TNoutdoors9 tests the .45 HST in Standard, "It's an absolute beast!"

[baccusboy]

Wow, I should say. He also said, "The block has given birth to a tarantula."


.892 inch average diameter.

Glad this is my carry load.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWW2Y-IZpyE

[M4finny]

Very impressive test results. I just recently acquired three boxes of HST 230 gr. +P for my EDC.

What astounds me is that for the same cost of a box of 20 rounds of other "premium" JHP ammunition, I was able to get a box of 50.

Between these and Ranger T's, I have no desire to try or carry anything else.

Fin

[La Grenouille]

All I can say is wow!

Need to find some 147s for my 9mm

[hotpig]

Good news, Federal apparently decided that they will do a production run of 147gr this year. If your favorite place to buy it has it ordered they may get some this year.

Many places just buy from stock so that they do not have to commit money. These places probably will not get any.

[6285108]

Our duty rounds for the .40 is the HST 180 grain and in the 45 Acp we use the HST 230 grain +p

[DeltaKilo]

Only quarrel I have with his testing is how he measures his diameters. He goes largest points only, which with designs that produce petals is incorrect. To get an actual average diameter, an average is taken between widest and narrowest points.

Still, HST and Ranger both work very well in the world.

[La Grenouille]

In most of his videos, his give a max and an average

[DeltaKilo]

Originally Posted by La Grenouille

In most of his videos, his give a max and an average

Yes, but his average is not the same as what I'm talking about. When he gives it, it takes the largest as max, and average is the average across several projectiles. This is misleading as the expanded diameters are taken incorrectly (widest point only, not the average of widest and narrowest points, since with a projectile that is not of a uniform diameter, it will not create a uniformly wide wound channel). This skews the size to the large side and is not an accurate measure.

[6285108]

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

[DeltaKilo]

Originally Posted by 6285108

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

Yep, all good studies that reaffirm the same thing we've known for a while.

[Tim Burke]

Originally Posted by DeltaKilo

Yes, but his average is not the same as what I'm talking about. When he gives it, it takes the largest as max, and average is the average across several projectiles. This is misleading as the expanded diameters are taken incorrectly (widest point only, not the average of widest and narrowest points, since with a projectile that is not of a uniform diameter, it will not create a uniformly wide wound channel). This skews the size to the large side and is not an accurate measure.

Looking at the star shaped hole in the gelatin, and recognizing that bleeding only takes place on the disrupted edge of the wound, I think the petals might be better than a round that uniformly expands to that same diameter. Yes, that measure may overstate the permanent cavity, but it may generate more bleeding than the measurement suggests.

[Doc18d]

Originally Posted by Tim Burke

Looking at the star shaped hole in the gelatin, and recognizing that bleeding only takes place on the disrupted edge of the wound, I think the petals might be better than a round that uniformly expands to that same diameter. Yes, that measure may overstate the permanent cavity, but it may generate more bleeding than the measurement suggests.

I don't know if surface area bleeding would have much effect. I do think that it would matter if the star shape enhanced the possibility of hitting or nicking more vessels or even possibly an artery. It seems that a twisting bunch of ragged pettels would do much more damage.
DK, thinking of the rotation of the round, wouldn't the maximum dia being measured be more true. I could see how it would be different if the round was punching strait thru.

[DeltaKilo]

Originally Posted by Tim Burke

Looking at the star shaped hole in the gelatin, and recognizing that bleeding only takes place on the disrupted edge of the wound, I think the petals might be better than a round that uniformly expands to that same diameter. Yes, that measure may overstate the permanent cavity, but it may generate more bleeding than the measurement suggests.

Sorry, tim, but this isn't borne out by what is seen in the real world. Human tissue doesnmt behave like gel, so in most cases, while the wound channel is more jagged, it is no more so than a solid face of the same size, and actual tissue disruption, from what we can measure, is closer to the averaged dimension than the extreme dimension.

[DeltaKilo]

Originally Posted by Doc18d

I don't know if surface area bleeding would have much effect. I do think that it would matter if the star shape enhanced the possibility of hitting or nicking more vessels or even possibly an artery. It seems that a twisting bunch of ragged pettels would do much more damage.
DK, thinking of the rotation of the round, wouldn't the maximum dia being measured be more true. I could see how it would be different if the round was punching strait thru.

No. Remember that tissue is elastic, so the difference is less pronounced than if it were a larger solid. You will have a more jagged hole, but the averaged size, when accounting for the stretch/relax cycle, is closer to the averaged dimension than the extreme.

[Doc18d]

Thanks DK. Makes sense. Also since surface area is much more importnt at lower velocity uniformaty in stats is much more important. A small difference in dia measurements could be sigificant in real word effect.
Sorry, back to the op I agree this is a very good looking round

[kershaw317]

I wonder how the HST performs in 357 Sig

[DeltaKilo]

Originally Posted by kershaw317

I wonder how the HST performs in 357 Sig

'Bout like it does in 9mm and .40 Smith: It penetrates, it does some damage to tissue, and with proper placement, will stop a bad guy with proper application of lead injections. Let's not lose sight of the key here: there IS no magic bullet.

[baccusboy]

Originally Posted by kershaw317

I wonder how the HST performs in 357 Sig

Honestly from his tests, I feel the Remington Golden Saber is about the best performer (even the best value -- get that one) in .357 Sig.

The .357 sig doesn't expand very wide in any brand.

[baccusboy]

Originally Posted by DeltaKilo

No. Remember that tissue is elastic, so the difference is less pronounced than if it were a larger solid. You will have a more jagged hole, but the averaged size, when accounting for the stretch/relax cycle, is closer to the averaged dimension than the extreme.

I'd rather have the jagged hole with the cuts, if they are so close, IMHO. Still anxiously awaiting his test of the Winchester Ranger-T in .45.

I have written him asking him to test the older Federal Hi-Shok 45D. That bullet can be had for a great price, has done well in FBI testing (doesn't seem to plug even as much as the newer Hydra-shok -- go figure) and penetrates plenty. Sheds its jacket in water, but seems to hold on in flesh. You can get those for like $20 a box of 50 from SGAmmo.

The 9mm hi-shoks he tested were a big fail (no expansion). The .45's are supposedly a different story.

[Tim Burke]

Originally Posted by DeltaKilo

Sorry, tim, but this isn't borne out by what is seen in the real world.

There are so many variables in the real world that the effect of any one variable is very difficult to determine.

Having seen enough bullet wounds and the difference between blunt and sharp dissection, I am not convinced that it doesn't matter.

[DeltaKilo]

Originally Posted by baccusboy

Honestly from his tests, I feel the Remington Golden Saber is about the best performer (even the best value -- get that one) in .357 Sig.

The .357 sig doesn't expand very wide in any brand.

Most of the time, the .357 sig doesn't fail to expand, it rather suffers over expansion. Most of the bullets used in the .357 Sig are 9mm bullets, pushed to higher velocities than they were designed for. So where in a 9mm the bullet opens up to an optimal diameter, in the .357 sig, the higher velocities (and resultant higher pressures on the bullet's weak points) force the material back against the body of the projectile more, resulting in a smaller diameter.

[DeltaKilo]

Originally Posted by Tim Burke

There are so many variables in the real world that the effect of any one variable is very difficult to determine.

Having seen enough bullet wounds and the difference between blunt and sharp dissection, I am not convinced that it doesn't matter.

I didn't say it didn't matter. The more sharp corners and edges you have, the more you'll lacerate tissue.

What I did say is that in the scheme of things, the variance between the types of bullets is so minute as to be of academic concern moreso than any practical concern.

I also stated that contrary to the common opinion, in order to best calculate the actual amount of disrupted tissue and the observed wound channels, taking only the widest dimension of the bullet is massively misleading. In order to truly represent what is actually seen in tissue, assuming 1:1 permanent cavity size and bullet size, is to average the widest and narrowest points.

[DeltaKilo]

Originally Posted by baccusboy

I'd rather have the jagged hole with the cuts, if they are so close, IMHO. Still anxiously awaiting his test of the Winchester Ranger-T in .45.

I have written him asking him to test the older Federal Hi-Shok 45D. That bullet can be had for a great price, has done well in FBI testing (doesn't seem to plug even as much as the newer Hydra-shok -- go figure) and penetrates plenty. Sheds its jacket in water, but seems to hold on in flesh. You can get those for like $20 a box of 50 from SGAmmo.

The 9mm hi-shoks he tested were a big fail (no expansion). The .45's are supposedly a different story.

Doc Roberts, Winchester, and a dozen others have already done the tests in gel on both HST and Ranger. They're just static articles not video.

If you take a look, you'll see that the new generation of Ranger T-series performs nearly as well as HST on expansion.

Coupled with field data, both bullets perform well.

As to jagged holes vs. clean ones...yes, jagged holes are better because there's more surface area to bleed, and greater chances of nicking something that might otherwise be pushed aside.

That's one of the key benefits of having an expanding hollowpoint with a sharper, squarer edge than a round-nosed ball round to begin with, and why expanding bullets as a whole are vastly superior to ball in regards to damage done per round.

[DeltaKilo]

From what I can dig up on the Hi-shok, the performance out of the .45 ACP is no better/worse than with Winchester White Box JHP or Remington Green-box JHP or any other basic hollowpoint.

As to HST vs. Ranger, here's a post from Doc Roberts. I stand corrected on the Ranger T-series standard pressure, as well, as it is continuing to demonstrate a failure to expand through heavy clothing:

From: http://m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=1088838&postcount=1

For for over a decade, agencies here have typically used the .45 ACP 230 gr Win Ranger Talon or Fed HST loads in both standard pressure and +P versions. The Federal standard pressure P45HST2 load is currently being issued at a large California agency. We tested this HST duty load in contrast to the new revised RA45T loading.

Win 230 gr Ranger Talon JHP (RA45T) fired from 1911 at ave vel of 911 f/s; 5 shot ave below:
BG: Pen = 12.3", Ave RD = 0.70", Ave RL = 0.44", Ave RW = 227.2gr
4LD: Pen = 25.1", Ave RD = 0.45", Ave RL = 0.60", Ave RW = 228.8 gr
AG: Pen = 16.1", Ave RD = 0.54", Ave RL = 0.48", Ave RW = 189.6 gr

Fed HST 230 gr JHP (P45HST2) fired from 1911 at ave vel of 879 f/s; 5 shot ave below::
BG: Pen = 12.6", Ave RD = 0.80", Ave RL = 0.44", Ave RW = 231.5 gr
4LD: Pen = 13.4", Ave RD = 0.55", Ave RL = 0.71", Ave RW = 231.2 gr
AG: Pen = 16.3", Ave RD = 0.54", Ave RL = 0.58", Ave RW = 230.6 gr

We have previously seen issues with some RA45T loads failing to expand through 4LD, as discussed here: http://www.10-8forums.com/ubbthreads...r=85659&page=3. We had hoped that the newer Ranger Talon design would no longer exhibit this issue--clearly it has not been fully resolved... In addition, the new Ranger Talon purportedly offers larger expansion of the "talons". Unfortunately, most of this additional expansion is behind the leading edge of the projectile, so it is less likely to be touching and cutting tissue, as the temporary cavity forming at the leading edge of the projectile can stretch the tissue away from the expanded talons at the back of the bullet.




The photo above illustrates current HST duty rounds to the left of the quarter--a BG shot is directly above a 4LD. To the right of the quarter is the 230 gr RA45T--top row into BG and bottom row into 4 LD. Note that one of the RA45T projectiles shot into BG is turned nose down to depict the wider expansion at the back of the bullet.

The current Federal .45 ACP standard pressure HST loading appears to have surpassed the Win Ranger Talon in overall terminal performance.

[kershaw317]

Originally Posted by DeltaKilo

Most of the time, the .357 sig doesn't fail to expand, it rather suffers over expansion. Most of the bullets used in the .357 Sig are 9mm bullets, pushed to higher velocities than they were designed for. So where in a 9mm the bullet opens up to an optimal diameter, in the .357 sig, the higher velocities (and resultant higher pressures on the bullet's weak points) force the material back against the body of the projectile more, resulting in a smaller diameter.

In the brands I've seen in .357 Sig the cavity was much more shallow than the same brand in 9mm. I assume this allows for a slower, more controlled expansion due to the high velocity. They may not all be this way but from what I've seen the .357 Sig HP is definitely designed different from the 9mm HP.