Are hollow points really "deadlier" than FMJ?

[CraigC]

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

Having actually done it numerous times, yes you can.

 

[Odd Job]

If the FMJ doesn't tumble, the JHP should damage more tissue.
If the FMJ tumbles it might nick a blood vessel that the JHP misses. By the same token, the JHP could clip a blood vessel that the FMJ misses in it's non tumbling trajectory.
I don't know if anyone can tell the difference between the two wounds in lung tissue, regardless. It's not my specialty (I am not a doctor) and Dr Vincent Di Maio observed in his book "Gunshot Wounds" that he couldn't tell the difference.
I don't know how carefully he examined the wounds. It might need detailed microscopic examination of wound channel slides, I don't know.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Well I don't think FMJ does this...



Deaf

 

[hdwhit]

grandpajack wrote:
Are hollow points really "deadlier" than FMJ?
...
Is there any appreciable gain in the pressure wave generated by hollow points vs. FMJ?

The comparative lethality of a hollow-point bullet versus a full metal case bullet is dependent upon so many factors that a simple yes/no answer to your headline question is neither practical nor reasonable.

As to the question in your survey:

• My first response would be to ask which "pressure wave" you are talking about.
• My second response would be to point out that a "gain" in the pressure wave (once defined) attributable to the use of hollow points cannot be assumed as it is easy enough to envision circumstances under which the pressure wave might decrease from the use of hollow points.
• My third response would be that without defining the parameters of the comparison, any answer other than "It depends" is meaningless.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

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.

Yes, and yes. Expanding bullets do so much more damage in deer, no one who has ever seen the difference would even ask the question.

 

[hdwhit]

Deaf Smith wrote:
Well I don't think FMJ does this...

Does what?

And under what conditions?

Showing me the trace of six hollow point bullets fired through an unknown media at an unknown distance without comparison to the full metal jacket to which it is supposedly being compared to doesn't really tell us much of anything.

You also don't disclose the source of the images to allow others to review their experimental methodology.

Further, you don't explain the significance of the seemingly arbitrarily 12 inch depth nor do you explain the meaning of the blue and red arrows.

 

[hdwhit]

Berger.Fan222 wrote:
Expanding bullets do so much more damage in deer, no one who has ever seen the difference would even ask the question.

At what velocities?

At what ranges?

You are correct that I, like many others, have little experience with expanding bullets in deer. What I do have experience with is with various types of bullets fired into humans. And there - as has already been noted by several other posters (including medical professionals who have authored books on the subject) - it is often not possible to determine the bullet configuration simply from observing the victim.

 

[grampajack]

If the FMJ doesn't tumble, the JHP should damage more tissue.
If the FMJ tumbles it might nick a blood vessel that the JHP misses. By the same token, the JHP could clip a blood vessel that the FMJ misses in it's non tumbling trajectory.
I don't know if anyone can tell the difference between the two wounds in lung tissue, regardless. It's not my specialty (I am not a doctor) and Dr Vincent Di Maio observed in his book "Gunshot Wounds" that he couldn't tell the difference.
I don't know how carefully he examined the wounds. It might need detailed microscopic examination of wound channel slides, I don't know.

I mean just with the naked eye. Any microscopic differences would probably be beyond the scope of what would affect my choices in ammunition for any given application.

Going back to your photo of that liver I posted, do you think that an FMJ could be capable of producing a similar cavity, again assuming all other variables were the same? I got kind of excited when I found that photo, but then remembered what I had read about the liver being inelastic, and was right back in the same place again wondering if the results I was seeing were specifically due to the qualities of hollow points themselves, or if it was just a matter of the liver not being elastic enough to survive the stretch cavity generated by 9mm energy levels.

 

[grampajack]

Well I don't think FMJ does this...

View attachment 234825

Deaf

Again, ballistics gel does not simulate wounds. It only provides a consistent, water-based medium with which to compare one bullet to another for testing purposes. In that, it's use is similar to that of clay and simtest media. Again, that's why the FBI doesn't bother measuring "wound cavities" in gel like so many youtubers do.

In general, though, I would predict that gel is far less resilient than most human tissue, as I said already, and requires less energy to damage it than would actual tissue. This conclusion is drawn from comparing "wounds" in gel to actual wounds in human case studies with similar energy levels (finding parallels with the exact same bullet is next to impossible). From this I've concluded that you're going to see less penetration and less cavitation in a real human than you would see in gel from the same bullet. That's just my two cents, but if I thought for even a second that ballistics gel were an accurate representation of wounds then we would not be having this discussion.

 

[lysanderxiii]

For .45 ACP

.45 ACP 230 gr FMJ

.45 ACP 200 gr JHP

.45 ACP 230 gr JHP

For 9mm

9mm M882, 124 gr FMJ

9mm 124 gr JHP

9mm 124 gr JHP (going about 30 fps slower than the M882)

9mm Cor-Bon 115 gr JHP

The FMJ (in both .45 and 9mm) leave almost no permanent cavity and what little cavity it leaves is about 6 inches beyond the thickness of a human (except down- or up-ward). The same would be true for any caliber, so, in answer to the question, JHP will create more tissue damage when fired into a living creature than a FMJ . . .

Whether or not more tissue damage makes it "deadlier" is for you to decide.

 

[lysanderxiii]

...I would predict that gel is far less resilient than most human tissue, as I said already, and requires less energy to damage it than would actual tissue....

And . . . your qualifications to make such an assessment?

What experience do you have with comparing ballistic gel to living tissue?

 

[CraigC]

I would predict that gel is far less resilient than most human tissue....

Having actually used ballistic testing media, I predict you are wrong again (I see a pattern here).

 

[grampajack]

And . . . your qualifications to make such an assessment?

What experience do you have with comparing ballistic gel to living tissue?

I stated very clearly it was just my opinion. I'm basing it on case studies I've seen where the bullet was identified, then comparing those case studies to ballistics gel testing of the same bullet (or a very similar one). For example, I saw a case study involving 9mm HSTs. They penetrate about 15'' in gel, whereas they only penetrated about 8'' in the actual victim. In one, no bone was involved, so that's not an answer. And that's only one example.

BTW, I've also noticed that gel isn't a very good predictor of whether bullets will expand reliably. Going back to the HST, the ones recovered from humans don't look nearly as nice as the ones recovered from gel, and are not nearly as consistent. I'm picking on the HST because it's a very common bullet with quite a bit of precedence behind it, that has a nearly perfect track record in gel testing. I'm not saying it's a bad bullet, I'm just saying that gel isn't nearly as close to living tissue as we would like to believe. And it's certainly not an accurate representation of what wounds will look like in a human, and on that point you're not likely to change my mind.

 

[Outlouc]

In Europe it's quite straight, as in many countries, we are only allowed to purchase FMJ, lead, and in some case soft-points, expanding non-HP (such as Fiocchi EMB or Federal EFMJ) and frangible ammo for handguns. In some States the police were issued with "Euro HP" Action ammo, a mono-block bullet with a hollow plastic insert.

Reading the posts above, I must say that at least FMJ isn't that bad for a motorized bad guy you'd want to stop, as it has enough penetration capability, and piercing power to shoot through a car door, car desk, windshield, ie. What matters, especially for FMJ is that there is quite a high risk of deflection, which can be serious in some case (third person seriously injured or even death). Anyway, FMJ and lead loads were used for more than a century in military and law enforcement services with little to none complain, and only until the 1980's-1990's for the latter (and with mostly 38 spl revolvers until then), it became a matter. One can ask himself if the person supposedly to be stopped has became a super human all-proof creature since indeed.

We also have some "defensive" loads such as: Fiocchi Black Mamba (http://www.fiocchigfl.it/site/index.php?pag=810&linea=32&titolo_prod=Top Defence), Lapua CEPP (http://www.lapua.com/en/reloading-components/bullets/cepp), or magtech 9F JSP (http://www.magtechammunition.com/products/view-product?id=84), which I'd think all of those above will limit the risk of ricochet while being in accordance with the law. It's better than nothing.

Looking at the current ammo merchandising, especially in the US, I can say that there is a lot of marketing for basically nothing, IMHO. There were some good loads such as Hydra-Shocks, and latter Gold-Dots (introduced in the French police, lastly), Hornady's or HST. But apart from that what is the real purpose of all these "defensive" rounds, which are often more-or-less pale copies of the formers?

 

[DT Guy]

Looking at the current ammo merchandising, especially in the US, I can say that there is a lot of marketing for basically nothing, IMHO. There were some good loads such as Hydra-Shocks, and latter Gold-Dots (introduced in the French police, lastly), Hornady's or HST. But apart from that what is the real purpose of all these "defensive" rounds, which are often more-or-less pale copies of the formers?

I don't think it's fair to categorize HP's into Hydra-Shoks, Gold-Dot's, HST's and 'copies.' Bullet technology is more diverse than ever, and there are many, MANY different bullets available these days, from crazy light/super fast little pills to all copper loads. While I'm not a fan, the 'RIP' ammo is certainly 'different' enough to not be a copy of any of the above, for example.


Larry

 

[Warp]

Yes, hollow points (that actually expand, from service cartridges such that they penetrate adequately while expanding) really are better. They are more reliable at quickly stopping threats.

IDK what this pressure wave crap from the question is, but the answer to are they better and more effective is YES

 

[JN01]

BTW, why do you guys think the FBI test disregards the "wound cavity" in ballistics testing? They only look at penetration. It's because they know that measuring the wound cavities of pistol rounds in gel is a pointless exercise.

If they are concerned primarily with penetration, then why haven't they adopted FMJ loads? If FMJ is as effective as any HP, why do LE agencies all over the world waste resources buying the much more expensive rounds?

 

[Kleanbore]

"Hydrostatic shock" is a contradiction of terms. Static pressure is--well, static. It relates to the pressure of a fluid or gas at rest--Boyle's law, or the o'l "rho g h" equation,

There is no "shock" or pressure wave involved.

Funny thing is, I was reading and lapping up Jack O'Connor's writings about "hydrostatic shock" at the same time I was studying physics and fluid dynamics, and the contradiction did not occur to me until years later.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Again, ballistics gel does not simulate wounds.

Properly prepared and calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin does indeed accurately depict the wounding effects of bullets in typical soft tissues.

I'm basing it on case studies I've seen where the bullet was identified, then comparing those case studies to ballistics gel testing of the same bullet (or a very similar one). For example, I saw a case study involving 9mm HSTs. They penetrate about 15'' in gel, whereas they only penetrated about 8'' in the actual victim. In one, no bone was involved, so that's not an answer. And that's only one example.

We have nearly 30 years of data in which terminal performance and wounding effects of handgun bullets observed in properly prepared and calibrated ordnance gelatin have been found to closely compare to actual shootings. In cases where there is a difference there is a valid reason and when the same circumstances are modeled in ordnance gelatin the results match.

BTW, I've also noticed that gel isn't a very good predictor of whether bullets will expand reliably. Going back to the HST, the ones recovered from humans don't look nearly as nice as the ones recovered from gel, and are not nearly as consistent.

Bare ordnance gelatin is the best case condition for bullet expansion. Ordnance gelatin covered by four layers of heavy denim cloth, as specified by the IWBA protocol, represents the worst case conditions for bullet expansion. Bullets recovered from actual shootings more closely resemble bullets that have been fired into properly prepared and calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin covered by denim cloth. The best performing JHP handgun bullets show very little difference in penetration depth between bare gelatin and gelatin covered by four layers of heavy denim cloth.

I'm just saying that gel isn't nearly as close to living tissue as we would like to believe.

In those cases where there's a substantial difference then there's a reason. You have to know what the bullet encountered from the time it exited the muzzle until it came to rest. That information will tell you WHY there's a difference.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

"Hydrostatic shock" is a contradiction of terms.

It's the temporary cavity that produces damage beyond tissues directly contacted and crushed by the penetrating bullet. Tissues are simply stretched beyond their ability to tolerate stretching and they rupture and tear. Most tissues in the human body are resilient, such as muscle, blood vessels, nerves, lung and intestines. Other soft tissues (brain, liver, kidney, spleen, pancreas) are not resilient and the temporary cavity can substantially increase wound trauma - it depends where these tissues are located along the wound track that determines the severity of the damage caused.

 

[Deaf Smith]

The question for this thread was,

Are hollow points really "deadlier" than FMJ?

But any test, just any, shows FMJs leave smaller tracks though virtually any medium. As long as there is adequate penetration one can confidently say hollow points AS A CLASS and with ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL will do better at being "deadlier" than FMJ.

Deaf

 

[grampajack]

Properly prepared and calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin does indeed accurately depict the wounding effects of bullets in typical soft tissues.

We have nearly 30 years of data in which terminal performance and wounding effects of handgun bullets observed in properly prepared and calibrated ordnance gelatin have been found to closely compare to actual shootings. In cases where there is a difference there is a valid reason and when the same circumstances are modeled in ordnance gelatin the results match.

Bare ordnance gelatin is the best case condition for bullet expansion. Ordnance gelatin covered by four layers of heavy denim cloth, as specified by the IWBA protocol, represents the worst case conditions for bullet expansion. Bullets recovered from actual shootings more closely resemble bullets that have been fired into properly prepared and calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin covered by denim cloth. The best performing JHP handgun bullets show very little difference in penetration depth between bare gelatin and gelatin covered by four layers of heavy denim cloth.

In those cases where there's a substantial difference then there's a reason. You have to know what the bullet encountered from the time it exited the muzzle until it came to rest. That information will tell you WHY there's a difference.

So when you have a gunshot to an area with no bone, like the stomach, and you only see 8'' of penetration from a bullet that would easily get 15'' in gel, how do you explain that if there are no extenuating circumstances? I certainly can't, especially since we're talking about bullets like the HST that have been rigorously tested on various clothing and barriers. The fact that the standard allows for 18'' in gel is telling in and of itself. If those bullets were getting 18'' in actual human targets then they would pose a huge danger to bystanders and the standard would be lowered. However, if you read the FBI standards, the goal is towards 18'' without exceeding it. They will settle for an occasional twelve incher, but they want as many as possible to land closer to the 18'' mark.

If they are concerned primarily with penetration, then why haven't they adopted FMJ loads? If FMJ is as effective as any HP, why do LE agencies all over the world waste resources buying the much more expensive rounds?

Because their goal is to limit penetration in flesh, while retaining as much penetration as possible in light barriers (like car glass) without the bullet being an undue liability. No cop on earth wants to carry FMJ because it's a threat to civilian bystanders.

 

[grampajack]

If the FMJ doesn't tumble, the JHP should damage more tissue.
If the FMJ tumbles it might nick a blood vessel that the JHP misses. By the same token, the JHP could clip a blood vessel that the FMJ misses in it's non tumbling trajectory.
I don't know if anyone can tell the difference between the two wounds in lung tissue, regardless. It's not my specialty (I am not a doctor) and Dr Vincent Di Maio observed in his book "Gunshot Wounds" that he couldn't tell the difference.
I don't know how carefully he examined the wounds. It might need detailed microscopic examination of wound channel slides, I don't know.

I found this book for free in PDF if anyone else is interested: http://www.e-reading.club/bookreade...arms,_ballistics,_and_forensic_techniques.pdf

 

[Shawn Dodson]

So when you have a gunshot to an area with no bone, like the stomach, and you only see 8'' of penetration from a bullet that would easily get 15'' in gel, how do you explain that if there are no extenuating circumstances?

It appears to me there is more to the story than you know - that you don't have all the information.

Don't get too wrapped up on the FBI 18" penetration specification. The specification simply does not recognize penetration deeper than 18". The 12" minimum penetration depth is by far the more important parameter. The best performing bullets penetrate 13-16" in bare gelatin and gelatin covered by four layer of heavy denim cloth.

Arms often get in the way and there are situations (angular aspect of the target body as well as fat and muscular bodies) in which the bullet must penetrate deeply to reach AND DAMAGE tissues that are vital to immediate survival.

The late San Diego Police Criminologist Gene Wolberg compared penetration depth of bullets recovered from OIS to ordnance gelatin results and found that while the range of penetration in actual shootings was greater the average penetration depth mirrored gelatin results. These findings have been validated by other researchers.

 

[Odd Job]

The other big factor is tissue planes. Particularly in the second half of the trajectory when the bullet is slowing down, it is more easily influenced by density differences in tissue planes (such as muscle and fat interfaces) and can have a very unpredictable trajectory.