Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!ukma!dftsrv!mimsy!falstaff.mae.cwru.edu
From: gmk@falstaff.mae.cwru.edu (Geoff Kotzar)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Ordinance Gelatin, where to get it?
Message-ID: <35553@mimsy.umd.edu>
Date: 13 Jun 91 01:59:54 GMT
Sender: magnum@mimsy.umd.edu
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Lines: 51
Approved: gun-control@cs.umd.edu

In article <35457@mimsy.umd.edu> decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well!tmi@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Kasler) writes:
#
#
#
#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

I have been watching this discussion on the Hydra-Shoks develop with
a great deal of fascination. About a year ago I purchased three boxes
of the .357 Hydra-Shok load and of the 60 rounds about nine of them
had missing or vestigial posts. The posts in the .357 are much thinner
than those in the .45's I purchased at the same time and I just assumed
that they could not stand up to the rigors of the manufacturing process.
I set them aside to find out for myself if the posts were really necess-
ary for proper expansion. Other projects had priority so I never got
around to conducting the tests.

Following what you have been saying, my questions are is the post really
necessary, and how much of the post has to be present for the bullet to
perform as claimed? And IF the post really is required and IF I used one
without a complete post in a self defense situation and IF it failed to
achieve a proper stop, just how liable could Federal be held? It looks as
if the conflict between marketing claims and quality control could have
put their corporate ass in a sling.

I do not have the ammo here so I cannot tell you which lot it was but
all three boxes were of the same lot. I may be able to post the lot
number tomorrow. Has anyone else seen this in the smaller diameter
Hydra-Shoks? I would not expect it to be as common in the larger
calibers with their beefier posts.