Remington Golden Saber 9mm 124g versus Federal Hydrashok 9mm 124g

[Malamute]

Go Duck!

If one shoots some game with various loads you wont think FMJ and a functional hollow point do the same thing.

There is some modern testing done for reference for LE work, not just youtube level work. The hydra-shok isn't thought to be in the same class as the new generation of loads. Some GS loads are in the "OK" list of Dr Roberts, and some aren't. I think the 124 gr bonded worked pretty well, as did the 147 gr. GS has been improved over time as I understand it. Not so much the hydra-shok.

If those are the only ones available, see if theres any accuracy or functional difference. My bet would be on the GS, but that's just a guess, based on what Ive heard of hydra-shoks, even 25 or so years ago in a forensic publication. Either will be better than fmj. if other ammo is possible to be under consideration, look up the current test info (the real stuff, not youtube personalities) and see what you can lay hands on.

 

[Macchina]

I have really liked GS in my 357s (125 grain). For what it's worth, they are a sealed cartridge and should be unaffected by water. They shoot very well, are very accurate, and feed perfectly in all my revolvers

 

[MechAg94]

I don't know what kind of deal you are getting, but I recently saw good prices for 50 rounds boxes of Federal HST and Speer Gold Dot ammo on Ammunition Depot's web site. Less than $1 a round anyway. Some ammo dealers at gun shows in Houston had deals on them in the past.

That said, I would lean toward the Federal Hydrashock.

 

[medic15al]

Of course shot placement is priority but I don't see anyone arguing about shot placement, this thread is about projectiles. Right now I can find Federal HST 124 grain +P in 50-round boxes for 50 cents per round. How much is that Hydra-Shok in the little 20-round boxes at the local gun store? My point is there is no excuse for not having the best defensive ammo, you're not buying thousands of rounds at a time for plinking.

In this thread we have people saying to pick whichever hollowpoint is most aesthetically pleasing, and we have people saying FMJ and hollowpoints do the same thing, and that nobody needs any premium defense ammo. Ridiculous.

Hollowpoints and Fmjs are different, but both will penetrate and make a hole. It is completely ridiculous to imply if not using new premium hollowpoints you are purposely handicapping yourself. Fmj, Hydra-Shok, HST, Or Golden Saber will not look any different from each other in flesh wound tracks. Human wound tracks.

Would I prefer an HST over FMJ? Yes. But I get them free and if I could not find them at a reasonable price then any other hollow point or FMJ I can get that is reliable will do the same job. 9mm FMJ rarely penetrate thru a body if overpenetration is a concern.

 

[Malamute]

Hollowpoints and Fmjs are different, but both will penetrate and make a hole. It is completely ridiculous to imply if not using new premium hollowpoints you are purposely handicapping yourself. Fmj, Hydra-Shok, HST, Or Golden Saber will not look any different from each other in flesh wound tracks. Human wound tracks.

Would I prefer an HST over FMJ? Yes. But I get them free and if I could not find them at a reasonable price then any other hollow point or FMJ I can get that is reliable will do the same job. 9mm FMJ rarely penetrate thru a body if overpenetration is a concern.

Sorry, but I call bullfeathers. The animals Ive shot with various loads sure had very different looking wound tracks when RN or other loads were used.

I'll bet Dr GK Roberts would not confirm your contention that would tracks are indistinguishable from RN to decent HP loads. I would venture hes seen metric boatloads of human wounds with various bullets used compared to whatever you've seen.

 

[au_prospector]

My local shop has Golden Sabre for 16.99/50 round box. About once a month they do a 10% off sale and at $15.25 per 50 getting close to plinking prices. So, why not?

 

[medic15al]

Dr. Roberts have seen a lot, then again so have I. Paramedic, CSI tech, and a Pathology assistant for the Medical Examiners office I have seen a high number of shot folks, alive and dead. Human tissue is different than animal tissue. Only into getting into rifle and shotgun wounds one can see a difference in tissue disruption. A person shot with a .32 lead wadcutter has a very similar wound track as a .357 Semi wadcutter. Human tissue is stretchy and will tend to close, sometimes it will seal it self at the entrance making it where you have to search for it.

 

[jeepnik]

Wow, this started when a fellow wanted to know if one of two different rounds was superior to the other. Simple truth is "no". Now we are somehow discussing the difference in the terminal effects of FMJ versus hollow point. All the hype aside you still need to place the bullet into the target in the proper place for it to work.

 

[Malamute]

Dr. Roberts have seen a lot, then again so have I. Paramedic, CSI tech, and a Pathology assistant for the Medical Examiners office I have seen a high number of shot folks, alive and dead. Human tissue is different than animal tissue. Only into getting into rifle and shotgun wounds one can see a difference in tissue disruption. A person shot with a .32 lead wadcutter has a very similar wound track as a .357 Semi wadcutter. Human tissue is stretchy and will tend to close, sometimes it will seal it self at the entrance making it where you have to search for it.

OK, I hardly ever shoot people or cut them up and check results. You don't see more bruised and bloodshot tissue around and along a would track with expanding bullets, or even large flat points or SWC?

Ive notice very different reactions of animals to the shot depending on bullet type, and when cutting them up looking, or butchering meat animals. RN bullets are relatively clean wound tracks, with little tissue disruption evident compared to hollow point loads or SWC bullets. Have had rabbits and jack rabbits get up and run off after being hit by 44 spl RN lead, 45 auto RN ball type, and 45 Colt factory type RN bullets. Using SWC (Lyman) bullets, they never got up and ran off, and were much more "beat up" inside. Same basic results in the tissue through coyote and deer sized animals. Hollow points tear up smaller stuff pretty badly. Had one jack rabbit pretty well explode with a Winchester SWC Lubaloy factory 357 load with a center body hit, 223 soft points normally wont do that to jacks.

After shooting game with 45 auto ball loads, I started questioning all the "legendary stopping power" nonsense Id heard. I'm hugely underwhelemed with any RN bullet for killing stuff.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I carry Golden Sabres in .380 & 10mm. The only reason they're not in my EDC 9mm is that the tiny Diamondback DB9 functions best with 115 gr ammo, for which I chose standard velocity Remington 115 gr. JHPs. My other 9mms are stoked with either 124 gr. Golden Sabre or 147 gr. Hornady XTP. My .45s are loaded with either 230 gr. Golden Sabre or my Handloaded 240 gr. Sierra JHCs at .45 Super levels (S&W 3rd gen guns can take it ). My .32 magnums are loaded with 100 gr. Sierra JHCs. 158 gr. XTPs in my .357s. 250 gr. Gold dots in .45 Colt. 200 gr. gold dots in .44 spl. 240 gr. XTPs in .44 mag. 300 gr. Gold Dots in .454. 35 gr. Gold Dots in .25 ACP.

You may have noticed a trend in all that chatter........................not a Hydra-Shok to be found in any of my handguns. There is a reason.

 

[medic15al]

OK, I hardly ever shoot people or cut them up and check results. You don't see more bruised and bloodshot tissue around and along a would track with expanding bullets, or even large flat points or SWC?

Ive notice very different reactions of animals to the shot depending on bullet type, and when cutting them up looking, or butchering meat animals. RN bullets are relatively clean wound tracks, with little tissue disruption evident compared to hollow point loads or SWC bullets. Have had rabbits and jack rabbits get up and run off after being hit by 44 spl RN lead, 45 auto RN ball type, and 45 Colt factory type RN bullets. Using SWC (Lyman) bullets, they never got up and ran off, and were much more "beat up" inside. Same basic results in the tissue through coyote and deer sized animals. Hollow points tear up smaller stuff pretty badly. Had one jack rabbit pretty well explode with a Winchester SWC Lubaloy factory 357 load with a center body hit, 223 soft points normally wont do that to jacks.

After shooting game with 45 auto ball loads, I started questioning all the "legendary stopping power" nonsense Id heard. I'm hugely underwhelemed with any RN bullet for killing stuff.

I can't claim to have shot many folks but mostly seen the aftermath of the wound, and being on scene when people had to be shot.

The wound tracks of, say, a hollowpoint vary from bullet to bullet in my experience. One HP of X brand may, depending on location of entry, leave a ragged disruption starting an inch in and leave small damage inducing fragments and macerates the tissue with a large internal hole for blood to leak out. While the same X brand bullet on the next shot would get plugged and leave less disruption and have a smoother straighter wound path. Like a FMJ. In all while an edge will go to a expanding hollowpoint, it pretty much averages out that pistol bullet wounds are virtually indistinguishable from one another, even calibers cant be determined from wound alone. Rifles with their high velocity will cause massive disruption resulting in a faster bleed out.

The vast majority of handgun stops are from psychological shock... (Oh My GOD I'VE BEEN SHOT!)
while CNS or Spinal shots drop them instantly. (If the bullet penetrates brain and backbone)

Rifle and shotguns pretty much just drop you from massive instant trauma.

BTW..... My defense handguns are loaded with HSTs +Ps. And there is nothing wrong with Golden Saber or Hydra-Shoks either.

 

[Malamute]

^^ OK, I can get behind all of that.

Agree pistol hollow points aren't 100% reliable, though todays best versions are closer over a variety of conditions than 15 or 20 years ago. I wonder if any of the variable HP wounds you've seen were older styles? Just an idle wondering. Probably no way to know in your position.

It does sound from your post that when hollow points function they make more serious wounds. That was my primary contention, none have equaled decent rifle wounds with expanding bullets, other than that one exploding jack.

I did have one jack get up and run off after being hit with 55 gr FMJ loads in the chest at fairly close range. I was standing there looking at it with the rifle under my arm topping off the magazine when it got to its feet and dashed off through the junipers. Results were not consistent with 223/5.56 fmj loads on rabbit, both cottontails and jacks. Some would be crunchy feeling and sounding when you picked them up, some weren't. I found the bullet laying on the snow a foot or two behind one cottontail once. Weird.

 

[bannockburn]

Balrog

Between those two loads I have had better performance from Federal Hydra Shoks than from Remington Golden Sabers.

 

[azrocks]

Of course shot placement is priority but I don't see anyone arguing about shot placement, this thread is about projectiles. Right now I can find Federal HST 124 grain +P in 50-round boxes for 50 cents per round. How much is that Hydra-Shok in the little 20-round boxes at the local gun store? My point is there is no excuse for not having the best defensive ammo, you're not buying thousands of rounds at a time for plinking.

In this thread we have people saying to pick whichever hollowpoint is most aesthetically pleasing, and we have people saying FMJ and hollowpoints do the same thing, and that nobody needs any premium defense ammo. Ridiculous.

Haha... I made the aesthetically pleasing remark. But I don't find it that ridiculous.

What I do find ridiculous is people who buy 'carry' ammo that's so expensive they never practice with it. Every time they go out to the range they shoot low-power FMJ target loads, but their gun stays loaded with +P+ hollowpoints they've never vetted. They don't practice with the increased recoil, they don't practice with the potentially-increased flash, they don't put enough rounds down the tube to know if it cycles reliably in their firearm, they don't know how the change in ballistics will affect their POI, and last but certainly not least - they don't know if it will perform any better than those FMJs in a real world scenario where bone, clothing, and fate all play very big roles in bullet expansion. And speaking of expansion: that's a crap-shoot too. It's entirely possible that bullets that actually did expand as advertised might - due to expansion - not penetrate far enough to hit the spine, or a major artery..

I'm not discounted hollow-points entirely, nor current technology. Just saying that nitpicking over the finer points of bullet technology is pointless unless you've trained to the point where you can put that bullet exactly where you want it every time you pull the trigger. Until then, practice is where the focus should be. So I choose ammo that allows me to do that: practice.

 

[gbeecher]

Try both and go with the one that functions best, or whichever you prefer..just that simple. Hollow-points have come a long way..lots of good choices..

 

[Scarpia]

So why limit yourself to either/or, why not both???

Assuming each round cycles the gun reliably, alternate the GS's and the Hydrashoks in the magazine and let the bad guy sort it out. Using ballistics gel as a standard for comparing expansion is fine but I have never been threatened by a block of gel and doubt if I ever will. That's why I alternate 10 rounds in my M&P Shield magazine. I use three Hornady 124 XTP's followed by three 147 XTP's then two 124 RN's, two 147 RN's. I can easily unload all ten within a few seconds into a torso sized target. I'm confident that at least one of these bullets will resolve the problem or threat.

 

[Rubber_Duck]

Haha... I made the aesthetically pleasing remark. But I don't find it that ridiculous.

What I do find ridiculous is people who buy 'carry' ammo that's so expensive they never practice with it. Every time they go out to the range they shoot low-power FMJ target loads, but their gun stays loaded with +P+ hollowpoints they've never vetted. They don't practice with the increased recoil, they don't practice with the potentially-increased flash, they don't put enough rounds down the tube to know if it cycles reliably in their firearm, they don't know how the change in ballistics will affect their POI, and last but certainly not least - they don't know if it will perform any better than those FMJs in a real world scenario where bone, clothing, and fate all play very big roles in bullet expansion. And speaking of expansion: that's a crap-shoot too. It's entirely possible that bullets that actually did expand as advertised might - due to expansion - not penetrate far enough to hit the spine, or a major artery..

I'm not discounted hollow-points entirely, nor current technology. Just saying that nitpicking over the finer points of bullet technology is pointless unless you've trained to the point where you can put that bullet exactly where you want it every time you pull the trigger. Until then, practice is where the focus should be. So I choose ammo that allows me to do that: practice.

I actually DO shoot my chosen carry ammo, at least 100-200 rounds of it, through a chosen gun, before using that gun/ammo combo for carry. I know many people don't, but even shooting one box of it is better than nothing to ensure function. And every 6 months I shoot my carry ammo to replace it with fresh rounds.

But your biggest problem seems to be that you are completely dismissing the FBI protocol as far as what it proves about how ammo performs. You're saying that if a bullet expands as advertised it likely won't penetrate enough to reach vitals and you are dead wrong and I hope anybody reading this thread has been smart enough to do their own research instead of relying on nonsense like what several people in this thread have already posted. There is ammo that will both expand AND penetrate to the 12-18 inches of gel as required by the FBI. And if the bullet gets so badly deformed as it passes through an intermediate barrier or the nose cavity plugs up and it never expands at all the bullet will perform exactly like an FMJ, worst case scenario. But why limit yourself to that kind of performance every time by carrying FMJ because you don't believe in "carry ammo"?

To each his own. Everyone can make their own decision as to what to carry but let's not muddy the waters with disinformation.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Human tissue is different than animal tissue.

Really? What's your source for this misinformation?

 

[medic15al]

Really? What's your source for this misinformation?

IIRC the texts I've studied in class are: Lippincott's Illustrated Review of Biochemistry,
Netter's Atlas of Human Anatomy, and also veterinarians. Some animals are denser or not as dense as human muscle and/or tissues.

The Strasbourg (sp?) tests done in the 80s or early 90s in where Strasbourg goats were shot with one round of various ammo and then timed to determine incapacitation times. The breed of goats were chosen due to being the closest to living human tissue.

But man and animals are different. In retrospect I should have said anatomy and not tissue. My mistake

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Animal hide and bone may be different, depending on the animal. Human and animal solid organ density (muscle and internal organs) is no greater than water, which is why water is a valid test medium for testing terminal performance.

There is no credible evidence the Strasbourg tests actually happened and the alleged results (handgun bullets transferring more energy produces greater stopping power) have been disproved by modern bullets designed to meet FBI terminial performance criteria.

 

[medic15al]

Animal hide and bone may be different, depending on the animal. Human and animal solid organ density (muscle and internal organs) is no greater than water, which is why water is a valid test medium for testing terminal performance.

There is no credible evidence the Strasbourg tests actually happened and the alleged results (handgun bullets transferring more energy produces greater stopping power) have been disproved by modern bullets designed to meet FBI terminial performance criteria.

And the hide and bones must be passed thru to get to organs.

Water is very hard on bullets causing them to expand to the max at every time, Water isn't equal to other things a bullet goes thru. It IS useful to make those picture perfect expanded bullets that some like to display.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

According to MacPherson*:

"Shear force may be thought of as the force that resists deformation; if you push on a wall you are creating shear forces in the wall that resist your push. If you push your hand down very slowly on a water surface, you feel no resisting force; this is true because a liquid cannot support a shear force (in fact, this nonsupport of shear forces is really a definition of a liquid). This lack of shear force support is the reason a liquid assumes the shape of the container it is placed in.

"You can fan your hand back and forth in air quite rapidly because there seems to be no resistance, but a similar fanning motion cannot be done nearly as rapidly underwater because moving the water can take all the strength you can muster. The forces that resist the movement of your hand in water are inertial forces, and are due to accelerating the mass of water (giving it a velocity). There are also inertial forces that resist the movement of your hand in air, but these forces are so much smaller that they are not obvious because air density is so low. (Moving your hand also produces inertial forces because your hand has mass, but we are used to the feel of this because it happens all the time.)

"A bullet penetrating a soft solid (tissue or a tissue simulant) meets resistance that is a combination of shear forces and inertial forces...

"...the force resisting a bullet penetrating soft tissue at velocities above the cavitation threshold (about 500 ft/sec for typical handgun bullets) is almost totally an inertial force; in effect, this force is due to accelerating a mass of tissue in and near the bullet path. This force is nearly identical to the force resisting a bullet penetrating water (which as a liquid does not support a shear force) at velocities above the cavitation threshold because the densities of water and tissue are nearly the same. This is the reason bullet expansion is usually nearly the same in water, tissue, and gelatin (the small differences are due to effects that are not important here, but are described in Bullet Penetration)...

"The extension of these dynamics to soft tissue variation is obvious. Different types of tissue present different resistance to finger probing by a surgeon, but the surgeon is not probing at 1000 ft/sec. Different tissue types do have differences in the amount of shear force they will support, but all of these forces are so small relative to inertial forces that there is no practical difference. The tissue types are closer to each other than they are to water, and bullet expansion results prove that the dynamics of penetration in water and tissue are nearly identical at velocities over 600 ft/sec where all bullet expansion takes place (see Bullet Penetration for a detailed explanation of bullet expansion dynamics)."

*MacPherson, Duncan:"Wound Ballistic Misconceptions." Wound Ballistics Review, 2(3), 42-43; 1996.

 

[azrocks]

I actually DO shoot my chosen carry ammo, at least 100-200 rounds of it, through a chosen gun, before using that gun/ammo combo for carry. I know many people don't, but even shooting one box of it is better than nothing to ensure function. And every 6 months I shoot my carry ammo to replace it with fresh rounds.

But your biggest problem seems to be that you are completely dismissing the FBI protocol as far as what it proves about how ammo performs. You're saying that if a bullet expands as advertised it likely won't penetrate enough to reach vitals and you are dead wrong and I hope anybody reading this thread has been smart enough to do their own research instead of relying on nonsense like what several people in this thread have already posted. There is ammo that will both expand AND penetrate to the 12-18 inches of gel as required by the FBI. And if the bullet gets so badly deformed as it passes through an intermediate barrier or the nose cavity plugs up and it never expands at all the bullet will perform exactly like an FMJ, worst case scenario. But why limit yourself to that kind of performance every time by carrying FMJ because you don't believe in "carry ammo"?

To each his own. Everyone can make their own decision as to what to carry but let's not muddy the waters with disinformation.

You're one to talk about disinformation. Here we are on page 2 of this thread - one in which I've made a total of 2 posts on (excluding this one) - and you're already making up things you think I said. In the past I'd dispute the bolded parts, try to convince you as to what I really meant, etc. But frankly, if you can't even keep up with the content of the two short posts I mentioned, what's the point? Nothing I said in my 2 aforementioned posts would lead anyone capable of rational thought to the conclusions you've made above. But yet you think you have me all figured out now lol.

You ask me, you're in such a rush to prove yourself right that you can't be bothered to stop long enough to digest what others have written. If you had - you might find we're actually in much closer agreement on things than it would seem. But you're too busy trying to prove a point to figure that out.

 

[481]

Although I have a couple of working theories, I have always wondered why this topic results in threads that tend to circle the drain so quickly.

Quite frankly, the best way to answer the question initially put (Which of the two would you choose, Remington Golden Saber 9mm 124 gr JHP or Federal Hydrashok 9mm 124 gr JHP?), is reviewing calibrated gelatin test results or going out and testing for oneself (in water or calibrated gelatin).

Opinion threads don't get much done except maybe rack up a tally of who votes "Great Taste" or "Less Filling".

 

[Rubber_Duck]

You're one to talk about disinformation. Here we are on page 2 of this thread - one in which I've made a total of 2 posts on (excluding this one) - and you're already making up things you think I said. In the past I'd dispute the bolded parts, try to convince you as to what I really meant, etc. But frankly, if you can't even keep up with the content of the two short posts I mentioned, what's the point? Nothing I said in my 2 aforementioned posts would lead anyone capable of rational thought to the conclusions you've made above. But yet you think you have me all figured out now lol.

You ask me, you're in such a rush to prove yourself right that you can't be bothered to stop long enough to digest what others have written. If you had - you might find we're actually in much closer agreement on things than it would seem. But you're too busy trying to prove a point to figure that out.

You may be right, I often forget which specific comment I'm replying to at times but this thread has pretty much veered off-course so I probably won't be replying much anymore. But in the event that I do I will certainly highlight/bold the text I'm replying to, that would certainly help.