I run Winchester T-series and Speer Gold Dot in my LCP, because that's what I have the easiest access to obtaining ... and both those loads feed & function very well in
my LCP when it's being fired in
my hands.
I ran a single 25-rd box of the Remington HPJ Golden Sabre through my LCP during initial range testing (because it was available at that moment as qual ammo). It fed & fired well enough, and was also similarly accurate.
What I noticed, however, was that something about the recoil characteristics of that load in
my LCP (with its rather rudimentary ejector) caused the empty cases to be thrown pretty consistently toward my face. The Winchester T-Series & FPFMJ, and the Speer GDHP, didn't do that ... and I fired more of all those loads, too. All things being equal, I'd use the load that didn't fling empty cases at my face in
my little .380 pistol.
I didn't try any Hydra-Shok because I didn't have any, and they aren't readily available in my area.
I can buy the Winchester T-Series for $25/50-rd box, and the Speer GDHP is really affordable for me at the moment, so those are my choices.
Firing 25-50 rounds through each magazine that's going to be used with the little pistol is probably going to be more than a little expensive for the time being, due to the supply/demand issues being caused by the run on commercial ammunition.
I don't look at my LCP as being "equivalent" to my battery of 5-shot J-frames when it comes to "ballistic performance". The FMJ loads seem likely to be prone to perforate (another way to say over-penetrate) an intended target, and the hollowpoints, if they expand (and if they actually hit an intended target), may not penetrate as deeply as some of the .38 Spl loads.
Pick your balanced compromise.
When I decide to carry either one of my J-frames or my LCP (which is more often than when I choose one of my larger 9's, .40's or .45's nowadays, in my retirement), I choose one of the J-frames when I want to carry a diminutive gun that offers some increased potential for both some moderate expansion & penetration ... and heavier bullet weights against the potential for an intermediate barrier (attacker's limb of auto glass) ... and the LCP when I'm less concerned about those circumstances, and/or the LCP is more easily pocket holstered due to my clothing and activities.
FWIW, nowadays when I browse over the results of any particular gel testing, the 2 things that make me consider the results are whether it was being done in a standardized, proper manner ... and whether it involved at least the use of a Heavy Clothing test, or, preferably, the 4-Layer Denim test.
Why? Because getting a JHP to expand in Bare Gel test conditions is more easily done than in either of the cloth barrier test circumstances. The cloth testing conditions introduce a barrier material that can help reveal how the JHP performs if the nose cavity is plugged, and the 4-Layer Denim test is the most difficult of the tests in common use.
It's close to being an "acid test". There's been a correlation observed to exist between hollowpoint bullets that robustly and more consistently expand in that test, compared to the same design bullets that have been recovered from shooting incidents outside the lab. No guarantees, of course, but it seems to have demonstrated itself to be one of the better indicators of potential performance in that regard.
I'd not think it prudent to become too distracted by the wealth of "ballistic testing" being posted online, in magazine articles or even by various ammo companies, though. It still comes down to how well any
particular load feeds, fires & functions in any
particular gun, in the hands of any
particular shooter, and whether or not
that person can safely handle and shoot
their gun ... and obtain accurate and effective hits on the intended target.
