Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!boingo.med.jhu.edu!haven.umd.edu!mimsy!uunet.UU.NET
From: decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well!tmi@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Kasler)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Ordinance Gelatin, where to get it?
Message-ID: <35457@mimsy.umd.edu>
Date: 11 Jun 91 13:47:35 GMT
Sender: news@mimsy.umd.edu
Lines: 26
Approved: gun-control@cs.umd.edu




Everything Brian Ehrmantraut said in that previous message is correct.
I was also there at Fackler's lab when Ehrmantraut and Freeman were, in
fact I took them there. I have tested Hydra-Shoks many times, some even
before the name and rights were purchased by Federal, and know for a fact
why Marty Fackler and others feel as they do about them. I for one would
not use them in my carry or other defense guns.

One of the chief problems all tested Hydra-Shoks are burdened with, with 
or without the post, is a severe tendency to fragment shortly after entering
tissue or gelatin. Once a bullet fragments, penetration is greatly
attenuated, and that's very bad for a defense round.

As Brian said, it's possible that all the heat Fedreal's been getting over
these rounds has caused them to quietly improve them in some much-needed
ways, but until that is demonstrated in credible testing, and until their
stability can be assured to the same extent as other viable defense ammun-
ition can be, it would seem wise to avoid this ammunition. There's other
good stuff available that's not controversial, or in some cases not
nearly so, that it seems foolish to go with something like Hydra-Shoks.

Peter Alan Kasler
Threat Management Institute
415-777-0303