230gr or 165gr Hydra-Shok for Officers ACP?

J

JasonReed

New member
Up until a couple years ago my Kimber Custom Classic was my CCW weapon. Always used 230grn Hydra-Shoks. Then I switched to my Officer's Model, and kept the same ammo.

I recently went to the local Wally World to buy some ammo, and all they had was the 165grn. Not what I wanted, but then I got to thinking...will the 230grn get enough velocity out of the short Officer's barrel to expand reliably? Anyone have any data on this?
 
C

Chris Pinkleton

New member
I've read enough lately to think the whole barrel length/expansion thing is a red herrring, at least with the current generation of hollowpoints. I read an article last year (maybe in Handguns?) where the author was trying to find the "perfect load" for his Kimber compact. He ended up shooting a wide variety of loads in a variety of barrel lengths. In whatever test medium he used, each load expanded about the same amount, regardless of the barrel length. I've seen another article with water tests that came to the same conclusion.

I'd stick with the 230's if you can find them. The 165s seem a little light for good penetration to me. They did work fine in my long-lost Kimber, reliablity-wise, but most pistols are really meant to work with 185-230 grain bullets.
 
C

croyance

New member
The .45 ACP seems to reach peak pressures quickly and get up to speed pretty fast.

I have seen similar articles as Mr. Pinkleton. Different .45 ACP ammo was run through 3", 4.25", and 5" barrels. Velocity loss from shorter barrels was minimal and in some cases there was an increase in velocity.

Advances have been made in hollowpoint technology. In retrospect some of the changes made seem to be obvious. Now they are well designed for the lower velocities found in handguns, as opposed to rifles.

For me I want the penetration of 230 grain, so that is what I would stick with.
 
F

FPrice

New member
I have tried some of the lighter bullets in my smaller .45s and it seems to me that I have a little better control with 165-185 grn bullets rather than the 230 grn. For me, this translates to a little more accuracy which I consider more desireable than maximum penetration. If I can hit them where I want to then the lighter bullet should do the job.

For heavier, full-size guns the 230 grn does make more sense to me.
 
J

Johnny Rad

New member
From the FYI Department ...

Federal's website reports the following HP ballistics from 5" bbls:
> 230gr Hydra-Shok - 850fps (muzzle) and 830 (25 yds)
> 165gr Hydra-Shok - 1,060fps (muzzle) and 1,020 (25 yds)

I have a Kimber Ultra Carry w/3" bbl and with input from TFL shoot the lighter, faster 165gr Hydra-Shok. Because I practice with it, I feel entirely comfortable. Besides, my pistol hasn't had failures with it either.
 
R

RickB

New member
The last time I chrono'd 230 H-S from a 3.5" barrel, it averaged 850fps. Most recent printed tests indicate it is loaded much hotter than it used to be (?), going 880-890 from a 5" barrel.
When I was testing the 165's, my shooting ran into the early evening, and I couldn't believe the size of the fireball that issued from the 3.5" gun. Didn't have any 230's for comparison
Anyone done any low-light testing of 230's?
 
K

Kevinch

New member
Jason, you may want to look here. Go to the 5th post from the bottom.

The magazine article that I believe Chris was referring to was in this March 2001 issue of Shooting Times. I've re-capped some of the high points in the posting.

Also, I have fired the 165g Fed HP load from my 3" Ultra Classic at an indoor range & it does indeed seem to have a lot of flash.

FWIW, the load chosen in this particular test after all the results were in was 185g, expanded to about .55" or so & penetrated 18" - all from a 3" barrel.
 
9

9mmepiphany

New member
the advantage of the lighter bullet is to reduce recoil and speed followup shots. the increase in speed is to balance energy but mostly a function of the lighter bullet too.

i carried the federal personal defense hyra-shoks in my LW officers acp, but currently using 230gr ranger sxt (departmental issue) in my sig 220.

my default round is the 185gr federal classic...always feeds w/acceptable accurracy in everything i've ever owned.
 
J

JasonReed

New member
Thanks for the replies guys. I'll guess I'll stick with the 230, but I think I'm going to check out the 185gr Gold Dots. If I get reliable functioning I'll may switch to these.
 
C

CaesarI

New member
I suggest neither the 165gr or 230gr. The 165gr in .45ACP is WAY, WAY too light. 185gr is the absolute lightest one should go, otherwise you sacrafice way too much in penetration.

The Hydra-Shock in .45ACP in any weight is a poor performer, and constantly clogs when passing through a denim barrier.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume4/number1/article415.htm

http://www.ammolab.com/test_results.htm

Both are for the 230gr. The first link is through 4 layers of denim, the 2nd is for 1 layer. With 1 layer of denim it expands half the time, with 4 it doesn't expand at all.

The 230gr HS seems to have been modified by Federal to improve feed reliability at the cost of expansion reliability.

230gr Gold Dot, 200gr GD, 230gr Golden Saber, 230gr Winchester White Box, all perform much better.

-Morgan
 
J

Jamie Young

New member
I've put over 200rds of 230gr Hyrda-Shoks threw My Colt 1991A1 and about 100rds of 165gr Hydra-Shoks. I also prefer the 230gr just because I'm use to the 230gr ball ammo. The 165gr do have a lighter recoil and they are very accurate out of My Colt. I have a hard time Finding those 230gr Hydra-Shoks though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top