Are hollow points really "deadlier" than FMJ?
- Thread starter grampajack
- Start date
- Status
Flechette
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 481
Well, magazine capacity is one reason.
However, I do not think that magazine capacity is as important as most people think it is. I think ergonomics greatly increases the chance of hitting the target, especially under stress or at night when using the sights might be difficult.
The result is that I find myself carrying a .357 more often. It is not as cumbersome as it used to be since S&W has come out with the new light weight scandium revolvers.
Yes, full load .357 can be painful for the shooter but it is more painful for the target.
Legionnaire
Contributing Member
"Yes" to the question in your thread title.
"No" to the question in your poll. Hollow points are "deadlier," but not because of a "pressure wave."
"No" to the question in your poll. Hollow points are "deadlier," but not because of a "pressure wave."
Flechette
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 481
So you're calling me a liar? "Remote wounding effects"??? No. I'm claiming that a flat nosed cast bullet does a hell of a lot more than a pencil in jello. Even more-so for an expanding jacketed bullet that does what it's supposed to. You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about and have based your wrong conclusion on a lack of evidence in your Googling. Please. Some of us have actually studied FIRST HAND this for a couple decades. If FMJ really did work the same as jacketed expanding bullets, we'd all be using them. If a roundnose worked just as well as a SWC or LBT, we'd be using them. They don't. You're wrong and this is basic stuff here. You're foolishly refuting proven fact.
Exactly.
No, you've made up your mind and no amount of facts are going to change it. You're dismissing actual evidence as just "anecdotal evidence from random people on a gun forum" only because it doesn't fit your conclusion.
I converted this pic to black & white so it wasn't quite so graphic. This is the result of a WFN fired into a 200lb fallow deer at 1300fps. The bullet effectively removed 20-25% of the deer's sizable heart. Not exactly a pencil hole. The lungs were jello.
Since the bullet you used (wide flat nose, I assume) is not a hollow point I assume that the damage you show is from hydrostatic shock. That is impressive at 1300 fps.
I did get me thinking though. Could the damage come from the flat nose forcing tissue to squirt to the sideways perpendicular to the bullet flight path? I am thinking of a similar dynamic as when a snow plow hits a drift at high speed and makes a hole in the drift larger than the blade of the plow (don't ask me how I know this...).
I seem to remember an old bullet design called a BAT round (ballistic action trauma) that proclaimed to do this. The bullet was pure copper and a curved cone of metal on the tip, sometimes referred to as a "reverse ogive".
I believe this to be the intent of the center post in Hydra-shok ammo. It uses this pressure on the inner sides of the hollow point to help open up the hollow point.
Last edited:
OP
OP
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
So you're calling me a liar? "Remote wounding effects"??? No. I'm claiming that a flat nosed cast bullet does a hell of a lot more than a pencil in jello. Even more-so for an expanding jacketed bullet that does what it's supposed to. You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about and have based your wrong conclusion on a lack of evidence in your Googling. Please. Some of us have actually studied FIRST HAND this for a couple decades. If FMJ really did work the same as jacketed expanding bullets, we'd all be using them. If a roundnose worked just as well as a SWC or LBT, we'd be using them. They don't. You're wrong and this is basic stuff here. You're foolishly refuting proven fact.
Exactly.
No, you've made up your mind and no amount of facts are going to change it. You're dismissing actual evidence as just "anecdotal evidence from random people on a gun forum" only because it doesn't fit your conclusion.
I converted this pic to black & white so it wasn't quite so graphic. This is the result of a WFN fired into a 200lb fallow deer at 1300fps. The bullet effectively removed 20-25% of the deer's sizable heart. Not exactly a pencil hole. The lungs were jello.
What caliber was that?
Deanimator
Member
I seem to remember an old bullet design called a BAT round (ballistic action trauma) that proclaimed to do this. The bullet was pure copper and a curved cone of metal on the tip, sometimes referred to as a "reverse ogive".
- The "BAT" ("Blitz Action Trauma", "BET" - "Blitz Einsatz Trauma" in German) was an entirely different round from the pictured round. I believe it was produced by GECO and was somewhat similar to the "Pow-R-Ball". If I remember correctly, it had a tunnel all the way through from nose to base, with a plastic nose cap which allowed for proper feeding. I remember looking at a box of them in a gunstore in Elizabethtown, KY in the '80s when I was stationed at Ft. Knox.
- The "THV" ("Tres Haut Vitesse") was a French round. In the late '70s, or early '80s, there was a similar French round called the "Arcane". It had a similar shape, but it had a knob or button at the tip of the ogive. I can't imagine that there weren't feeding difficulties with it. Of course at the time, the French were still issuing Manhurin, Ruger, and hybrid revolvers to their police, so feeding wouldn't have been an issue in that case.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
.480Ruger.
Hydrostatic shock is not a factor at 1300fps.
Hydrostatic shock is not a factor at 1300fps.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I haven't read through this thread yet, put here's my answer to the OP:
ANYTIME you compare terminal ballistics, you have to have as common a ground as possible when comparing different bullets in order to gain information that is both relevant and meaningful. Otherwise all you end up doing is arguing about different performance characteristics that are inherent due to the caliber, velocity, mass, etc. of the rounds in question.
That said: If all (or most) other aspects between bullets are the same, then the hollowpoint will be "deadlier" than the FMJ:
For example, if the mass is the same, the bullet path through the body is the same, the depth of penetration is the same, then the hollowpoint will be "deadlier" because it will cause more tissue damage...and more tissue damage is, by definition, deadlier.
The primary presumption, of course, is that the bullets actually penetrate and follow the same path and depth of penetration. If you argue that a hollowpoint isn't likely to penetrate certain layers of clothing very well, for example, then you are now introducing conditions/factors which deliberately affect terminal performance differently between bullet designs. Any (pistol) bullet which cannot penetrate will not likely cause any significant damage.
Which goes to point out the fact that even identical bullets will have differing terminal ballistics if you change certain factors. Like having to penetrate multiple layers of clothing or hitting the body in different locations, for example. Changing bullet designs simply compounds comparisons even further. So keep all those other factors same-same as much as possible.
And remember...all bullet choices are a compromise on various factors.
Frank Ettin has said the following many times, in one form or another:
So as a rule of thumb --
ANYTIME you compare terminal ballistics, you have to have as common a ground as possible when comparing different bullets in order to gain information that is both relevant and meaningful. Otherwise all you end up doing is arguing about different performance characteristics that are inherent due to the caliber, velocity, mass, etc. of the rounds in question.
That said: If all (or most) other aspects between bullets are the same, then the hollowpoint will be "deadlier" than the FMJ:
For example, if the mass is the same, the bullet path through the body is the same, the depth of penetration is the same, then the hollowpoint will be "deadlier" because it will cause more tissue damage...and more tissue damage is, by definition, deadlier.
The primary presumption, of course, is that the bullets actually penetrate and follow the same path and depth of penetration. If you argue that a hollowpoint isn't likely to penetrate certain layers of clothing very well, for example, then you are now introducing conditions/factors which deliberately affect terminal performance differently between bullet designs. Any (pistol) bullet which cannot penetrate will not likely cause any significant damage.
Which goes to point out the fact that even identical bullets will have differing terminal ballistics if you change certain factors. Like having to penetrate multiple layers of clothing or hitting the body in different locations, for example. Changing bullet designs simply compounds comparisons even further. So keep all those other factors same-same as much as possible.
And remember...all bullet choices are a compromise on various factors.
Frank Ettin has said the following many times, in one form or another:
So as a rule of thumb --
- More holes are better than fewer holes.
- Larger holes are better than smaller holes.
- Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places.
- Holes that are deep enough are better than holes that aren't.
- There are no magic bullets.
- There are no guarantees.
captain awesome
Member
Shoot a water jug/piece of fruit/ballistics gelitan ect...with a fmj. Then shoot one with a hollow point. Your question will answer itself.
OP
OP
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
Well no freaking wonder! We're talking about something that tops out at 1500 ft-lbs!!!
Who carries a gun like that? We're talking about 3-7 times more energy than all the common carry calibers from .380 to .45 ACP. That's more at the muzzle than 5.56 and 300 BLK. That's almost twice the muzzle energy that most .357 magnum loads put out of a full size barrel. Even .44 mag from a full size barrel is underpowered compared to that monster.
Your story should have started out, "I shot this deer with a cannon..." Unless you go around carrying a Desert Eagle I don't see how this is even relevant to this discussion. For one thing the bullet you were using is closer to an FMJ than it is a HP, so I don't know what you're trying to prove in the first place, other than the fact that remote wounding can occur with a low velocity missile if said missile is the approximate size and weight of a roll of quarters.
And here in one post you post pictures of remote wounds from a .480, then in another you claim that hydrostatic shock doesn't exist at that velocity? Well then how did those remote wounds get there? Did the bullet bounce around or what? You stated the lungs were jello. How on earth do you think they got that way if there's no hydrostatic shock involved?
Like I said before, damage due to hydrostatic shock can start to be detected at around 500 ft-lbs of energy, making it a negligible factor for carry guns. Not so for a hand cannon such as your .480. Maybe it's not as pronounced as you would see with a high velocity round in the same energy range, but I would be willing to bet it's there, and obviously your photo seems to suggest that.
Long story short, this isn't a matter of what bullet you used, it's a matter of ridiculous power in a handgun. You probably could have used just about anything and gotten similar results, from hollow points to FMJs to solid copper. What exactly is your point here? Are you saying you would have gotten more remote wounding with a hollow point? Or that flat nose bullets are the same as hollow points?
This is EXACTLY why anecdotal evidence irritates me so much. Here I am thinking you're using a .45 Long Colt or something that would be applicable to a discussion pertaining to defensive sidearms. I think the story about the squirrels shot with .22 LR has more to do with this discussion. At least that's a caliber that doesn't cause remote wounds and there was an actual hollow point involved. Like I said, I don't know what that post was supposed to prove, but all you've done is muddy the waters.
OP
OP
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
Not necessarily. I'm not saying that hollow points can't transfer more energy. I'm saying that peak pressure is reached while the bullet is still at it's maximum velocity. By the time the bullet is expanding it's also slowing down, so no matter how much it transfers at that point it's never going to exceed the pressure that it already transferred.
So in a bullet without enough energy to cause remote wounds (i.e. 200-500 ft-lbs), this energy transfer is meaningless. You're not going to get remote wounding effects, and you've already gotten all the hydrostatic shock you're going to get. So the energy is then dissipated in a stretch cavity that causes no appreciable wounding effect.
And if we're talking about high velocity rifle rounds, an FMJ can make a water jug jump just as well as a hollow point if it tumbles, which they tend to. Again, though, I'm much more interested in handgun rounds in the .380 to .45 ACP range, 10mm at the largest. Even 10mm though I find somewhat on the edge of what's practical for the vast majority of people.
ETA: here's a graph showing the magnitude of the pressure wave at regular time intervals for common handgun cartridges. As you can see it peaks very early in the bullet's travel through the medium.
Last edited:
Ballistic wounding effects are a fluid world and you can't draw lines in the sand, there are no absolutes.
Not all tissue has the same elasticity some is much easier to damage with the stretch cavity.
More energy=more likely. less energy=less likely
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
And arguing with clueless people with heavily flawed logic who so arrogantly cling to an ignorant opinion are what irritate me. The fact that you think my points are irrelevant is exactly MY point. If you don't understand how this is relevant, you need to be reading/listening, not posting.
Says the guy constantly muddying the water with rhetoric about rifle cartridges??? All you're doing is finding ways of dismissing anything contrary to your ignorant opinion.
If you had a clue, you'd know that I would've had the same result with a 250gr .44 at 1200fps.
Last edited:
Ghost In The Fog
Member
I have no scientific opinion or anything else to contribute to this argument but I couldn't agree more with this post. YUGE difference in results.
From my own testing and shooting water jugs, soda cans, fruit and various other things there is a big difference in reaction (destruction) from different bullets. I have noted amazingly different reactions from JHP rounds and even differences from one manufacturer to another.
Not science, no millions spent just shootin stuff for fun.
huntsman
Member
^ but fruit and water ain't flesh and blood, not to mention bone.
Truth is most of what shows up as "tests" on the web is just advertising.
In a way I share some of the OP skepticism but my issues are more about carrying "cheap" FMJ so I opt for cheaper (better quality)JHP.
The HP that has wowed me is the 5/8oz Copper solid, l don't know if cooper will perform the same out of a handgun but I'm willing to try it on real flesh(deer).
Truth is most of what shows up as "tests" on the web is just advertising.
In a way I share some of the OP skepticism but my issues are more about carrying "cheap" FMJ so I opt for cheaper (better quality)JHP.
The HP that has wowed me is the 5/8oz Copper solid, l don't know if cooper will perform the same out of a handgun but I'm willing to try it on real flesh(deer).
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
The two results, relative to each other (FMJ vs JHP) are still relevant.
OP
OP
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
And arguing with clueless people with heavily flawed logic who so arrogantly cling to an ignorant opinion are what irritate me. The fact that you think my points are irrelevant is exactly MY point. If you don't understand how this is relevant, you need to be reading/listening, not posting.
Says the guy constantly muddying the water with rhetoric about rifle cartridges??? All you're doing is finding ways of dismissing anything contrary to your ignorant opinion.
If you had a clue, you'd know that I would've had the same result with a 250gr .44 at 1200fps.
No you would not have. Such a round would produce in the ballpark of 800 ft-lbs of energy (your .480 is pushing over 50% more). Apples and oranges.
But it's still a pointless argument because maybe one out of a thousand people are carrying anything that powerful. Most people carry .380 at around 250 ft-lbs on a good day.
BTW, the 500 ft-lbs cutoff as someone put it is not my own arbitrary creation. It was established by three separate research teams as the low end of where measurable remote damage could be detected. I should mention though that they needed advanced equipment to measure damage at those energies. The damage was not visible to the naked eye. Google Suneson, Courtney, and Wang. Courtney and Wang were fond of shooting animals I believe, so some of you should really dig their findings.
Again, though, I don't even know what point you're trying to make. Your anecdote doesn't involve hollow points, and the cartridge you were using is 3 times more powerful than anything being carried by the average person (and there are a heck of a lot more people carrying .380 than .45 +P so that's being generous on my part).
OP
OP
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
Not necessarily, and I explained in detail why that is. You sir are the one who has made up your mind. You're the one making drive by claims without addressing any of my arguments, except to call me names.
You're not looking for a discussion. You're not even looking for a debate. You're looking for a pissing contest.
azrocks
Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2016
- Messages
- 659
The only thing that proves is that hollowpoints have the potential to produce larger pressure wave within a non-solid medium they may enter. Whether that pressure wave - particularly at defensive handgun velocities - contributes in the least to an immediate stop is questionable at best. And this expansion is dependent on any number of variables - clothing, contact with bone, bullet path, tissue density - all of which can turn your hollowpoint into an FMJ equivalent (or worse - because they have a better chance of breaking up into smaller particles which much less momentum / mass).
What little we do know about handgun stopping power is that the only truly reliable stop - which still isn't 100% - is a CNS hit. And in order to get a CNS hit, particularly from legally justified shooting angles (aka your aggressor facing you), penetration is the key. A hollowpoint that happens to do its job and actually expand will absolutely, positively sacrifice penetration potential in the process.
Whether a stop would be better facilitated by penetration vs expansion is pretty much an exercise in chance. But to my 3-dimensional way of thinking, it makes more sense to push a bullet a couple more inches into the depth of your target than to quibble over fractions of an inch expansion. Either way it's a roll of the dice though. But I think you load the dice in your favor by focusing on penetration. So, apparently, did the FBI.
Could the pressure wave demonstrated by a demolished water jug contribute to a stop or at least a temporary cessation of hostilities (like a solid punch in the gut that knocks the wind out of you)? Possibly. I don't know. But if it does, that's a factor that's at least in part dependent on your target's determination & pain tolerance. A CNS hit isn't something you're going to walk off no matter how high on adrenaline you are.
Now - with high velocity rifle rounds - the dynamics are completely different. But I'm limiting my opinion to handgun loads most common in self-defense platforms.
I'm not saying that an FMJ is necessarily better. All I'm saying is that there is no free lunch. When (and if) you get expansion, you pay the price in penetration. Whether or not one is better than the other in a real-world scenario is up to the Gods to decide.
Corpral_Agarn
Member
This is correct. because you are comparing the two against one another in the same test.
When setting up science experiments you only change one thing at a time to test your hypothesis.
In the case of shooting the same targets and only changing the bullet type you are getting relevant performance data. Comparing one against another in the same test is key.
I think that hunting results or shooting dead animals is an excellent way to test bullets.
In fact, to disregard what has been discovered trying to find a better hunting bullet would be a mistake, in my opinion. Bullet design has come so far for so many years in part because of the hunting industry.
When we are looking at "performance" of a cartridge it is important to set apart tissue damage and the achievement of intended results.
If I shoot something with a FMJ and the intended result is achieved (say, the critter dies), that doesn't necessarily mean that it "performed" better than a JHP at maximizing tissue damage.
There are two ways to kill a critter: Disrupting the central nervous system and blood pressure loss.
JHP are intended to increase in diameter through expansion, therefore increasing tissue damage, and at that task they are better suited than FMJ.
More tissue damage *typically* means greater/faster blood loss.
So, if a shoot a critter in the head, it won't matter if the bullet is FMJ or JHP.
But if I shoot a critter in a place like the stomach (for the sake of argument lets say that no vital organs are struck), the JHP will make more tissue damage (ie more blood loss) than the FMJ.
The JHP will more reliably cause more tissue damage than the FMJ.
I will take every edge I can get.
Thanks,
ETA: Frank Ettin's response on page one sums it up better than me.
Last edited:
Ghost In The Fog
Member
Thank you. ^
I'm working my way through Quantitative Ammunition Selection by Charles Schwartz- found this book after learning about Fackler Boxes.
I do not have access or knowledge enough to even begin to process or analyze ballistics gel correctly and even though it is apples to oranges- water to gelatin- it is still apples to apples when using the same medium. I have learned a lot from water jugs. Yes, this is not flesh, bone or tissue but it at least tells me which hollow points, FMJ, RN and even target hps I feel produce the most devastation in a constant medium using my limited format.
OP
OP
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
It's not enough that the test medium be the same for both rounds. The test medium must be an accurate representation of a human target to draw the conclusions you guys are trying to draw. Even ballistics gel falls short in that category. All ballistics gel does is provide a consistent medium that's as close to human tissue as possible, for the purpose of comparing one bullet to another. So if you find that 12-18'' of penetration in gel translates to enough in the real world, then the medium is consistent enough to say that any round that gets 12-18'' in gel is likely to penetrate deep enough to kill a human.
I don't see any way water jugs, and especially fruit, could be used to draw any conclusions about how a bullet might perform in the real world. Like someone else said, it's just a gimmick, not a real test of anything.
BTW, why do you guys think the FBI test disregards the "wound cavity" in ballistics testing? They only look at penetration. It's because they know that measuring the wound cavities of pistol rounds in gel is a pointless exercise. And IMHO, looking at how high a water melon jumps is way more meaningless than measuring the wound tracks in ballistics gel. At best it might give you an idea of how much energy a round is capable of transferring, but it tells you absolutely nothing about how that energy effects the target. It's a good TV gimmick for shows like Mail Call, nothing more.
Last edited:
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Have you done it? I have. Many times. You are clueless and yet you are telling me that what you 'think' is more accurate/relevant than what I 'know'. They have a name for "willful ignorance" and it's not a good one.
Forget about energy. It is a meaningless number and only serves to signal to everyone who has hunted with a handgun how clueless you really are. In the real world, the .480 only produces a slightly greater effect due to the larger bullet's larger meplat. Energy and velocity are irrelevant. This is fact based on experience, not uninformed opinion.
Completely irrelevant, particularly considering your "Jab a pencil into jello and that pretty much sums up what kind of wounds you will see from handgun cartridges" comment.
What the hell is "remote damage"???
Newsflash, as if it were not obvious, a hollowpoint is going to produce MORE damage than the flat nosed solid. Which completely blows your nonsensical conclusion out of the water. You haven't been right yet.
Of course I have, because I KNOW. I don't think you're wrong. I know you're wrong. You have a silly theory that is not based in reality and are arbitrarily dismissing anything that contradicts it.
I have not. Name-calling is contrary to the rules of THR.
No, I'm trying to educate you and you're fighting me every step of the way.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
That's all it's for. Many incorrectly assume that gel testing is supposed to tell us what any given load would do in live tissue. That the results translate directly from gel to flesh. They do not. The value of gel testing is to have results to compare to each other, with as many variables eliminated as possible, which is to be compared to known values.
IMHO, the results of any testing in water jugs has limited application. However, in this instance, it is relevant and tells you point blank that you're wrong.
Google "absence of evidence" and ponder on that for a while.
Corpral_Agarn
Member
First off: My guess on why the FBI throws out wound cavity is because no matter what bullet you are shooting the wound cavity isn't really a guarantee of anything. Not because they don't thing that a larger wound cavity isn't going to help with incapacitating the target.
Second: Fruit, wet phone books, ballistic gel, etc is NOT the end all be all decider of a bullets performance.
And nobody is claiming that.
We use these mediums as *relevant comparison data points* of two different things.
And again, the difference between achieving the intended result vs bullet performance is an important distinction.
Humans are what? Soft and squishy bags of meat with bone structure to hold it up. How much of our body is made up of water?
Okay. great.
Now test the soft and squishy parts with two different bullets: JHP and FMJ.
Which one gets bigger and causes more tissue damage?
JHP.
Now we have established that the JHP is better on the soft and squishy parts of our body, right?
Now throw in shot placement, bones, clothing, angles, etc and everything gets wonky.
This why studies conducted of actual gunshot wounds are difficult to draw conclusions from. They are not controlled conditions and none of them are the same.
I saw some pictures earlier in the thread regarding tumbling, etc, from the military.
The primary weapon system for small arms in the military is the rifle, not the pistol.
But I think it is safe to say is that the JHP does a better job on soft and squishy.
If you want to test bullets against bone or wood or against clothing, that would be a different test. and my bet would be that it doesn't matter which bullet type you use on bone so long as you hit it, the bullet will either stop, or break the bone. The biggest factor here would be speed and weight of the bullet.
If you want to test things together, say soft/squishy PLUS bone, go hunting.
If you want to test soft/squishy, bone and clothing....
Put a denim jacket on the animal you are hunting.
- Status
Similar threads
