
And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Agencies who M&S claimed to get the information from like the RCMP, the NYPD, the LAPD, the LASO, the ISP, the PASP, the DSP, the TDPS, the USMS, the USBP, USINS, the FBI, the DEA, Also the people who M&S claimed to get the information from like the RCMP, the NYPD, the LAPD, the LASO, the ISP, the PASP, the DSP, the TDPS, the USMS, the USBP, USINS, the FBI, the DEA, the San Diego Sheriffs Dept, US Navy Crane center, and the USSS have all previously issued official responses stating specifically that they have not at any time corresponded with either M or S and not one of the shootings in any of the books comes from their files and that M&S have misquoted and misrepresented them in other matters.
Marshal & Sanow have long been debuncked by a number of people and agencies.
“Multiple hits were also discarded. Again, we did not think it a fair indicator of a round’s performance if we included shootings where, for example, an individual took six hollowpoints in the upper thoracic cavity and then collapsed. How could we include these with incidents where a single round was effective?”
So by their own admission they also exclude EVERY situation where one or more rounds were fired and a person was not stopped so more rounds had to be fired.
I believe they throw out all incidents where two or more bullets are involved.
Again, if two bullets hit and the target falls down, is it a 'two shot stop' or what?
Statistics involve pruning your data until you get something you can analyse, hopefully without ruining your data.
Can you explain a way to fairly score multiple hit shootings so we can rate them against single hit shootings?
Marshall and Sanow published their last book in 2001. Several people have attacked these books on various grounds, but none have produced their own studies as far as I know. If they do so, I will happily buy a copy. This is a field that requires more study.
First, there is a serious question as to the validity of their data which in itself is enough to disqualify it.
Secondly, it's not a matter of pruning. They throw out any incidents where more than one round is used. How can you possibly claim to represent a round's one-shot stop percentage when you don't count any situations where one round fails to stop someone and more shots need to be fired? Their methodology is horribly flawed. If it were submitted as a grade school science project it would fail, yet they are trying to use it as an indicator to people who stake their lives on this info.
Heavy Metal
05-30-09, 13:11
Marshall and Sanow published their last book in 2001. Several people have attacked these books on various grounds, but none have produced their own studies as far as I know. If they do so, I will happily buy a copy. This is a field that requires more study.
The fact that they will not allow peer review of their dataset is pretty much an admission it's garbage.
Peer review is one of the pillars of scientific research. If someone who is making a claim refuses to share his data, you can be 99.9% certain shenanigans are involved.
I'd still like to see other people do similar studies.
As for why there is no peer review, perhaps they did not keep their data or perhaps a lot of it came from back channel sources. I can't imagine that those big name agencies have a 'department for releasing autopsy reports to civilian researchers'.
"Several people have attacked these books on various grounds, but none have produced their own studies as far as I know."
alistaire:
I, along with Gene Wolberg, wrote the following criticism http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm of Marshall and Sanow's drivel; I believe you will note that I have also conducted a fair amount of my own studies, as did Gene Wolberg...
Likewise, Duncan MacPherson wrote these criticisms of Marshall and Sanow's fraudulent writings: http://www.firearmstactical.com/sanow-strikes-out.htm and http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-statistical-analysis.htm; and as we all know, MacPherson literally wrote the book on projectile penetration characteristics...
Dr. Fackler wrote these criticisms of Marshall and Sanow's lies: http://www.firearmstactical.com/streetstoppers.htm and http://www.firearmstactical.com/undeniable-evidence.htm; Dr. Fackler is widely considered the father of modern wound ballistic research and has published NUMEROUS papers on the subject.
There are also other folks who have criticized Marshall and Sanow's sloppy statistics: http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm
No offense intended, but it appears that you are so our of your depth on this topic that you don't know what you don't know...
Heavy Metal
05-30-09, 13:34
I'd still like to see other people do similar studies.
As for why there is no peer review, perhaps they did not keep their data or perhaps a lot of it came from back channel sources. I can't imagine that those big name agencies have a 'department for releasing autopsy reports to civilian researchers'.
They could have redacted the names and released their data.
As to them not keeping their data. You do not do a major study and discard your data. It is just not done in legitimate research circles, ever!
This would constitute a tantamount admission of fraud.
If you are a legitimate researcher, you want a third party to be able to take your data and arrive at a similar conclusion. This is how your study is validated.
If you ain't open to peer review, you simply, ain't worth the time of day.
Rampant Colt
05-30-09, 14:14
Some folks over at Glocktalk [snowman92D among others] vigorously defend that bullet design indicating its superior street record in police-involved shootings.
What's the story on HS street-involved shootings?
Hydra-Shok street-involved shootings, not HST
I was NOT referencing M&S nonsense!!!!!!
My question still stands unanswered.
alistaire:
I, along with Gene Wolberg, wrote the following criticism http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm of Marshall and Sanow's drivel; I believe you will note that I have also conducted a fair amount of my own studies, as did Gene Wolberg...
Likewise, Duncan MacPherson wrote these criticisms of Marshall and Sanow's fraudulent writings: http://www.firearmstactical.com/sanow-strikes-out.htm and http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-statistical-analysis.htm; and as we all know, MacPherson literally wrote the book on projectile penetration characteristics...
Dr. Fackler wrote these criticisms of Marshall and Sanow's lies: http://www.firearmstactical.com/streetstoppers.htm and http://www.firearmstactical.com/undeniable-evidence.htm; Dr. Fackler is widely considered the father of modern wound ballistic research and has published NUMEROUS papers on the subject.
There are also other folks who have criticized Marshall and Sanow's sloppy statistics: http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm
No offense intended, but it appears that you are so our of your depth on this topic that you don't know what you don't know...
Doctor Roberts:
Thanks for your reply. I would not dream of arguing with you or Dr Fackler. It's your field, not mine. I am surprised that no one has done similar studies (to apropriate academic standards).
I have a question. How would one score a 'two shot stop no stop' so you could combine the data with 'one shot stops'?
LittleRedToyota
05-30-09, 14:24
Marshall and Sanow published their last book in 2001. Several people have attacked these books on various grounds, but none have produced their own studies as far as I know. If they do so, I will happily buy a copy. This is a field that requires more study.
it could be that no one has come up with a way to do such a study and have it be statistically valid and meaningful.
Some folks over at Glocktalk [snowman92D among others] vigorously defend that bullet design indicating its superior street record in police-involved shootings.
What's the story on HS street-involved shootings?
I hope this is not addressed to me, because my only source of street shooting statistics are Marshall and Sanow.
BuckskinJoe
05-30-09, 17:16
[QUOTE=alistaire;379201]
Statistics involve pruning your data until you get something you can analyse, hopefully without ruining your data.
QUOTE]
Really? :confused:
I've been teaching graduate-level statistics to criminal justice students for a number of years, and this is the first I've ever heard such. Perhaps, your knowledge of statistical data gathering and analysis exceeds mine and you can explain your extraordinary claim.
[QUOTE=alistaire;379201]
Statistics involve pruning your data until you get something you can analyse, hopefully without ruining your data.
QUOTE]
Really? :confused:
I've been teaching graduate-level statistics to criminal justice students for a number of years, and this is the first I've ever heard such. Perhaps, your knowledge of statistical data gathering and analysis exceeds mine and you can explain your extraordinary claim.
Perhaps you could explain how to combine single shot data and multi shot data, as I dont see a way to scale a muli shot stop.
Don't you think it's just time that you bowed out of this fight? I think Doc Roberts has layed it out pretty well.
[QUOTE=BuckskinJoe;379304]
Perhaps you could explain how to combine single shot data and multi shot data, as I dont see a way to scale a muli shot stop.
Shadow1198
05-30-09, 18:55
So....how 'bout them Hydrashoks? ;)
BuckskinJoe
05-30-09, 18:56
[QUOTE=BuckskinJoe;379304]
I dont see a way to scale a muli shot stop.
Neither do I. I've never scaled a fish, a rock wall, or a "muli shot stop." I agree with the poster above me: you should quit.
The Hydra Shok and the Winchester Silvertip were the high-tech rounds of their day. But, Doc Roberts and others have proven that there are better designs available this day. However, I won't trash talk it because it served me well in .45 ACP a long time ago. Don't ask me about the "one shot stop" stuff - I wouldn't know how it does with one shot. Everyone I shot with it I shot more than once.
Since the question was about Hydrashoks, I'll play.
We issued the 147gr and then the 124gr Hydrashok here for duty ammo. Both were very poor choices for police duty ammo.
Both weights of this bullet would often fail to expand, and zipped through bad guys like ball ammo. In other cases the bullet would fragment so badly that it would fail to penetrate enough to be effective. Sometimes we saw both extremes in the same shooting.
In 9mm, in both the lab and on the street, the 9mm Hydrashoks suck.
I would be tempted to carry ball instead of the Hydrashok in 9mm, with ball ammo at least I know exactly what the bullet is going to do every time.
alistair: A simple web search will show lots of links to failures of the HydraShok. I've posted them time and again on several forums, and don't really feel like searching again.
As far as "street cred" - where are the GlockTalk people getting their statistics from? I would be willing to bet their statistics are outdated, and it's like saying "The muzzleloader has great performance. We don't need these metallic cartridges". The only thing that indicates is that the latter hasn't been around long enough to develop a "street cred".
Basically - if a bullet performs better in ballistic gelatin, it's bound to perform better in real life. There is no reason to discard that belief until someone comes with an explanation of why the shortcomings of a particular bullet in ballistic gelatin should somehow translate into better real-life performance.
Failure2Stop
06-01-09, 09:23
Perhaps you could explain how to combine single shot data and multi shot data, as I dont see a way to scale a muli shot stop.
It doesn't matter.
It has been proven time and time again that the biggest wound through the most vital organs produces the fastest stop.
Thus the ballistic gelatin tests that are conducted by real professionals is the bast method to determine how much tissue can be expected to be destroyed per shot.
Therefore, the bullets that would be most likely to produce a one shot stop would be those that produce the largest wound.
Still, chasing the elusive one-shot-stop is about as productive as arguing if unicorns could exist.
In my experience those that obsess over one shot stops are those that would most benefit from basic training. Once all is weighed, argued, and analyzed, the guy that can put the most amount of bullets into the vital areas of a threat in the shortest amount of time will win the fight, regardless of what bullet he is hitting them with. Instead of arguing semantics, focus on applicable skills and buy the bullets the real professionals in the field recommend.
We can thank Harry Potter, Ugh, Larry Potterfield for the resurgence of the one shot stop.
:D
Failure2Stop--Well said, Sir!
Something I wrote a gazillion years ago about OSS percentages and why they're meaningless:
The M&S methodology vastly underreports instances of ammunition failure to stop. Imagine the following ten scenarios, all using the Zenwolf .40S&W Black Super Death Gold Shok-Talon Safety[tm] ammo:
One round fired, COM hit, target dies.
One round fired, COM hit, target incapacitated.
One round fired, COM hit, target doesn't stop and in fact kills his shooter, but then 2 seconds later hears his ex-wife yelling at him and so surrenders just to get away from her.
One round fired, head hit, target stops.
Two rounds fired in quick succession, target stops.
One round fired, left pinky shot off, target starts crying and surrenders.
One round fired, COM hit, target doesn't stop, two more rounds fired, COM hits, target stops.
Subject takes 14 rounds in the COM, head, and pelvis, doesn't stop, kills everyone within four square miles.
Six rounds fired, 3 COM hits, target doesn't stop.
Four rounds fired, 2 COM hits, 1 head hit, 1 pelvis hit, target doesn't stop.
According to the M&S criteria, only the first three (one round fired only, COM hit) meet their criteria and are part of the study. In this case, the Zenwolf round has a 100% OSS (the target surrendered within the M&S time limit in #3, and that's all that matters — unless you’re the deceased person who wasn’t saved by your One Shot Stop). In actuality, only five out of the ten (50%) were stopped AT ALL by the ammo, and only three out of ten (30%) were stopped by the ammo in one shot.
Case #5 is a big question mark: there's no way to know whether the first round alone would have been enough.
Cases #3 and #6 obviously have nothing to do with ammo selection. Nevertheless, one counts towards the study and one doesn't.
Cases #7-10 are all cases where one shot DID NOT STOP the attacker, but these don't count toward the M&S study because more than one hit was taken by the subject.
In particular, cases #8-10 show that even after multiple good hits, this ammo did not stop this particular attacker.
Nevertheless, this round gets a 100% OSS rating.
100% OSS!!! Wow thats so kool what lot # was used I want to buy some of that hot Zenwolf Black Super Death Gold Shok-Talon Safety[tm] ammo stuff so I can be a mallninjablackdeathsnakeeatingwarriorwannabe too...
CarlosDJackal
06-01-09, 12:48
There are only two viable ways to predict a bullet's effectiveness for use in self-defense:
(1) Past performances (statistics) - which methodology you use to come up with your numbers will affect/skew the final outcome. Depending on who this comes from, take it with a grain of salt.
For example, I started carrying the Winchester 180-grain SXT in .40 S&W not because of what I've read about it. But because I actually had the opportunity to talk two FIs from a relatively large Police Agency who told me that all the OIS that they've had with that round (out of a Glock 22) had been very effective.
So much so that every case they had, when the Officer did his or her job and put metal on flesh, the fight ended one way or another. They did not say anything about the perp being DRT. I didn't ask because it does not matter if my opponent is dead, wounded and crying for their Mommy, has chosen to surrender, or turned around and ran away. When the fight is over and I am still alive, the primary objective has been met.
(2) Predictive tests (ie: Ballistic Gelatin Testing). This approach provides a reasonable idea on how a round performs against a facsimile of human tissue in a controlled environment. It has already been proven time and again that rounds that do well with this type of "performance prediction" usually (key word) do well in actual use.
Do either of these approaches guarantee that the bullet in question will perform as they have in actual shootings or ballistic testing? Hell no!! Anyone who bets their life on the possibility that a particular round/load/caliber/bullet/etc. will perform as it has statistically or predicted is an idiot.
Just because my gun shoots Golden BBs doesn't mean that I don't have to do put these BBs right where they are needed. The smart person will not only take these two methods into account when selecting a round, they will also ensure that they can make the necessary hits upon demand. JM2CW.
CDJ -- Couldn't agree with you more. I currently carry the 124gr +p Gold Dot because it achieves both of those goals. It's been very successfully used by a small agency in the Northeast called the NYPD for a number of years, and it gets the DocGKR Stamp of Approval.
If I was in a situation were I had to purchase my ammo, I'd probably go with the 124 gr +P Gold Dot, because it is reliable in my handguns, works well, and is readily available for commercial purchase in reasonable quantities (ie. by the case, not individual boxes) in this area.
CaptainDooley
06-01-09, 19:01
100% OSS!!! Wow thats so kool what lot # was used I want to buy some of that hot Zenwolf Black Super Death Gold Shok-Talon Safety[tm] ammo stuff so I can be a mallninjablackdeathsnakeeatingwarriorwannabe too...
Okay, not knowing Doc, other than by his posts I have this mental image of what the learned man must look like. It's likely way off base because it involves a tweed jacket with elbow patches, a well trimmed beard and a pipe, but that's because I'm delusional and like to fabricate my own world.
At any rate, this mental image was shattered by this excellent and very amusing post. Well done sir!
100% OSS!!! Wow thats so kool what lot # was used I want to buy some of that hot Zenwolf Black Super Death Gold Shok-Talon Safety[tm] ammo stuff so I can be a mallninjablackdeathsnakeeatingwarriorwannabe too...
Too much bean juice today, Doc? :eek: :D
Gutshot John
06-01-09, 22:05
If I was in a situation were I had to purchase my ammo, I'd probably go with the 124 gr +P Gold Dot, because it is reliable in my handguns, works well, and is readily available for commercial purchase in reasonable quantities (ie. by the case, not individual boxes) in this area.
Since I do buy my own ammo...at this point I'd cut off my left nut to find some 124 +p GDHP in reasonable or otherwise quantities.
Any suggestions?
Okay, not knowing Doc, other than by his posts I have this mental image of what the learned man must look like. It's likely way off base because it involves a tweed jacket with elbow patches, a well trimmed beard and a pipe, but that's because I'm delusional and like to fabricate my own world.
Well, I don't know if the good Doc has any tweed jackets . . . but here's a picture that the Doctor himself posted in another thread here:
http://www.tridentconcepts.com/alumni/Portals/0/NTForums_Attach/148365765671.jpg
CarlosDJackal
06-04-09, 12:13
If I was in a situation were I had to purchase my ammo, I'd probably go with the 124 gr +P Gold Dot, because it is reliable in my handguns, works well, and is readily available for commercial purchase in reasonable quantities (ie. by the case, not individual boxes) in this area.
I'm still stuck using technology from half a decade ago. :(
I still use the Winchester Ranger "T" 180-grain in all my .40 S&W handguns and the Winchester Ranger "T" 127-grain +P+ in all my 9mm handguns.
Maybe I need to start re-evaluating ammo choice? :D
Sidewinder6
06-07-09, 09:52
There is another school of thought being offered up by a well respected author and training sage: :
One Mag, One Kill.
Sort of has a nice ring to it. And it is easy to remember.
"By the way, what did you load your mags with? And it is a 6.8 mm Kotonics upper?"
Whatever they are issuing out for free from the state contract--typically Federal 55 gr FMJ for training, although sometimes Win or Fed 64 gr JSP. Colt 6920 w/a LaRue 12" rail.
The relatively rounded leading edge of an expanded Hydra Shok is not ideal; a sharper, more effective cutting edge would be superior. About 1/3 of the time the post broke off, about 1/3 of the time the post folded over, and only about 1/3 of the time did the post stay erect long enough to cause an issue...
CarlosDJackal
06-08-09, 10:32
There is another school of thought being offered up by a well respected author and training sage: :
One Mag, One Kill.
Sort of has a nice ring to it. And it is easy to remember.
I happen to agree with this philosophy. There is a reason ammo is normally sold in 20, 50, and 100-round boxes. :D
Sidewinder6
06-08-09, 13:50
I happen to agree with this philosophy. There is a reason ammo is normally sold in 20, 50, and 100-round boxes. :D
Lessons learned as I understand.
Rampant Colt
06-12-09, 21:51
http://i44.tinypic.com/2rdkj6s.jpg
Peterson's Handguns magazine july, 1996
http://i42.tinypic.com/rumsza.jpg
That's from 5" barrels ONLY! ;)
These babies fired from a SIX inch barrel would blow a man clean out of his sneakers in a shower of sparks!
http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/4422/rlolvl7.gif
askani79705
09-24-09, 10:21
http://i44.tinypic.com/2rdkj6s.jpg
Peterson's Handguns magazine july, 1996
http://i42.tinypic.com/rumsza.jpg
That's from 5" barrels ONLY! ;)
These babies fired from a SIX inch barrel would blow a man clean out of his sneakers in a shower of sparks!
So with about a 20% chance of a OSS per inch of barrel that would mean it would kill the target 100% and the guy behind him 20% of the time from the 6 inch.
Maybe it's the length of barrel not the thickness of the caliber we're talking about.
Wait,We're still discussing pistol calibers right?:D
I'ms till waiting for Doc Roberts to get out here to CO so I can buy him a beer. :D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.