Are hollow points really "deadlier" than FMJ?

[CraigC]

Unless I'm mistaken, Grandpa is basing his conclusions on how he views handgun rounds to perform, while you are viewing your conclusions based on how you've witnessed rifle rounds to perform.

Uh no, I'm not. I've been focused on handgun factors from the start. He's the one that's all over the place.

...just like CraigC, and based on the same lack of understanding.

You keep telling yourself that.

All a hollow point does is increase the diameter of the bullet, but that in and of itself does not necessarily translate to a bigger hole, due to the fluid nature of human tissue. It's like a boat going through water. A bigger boat creates a bigger wake, but the wakes from both boats simply close behind it. The shape of the bullet is also somewhat negligible, as there's an area of high pressure that proceeds the nose of the bullet. Thus, the bullet does not "crush" an area equal to its diameter, unless as the result of hydrostatic shock. Any crush cavity larger than about a pencil is necessarily the result of hydrostatic shock.

You're completely ignoring the bullet shape. Your analogy is only valid with regards to FMJ. Change the nose shape to an expanded or flat nose bullet and it changes dramatically. You want to call people ignorant and take a position of greater enlightenment but the complete opposite is true.

I don't think you even know what hydrostatic shock is.

Take the photo below as an example.

If you think that bullet is creating a pencil hole in flesh because of that picture, that explains a lot. And you're wrong.

Now looking at the size of the crush cavity below, do you really think that there would be any appreciable difference between common calibers or between FMJ and HP?

If my opinion was solely based on that picture, I might believe it too. Unfortunately for you and your ill conceived theory, I know it to be otherwise.

This is how CraigC's deer heart got the way it did, despite the fact that the bullet was only going 13-15 hundred fps. Yes, it lacked velocity, but it is an extremely powerful cartridge nevertheless.

BS and people a lot smarter than you figured this out.

The same relationship can be seen in armor piercing capability. In general, only high velocity bullets are capable of piercing body armor. But, very heavy bullets traveling at comparatively lower velocities can pierce body armor through sheer kinetic energy.

Completely different factors involved and you're wrong again.

 

[grampajack]

Uh no, I'm not. I've been focused on handgun factors from the start. He's the one that's all over the place.



You keep telling yourself that.



You're completely ignoring the bullet shape. Your analogy is only valid with regards to FMJ. Change the nose shape to an expanded or flat nose bullet and it changes dramatically. You want to call people ignorant and take a position of greater enlightenment but the complete opposite is true.

I don't think you even know what hydrostatic shock is.



If you think that bullet is creating a pencil hole in flesh because of that picture, that explains a lot. And you're wrong.



If my opinion was solely based on that picture, I might believe it too. Unfortunately for you and your ill conceived theory, I know it to be otherwise.



BS and people a lot smarter than you figured this out.



Completely different factors involved and you're wrong again.

Boy, thanks for all the detailed explanations. Apparently saying "you're wrong" enough times qualifies as an argument in your mind.

So perhaps you would care to enlighten me with your version of reality?

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

Boy, thanks for all the detailed explanations. Apparently saying "you're wrong" enough times qualifies as an argument in your mind.

So perhaps you would care to enlighten me with your version of reality?

grampa,

With respect, we have tried to enlighten you with our version. Which is not too far off from a lot of other people's.
Some of it was based on real life experience, the other was some basic logic.


I think this whole thread comes down to: "I'll take the bullet that gets bigger when it hits something for $1,000, Alex."

and with that, I think its time to eject from the thread.

Thanks.

 

[grampajack]

grampa,

With respect, we have tried to enlighten you with our version. Which is not too far off from a lot of other people's.
Some of it was based on real life experience, the other was some basic logic.


I think this whole thread comes down to: "I'll take the bullet that gets bigger when it hits something for $1,000, Alex."

and with that, I think its time to eject from the thread.

Thanks.

We've got the squirrel guy and the guy who shoots cows with hand cannons for our "real life experience," and your basic logic consists of "bigger bullets make bigger holes."

With respect, you haven't tried very hard to explain your position, and neither has CraigC. Either you're arguing just for the sake of argument, or you don't even begin to comprehend what I'm saying.

 

[CraigC]

Or....

 

[captain awesome]

Roflcopter that's the funniest thing I have seen all week. Thanks for the laughs Craig

 

[grampajack]

For those still interested in discussion of the actual subject matter, I was able to find this:

This is the liver of a victim shot with a 9mm hollow point, and obviously there's quite a bit of remote tissue damage. Here's the bullet recovered from the victim:

BUT, herein lies the problem. The liver is the least resilient tissue in the body, and therefore the most susceptible to remote wounding effects.

" Liver, spleen, and brain have little tensile strength and elasticity and are easily injured, as is adipose tissue."
-University of Utah crime lab.

So I'm still left with the dilemma of whether a FMJ at the same mass and velocity would have done similar damage in this case.

I thought this was worth posting, though, because it does prove that common carry calibers are absolutely capable of remote tissue damage, at least in certain kinds of tissue. That in and of itself may be evidence to suggest that hollow points have the potential to be "deadlier," but obviously this still leaves a lot of questions about the extent to which that is true. Namely, do such calibers have enough energy to cause remote wounding in tissues in the thoracic cavity? And if so, would hollow points cause significantly more tissue damage than FMJ?

 

[Berger.Fan222]

Studies? Anyone who has ever shot critters with FMJ and JHP knows there is a huge difference. No theories. No postulating. Undeniable fact. No question about it.

Yes indeed. The heart and lungs of deer tell consistent stories regarding effectiveness of different kinds of bullets.

 

[grampajack]

Or....

Congratulations, you're officially a troll. Why don't you tell everyone about that little PM you sent me earlier? I'm sure they would get a kick out of it.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

How is this thread still going?

Seriously?

People that get paid to shoot other things dead consistently avoid using FMJ when ever possible. That isn't a mistake or coincidence.

This thread has been an amazing read in confirmation bias... Sure, all the professionals are wrong.. JHP is just some stupid fad... FMJ is totes the way to go... And don't forget to click the ruby slippers together while repeating, "there's no place like home"

 

[captain awesome]

Gramps, even if they WERE possibly the same in regards to effectivness (which they are not), why wouldn't someone choose hollow points purely from a "It is at least as effective if not more so" stand point????

 

[captain awesome]

And another thing, I consider your relentless arguing against the use of hollow points irresponsible. If you want to use a less affective round, by all means use one but trying to convince others not to is down right shameful. Shame on you sir.

 

[grampajack]

And another thing, I consider your relentless arguing against the use of hollow points irresponsible. If you want to use a less affective round, by all means use one but trying to convince others not to is down right shameful. Shame on you sir.

Read the OP you sanctimonious...there's something I would like to say here but the rules forbid it. I clearly stated there that I am in no way advocating that anyone use FMJ. So save the lecture and get off your high horse.

 

[grampajack]

Gramps, even if they WERE possibly the same in regards to effectivness (which they are not), why wouldn't someone choose hollow points purely from a "It is at least as effective if not more so" stand point????

This isn't about trying to get people to change what they carry. It's about discussing what the actual real world difference is between FMJ and HP. Not what people think it should be, and most certainly not what gel shows it might be. If that doesn't interest you then you are not required to participate.

 

[captain awesome]

I will not "get off my high horse"
Dispite your disclaimer anyone reading this that buys into your garbage could be swayed not to. And apparently I struck a nerve. If you are so confident about your arguments then why wouldn't you stand behind them?

 

[CraigC]

This isn't about trying to get people to change what they carry. It's about discussing what the actual real world difference is between FMJ and HP. Not what people think it should be, and most certainly not what gel shows it might be. If that doesn't interest you then you are not required to participate.

No, this is about you getting validation for your ill-conceived theory and getting your panties in a bunch when knowledgeable folks refuted your nonsense with facts.

 

[grampajack]

How is this thread still going?

Seriously?

People that get paid to shoot other things dead consistently avoid using FMJ when ever possible. That isn't a mistake or coincidence.

This thread has been an amazing read in confirmation bias... Sure, all the professionals are wrong.. JHP is just some stupid fad... FMJ is totes the way to go... And don't forget to click the ruby slippers together while repeating, "there's no place like home"

You are "totes" taking everything I said out of context and completely mischaracterizing the purpose behind this thread. At least read the OP before posting.

I will not "get of my high horse"
Dispite your disclaimer anyone reading this that buys into your garbage could be swayed not to. And apparently I struck a nerve. If you are so confident about your arguments then why wouldn't you stand behind them?

Then it's their own fault for not reading the entire thread, namely the OP. Where I clearly stated that I am NOT advocating for anyone using FMJ for any purpose, except maybe on a battlefield where there is no risk to civilians and increased penetration would be desirable.

And again, I'm not arguing that anyone should use FMJ as a defensive round, so there's nothing to defend. You're accusing me of not standing behind an argument I never made in the first place. Stop putting words in my mouth.

 

[captain awesome]

"Stop putting words in my mouth."
Don't have to. You already did. I am out.

 

[Odd Job]

For those still interested in discussion of the actual subject matter, I was able to find this:

That's a cavitation injury of the liver, caused by a JHP. Liver tissue has little elasticity, hence that injury.
By the way that was one of several wounds sustained by that carjacking victim. Surgeons tried to save him but he died in the operating theatre.

 

[grampajack]

Yes indeed. The heart and lungs of deer tell consistent stories regarding effectiveness of different kinds of bullets.

So you hunt deer with your carry piece, and you've compared FMJ to HP rounds? Again, read the thread. I stated in the OP and half a dozen times since then this is about carry calibers. We're talking primarily 9mm, .380, and .38 special from short barrels.

 

[grampajack]

That's a cavitation injury of the liver, caused by a JHP. Liver tissue has little elasticity, hence that injury.
By the way that was one of several wounds sustained by that carjacking victim. Surgeons tried to save him but he died in the operating theatre.

Do you think there's any chance that that bullet could produce significant cavitation in more elastic parts of the body, namely the thoracic cavity?

BTW, thank you for bringing meaningful discussion to this thread. You're exactly the kind of person I was hoping to get answers from when I posted this. I would love to pick your brain a little if you don't mind.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

At least read the OP before posting.

I did. I laughed. As I said, it was a fine display of confirmation bias. Anyone who mentions, "Military wound studies", "hyrdolic shock" (yeah I noticed that little ROFL there), "Energy Dump", and "CCW" in the same subject is either 1) Laughably ignorant about what they are talking about -or- 2) Trying to sell you some over priced BS ammo, featuring explosions and blackface in the ad copy.

I don't see any explosions... so...

That's all I've got to say

<Mark Twain quote about keeping your mouth shut here>

 

[Odd Job]

Do you think there's any chance that that bullet could produce significant cavitation in more elastic parts of the body, namely the thoracic cavity?

I don't have any comparative data on this but I doubt it. Lung is very elastic (well a healthy lung is anyway). I once reached into the chest of a newly-deceased man post thoracotomy and felt the right lower lobe of his lung. It was discoloured and had a less flexible texture, all because of long term smoking.

I haven't taken that many photographs in the operating theatre. That liver was one of the first, but my focus was mainly on surface wounds and clothing breaches. I must add that I wasn't interested in the performance of ammunition, I was interested in accounting for projectile fragments and identifying trajectories in order to support the best clinical outcome for the patient.

 

[grampajack]

I don't have any comparative data on this but I doubt it. Lung is very elastic (well a healthy lung is anyway). I once reached into the chest of a newly-deceased man post thoracotomy and felt the right lower lobe of his lung. It was discoloured and had a less flexible texture, all because of long term smoking.

I haven't taken that many photographs in the operating theatre. That liver was one of the first, but my focus was mainly on surface wounds and clothing breaches. I must add that I wasn't interested in the performance of ammunition, I was interested in accounting for projectile fragments and identifying trajectories in order to support the best clinical outcome for the patient.

Hypothetically, let's say we have two gunshot victims shot with a 9mm handgun, both shot in the exact same place in the thoracic cavity at the same trajectory. The victims are twins in good health, with identical physical makeup. One was shot with a hollow point (that performed as designed), and the other was shot with an FMJ. Both bullets are the same mass and caliber, and both were traveling at the same velocity when they struck the victims.

Based on your experience, do you think you could tell which one was shot with the hollow point just by examining the wound channel?

ETA: Both victims were shirtless at the time they were shot.

 

[Blkhrt13]

Yes I think you could.