Essentially what I've been told is that hollow points dump more energy into the target, and thus are more devastating. However, that doesn't seem to pan out in the real world, especially when it comes to handgun calibers, which is my primary interest as a CCW holder. Primarily what I'm hearing over and over again in these studies is that hollow points don't really make larger wound cavities in human targets, lacking the velocity necessary to cause hydrolic tearing of actual living flesh. So this idea of an "energy dump" doesn't seem to generate larger permanent wounds. Even in terms of rifle calibers, I think we're all pretty well aware that any properly engineered FMJ will tumble, resulting in hydrolic tearing just as a hollow point would. Even in rifle velocities I've not really seen any evidence that hollow points in and of themselves make a bullet deadlier, as I've seen many mean little FMJs and just as many hollow points that don't seem to do their job very well. It seems both can work equally well, and it's really just a matter of the bullet in question. That leaves us with hydrostatic shock as the only benefit of this supposed energy dump, but I'm not sure that really pans out either. The peak hydrostatic effect takes place when the bullet is at its maximum velocity, and this is dying down by the time the bullet is expanding. I can't really find any testing specifically for this hypothesis, but reading between the lines I'm starting to wonder if there's really any difference in the pressure wave generated by hollow points vs. FMJ. To put it another way, I'm beginning to doubt that there is any difference in the magnitude of the pressure waves generated by hollow points and FMJs of the same mass travelling at the same velocity. Now I'm not suggesting in any way that we start carrying FMJs, or that they themselves are better or "deadlier" or anything else. I also understand that there are other reasons to carry hollow points, such as limiting penetration, barrier blindness, etc. But there is absolutely a common belief in the shooting community that hollow points are somehow deadlier, and I'm not sure that this isn't largely a misconception based on assumptions that don't really pan out in the real world. People are always saying things like, "oh, if only the military could have hollow points that would fix all the problems with 9mm and 5.56." Well, if what I suspect is true, I think hollow points would largely be detrimental to most military applications as they would be sacrificing penetration for nothing in return. Again, I'm not suggesting that we stop using hollow points. I'm only suggesting that the majority of us might be perpetuating a myth in thinking that hollow points are inherently deadlier or produce more devastating wounds in and of themselves. I would also suggest that hollow point bans are not only deeply flawed in their intent, but also that they seek to solve a problem that never existed in the first place.