View Full Version : .40 HST 165gr as a test subject?
Long time lurker. Never found the need to ask a question directly before as 'search' has provided everything I ever want to know (and then some). No luck regarding HST 165gr however.
Curious to know if .40 HST 165gr has been an official test subject of DocGKR and crew. I'm aware it doesn't appear on 'The List', but I've seen it said many times that omission does not necessarily equal failure and could indicate no one has requested/paid for said tests.
Fairly certain I can infer appropriately should the answer be 'yes'.
Thanks in advance.
Can't say I know any agencies around here using it, so I don't believe we have tested it. Some data available here:
http://le.atk.com/pdf/HSTInsertPoster.pdf
http://le.atk.com/pdf/GoldDotPoster.pdf
Would the 165 HST be preferred to the 180 HST in a short barrel .40 like the P2000SK?
Can't say I know any agencies around here using it, so I don't believe we have tested it. Some data available here:
http://le.atk.com/pdf/HSTInsertPoster.pdf
http://le.atk.com/pdf/GoldDotPoster.pdf
Appreciate the follow-up. I find it interesting that the longer you stare at that chart, the more difficult it becomes to distinguish between 165/180. With the edge in "steel" penetration going to 165. Good to know if I'm facing down one of Skynet's T-800 series.
More evidence to support "stick with your most accurate, and practice". For the record: that's 165 out of a 4" Steyr on this end.
Personally, I'd go with the 180gr version of the HST. It does everything that the 165gr version does only better, particularly through some intermediate barriers. While I don't think it's a huge issue with the .40 s&w since it was designed around a 4" barrel, the 180gr version would probably also be better in a shorter barrel . The 180gr loses less velocity, both in absolute and % terms, than the 165gr when fired out of a shorter barrel. As a result, the 180gr should remain more centrally located within its designed velocity window.
I shot several whitetail last year with the 165gr HST (P40HST3). Obviously not a controlled or scientific experiment, but the test subjects were DRT and recovered projectiles showed performance as designed.
Feedback from those issued the 165gr HST is that it's quite a bit more brisk in recoil than the 180gr, and they don't like it. I have a few hundred rounds left of my own, but won't be getting any more.
Why would anyone NOT want to use a 180 gr .40?
Why would anyone NOT want to use a 180 gr .40?
Other than accuracy with a certain pistol? I'm now uncertain. That was my initial reasoning when a bought a 70/30 split of both weights as early on it seemed to shoot best out of a 4" Steyr. This likely needs to be revisited, and why I was curious about published data from which to make a more informed decision.
Considering the info provided by your tests and factoring in the vendor matrix: fairly obvious while the two weights are extremely similar in terms of performance, the 180 edges ahead in almost every category (excepting the aforementioned potential scenario facing down a futuristic killer cyborg). Your question hits it spot-on.
With 180 able to do everything the 165 does, with pluses in penetration and expansion, why indeed would one not choose the heavier hitter? Feeding (weapon specific), accuracy (weapon specific), and availability of 180 would be my theory. Other than that... I don't need more convincing.
Neglected to say thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated.
This forum's been an excellent place to educate and separate the wheat from the internet chaff.
Why would anyone NOT want to use a 180 gr .40?
Ignorance?
Years of conditioning in the gun press has left many with the thought that the lighter weight, higher velocity bullets just have to be more desirable.
For example, read any gun forum on the internet, and inevitably someone will post that 147 grain 9's are a "poor choice", because a famous gunwriter or book "author" said so. It usually does no good to try and correct them with facts.
In what little I can stand to be on most of the other boards, I try and direct folks here, to read Doc and other qualified people's opinions.
When is someone going to resurrect the IWBA or something like it?
Why would anyone NOT want to use a 180 gr .40?
Agreed.
For a period of time though, the 180s were in short supply and the 165s were plentiful. With both at the same price point, and that price beating out everyone else, they sold like crazy.
I picked up my 165 HSTs to shoot critters with, but carry 180 GDHPs or HSTs.
Why would anyone NOT want to use a 180 gr .40?
Doc, this is not intended to argue with you in any way, only to give you a reason why one small agency doesn't use 180 grain .40.
We received some of the "problem" Gen 3 Glock 22's a few years ago. After a bunch of back and forth with Glock and testing every load from major manufacturers that we could get our hands on, we found that 155 grain loads were by far the most reliable in our guns. I know this is strange because other agencies have reported the 180 grain loads to be the most reliable, but that was not our experience. Thus, we are currently using the 155 grain HST but will be switching to the 155 grain bonded tactical as soon as it shows up (ordered 6 months ago.)
Changing guns was not an option.
Doc, this is not intended to argue with you in any way, only to give you a reason why one small agency doesn't use 180 grain .40.
We received some of the "problem" Gen 3 Glock 22's a few years ago. After a bunch of back and forth with Glock and testing every load from major manufacturers that we could get our hands on, we found that 155 grain loads were by far the most reliable in our guns. I know this is strange because other agencies have reported the 180 grain loads to be the most reliable, but that was not our experience. Thus, we are currently using the 155 grain HST but will be switching to the 155 grain bonded tactical as soon as it shows up (ordered 6 months ago.)
Changing guns was not an option.
What was Glock's response about their guns not working with the most popular and common bullet weight ammunition?
Made sure we had the newest mags, followers, springs, etc. Then we swtiched some guns back to a previous generation of locking block, still didn't help. This was 3 guns out of 40 purchased that had the issues and only with lights attached. The problem was worst with 165 grain loads, then 180. Dissappeared with 155.
I'm not going to get into Glock's handling of these issues, because it has been beat to death already.
I've been leaning toward the heavier loadings lately, so I would tend to agree, but...
I think the argument would be that lower weight = higher velocity = greater expansion. And with it still being a fairly heavy slug (compared to anything 9mm for example) it will still get it's 12-14" inch penetration.
Why would anyone NOT want to use a 180 gr .40?
PA PATRIOT
05-10-11, 15:52
My Department issues the Federal 165 Grain Tactical HST for those officers that selected the Glock Model-22 or 35 as their duty pistol. Have not heard it being used in a patrol OIS yet but those with the Model-22 say recoil is very snappy compared to the 9mm 147gr HST or .45acp 230gr HST also available for duty use.
I have been very happy with my Glock-21SF with the Federal 230gr HST but if forced I would not any reservations with a Glock Model-17 loaded with the Federal 147gr HST.
I shoot the Glock Model-22 well with the 165gr HST but I'M much faster with better accuracy during drills using the .45acp or 9mm.
Since I originally asked the question I've shot off all my 165gr HST and fully migrated to 180gr HST. I have yet to regret that decision. Perhaps it’s all in my head, but I perceive noticeably quicker follow up with the 180.
Granted, it’s not fully an apples-to-apples comparison as I dumped the Steyr and replaced it with a 40cal P30L about halfway through the shoot off. But sticking with the ‘heaviest’ mantra certainly makes ammo selection a more streamlined process. Also picked up an FNP45 and there was a refreshing lack of internal debate regarding round weight. 230gr, and focus on skill.
Simplification is good.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.