CAS700850
Member
I recently read a debate on another gun board in which two individuals were vigorously debating the proper ammunition for a defensive handgun. One argued that hollowpoints were the best choice, as they gave the best transfer of energy into the target. The second argued that ball was the best choice as it allowed for maximum reliability in the handgun, while also giving maximum penetration in the target. The usual arguments came up along the way...that modern autos are as reliable with hollowpoints as they are with ball, that hollowpoints often fail to perform because the cavity gets plugged with matter, preventing expansion, etc.
My question: assuming functional reliability is not an issue (that you test your handgun with sufficient hollowpoint ammunition to ensure there are no function issues), and assuming there is no legal prohibition against hollowpoint ammunition, what reasons are there for carrying ball ammunition for defensive purposes? My logic has always been that if a hollowpoint expands, great. If it fails to expand, it's now functioning as a ball round. Why not at least give myself the opportunity to have a round expand in the target?
Am I missing something, or is there a flaw in my logic?
My question: assuming functional reliability is not an issue (that you test your handgun with sufficient hollowpoint ammunition to ensure there are no function issues), and assuming there is no legal prohibition against hollowpoint ammunition, what reasons are there for carrying ball ammunition for defensive purposes? My logic has always been that if a hollowpoint expands, great. If it fails to expand, it's now functioning as a ball round. Why not at least give myself the opportunity to have a round expand in the target?
Am I missing something, or is there a flaw in my logic?