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

Fluid non-compressibility is a strong force. We use explosively driven water to cut steel. Works like a charm.

I have developed a preference for the ARX Inceptor ammunition.

The biggest problem is that it is hard to obtain at times. A second odd problem is that the bullets are extremely hard. This matters when reloading. I purchased some ARX Inceptor bullets for reloading practice rounds as close as possible to the factory ammunition that I was carrying. The bullets seem to be a lot less forgiving of any case damage than most other bullets are.

I am not carrying it now because I am carrying a pistol that I have not tested extensively with ARX Inceptors, however. I have had no functional problems with them outside of reloading practice rounds.

I carry underwoods xp's on my g42. The equation was simple for me (in 380 at least), hp won't penetrate if it expands and if it doesn't expand will be a ball round. So I carried ball. The xp & xd won't expand obviously but will likely do more damage than ball ammo with better barrier penetration .
I'm not sold on switching for properly powered rounds , just because I haven't had a chance to try them on living tissue .i will load my g20 with xp's if I'm in a wilderness environment where I would choose fmj previously .

For big revolvers I'll still pick a hardcast with a big meplat but I know that some guys have switched to copper solids with great results.

Time will tell.

Well, I am a fan of science and an enemy of dogma so if something comes along that performs better than a hollow point I'm all for it. At the moment I have seen zero evidence for or against the Lehiegh Defense bullets. In theory I can see how they'd work and in Alaska some of the guys are switching over to them for bear defense. But they're expensive and as-yet unproven. And I am very leery of carrying any ammo for self defense with the prefix "Extreme" in the title. But when they've been used in enough shootings to draw statistically meaningful results if they seem to work I'll try them, especially if the design becomes mainstream enough that most companies are loading them (or something like them).

Shoot a .45 or .44 and hitting what you're aiming at, and the penny ante stuff all of the sudden doesn't seem so pressing

unclenunzie said:

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).

Click to expand...

This is why, even with today's technology, that standard cup and core and Bonded bullets still reign. A proven level of effectiveness. No SD/HD bullet is going to be 100% reliable. Just to many variables and scenarios. While the quest for the "magic" bullet has been pursued since the first lead ball was driven downrange, it still is mostly smoke and mirrors. Over-hyped fad bullets come and go, but still the majority of the market for SD against two legged predators consists of a blend of copper and/or lead.....and there's good reason. For a significant increase in cost, there is only a slight amount of increased effectiveness, if any at all, from "Boutique" type bullets over good ol' JHPs. In scenarios where extreme penetration is required such as hunting and SD against Dangerous Game.....monos can have a extreme advantage.

I truly doubt, that within any of our lifetimes that new technology bullets will ever become more popular than standard cup and core for the general public. They just work too well and are too affordable to be shelved. Kinda why, even tho they have been around since my Grandfather was born in the late 19th century, they are still around today a score into the 21st century. Just like brass cased cartridges.

JMTCs.

DR505 said:

Fluid non-compressibility is a strong force. We use explosively driven water to cut steel. Works like a charm.

Click to expand...

That would produce impressive results in fluid-like gel, but the bodies of mammals are not a homogenous fluid.

I am interested in this bullet design. I do not use JHP for defensive carry or hunting. Presently, I use copper monolithic hollow-points (Barnes). I feel like I am half-way toward the solid copper fluid monolithics. The thing is, I know for sure the performance of monolithic hollowpoints is as good or better than JHP in the cartridges I shoot. I am not yet convinced this is true for the fluid monolithics. What I will concede is that the monolithic hollowpoints quite obviously do not work well in a lot of cartridges and barrel lengths, including some of the most popular ones. I would not be persuaded to switch cartridges if a bullet design made other existing cartridges viable. I would be willing to consider switching to Lehigh bullets in the handgun cartridge I use already, 357, but I'd have to be convinced that they're superior.

buck460XVR said:

I truly doubt, that within any of our lifetimes that new technology bullets will ever become more popular than standard cup and core for the general public. They just work too well and are too affordable to be shelved. Kinda why, even tho they have been around since my Grandfather was born in the late 19th century, they are still around today a score into the 21st century. Just like brass cased cartridges.

JMTCs.

Click to expand...

Maybe. But if they work I think they'll probably replace cup and core. I think with every passing day we will see a more liberal populace and eventually the reddest states will still be much less conservative than today. And the environment will- rightfully- become more important as time passes as well. We will probably see lead bans become more widespread for a variety of reasons (health, ecological, perhaps economic as it gets more expensive to comply with increasingly stringent regulation on toxins). If a solid hydraulic bullet can perform as well or better, and perhaps ditch not only lead but the copper as well, I'm all for it.

Ah, so "fluid displacement" is the new "penetration and expansion."

Phaedrus/69 said:

If a solid hydraulic bullet can perform as well or better, and perhaps ditch not only lead but the copper as well, I'm all for it.

Click to expand...

And there we have it. This poster leads up to his conclusion by noting that he believes that the creeping liberalism shall become the new order of the day and lead bullets (quite possibly one of the least of our worries when it comes to environmental issues) will go bye-bye (also because of the expense that comes with "increasingly stringent regulation on toxins.")

Old Dog said:

Ah, so "fluid displacement" is the new "penetration and expansion."

And there we have it. This poster leads up to his conclusion by noting that he believes that the creeping liberalism shall become the new order of the day and lead bullets (quite possibly one of the least of our worries when it comes to environmental issues) will go bye-bye (also because of the expense that comes with "increasingly stringent regulation on toxins.")

Click to expand...

Am I wrong? Maybe we're each reading the tea leaves differently. At any rate I don't think it's "creeping liberalism" so much as modernity catching up with the US. Even some of my most conservative gun owning friends expect private ownership of firearms to be gone within 70-100 years (not that I agree).

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.

Click to expand...

Wish they would, might bring the $1.25 or so per round, price down. BUT doubt any LE agency will go that way..budget $ get in the way, IMHO..They see JHP as 'adequate'..

Good read here......https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/02/10/lehigh-a-gimmick/

Lehigh’s Extreme Defender line relies on some sort of fictional fluid dynamic magic that seems to be related to enchanted faerie flutes.

Click to expand...

Phaedrus/69 said:

Am I wrong? Maybe we're each reading the tea leaves differently. At any rate I don't think it's "creeping liberalism" so much as modernity catching up with the US.

Click to expand...

No, you're partially (who knows, maybe even mostly) right. But, getting rid of lead ammunition is currently mostly a liberal agenda --- but, actually, one that perhaps we should support as part of our own agenda to show that we understand the science behind eliminating lead in the environment (yeah, California took the lead on lead because of those doggone California Condors, but now we're finding Bald Eagles dead from lead poisoning -- can't have that) and are united with efforts to clean our environment of this toxic, and deadly, hazard.

I guess I'm mainly pi$$ed off because we in the firearms culture continue to allow the liberals to drive the bus on all matters that concern continuation of our rights. We're looking at new ammo development for deadlier ammo, the manufacturers are looking at it to make more profit. The NRA gets Trump's Secretary of the Interior to reverse the ban on lead ammo in national wildlife refuges and consequently we all end up looking like morons.

Let's look at moving on from lead because it's the right thing to do, not because the liberals are making us, not because the new stuff is cool, not fighting it because it costs more ...

But I'm still not gonna throw my support behind the new boutique ammo that hasn't (yet) proven itself superior to our current stuff. When (if) it does, I'll be climbing up in the front seat with my sign.

By the way, if you're a regular shooting at ranges, shooting areas that see much use, and especially indoor ranges, get your lead levels checked now. You might be glad you did.

Come to think of it, I'm very liberal leaning when it comes to many issues. But why would the use of the Hollow Point be falling? They are still in wide use for both defensive usage and hunting with no signs of decreasing...

Old Dog said:

Let's look at moving on from lead because it's the right thing to do, not because the liberals are making us, not because the new stuff is cool, not fighting it because it costs more ...

Click to expand...

If there is an alternative that performs as well in all applications and is of comparable cost, sure. I am not aware of any such thing.

Hasaf said:

I have developed a preference for the ARX Inceptor ammunition.

The biggest problem is that it is hard to obtain at times. A second odd problem is that the bullets are extremely hard. This matters when reloading. I purchased some ARX Inceptor bullets for reloading practice rounds as close as possible to the factory ammunition that I was carrying. The bullets seem to be a lot less forgiving of any case damage than most other bullets are.

I am not carrying it now because I am carrying a pistol that I have not tested extensively with ARX Inceptors, however. I have had no functional problems with them outside of reloading practice rounds.

Click to expand...

I purchased several boxes of ARX when they were sold under the Ruger name. I was under the impression at the time that ARX bullets were less likely to go through drywall. I have been told this belief was wrong. Now I just load my own Gold dots.

MikeInOr said:

I purchased several boxes of ARX when they were sold under the Ruger name. I was under the impression at the time that ARX bullets were less likely to go through drywall. I have been told this belief was wrong. Now I just load my own Gold dots.

Click to expand...

Why would you believe that ARX Bullets are less likely to go through drywall? There are not any bullets that drywall will stop...

One thing people should be thinking of before buying this bullet design, is will this work in my Self Loader?

As a fan of short barreled handguns, I hope that these designs do prove effective. HP expansion is always dicey from pocket pistols.

The Lehigh bullets are a copy of bullets I tested about 20 years ago in properly prepared and calibrated ordnance gel. The bullet was the Devel Radially Dynamic Bullet invented by Charles Kelsey. (Lehigh bullets have the same contours.) Kelsey designed his solid, non-expanding bullet to have a reverse ogive that propelled soft tissues radially away from the bullet. It had ribs and flutes. The concept of wounding was that the ribs cut soft tissues and the flutes, with their reverse ogive, would propel and stretch the soft tissues to the point that the temporary cavity would cause the cuts to tear open to increase wound trauma. I tested .45 ACP. The temporary cavity created was about 4" in diameter. Given the nature of ballistic gelatin (it tears when the limits of its elasticity it reached), it was impossible to determine if the cracks in the gelatin simply recorded the size of the temporary cavity or if the cracks recorded the permanent cavity. The only way to test it to verify terminal performance claims is to shoot the bullet into live soft tissue, such as during hunting, and then examine the wound profile. The bullet penetrated deeply, completely penetrating one 16 inch block of gelatin and several inches into a second block of gelatin placed immediately behind and against the first block.

My test report with photos - http://web.archive.org/web/20130603...tacticalbriefs/volume4/number2/article422.htm

MikeInOr said:

I purchased several boxes of ARX when they were sold under the Ruger name. I was under the impression at the time that ARX bullets were less likely to go through drywall. I have been told this belief was wrong. Now I just load my own Gold dots.

Click to expand...

That was a good chunk of my interest in the ARX bullet too. However, it appears that they have pulled those claims from their website.

At present, I am carrying 380 Fiocchi 90gr XTP.

The bullet was the Devel Radially Dynamic Bullet invented by Charles Kelsey.

Click to expand...

2001. Looks like Devel didn't have the same marketing firm as Lehigh.

Seems to me this "fluid transfer" theory is similar to the "Hydrostatic shock" theory. Highly debated, with completely different conclusions by experts in the field. Like Hydrostatic shock, it's real effectiveness will probably prove impossible to verify. Also seems to me, that like Hydrostatic shock, fluid transfer would most likely occur at velocities rarely obtained by short barreled SD type handguns. Similar to the use of JHPs when the velocity is not obtained to expand them. They become basically a FMJ. The testing of the bullets on game animals by firearms producing higher velocities would seem to be non-related. Even if they do at some point, prove to be the "magic bullet" some folks seem to be pursuing, they are not going to be the death of lead and standard cup and core jacketed bullets. While the radical design in the OP may replace JHPs to a extent for SD, their cost is prohibitive for folks that shoot for fun and in competitive sports. They will be no different than high priced boutique jacketed bullets for SD now. A few rounds shot to make sure they function and for POI and then left in the range bag as hundreds of cheaper jacketed/lead bullets are shot for practice and fun. Very few folks are going to reload a buck a pop bullet when they can use a $0.15-0.25 a pop bullet that is just as accurate and effective on paper targets and steel gongs, regardless of the fascination with the cool shape. This is why, until they are banned completely, they will not fade into black. The banning and the forced usage is why, like the old steel shot for waterfowl, is why the new non-lead ammo is so expensive. If folks have to use it, price is not really an option. That and because it is still a boutique ammo produce by a few and touted as the second coming. American capitalism at it's finest. At some point, technology and mass production will make these newer type of bullets(and probably other just as efficient and less expensive) comparable in cost, to more common lead and cup and core. Until they are, and until lead is banned nationwide, hunters are going to use the same ol' Core-Lokt/cup and core type bullets they have been using successfully for the last half a century for deer hunting. Definitely, the highest usage of hunting type bullets in the U.S.. The playing of Taps for JSPs and JHPs is not going to be heard for quite some time.