Do you think its better to load the magazine fully with one type of ammo, or is it better to alternate JHP and FMJ rounds?
For handguns, generally it is better to pick the most effective type of ammo and use only that. I mean, why alternate with something that is less effective? One of the few valid reasons for which you'd want to use mixed loads is that you're utterly conflicted over which type of ammo is more effective. Is that the case for you? Another reason is that you truly need two (or more) different effects on target, although for obvious reasons this is far more applicable to fully automatic weapons (particularly autocannons used against armor). Short of those reasons, just pick a load!
How about the first few rounds being JHP and the last few rounds FMJ (for additional penetration)?
If you think the latter may be more effective, then why not load the whole magazine with them?
On a similar note, does anyone make a small caliber round that expands poorly on purpose i.e. a sort of HP/FMJ hybrid for small calibers?
Controlled expansion has definitely been a goal of manufacturers for large calibers, where it can be an issue. With small, relatively slow calibers it shouldn't be as much of an issue, although lately they've been focusing more on maximizing expansion since the market seems to be a bit fixated on it (like I am on penetration
). Personally, I think that what you just said makes more sense for smaller, weaker calibers, but generally expansion sells better.
If it matters I'm thinking specifically of .380acp.
What depth of penetration (in calibrated ballistic gelatin) are you comfortable with? Decide on that, and then choose according to the following chart:
http://www.brassfetcher.com/380ACP ammunition performance in ballistic gelatin.pdf
I prefer about 18" of penetration, so those 95 grain FMJ loads look good to me (particularly if they are truncated-cone rather than round-nose). If you're more comfortable with 12", then the Hydra-Shok looks like a good fit. As you can see, some of the newer, more "advanced" ammo works as intended but sacrifice penetration for expansion, making them inferior in this caliber, in my opinion, as great as they are in more powerful calibers.
If it expands at all, it will do more damage then a FMJ.
It should do more damage to the depth at which it penetrates, anyway. The question is whether it penetrates deeply enough.
It's thought that staggered loads might potentially cause malfunctions, although I don't have evidence of this.
Regarding guns themselves, this should definitely not be an issue, as they don't remember what they shot the last time--as long as the action is cycled properly and both types of ammunition are reliable, then no worries. That said, I suppose it's possible that a recoil-sensitive shooter could limp-wrist on the heavier recoiling rounds if they sort of instinctively expect each shot to feel the same. It doesn't seem likely to me, but I'm just saying it's a potential shooter issue (as opposed to a gun issue).
I have been known to carry a 2nd or 3rd spare mag or speedloader with a different type of ammo that is designed for deeper penetration, but never in the gun. And it is always in a seperate spot on my belt than my regular reload.
Admittedly, I've sometimes done the same with heavy hard-cast rounds in case I need them for whatever reason, much like how people commonly keep a few slug rounds in a side saddle for their shotgun, with buckshot as the default defensive load in the tube. It's a concession to my internal drive to be prepared for everything, whether it's truly justified or not
, but at least I know what I'm using this way. I still think that using a mixed load is going a bit too far, however, unless you have a specific reason for it (e.g. being unable to decide which is better).
Modern defense ammo as made in America is designed to both penetrate deeply AND expand reliably.
Modern defense bullet technology has over taken the old bullet designs and you get the advantages of both in one high-tech bullet.
While there certainly have been advancements in the design of expanding bullets, I think that many modern loads still have pretty marginal penetration, due to the market's preoccupation with expansion and avoiding overpenetration, neither of which are as important as penetration, in my view. In real shootings, for one reason or another, bullets just don't penetrate people the way they do even properly calibrated ballistic gelatin, which makes penetration even more critical.
I don't think you get both penetration and expansion simultaneously; physics doesn't work that way.
To be fair, dfariswheel said that they penetrate deeply and expand
reliably rather than greatly. Older designs that expanded reliably did so because they were soft, so they tended to overexpand and underpenetrate, while other designs penetrated more deeply but were less reliable. In contrast, modern bullets and loads can be tailored to achieve a certain depth and degree of expansion quite reliably (not perfect, but not nearly as haphazard as before). I would argue that most loads still don't get enough penetration, which seems to be deliberate, but they are an improvement.
You are correct that there must be trade-offs due to physics, so to get deeper penetration a bullet would either have to expand less or expand more gradually. About the same amount of damage is done when given the same kinetic energy and/or momentum, but what matters the most is where the damage is done, and I'm thinking that relative to current standards, deeper is generally better.
