HST vs Ranger T

burbguy82

burbguy82

$100 site donor 2024
Joined
Jan 21, 2024
Messages
3,869
Location
NC, USA
This is a good comparison of the two, in ballistic gel. I have shot 1000s of each and came across this video. HST and Ranger are used by law enforcement of course, but wonder a few things....

1.) from all the cops on here, which did you carry?
2.) Which of these would be worse.

The uniformity of the HST is astounding, but the Ranger and those spikes, wow. Try pulling that out. Kind of puts me in mind of a nasty arrow.

I do not have much experience with wound track examination, but do have experience in shot placement examination in the field. Both are important.

I would recommend either of these for a defensive handgun, but would not recommend either in a carbine as my first choice. As they are not designed for the increased velocities that a 16" carbine adds.

Go to 7:00 in the video to skip all the BS.

 
Last edited:
We carried the .45 ACP version of the Ranger SXT (only sold to LE agencies supposedly), which is based on the bullet technology of the former Black Talon ammunition, albeit more "politically correct". Former agency, we carried Federal Hydra-Shoks which is basically the HST with a center post. Old tech though still a great round. I have Ranger SXTs in all my defensive carry guns.
 
Last edited:
shortyb said:
We carried the .45 ACP version of the Ranger SXT (only sold to LE agencies supposedly), which is based on the bullet technology of the former Black Talon ammunition, albeit more "politically correct". Former agency, we carried Federal Hydro-Shoks which is basically the HST with a center post. Old tech though still a great round. I have Ranger SXTs in all my defensive carry guns.
Click to expand...
I still have a few of those Hydra-shok's with the center post around the house (y)
 
Department issued the Speer Gold Dot for many years. Now, it’s the HST. I don’t think you can go wrong with either, and I think the terminal performance difference is minor.

The spikes (or bullet shape) are much less of a factor than the shock wave that the projectile creates and only a high speed camera will capture that effect in ballistic gel.
 
Still have a few of those "politically incorrect" rounds.
IMG_0177.webp
 
JohnnyG said:
Some lawyers made a big deal several years ago about these bullets, and managed to get a few emergency room doctors to back them up.
Said they did too much damage due to the bullet construction.
Click to expand...
To much damage :ROFLMAO:

If police use it, there must be a reason. Also, if police use it, then so should civilians.
 
I largely use HST in 9, 40, 45. When they first came out I was invited to a LE demo and the guys there were pretty cool and honest!! They told the story of how they were looking for similar performance of Hddra-shock rounds. The center post on them was cost prohibitive. According to Fed reps they "stepped in it" so to speak. They found the HST acted similarly to a bonded bullet without the cost.

I like them a lot. Many a different gun and function reliably and produce relatively repeatable results. I have similar faith in Ranger LE (not the same as commercially avail) and Gold Dot's.

Some caution should be used with gel tests. Lucky Gunner did a thorough job with their testing of various calibers and bullets BUT they did not use the ballistic gel that the FBI used to create the standards manufacturers seek to meet.
 
An acquaintance of mine is a trauma doctor (and former 18D) and member of the international wound ballistics group. I asked him about all this new bullet technology and what he would recommend for a handgun. He response was "get a rifle". He said no handgun bullet was that much better than another and the fastest way to make a bigger hole is to simply make another one (shoot more).

He said it is really hard to tell much difference between calibers or bullets when it comes to handgun wounds...but all rifle wounds are impressive.
 
burbguy82 said:
?
Click to expand...
burbguy82 said:
but the Ranger and those spikes, wow. Try pulling that out. Kind of puts me in mind of a nasty arrow.
Click to expand...
Spikes, or other oddities of shape, have little to do with performance. Performance is about energy transfer and the shock wave.

Who cares if the bullet has petals, or spikes, or whatever, after it comes to rest.

What is important is the energy transfer that happened as it decelerated. High speed photography and actual wound analysis show the effectiveness.

Looking at a lump of metal in gel after it has come to rest is specious.
 
Astro14 said:
Spikes, or other oddities of shape, have little to do with performance. Performance is about energy transfer and the shock wave.

Who cares if the bullet has petals, or spikes, or whatever, after it comes to rest.

What is important is the energy transfer that happened as it decelerated. High speed photography and actual wound analysis show the effectiveness.

Looking at a lump of metal in gel after it has come to rest is specious.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying.

I would disagree to some points. I think those little petals would make some serious lacerations in the wound track. Would it make a difference? Not sure, but the wound track would be effected, as the measured size was bigger. Nasty little bugger.

Many Lehigh bullets designed for defense are solid and have no deformation, but the shape of the bullet acts like a HP, but penetrates like a FMJ

As to energy transfer I agree, which is one reason why the ft lbs of energy on impact, while obviously important, does not tell the whole story, like in the 9mm vs 45 "man stopping debate. Bigger wound track make a difference in some circumstances IMO.

edit: kind of like a KABAR blood groove

I think the HST is superior, in fact the test does not include any barriers such as heavy clothes, or a car door and the like. The structure of the HST would be, or at least it seems to me, a better maintained pattern of expansion than the Ranger. Less likely to radically deform into a tumbling mess and not make proper penetration.
 
Last edited:
f355spider said:
An acquaintance of mine is a trauma doctor (and former 18D) and member of the international wound ballistics group. I asked him about all this new bullet technology and what he would recommend for a handgun. He response was "get a rifle". He said no handgun bullet was that much better than another and the fastest way to make a bigger hole is to simply make another one (shoot more).

He said it is really hard to tell much difference between calibers or bullets when it comes to handgun wounds...but all rifle wounds are impressive.
Click to expand...
Best way I heard it put was handguns poke holes and long guns tear $&@# up. Penetration into vital structures is key with handgun rounds. Magnum rounds are a different animal in the handgun convo though.
 
ATex7239 said:
Best way I heard it put was handguns poke holes and long guns tear $&@# up. Penetration into vital structures is key with handgun rounds. Magnum rounds are a different animal in the handgun convo though.
Click to expand...
Exactly. He said handguns, regardless of caliber basically work like a wood spear and just make holes. Hollow points "may" make larger diameter holes when they work, but most do not work reliably in real life situations (as opposed to gelatin)...that he had seen. He also said you really don't see any difference between 9mm or 45 or whatever as the diameter difference is so small it is inconsequential. Handgun bullets only damage the tissue they touch.

He wasn't saying don't use hollow points, in fact he encouraged it, but said lower your expectations of the outcome with a handgun.

High velocity wounds from rifles is much different and creates much more tissue damage beyond what the bullet touches.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
.380 ACP defensive ammo revisited
2
Replies
39
Views
15K
Chris B.
A
  • Locked
AWB harming U.S. Troops
Replies
16
Views
4K
tec97
Back
Top Bottom