Are hollow points really better?

[Holgersen]

I've been doing carry ammo research, so I've been absorbing a lot of data, and one thing has been bugging me. If our standard for carry ammo is the FBI requirements, and if shot placement is key, why carry hollow points if an fmj can be made to fit FBI standards? (I'm not saying this is gospel, but lots of people go by it.)

If a +p+ hollow point fails to expand it's a mega powered fmj flying through everything, and does the exact opposite of what you wanted it to do, which is penetrate, but not over penetrate. Meanwhile a down powered fmj can't become more powerful. You don't have to worry about expansion, you don't have to worry about it not feeding, and it should have less recoil, permitted that the pistol functions properly.

Given that pistol calibers are so weak in general, are hollow points just over-engineered hype?

 

[xXxplosive]

Hmmm....I dunno, I like penetration so it's 45acp Hardball for me.

 

[CZ9shooter]

A slow moving FMJ would do little more than poke a hole. An faster moving bullet carries the potential to cause more trauma.

 

[jeepnik]

A long time ago a couple of fellows named Thompson (yea, the submachine gun guy) and LeGarde shot up a bunch of stuff and figured that a big ole slow moving bullet worked better than faster smaller ones. Of course they were using FMJ stuff as the were serving officers of the US Army.

But that was over one hundred years ago. Technology has improve some since then. In short, a good hollow point driven to the velocity for which is was designed will out perform a FMJ in the amount of injury caused. Modern hollow points not only expand reliably, they penetrate well.

 

[Drail]

Given a choice between "poking a hole" and "carries the potential to cause more trauma" I'll take "poking a hole" for $200. A .45 is a pretty big hole. I have studied the Thompson-Lagarde tests and they appeared pretty persuasive to me. Apparently a number of other people thought so also.

 

[JeffG]

The bullet must be able to penetrate to the organ or bone structure needed to stop the threat. Limiting penetration by reducing bullet weight, or a bullet design that limits penetration due to bullet expansion,it must be tested in a real way. If you are going to employ a dramatic expanding design, the remaining bullet base must be able to push the bullet all the way through the organ or bone. Shot placement is still the most important factor in stopping an active threat. My two cents.

 

[jmr40]

A long time ago a couple of fellows named Thompson (yea, the submachine gun guy) and LeGarde shot up a bunch of stuff and figured that a big ole slow moving bullet worked better than faster smaller ones.

And all of that has long ago been debunked. The military was actually quite disappointed with both the 45 and 1911 at the end of WW-2. In 1946 they tested 9mm and 45 ACP and found no measurable difference in performance. They also found that 9mm penetrated barriers and GI helmets much better than 45. Not to mention more ammo capacity and less recoil. Had it not been for budget cuts after the war the military was sold on 9mm as the better round then.

Then you had Jeff Cooper and other gunwriters making up statistics with nothing to back them up claiming 45 hardball would stop a man 19 out of 20 times while 9mm hardball was good about 12 out of 20 times. Actual testing by many independent sources over the years says it is a tie. Both 9mm and 45 hardball are effective about 2/3 of the time assuming a good hit. The best HP ammo from both is effective in the 85-90% range as long as you make good hits. But too many people bought into the myth rather than the facts.

 

[JohnBiltz]

Yes, jacketed hollow points are better. Ball is so ineffective its illegal to hunt with it in most states and that is with rifles.

 

[red rick]

If I had to use hardball ammo but I could pick my caliber , it would be .45 , hollow point , anything bigger than .380 with good ammo .

 

[pblanc]

Well, if my pistol does not reliably feed hollowpoints the JHPs would definitely not be better (of course, the solution would be to get another pistol). If I carried a .380 Auto for self-defense, I would use FMJ ammo, since JHP loads in that caliber tend to either not reliably expand, or fail to penetrate adequately if they do.

But otherwise, yes I think JHP ammo is superior to ball ammo. Most good 9mm Luger JHPs will expand to a significantly greater diameter than .45 ACP ball ammo, and still provide good penetration. 40 S&W JHPs even more so.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

Shot a bunch of deer with a variety of 9mm to 44 bullets in my time. The expanding ones (JHPs) kill deer more quickly and do a lot more damage than non-expanding bullets.

If handgun hunting isn't your thing, you can shoot just about any 44-45 caliber bullet over a wide range of velocities saboted in a 50 cal muzzleloader. And you can shoot just about any .355 (9mm) or .357 bullet saboted in a 45 cal muzzleloader. Seeing the difference in deer gives me a strong preference for JHPs.

Try it and form your own opinion.

 

[JTQ]

A long time ago a couple of fellows named Thompson (yea, the submachine gun guy) and LeGarde shot up a bunch of stuff ...

However, I didn't find it too convincing. My daughters 3rd grade science project had more scientific method than the Thompson-LeGarde test. They shot some stuff, ran a clock, then shot it some more, or not.

http://unblinkingeye.com/Guns/TLGR/tlgr.html

I think hollow points are more effective. However, I usually have ball ammo in my 1911. There are people carrying pocket .380's and .38 Special "Snubbies". Most people can shoot a 1911 more accurately than a pocket .380 or a .38 Special J-Frame, and you can reload a 1911 easier too. In addition, even the worst performing .45 Auto round fired out of a 1911 is going to outperform even the best round out of a .380.

 

[Holgersen]

Mostly asking because hollow point ammo fails to expand fairly frequently. Sometimes one in five fail to expand, which is 20 percent. If my pistol failed to fire 20 percent of the time, I'd throw it away. Over penetration seems to be the problem with ball ammo, but for a .45 to expand effectively you have to ramp up the velocity, so instead of 850 fps fmj you have a 1200 fps jhp, which failed to expand making it much worse. What's the point of ramping up velocity to slow it down later? I don't put a turbo in my car and then put a parachute on the back, so I can drive it. Or, "these brakes work great, but sometimes if the situation isn't perfect it engages the throttle."

Also considering how many police departments carry hydra shocks, which supposedly fail to expand often, have police shoot through incidents really decreased?

 

[Chuck R.]

Mostly asking because hollow point ammo fails to expand fairly frequently. Sometimes one in five fail to expand, which is 20 percent. If my pistol failed to fire 20 percent of the time, I'd throw it away. Over penetration seems to be the problem with ball ammo, but for a .45 to expand effectively you have to ramp up the velocity, so instead of 850 fps fmj you have a 1200 fps jhp, which failed to expand making it much worse. What's the point of ramping up velocity to slow it down later? I don't put a turbo in my car and then put a parachute on the back, so I can drive it. Or, "these brakes work great, but sometimes if the situation isn't perfect it engages the throttle."

Also considering how many police departments carry hydra shocks, which supposedly fail to expand often, have police shoot through incidents really decreased?

Seriously, where are you getting this data???????

What makes you believe today's bullet manufactures cannot get a bullet to expand at a velocity it's designed to?? Seems to me there's a plethora of testing in ballistic gel by reputable companies and facility demonstrating just that.........even with .45ACP ammo travelling at normal velocities.

BTW, it seems to me that IF your JHP fails to expand, you pretty much have the equivalent of.....hardball to some extent.

Chuck

 

[JohnKSa]

Here's my theory on handgun ammunition that is designed to create a large temporary cavity. That obviously includes expanding ammo but also includes ammo like the ARX bullet that creates a large temporary cavity without expansion.

The biggest benefit of a large temporary cavity is in letting the attacker know immediately that he has been wounded. The temporary cavity and more rapid deceleration/energy dump provides effective notice to the attacker that something really bad just happened. Since the huge majority of stops are psychological in nature, it's critical to let the attacker know that he's been wounded so his brain can start chewing on that bit of information and take the predictable result if rationality prevails.

It is certainly true that expanding ammo will create a larger permanent wound channel, but if you look at the probabilities of a slightly larger bullet hitting something vital due to the extra size, they are not encouraging. I'm not saying the larger permanent wound isn't a benefit--it certainly is. I'm just saying that the "notification" effect is far more important.

My mental model of a bullet wound is that it is a combination of blunt trauma/strike (temporary cavity/stretch cavity) and a penetration/stab wound. Like getting hit with something hard and simultaneously being stabbed in the center of the strike area. The penetration wound is what kills, but the blunt force trauma is how the attacker knows an injury has occurred.

So bean bag rounds, or very shallowly penetrating specialty rounds create the blunt trauma effect without the stab wound effect, and FMJ rounds, (especially at lower velocities) create a stab wound effect, but with no appreciable blunt trauma effect.

Obviously you want the lethality of the stab wound effect, but the value of killing an attacker is much reduced if they don't realize that they've been mortally wounded until after they've already killed you. On the other hand, most people's functionality is much impaired, and their priorities are rearranged, if they believe they have been seriously injured--even if they really aren't hurt that badly. So the blunt trauma effect is very important too--perhaps even more important when one considers how prevalent psychological stops are.

In place of "my theory" you can read "my opinion" if you prefer. I don't have hard data to support the theory/opinion, it's just what has gelled in my mind after years of studying the topic.

Yes. Hollow points are really better.

 

[JeffG]

Also considering how many police departments carry hydra shocks, which supposedly fail to expand often, have police shoot through incidents really decreased?
Hydra Shoks had their good and bad points. They acted like FMJ on cars and building walls. The expansion was iffy because of a heavy jacket and bearing surface on the nose, to ride on the feed ramp; for reliable functioning. Now the HST has taken its place and expansion is spectacular, but even with a 165gr 40 bullet, penetration was poor. No discernible hydro static shock happens with combat handgun rounds, but the temporary and permanent wound channel is much improved.
HST's and the like don't do well against soft body armor, whereas FMJ 40's do pretty good, we shot vests with 40 fmj Federal Eagle and were able to penetrate NIJ II and IIa vests on mannequins regularly. Over penetration is a much talked about subject, but I suspect that one of the real consideration for choosing premium hollowpoints may be that if an officer looses a gun during a fight, at least his or her vest will stop rounds from their own gun.

 

[Tallball]

Like others have said, I prefer 380 to be FMJ. For larger calibers I prefer hollow point.

 

[mjsdwash]

a hollowpoint is about more than expansion. The distorted edges are far more squared off than a round nose, resulting in more cutting than pushing, even unexpanded, a hollowpoint retains this property. Consider the effectiveness of wadcutters, and TCFP, and lead flatpoint bullets. If it was all about expansion, a 300winmag expanded to .45 would be far less fatal than a 9mm expanded to .55, but we know its not. The effectiveness of 'hydrostatic shock' is not what makes these rifles bullets so effective, its their ability to maintain a straight path, and damage everything in their way. the sharper the edges, and the faster the projectile, the more damage, and less deflection.

 

[Michael Tinker Pearce]

In Service calibers (.38 Special, 9x19mm, 40 S&W, .357 Sig, .45 ACP) modern JHP ammunition has proven, time and again, to be the best choice for stopping an attacker. We generally rely on the FBI's determination because they have been studying this intensively since 1986. The thing is they are not a panacea; you still need to break something important for them to do any good. More of my thoughts on the subject here: https://tinkertalksguns.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/handgun-stopping-power-and-other-myths-part-2/

In smaller calibers like .32 and .380 the new breed of 'enhanced cavitation' rounds from Lehigh and ARX show promise of blancing penetration and permanent wound track; these would be my first choice for these calibers based on available data. For other low-powered calibers like .38 S&W a wadcutter seems to be the best option; wide metplat without sacrificing too much penetration.

 

[35 Whelen]

And all of that has long ago been debunked. The military was actually quite disappointed with both the 45 and 1911 at the end of WW-2. In 1946 they tested 9mm and 45 ACP and found no measurable difference in performance. They also found that 9mm penetrated barriers and GI helmets much better than 45. Not to mention more ammo capacity and less recoil. Had it not been for budget cuts after the war the military was sold on 9mm as the better round then.

Then you had Jeff Cooper and other gunwriters making up statistics with nothing to back them up claiming 45 hardball would stop a man 19 out of 20 times while 9mm hardball was good about 12 out of 20 times. Actual testing by many independent sources over the years says it is a tie. Both 9mm and 45 hardball are effective about 2/3 of the time assuming a good hit. The best HP ammo from both is effective in the 85-90% range as long as you make good hits. But too many people bought into the myth rather than the facts.

If all this is true, then why does the 45 ACP remain so popular among? Why is it in Philippines War the 38 Long Colt (roughly same diameter bullet as a 9mm) was found horribly ineffective and 45 revolvers were rushed in to replace them? Where did you read that the military was "quite disappointed" with the 45 at the end of WW2? Can you state your sources for the 1946 tests in which they found a smaller diameter FMJ bullet was as effective as one that was over 20% larger in diameter? Why in 2012 did the Marines order 12,000 1911's for their Special Ops Forces?

For the life of me I cannot wrap my head around some peoples assertion that a .355" diameter non-expanding bullet is just as effective as .452" diameter non-expanding bullet.

The 9mm and its many platforms is an excellent one-size-fits-all for the masses (I own two of them), but if it truly were as effective as the 45 ACP, then why on earth would ANYONE (military, law enforcement et al) still want to use a 45 ACP???

I've been doing carry ammo research, so I've been absorbing a lot of data, and one thing has been bugging me. If our standard for carry ammo is the FBI requirements, and if shot placement is key, why carry hollow points if an fmj can be made to fit FBI standards? (I'm not saying this is gospel, but lots of people go by it.)

If a +p+ hollow point fails to expand it's a mega powered fmj flying through everything, and does the exact opposite of what you wanted it to do, which is penetrate, but not over penetrate. Meanwhile a down powered fmj can't become more powerful. You don't have to worry about expansion, you don't have to worry about it not feeding, and it should have less recoil, permitted that the pistol functions properly.

Given that pistol calibers are so weak in general, are hollow points just over-engineered hype?

Of course hollowpoints are better...IF they work, and they always work in gel where there are no bones, buttons as on clothing, items in shirt or coat pockets through which a bullet may be expected to pass and still expand. I've always felt a SWCHP is the best of both worlds; if it expands, fine. If it doesn't you're still left with a very good killing bullet. I and generations of handgun hunters know firsthand that SWC's kill very well.

35W

 

[JohnKSa]

If all this is true, then why does the 45 ACP remain so popular among? Why is it in Philippines War the 38 Long Colt (roughly same diameter bullet as a 9mm) was found horribly ineffective and 45 revolvers were rushed in to replace them?

They were trying anything they could to find something that would reliably stop the Moro charges. From what I've read, there wasn't much that would do the trick. Not the .38 LC revolvers, not the replacement revolvers in .45 Colt. Not even the issue rifle at the time was effective. Only 12ga shotguns made much of an impression.

For the life of me I cannot wrap my head around some peoples assertion that a .355" diameter non-expanding bullet is just as effective as .452" diameter non-expanding bullet.

If you really look at the difference in the amount of tissue destroyed by one vs. the other, there's surprisingly little difference. Also, if you look at the chances of one hitting something important with one vs. the other, again, the difference is surprisingly small. Add to that the fact that psychological stops make up the vast majority of stops and what you have is that any difference in the terminal performance:

1. Only makes a difference in a non-psychological stop which is a tiny fraction of actual stops.
2. Only makes a small difference in those cases.

The result is that in the real world the practical difference is so small that no one has been able to conclusively prove that it even exists, let alone to quantify it. Think about it. If there was actually conclusive proof the caliber debate would be over.

 

[C-grunt]

In my experience modern hollowpoints have a pretty good percentage of expansion. They dont look like the advertisements but they expand. Ive seen multiple expanded hollow point rounds fully penetrate people. I also don't know any police department that issues Hydrashock ammo. There probably are a few out there but Federal LE sales is all HST as far as I know. last I read the most popular LE rounds are the HST, Gold Dot, and Ranger.

Ive seen FMJ pistol rounds kill plenty of people. But hollowpoints have proven to be more effective. And since you are already hindered by having to fight with a handgun, Id take all the help I could get.

 

[DT Guy]

This might be simplistic, but I choose hollow-points because:

• They *might* expand and do more damage
• If they don't, they act like ball anyway

Larry

 

[xXxplosive]

Actually....I'm from the Cirillo School of logic and if I could get a reliable feeding .45acp lino type / hardened Wadcutter, that's what I'd be using.

 

[Az-quailhunter]

My 1911's all feed HP's just fine, and after 50 years of shooting, I'm sticking with them.