Are hollow points really "deadlier" than FMJ?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by grampajack, May 9, 2017.

?

Is there any appreciable gain in the pressure wave generated by hollow points vs. FMJ?

  1. Yes

    65 vote(s)
    73.0%
  2. No

    24 vote(s)
    27.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. xXxplosive

    xXxplosive Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,277
    Location:
    New Jersey
    .....Hmmmm....sorry, I'm a placement and penetration guy, 2 holes are better than one so I carry FMJ in my .45acp. I believe a 9mm may expand but a .45 will never shrink......OMO.

    Because sometimes short, fat and slow will do the job.
     
  2. grampajack

    grampajack AR Junkie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,714
    That's why we listen to what the medical professionals are telling us. They're the ones who actually examine real gunshot wounds. In humans mind you, and with calibers commonly carried by CCW holders.
     
  3. Madcap_Magician

    Madcap_Magician Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,471
    Location:
    MN
    I would guess that there are such studies, but I bet it's all of rifle rounds.
     
  4. grampajack

    grampajack AR Junkie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,714
    There was one study from the army that focused partly on handgun ammo, but I don't recall seeing any wound channel diagrams like we get with rifle caliber studies. My supposition is that there wasn't really anything significant to report. Jab a pencil into jello and that pretty much sums up what kind of wounds you will see from handgun cartridges.
     
  5. mavracer

    mavracer Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,927
    Location:
    wichita
    One big problem with that is I'm far more concerned with the reaction to being shot and the ME and ER doctors generally have no idea what happened at the scene.

    And second I'd point out that I regularly hunt with veterinarians so jump up and down cause my assessment doesn't agree with yours if you want
     
  6. CraigC
    • Contributing Member

    CraigC Sixgun Nut

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    21,381
    Location:
    West Tennessee
    Sorry but you're not going to arbitrarily dismiss what we have learned from hunting. Flesh is flesh. The difference here is that we have learned directly from hunting. From personal experience, in both shooting the live tissue and examining the wound(s). Not second or third-hand information or flawed studies. Medical professionals are there to save the victim and that is their primary concern. They are not ballisticians. They do not care about the difference between .32's and .45's. I do. In fact, last year 10 of us, one of whom is an ER doctor, traveled to Texas to shoot 1000-2000lb bovines JUST to test bullets. How many critters have you shot with handguns?

    All that said, your theory that FMJ is just as effective as a good JHP is completely wrong.


    You can trust them. I'll trust my own judgement and experience. Seems to me that you started this thread with your mind made up and are looking to dismiss anything that doesn't support it. You are just flat wrong.


    This is total bovine excrement. I can post a picture of a deer's heart that was hit by a cast bullet from a revolver that removed a quarter of it. Not a JHP but a hardcast WFN.
     
    bassjam and Coyote3855 like this.
  7. grampajack

    grampajack AR Junkie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,714
    Then you're claiming dramatic remote wounding effects from a lead slug fired from a revolver. I'm just not buying it.
     
  8. JohnBiltz

    JohnBiltz Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,788
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Not trying to hurt your feelings here BUT, I don't know about others but I really don't care about convincing you, really just trying to limit the damage to people who have not already made up their minds.
     
  9. grampajack

    grampajack AR Junkie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,714
    I've made up my mind that anecdotal evidence offered by random people on gun forums isn't evidence.
     
    Officers'Wife likes this.
  10. DeepSouth
    • Contributing Member

    DeepSouth Random Guy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    4,325
    Location:
    Heart of Dixie (AL)
    Yes...

    No...

    My 2¢
     
  11. Flechette

    Flechette Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    480
    If we ignore any contribution of hydrostatic shock (which is minimal for pistols) a hollow point that opens up still makes a larger hole in the body, especially upon exiting.

    Which is more effective: a .22 inch diameter arrow or a .45 inch diameter spear?
     
  12. Flechette

    Flechette Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    480

      • [​IMG]

      • It appears that the .357 Magnum has twice the effectiveness of the average handgun bullet, and is equal to the generic "rifle" listed in the chart. :what:

        A .357 Magnum is the same diameter as a .38 Special so clearly the increase in velocity improves its effectiveness somehow.

        I would submit that it is because the increased velocity allows deeper penetration and increases the diameter of the hollow point expansion.
     
  13. Haxby

    Haxby Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2011
    Messages:
    993
    Did I miss your evidence? Do you even have an anecdote?
     
  14. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,591
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    That is an oversimplification. If you read the article (link in post 9) the .357 Magnum result is based on a sample of 105 subjects. The sample sizes for .38 Special, 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and .44 Magnum were 199, 456, 188, 209, and 24, respectively. With such small samples the differences are not really as significant as one might think. The smaller the sample size the larger the statistical confidence interval.
     
    grampajack likes this.
  15. grampajack

    grampajack AR Junkie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,714
    At 600 to 800 ft-lbs hydrostatic shock will definitely come into play in my opinion. One Army study found that significant damage to the nervous system could be measured at around 500 ft-lbs. With that said, getting those high velocities requires shooting full power ammo from a relatively long barrel. Such a weapon is difficult to conceal and generates a great deal of recoil. I'm going to be man enough here to admit that I can't control that kind of recoil well enough to get good follow up shots. I could probably just about empty my G19 in the same amount of time it would take me to empty a 5 shot .357 with the same degree of accuracy. So for anything short of bear I think I'm better off with 9mm.
     
  16. grampajack

    grampajack AR Junkie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,714
    I'm not here to prove or disprove anything. I'm simply asking a question for discussion's sake, and, as stated, maybe putting out a hypothesis. But it's irritating when people start talking about squirrels they shot with .22s or how they went around shooting cows. No photos, no measurements, nothing. Just very nebulous claims about anecdotal things that may or may not have happened in the way they remember. We all know how fish get bigger with each year after they're caught, and I highly suspect we're dealing with the same thing here. Someone may very well remember some massive squirrel wound caused by a .22 HP, but upon seeing it again they might realize it wasn't as remarkable as their memory makes it out to be. In short, I don't want to hear fish stories. I want to see the fish mounted next to a tape measure. Let's keep in mind that anecdotal evidence taken at face value would prove the existence of chupacabra and Elvis would still be alive.

    To my credit, I've searched high and low for some credible data on wound profiles from hollow points vs. FMJ. I just can't find them. The only thing I can find to substantiate any increased wounding effect from HPs is gel testing, but that's not an accurate depiction of what happens in real life. Pretty much all the professionals agree that remote tissue damage isn't possible from pistol calibers, and we absolutely see remote damage in gel from pistol rounds. Therefore I'm forced to conclude that the cavities we see in gel aren't what will happen in a living target. I truly believe we are dealing with a myth here, at least to a large extent, and that that myth has been generated by people measuring wound cavities in gel and assuming that's what's going to happen in actual tissue.
     
  17. Big7

    Big7 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2011
    Messages:
    331
    Location:
    Monroe, Georgia USA
    Hollow Points were out-lawed for a reason in the major powers before WWI..
    They had made spoon bills to get around that. Look it up.

    There is a reason for that on the battle field.

    CQB I would and do carry hollow points ALL the time.

    Not really interested in a pass through. What has been said about dumping
    energy is very true.
     
  18. grampajack

    grampajack AR Junkie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,714
    I strongly believe that reason was largely emotional, as opposed to a reaction to a real problem. I think it was more or less the black talon controversy of its day, born out of emotionally driven sensationalism rather than scientific evidence. I think it makes about as much sense as bans on teflon bullets, just an overreaction by people who didn't have a clue what they were doing.
     
  19. Haxby

    Haxby Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2011
    Messages:
    993
    Well, can't argue with that.
     
  20. Slamfire

    Slamfire Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,924
    Location:
    Alabama

    The historical record validates your post. I remember reading a Gun Digest article which documented all the major points, but can't find it on the web. However this does:

    The Origins of Dum Dum Bullets

    - http://looserounds.com/556timeline/dum-dum/

    Basically the liberal hysteria of the era was designed to embarrass the British Government. The British were being beastly in using Dum Dum bullets. It was just easier for the Government of the era to trade off dead British Soldiers, than to stand firm and issue them decent ammunition.

    Do note, as much as we consider the 303 British a full power round, at the time it was noticeably less lethal than the big, soft lead bullets of the previous black powder rifles.
     
  21. lpsharp88

    lpsharp88 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2012
    Messages:
    998
    Location:
    Berea, KY
    Your location says New Jersey, isn't HP ammo illegal to carry outside of the home?
     
  22. huntsman

    huntsman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,839
    Location:
    ohio's northcoast
    If a bigger hole is desired then why not use a bigger bullet? If recoil becomes an issue then decrease power
     
  23. Dain Bramage

    Dain Bramage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,412
    Location:
    Arlington, WA
    Heavy, round nose bullets were used at the start of the small-bore, smokeless powder era, and proved less effective at stopping people. The move to lighter spitzer bullets regained effectiveness. Spitzers had more energy down range, and would yaw and often come apart in the target.
     
  24. 481

    481 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    2,230
    Here are a couple of FMJ gelatin tests for you.

    http://www.black-hills.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/9-MM-115-FMJ-9-25-2012.jpg

    [​IMG]

    http://www.black-hills.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/45-ACP-230-FMJ-5-in-barrel-4-3-12.jpg

    [​IMG]

    Very few tests of FMJs are out there because most folks are disinterested in them as SD fodder.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: May 11, 2017
  25. CraigC
    • Contributing Member

    CraigC Sixgun Nut

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    21,381
    Location:
    West Tennessee
    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.

    [​IMG]
     
    ClickClickD'oh likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice