Are hollow points really better?

[CraigC]

Let's be realistic, hardball is a joke, always was. Lack of expansion aside, it has about the worst nose shape possible to cause any tissue disruption. If there is a worse choice, I don't know what it is.

This idea that the .380 is best with FMJ is also nonsense. I tested several self defense loads in SIMTEST. The 230gr .45ACP Gold Dot and Federal HST loads penetrated 4" with textbook expansion. The HST gets the nod for broader expansion. The .380 Hydrashock penetrated 3" with textbook expansion, with no detectable difference between one fired from the Bodyguard .380 or the Beretta 84. Hardball went 6". The material was undiluted and it's pretty tough in that state. I would expect much higher numbers on actual tissue.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

It is important to realize that handguns are still handguns. I believe the FBI still instructs incoming recruits that 1 in 5 people shot in the torso with a handgun dies while 1 in 5 people shot in the torso with a rifle lives. All handguns are fairly anemic and none of them has a huge advantage in "stopping power" than any of the others, despite what the hype says.

Back in the day, they didn't employ scientific method in their testing to nearly the degree we do now and more of the "evidence" for a round's effectiveness, or lack of it, was anecdotal. The .45 made more sense then, when it was being compared against revolvers and other single-stack autos, and there was no reliable hollow points. Now we have to deal with a century of BS based on fantasy, which is why you still have so many people so convinced that the .45 and the 1911 are the end-all-be all of combat sidearms, when in fact, neither has been top of the line since 1935 or even relevant since the late 1980s when modern high capacity autos and JHPs became available. Now days, people aren't instructed that their sidearm is a one shot stopper and are taught to engage the target all the way to the ground with quick, multiple hits. Our JHPs are studied intensely, and are pretty reliable. It makes less sense to limit your capacity with a heavy steel framed handgun holding only 7 or 8 rounds in the magazine now that we have handguns that feed hollow points reliably and offer you literally twice as many opportunities to save your life in every magazine.

Yes, JHP are absolutely worth it. Even by worst case scenario, you have a 80% chance a JHP is going to nearly double the size of the permanent wound channel. And even if you experience a bullet failure, the bullet still offers at least the performance of a conventional FMJ. And we no longer believe our handgun is the God's wrath and therefore, we are engaging the target with multiple rounds. The chances that all of your rounds are going to fail is very slim. Penetration is still more important than expansion, but assuming you're using a cartridge powerful enough to reach vitals from every angle with a JHP (FMJ are still commonly employed in .25 and .32 caliber pocket pistols) and modern enough to feed them reliably, why wouldn't you use JHPs?

 

[jcord]

I have a couple of different rounds I trust for defensive use.
In my glock 19, I use 9bple as primary load with back up mags loaded with Lehigh extreme penetrator. The change in ammo is because if I haven't taken out the threat in the first magazine, they have taken cover or are wearing armor.
The Lehigh round excels at punching holes in stuff. I know this isn't scientific, but I've had great success with both cartridges deer hunting. I am surprised the atf hasn't outlawed the +p+ 9 mm Lehigh extreme penetrator.

 

[CraigC]

What I always find interesting is the huge disconnect that exists between hunting and self defense. Self defense discussions always seem to involve a lot of theory, misconceptions and wishful thinking. Whereas hunting discussions always involve mostly actual real world experience where bullets meet real, actual living tissue. Only in a self defense discussion, where virtually no one has real world experience, people cite heavily flawed studies and the choices of government entities. It's claimed that "handguns are anemic", that size doesn't matter and that a 9mm is "just as good" as a .45. In a hunting discussion, people cite actual real world experience, there is a world of difference between the .357 and those in the realm of .44's and .45's. In fact, we're not too much impressed with the .357 at all. We talk about using handguns to take some of the largest, most dangerous game int he world and the word "anemic" is never uttered.

 

[earplug]

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

Then why hunt Elephants with full jacketed solids?

 

[CraigC]

Then why hunt Elephants with full jacketed solids?

Because humans don't have a skull that is several inches thick and a .500-.600" bullet with a sectional density of over .300 running at 2000-2400fps doesn't need to expand to be effective.

 

[BSA1]

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.

In general expanision of hollowpoint bullets is dependent on their velocity which is why there is so much difference between the same bullet fired from a 3” barrel vs. 5” barrel.

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?

Big lead non-expanding bullets were state-of-the-art 100+ years ago. The Krag rifle also had problems stopping the Moro warriors.

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?

The Army was looking for a replacement for the 1911A1 before W.W.II. Our sudden, unexpected entry into the war created a massive demand for weapons of all types so R&D was halted during the war and mass production was limited to a few chosen small arms.

After W.W.II the military had millions of 1911’s, many of them in new condition, so there was limited interest in adopting a new type of replacement handgun for a country with a large war debt to pay off. This was exactly the same situation that existed after the Civil War that lead to the adoption of the Trapdoor rifle and carbine.

Why in 2012 did the Marines order 12,000 1911's for their Special Ops Forces?

You are behind the times here. The Marines dropped the 1911 after only three years of use and has switched to Glock 9mm.

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???

When the legend becomes fact, print the fact.

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

Strong case for a revolver but ignores semi-autos.

 

[JohnKSa]

In a hunting discussion, people cite actual real world experience, there is a world of difference between the .357 and those in the realm of .44's and .45's. In fact, we're not too much impressed with the .357 at all.

I would place the .357Mag/10mm at the top of the service pistol performance class and the .44Mag/.45 "magnum" hunting calibers solidly into the next performance class up from that. I would expect noticeable/practically significant performance differences when moving from one pistol caliber performance class to another.

Because humans don't have a skull that is several inches thick...

For a frontal brain shot on an elephant, the bullet will be required to penetrate more than 2 FEET of bone. Admittedly, it's "honeycombed" bone, not as dense as in a leg bone, but that's still a lot of bone.

 

[BSA1]

Let's be realistic, hardball is a joke, always was. Lack of expansion aside, it has about the worst nose shape possible to cause any tissue disruption. If there is a worse choice, I don't know what it is.

This idea that the .380 is best with FMJ is also nonsense.

I disagree with you about the .380. The .380 is a marginal round to begin with. The bullet must reach vital organs to do enough real damage to shut the attacker down. Hollowpoints are also dependent on velocity for expansion. The .380 is most often carried in small, short (3" or less long) barrel pistols that slows the velocity of the bullet even more meaning less penetration and bullet expansion..

A friend and I own identical 9x18 Makarov pistols. He loads his with hollowpoints and I load mine with FMJ's. He prefers expansion whereas I prefer penetration. Both of us realize that multiple shots are likely to be needed to stop an attacker. Both of us feel we are equally well armed.

 

[huntsman]

I'm a yes to HP over FMJ but unsure the $1.00 a round magic bullets are that much more superior to cheaper JHP. Funny thing I don't mind paying for high end hunting ammo, I guess when you can witness what the bullet does first hand it's easier to believe.

 

[earplug]

Because humans don't have a skull that is several inches thick and a .500-.600" bullet with a sectional density of over .300 running at 2000-2400fps doesn't need to expand to be effective.

Which are some of the reasons why a pitiful handgun bullet needs to be built to penetrate due to its lack of velocity and low sectional density.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

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.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.

Basically this, IMHO. Much ado is occasionally made by the .45 fans, who often post pictures of a .45 ACP cartridge next to a 9mm one and say that the bigger one is obviously better.

But if you post a picture of a .45 ACP cartridge next to a 9mm cartridge... both next to a 5'10" man weighing 180 pounds, which is basically a normal American male...

... neither one looks very big at all. The 1/10" difference may matter, it may not, but there's no way to predict it. I've heard of shooting survivors who switched to .45s after their 9mm didn't stop their attacker fast enough to suit them. And I've heard of shooting survivors who switched to 9mm after running their .45s dry.

It's all guesswork. You can carry a S&W .500 and still not know that the cartridge will stop an attacker.

Which is why the caliber wars are so heated. Ultimately everyone is just looking for mental reassurance that their choice is good enough.

 

[Sunray]

+P+ is about pressure and nothing else. An HP needs velocity to expand reliably. A cast bullet will expand dramatically every time at cast bullet velocities.
Mind you, I wouldn't pay any attention to what the FBI thinks.
The Moro charges were enhanced by drugs. Likely an opiate. Physics does not allow the stopping of anything with anything in its tracks. Including a .45 Colt or ACP.

 

[Holgersen]

According to the luck gunner ballistics lab only 61% of 175 .45 acp hollow point bullets expanded. So it's actually, 2 out of 5 don't expand. Out of the 35 companies tested only 9 met the FBI standard. This is only 26%. Most failed by failing to expand and over penetrating.

Hollow points fail all of the time and after what, a hundred years of hollow point technology, only 9 out of 35 can get a hollow point to work reliably. Seems like the hollow point as a design kind of sucks.

If a hollow point was a one-shot stop, I'd see the benefit, but they aren't.

 

[35 Whelen]

What I always find interesting is the huge disconnect that exists between hunting and self defense. Self defense discussions always seem to involve a lot of theory, misconceptions and wishful thinking. Whereas hunting discussions always involve mostly actual real world experience where bullets meet real, actual living tissue. Only in a self defense discussion, where virtually no one has real world experience, people cite heavily flawed studies and the choices of government entities. It's claimed that "handguns are anemic", that size doesn't matter and that a 9mm is "just as good" as a .45. In a hunting discussion, people cite actual real world experience, there is a world of difference between the .357 and those in the realm of .44's and .45's. In fact, we're not too much impressed with the .357 at all. We talk about using handguns to take some of the largest, most dangerous game int he world and the word "anemic" is never uttered.

The post above sums it up perfectly.

We can guess, speculate and shoot bullets into gel until the cows come home, but hunters have long known that, all things equal, (same style bullet, etc.) a larger caliber bullet is more effective. Ask any hunter with even a modicum of experience in the field if a 35 Remington with a 200 gr. bullet at 2000 fps MV is more effective a 45-70 with a 350-400 gr. bullet with an MV of 1500 fps and he'll look at you as though you had snakes growing out of your head.

Of course expanding bullets have certainly narrowed the difference in effectiveness between small and large bullets, but at the end of the day the fatter bullet will do a better job.

35W

 

[Elkins45]

The post above sums it up perfectly.

We can guess, speculate and shoot bullets into gel until the cows come home, but hunters have long known that, all things equal, (same style bullet, etc.) a larger caliber bullet is more effective. Ask any hunter with even a modicum of experience in the field if a 35 Remington with a 200 gr. bullet at 2000 fps MV is more effective a 45-70 with a 350-400 gr. bullet with an MV of 1500 fps and he'll look at you as though you had snakes growing out of your head.

Of course expanding bullets have certainly narrowed the difference in effectiveness between small and large bullets, but at the end of the day the fatter bullet will do a better job.

35W

If you shoot a deer with each cartridge and both fall over dead, how was one more effective?

Comparing hunting rifles to handgun cartridges isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison. Statistics show there's very little practical difference between nine, 40 and 45 in spite of what people wish to believe.

 

[CraigC]

I would place the .357Mag/10mm at the top of the service pistol performance class and the .44Mag/.45 "magnum" hunting calibers solidly into the next performance class up from that. I would expect noticeable/practically significant performance differences when moving from one pistol caliber performance class to another.

Yes but for al intents and purposes, comparing .357 hunting loads to .44 hunting loads, you are only increasing in weight and diameter. Same scenario with 9mm vs .45ACP.

For a frontal brain shot on an elephant, the bullet will be required to penetrate more than 2 FEET of bone. Admittedly, it's "honeycombed" bone, not as dense as in a leg bone, but that's still a lot of bone.

Not quite. Particularly if you hit the nasal passage, then it's only a few inches. Same for the side brain shot. Regardless, there are very good reasons why we don't use JHP's for elephant. None of which really has anything to do with this discussion.

I disagree with you about the .380. The .380 is a marginal round to begin with. The bullet must reach vital organs to do enough real damage to shut the attacker down. Hollowpoints are also dependent on velocity for expansion. The .380 is most often carried in small, short (3" or less long) barrel pistols that slows the velocity of the bullet even more meaning less penetration and bullet expansion..

My TESTING would seem to contradict that opinion.

Big lead non-expanding bullets were state-of-the-art 100+ years ago.

Except that 100yrs ago, just as today, cast bullets were expected to expand.

Which are some of the reasons why a pitiful handgun bullet needs to be built to penetrate due to its lack of velocity and low sectional density.

One really has nothing to do with the other. Any good self defense load in a standard bullet weight will likely exit on a grown man. Penetration isn't really an issue when the heart/lungs are only a few inches deep, if that.

 

[35 Whelen]

If you shoot a deer with each cartridge and both fall over dead, how was one more effective?

Comparing hunting rifles to handgun cartridges isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison. Statistics show there's very little practical difference between nine, 40 and 45 in spite of what people wish to believe.

IF both deer fall over dead, then one cartridge was not more effective than the other. But the "if" is the key. Smaller cartridges not only reduce margin for error, they're less capable of dealing with variables such as obstructions and other things that may reduce the penetration of a bullet.

I wasn't comparing rifle cartridges to handgun cartridges. I was comparing a .35 caliber bullet to a .45 caliber bullet as in the 9mm vs. 45.

35W

 

[Holgersen]

If over penetration is crap, and shot placement is everything I'll use FMJs. If over penetration isn't crap, where is the HP, which works 100 percent of the time. It's my life, it's me who'll have a civil lawsuit against me if I have a shoot through, and if HPs aren't 100 percent than give me another round, which doesn't have to expand to slow down in the body.

This doesn't sound unreasonable to me. I want my pistol at a 100 percent, and I should have the same standard for my ammo. If I need to remove expansion to make that happen so be it. Lighter bullet, sure, less powder, sounds great, still 18 inches of penetration perfect.

Is this really that hard to do?

 

[Deaf Smith]

Are hollow points really better?

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?

If the are well constructed, yes.

If poorly constructed, no.

Lots of luck.

Deaf

 

[rondog]

For hunting, there's lots of good hunting bullets in every caliber. Most of those are soft-nose variants.

For defense against dangerous humans, I want the meanest, nastiest, most tissue-damaging shock-inducing bullets I can get. I want them STOPPED, and stopped DECISIVELY, RIGHT NOW! And most of those are hollowpoints.

 

[BSA1]

I disagree with you about the .380. The .380 is a marginal round to begin with. The bullet must reach vital organs to do enough real damage to shut the attacker down. Hollowpoints are also dependent on velocity for expansion. The .380 is most often carried in small, short (3" or less long) barrel pistols that slows the velocity of the bullet even more meaning less penetration and bullet expansion.

My TESTING would seem to contradict that opinion.

Which is why I said “A friend and I own identical 9x18 Makarov pistols. He loads his with hollowpoints and I load mine with FMJ's. He prefers expansion whereas I prefer penetration. Both of us realize that multiple shots are likely to be needed to stop an attacker. Both of us feel we are equally well armed.”

 

[JohnKSa]

Yes but for al intents and purposes, comparing .357 hunting loads to .44 hunting loads, you are only increasing in weight and diameter.

Well, no. There's a significant energy/momentum difference as well.

This is a logical fallacy which can be difficult for people to understand. It's a variant of the slippery slope fallacy which says that incremental changes are bad/good because if they continue they would lead to major changes which are obviously bad/good. This is sort of the backwards version of that--i.e. the claim that comparing two cartridges with widely varying performance implies that varying the same parameters which make the two cartridges differ, but by smaller amounts proves something significant about two other cartridges.

The fact that changing some parameters makes a practically significant difference in one case does not guarantee that changing those same parameters by smaller amounts will also make a practically significant difference. In this case, it helps to separate handgun cartridges into performance classes. The Service Pistol class is one obvious categorization and there is no credible evidence to date indicating that cartridges in this performance class differ enough in terminal performance to have practically significant effects on stopping power/gunfight outcomes. The Magnum Hunting Pistol cartridges fall into a completely different performance class, and comparing a caliber from the Service Pistol class to one in the Magnum Hunting Pistol class will show outcomes that differ in practically significant ways.

Not quite. Particularly if you hit the nasal passage, then it's only a few inches. Same for the side brain shot.

Ok, if you can guarantee that you will always be able to line up your elephant frontal brain shots so that they are from the side (???) or so that you always hit the nasal passages, then you don't need to worry about the 2 feet of bone you'll have to get through in the other cases.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

I love how the .45-philes immediately get all defensive and attempt to discredit gel testing with 100 year old anecdotal evidence. What else is new?

The Marines adopted their new Colt 1911 .45s, and then dropped them. And with that, the 1911 has about ran out of friends in the professional world. The Navy SEALs, Secret Service, FBI, and others haven't dropped larger caliber handguns for the 9mm based solely on gel tests. The gel tests do provide a reliable, consistent medium with performance generally applicable to homogeneous tissue, but officer related shootings are studied intently. All the research says the same thing, and it is exactly what common sense says; that the relatively small difference diameter of projectiles moving half the velocity they need to in order to cause damage through so-called hydrostatic shock, or cavitation is almost completely insignificant. Additionally, the 9mm operates at 10,000 PSI higher operating pressure, so it gets much more performance for its capacity then the .45 ACP. When all the professionals do the same things at about the same time, maybe there is a reason. Everyone paying attention to actual street results and committing any effort to relevant testing is shooting 9mm. But go ahead and bring up bring up more 100 year old stories, that contributes a lot to the discussion.

 

[Holgersen]

Right, no hydrostatic shock, no damage from cavitation, so accurate shots are what count. So use soft shooting FMJs.

Competition shooters go by rounds on target and fast shots, which seems like what we want in real life. As long as the penetration is there why aren't we going that route instead of upping the velocity, pressure and recoil on every round we can find? Why should I carry a +p that gets 15 inches of penetration when I can get a standard pressure round, which penetrates 15 inches? Why should I use a standard velocity HP when a low velocity FMJ can have the same penetration with less recoil?