The Rise (and Fall?) of The Hollow Point....

Status
Not open for further replies.
WrongHanded

WrongHanded

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2017
Messages
4,771
New technology doesn't always become popular quickly. I can imagine Hollow Point bullets for self defense and police work being this way.

Does anyone know approximately when they were first available on the open market (or for LE use)? And how long it took for them to become common?

The reason I ask is that the Lehigh Xtreme Defender series of copper solids looks like it may be the sort of new bullet technology that may become standard ammunition in the decades to come. Right now it's seen by many as a gimmick, and we don't have a whole lot of real world data on the effectiveness of the design. But it's clearly doing something that convention wisdom would have us believe just shouldn't work. I've heard it compared to a FMJ with a funky nose, but it clearly acts very differently than that in testing.

We must also consider that if a wide flat meplat on a relatively fast moving big bore revolver bullet (whether hardcast lead or a mono solid) makes a much larger hole than the bullet diameter, there is something more going on. That the flesh compressed by the bullet is being forced from it's path laterally and created damage directly adjacent to the bullet's trajectory. So why can't a different design do something similar?

Does it seem to anyone else, that bullets like the Lehigh XD may become the new norm?
 
I do believe that monolithic fluid transfer bullets like the Lehigh Extreme Defense and Extreme Penetrator bullets will eventually replace HP and JHP bullets. I adopted ammo with both Defense and Penetrator bullets as far back as 2014 and the Penetrator was the only solid bullet option in the Lehigh Extreme line. I’d I’d not do it on a whim. I researched the fluid transfer technology and it made perfect sense to me. A high pressure water stream can cut through flesh, and the fluid transfer bullets can also.

I am not a bullet belief missionary. To each his own. However, I am a person who wants to understand the science and the performance of technological ‘things.’ I have seen enough tests of the fluid transfer bullets in gel, through, barriers, through bone, windshield glass to believe they are better performers than HP particularly in shorter barred handguns from which velocities are often inadequate to assure HP expansion. The fluid transfer bullets do not depend upon expansion. They generate wound channel by high velocity fluid pressure tearing tissue. Bullet velocity increase their performance but even the low velocity 3 inch barrel 380 pistol will create substantial wound damage. The test I have seen showed that they were more effective than any JHP in 380 and 9mm. Logically, that would indicate it would be true for larger calibers too.

The fluid transfer bullets make carrying smaller guns more realistic with no meaningful loss in incapacitation effectiveness. They eliminate the concerns over expansion, and they are basically barrier blind unlike HP which barrier often negatively affect performance.

Another factor is the fact that the fluid transfer bullets are lead free. It is conceivable that some states will begin to ban bullet with lead content for environmental and industrial reasons. We have seen products disappear because they contain led. Why would bullets be exempt as time goes on.

I do not own any JHP rounds for my two and only pistols. I do not expect ever to own JHPs in the future by choice.
 
Like most, I have no 'real world' experience when it comes to ammo type for HD/SD so off to google/youtube land I go.
Yes, still not a lot of 'real world' data concerning the Lehigh XD/XP and the other, G9 type but there have been lots of comparisons with JHP..in gel, through barriers, in shorter barrels, etc. And for comparison, the "monolithic fluid transfer bullets" do very well..in fact, 380 XD as effective as 9mm JHP, from a shorter barrel handgun..

Whether they become more 'mainstream' depends on a lot, not the least of which is a mindset of 'been using JHP for years', 'traditional' mindset thing. Maybe if they become more mainstream, they'll also come down in price..pretty expensive now..$26-$30 for 20 rounds. BUT, what I put in my Glock 26, 17 and Glock 42..

YMMV and all that.
 
FFGColorado said:
Like most, I have no 'real world' experience when it comes to ammo type for HD/SD so off to google/youtube land I go.
Yes, still not a lot of 'real world' data concerning the Lehigh XD/XP and the other, G9 type but there have been lots of comparisons with JHP..in gel, through barriers, in shorter barrels, etc. And for comparison, the "monolithic fluid transfer bullets" do very well..in fact, 380 XD as effective as 9mm JHP, from a shorter barrel handgun..

Whether they become more 'mainstream' depends on a lot, not the least of which is a mindset of 'been using JHP for years', 'traditional' mindset thing. Maybe if they become more mainstream, they'll also come down in price..pretty expensive now..$26-$30 for 20 rounds. BUT, what I put in my Glock 26, 17 and Glock 42..

YMMV and all that.
Click to expand...

Lehigh has developed a new method of fabricating the Extreme Defense bullet. And it employing if on 9mm currently. The.cost o 9mm Exteme Defeinder ammo at Underwood has dropped from $30 to $20 for 20 rounds. At a dollar per round it is now competitive with high quality JHP. I expect 380 will also drop in cost ‘in the future.
 
WrongHanded said:
New technology doesn't always become popular quickly. I can imagine Hollow Point bullets for self defense and police work being this way.

Does anyone know approximately when they were first available on the open market (or for LE use)? And how long it took for them to become common?

The reason I ask is that the Lehigh Xtreme Defender series of copper solids looks like it may be the sort of new bullet technology that may become standard ammunition in the decades to come. Right now it's seen by many as a gimmick, and we don't have a whole lot of real world data on the effectiveness of the design. But it's clearly doing something that convention wisdom would have us believe just shouldn't work. I've heard it compared to a FMJ with a funky nose, but it clearly acts very differently than that in testing.

We must also consider that if a wide flat meplat on a relatively fast moving big bore revolver bullet (whether hardcast lead or a mono solid) makes a much larger hole than the bullet diameter, there is something more going on. That the flesh compressed by the bullet is being forced from it's path laterally and created damage directly adjacent to the bullet's trajectory. So why can't a different design do something similar?

Does it seem to anyone else, that bullets like the Lehigh XD may become the new norm?
Click to expand...
 
1942bull said:
I do believe that monolithic fluid transfer bullets like the Lehigh Extreme Defense and Extreme Penetrator bullets will eventually replace HP and JHP bullets.

I use Extreme Defense in my 9mm EDC, and my 10mm & .45 home defense. I fortunately live close to Lehigh Defense's place in Quakertown, Pa and have toured their shop. Very impressed with all.
Basically the fluted nose turns meat into a hydraulic stew that produces a large wound channel and penetration shows about 16 inches, depending on caliber, and the round dumps all it energy into the hapless recipient.
The solid brass bullet is barrier blind and great at retaining it's mass.
I do highly recommend this products.
The Extreme Penetrator is more of a hunting round and designed as name implies for more penetration but still using the same hydraulic system.
Click to expand...
 
I have tested the 65gr +p+ in 9mm and wasn't impressed. With added barriers in clear gel to simulate skin and membranes, the mono bullets failed to penetrate as well as good hollow points(124gr +p Gold Dots). I believe the 90gr monos will do better but I haven't tested them yet.

What I don't like about all the youtube tests is everybody testing the mono bullets in 10% porcine gel to show a massive wound channel. From what I've read, this is misleading and doesn't translate to increased wounding in the living. In clear gel, the wound channels are pretty much equal to hollow points.
 
1942bull said:
Lehigh has developed a new method of fabricating the Extreme Defense bullet. And it employing if on 9mm currently.
Click to expand...

I ordered some of those a few days ago. The load data they have seems a little odd, but I wanted to test for accuracy and point of impact with .357 Sig. I'd rather work up a load to test, than to wait for Underwood to catch up with the panic buying. Though if I end up carrying it, it will likely be factory and not handloads.

I did buy some Underwood .380acp +p for my G42. I figure I'll test accuracy and POI, then maybe chrono (more for curiosity). Should still have enough from the two boxes to load 2 mags plus the chamber, providing I like the results.
 
Hartkopf said:
I have tested the 65gr +p+ in 9mm and wasn't impressed. With added barriers in clear gel to simulate skin and membranes, the mono bullets failed to penetrate as well as good hollow points(124gr +p Gold Dots). I believe the 90gr monos will do better but I haven't tested them yet.

What I don't like about all the youtube tests is everybody testing the mono bullets in 10% porcine gel to show a massive wound channel. From what I've read, this is misleading and doesn't translate to increased wounding in the living. In clear gel, the wound channels are pretty much equal to hollow points.
Click to expand...

The part of the equation that you're leaving out is those type of rounds were designed for short barreled guns to give them the velocity required for ample penetration without the recoil from the heavier projectile that are amplified with the short barrel.
 
WheelGunMan said:
The part of the equation that you're leaving out is those type of rounds were designed for short barreled guns to give them the velocity required for ample penetration without the recoil from the heavier projectile that are amplified with the short barrel.
Click to expand...

You're saying if I would have done my testing with a Glock 43 instead of a Glock 19, the 65gr mono would have penetrated on par with the GoldDots?
 
Hartkopf said:
You're saying if I would have done my testing with a Glock 43 instead of a Glock 19, the 65gr mono would have penetrated on par with the GoldDots?
Click to expand...
NO...that's not what I said at all...I was simply pointing out that particular style of round was developed with a short barrel arm in mind. If you read the history on the Inceptor projectile development... it evolved around the .380 round.
 
Once you reach a level of proven effectiveness, we can probably agree that cost becomes the driving factor, all else being equal (reliability of supply, vendor responsiveness, law/regulation, etc). The watershed moment will probably be if/when major police departments shift over. For me, for now, I'm good with current proven projectile technology. But I am open to future products when they are as good/cheaper, or better/equal-cost.
 
WheelGunMan said:
NO...that's not what I said at all...I was simply pointing out that particular style of round was developed with a short barrel arm in mind. If you read the history on the Inceptor projectile development... it evolved around the .380 round.
Click to expand...

OK....... You're point had nothing to do with my test. I shared my results and you can do with what you like but I left nothing out. Recoil was not part of my test. Barrel length was not part of my test. If you wish to make a point about reduced recoil or the evolution of the these rounds from the .380, what does that have to do with my test that you quoted?
 
I have seen many bullet designs and other firearm related designs come and go. Most of the time there is some big hype with all sorts of trade journal coverage on some great new technology and everyone gets all hyped over the product... then 2 years later the product is no longer manufactured. Not only does a new technology have to perform better than existing technology but IT ALSO HAS TO FULFILL A NEED THAT ISN'T CURRENTLY BEING FILLED to gain wide spread adoption.

I have no interest in the Lehigh Xtreme Defender bullets and this has nothing to do with whether is it a better performing bullet or not. I feel very confident in the effectiveness of the GoldDot bullets that I am currently using for self defense. Why would I switch to a more expensive bullet when the bullet I am currently using is already very effective at the job it is intended for?
 
Hartkopf said:
OK....... You're point had nothing to do with my test. I shared my results and you can do with what you like but I left nothing out. Recoil was not part of my test. Barrel length was not part of my test. If you wish to make a point about reduced recoil or the evolution of the these rounds from the .380, what does that have to do with my test that you quoted?
Click to expand...
I guess I misunderstood what you were trying to do. Was trying to give you a little insight...I see I failed at that.
 
We all have rounds we have confidence in. When I was on the job years ago almost no agencies would allow Super Vels when they came out, but everyone in high confrontation situations wanted them. In many agencies carrying a weapon on the job filled with hollow points was a fireable offense. Of course the Chicago cops were making their own cutting Xs and using drills to hollow them.

Personally, Federal Hydra Shocks in the heavier weights are my round of choice as a stopping round. They are effective - even in the winter when heavy clothing abounds. Before I changed rounds I would want to read a large number of incident reports on whatever round I was considering.
 
I will take a wait and see attitude.

I use FEDERAL HST ammo in my .38 Special, 9m.m. and .40 S&W pistols for defense. The HST was the ammo issued by my agency, when we carried .40 S&W pistols. We never had any trouble with it that I heard of.
In my .380ACP, I use WINCHESTER Train & Defend jhp ammo. Last, in my .357, I like good old jhp ammo.

The new cavitating ammo may work or it may be another trend item that reality passes by. I will wait till several large law enforcement agencies start using it and look at how it works for them.

The arguments about large caliber semi wadcutters do not really apply. They are designed to go completely though a game animal, which is a REALLY BAD IDEA for a defense round. Also, I do not see a lot of correlation between a 65 grain screwhead round and a 265 grain semi wadcutter. Yeah, neither will expand, but neither does the round nose lead "widowmaker" or 9m.m. fmj.

Jim
 
golden said:
The arguments about large caliber semi wadcutters do not really apply. They are designed to go completely though a game animal, which is a REALLY BAD IDEA for a defense round. Also, I do not see a lot of correlation between a 65 grain screwhead round and a 265 grain semi wadcutter. Yeah, neither will expand, but neither does the round nose lead "widowmaker" or 9m.m. fmj.

Jim
Click to expand...

My point about the big bore bullets with large flat meplats is that they are also causing fluid displacement. When that flat meplats compresses flesh at such high velocities, the flesh has nowhere to go but straight out (not around the bullet). Run a high pressure water hose directly downwards at a dinner plate sitting flat on the floor and watch where the water goes. The XP and XD bullets from Lehigh seem to take advantage of that same displacement, just in a slightly different way.
 
WRONGHANDED,

All the same, I will wait for proof from the LEO'S. I remember that NYPD was doing anything to avoid adopting hollow point ammo for their .38 Specials and tried a 158 Semi Wadcutter load (without a hollowpoint) and did not find it was anymore effective than the 158 grain Lead Round Nose ammo that they were already using.

Also, you may be mixing apples and oranges. I would think that the differences between a 9m.m. 65 grain bullet and an Elmer KEITH style .44 load would be considerable. I do not doubt the hunting effectiveness of the big bore loads, but they are not used for self defense. They are just too likely to overpenetrate.

Jim
 
golden said:
WRONGHANDED,

All the same, I will wait for proof from the LEO'S. I remember that NYPD was doing anything to avoid adopting hollow point ammo for their .38 Specials and tried a 158 Semi Wadcutter load (without a hollowpoint) and did not find it was anymore effective than the 158 grain Lead Round Nose ammo that they were already using.

Also, you may be mixing apples and oranges. I would think that the differences between a 9m.m. 65 grain bullet and an Elmer KEITH style .44 load would be considerable. I do not doubt the hunting effectiveness of the big bore loads, but they are not used for self defense. They are just too likely to overpenetrate.

Jim
Click to expand...

Waiting for proof is a sensible approach. No argument with that.

I do suspect that if the NYPD did not see a significant difference between a LRN and a wadcutter, the low velocity of the .38 Spl was likely the reason.

Is there a difference between a 65gr funny shaped 9mm, and a Keith style .44? Absolutely. What has apparently proven more effective in a big bore non-expanding bullet is the LBT designs such as the WFN. If you were to look here http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/methods.html

....in the first table down the effect of wound diameter from a .44 mag 300gr WFN increases exponentially with velocity. This is caused (as I have read) by high velocity fluid displacement being redirected under pressure from the meplat.

My point is that if fluid displacement (think of the power of a water jet) is creating the damage far in excess of the diameter of the bullet, it seems entirely possible that this can be achieved with a smaller lighter projectile. Even though a smaller lighter projectile will have less momentum, over-penetration does seems likely. But if the design could be modified to increase drag in soft tissue while still creating the fluid transfer effect, that design could well have an acceptable level of penetration without causing it in excess. And I believe this is what they have done.

The only reason I even mentioned hunting bullets was as an example of how fluid displacement isn't something imagined or something that only happens in gel. We have a few big game handgun hunters who can attest to the large wound channels of non-expanding bullets with large flat meplats. So we know it's a real thing. Which makes what these XD solids are doing seem much more plausible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Are bullets like these considered "hollow points" under law?
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
S
  • Locked
Hollow points for guns that don't like hollow points
Replies
13
Views
976
paddling_man
P
Panzerschwein
  • Locked
Lehigh XP .380 ACP
Replies
2
Views
887
righteoushoot
R
Derek Zeanah
2023: current thinking on defensive loads?
2 3
Replies
73
Views
3K
murf
murf
Zaydok Allen
  • Locked
Lehigh Defense Xtreme Hunter 10mm Load Data
Replies
8
Views
5K
Zaydok Allen
Zaydok Allen
Back
Top