Why police officers use HP bullets?

[Shawn Dodson]

Why? His argument seemed valid then; it seems valid today.

A quick search reveals he has said as much as recently as 2008.

Not sure how a bullet that expands to produce greater wound trauma, especially to non-elastic soft tissues such liver, kidney, pancreas, spleen and brain, is somehow "safer for the person being shot"?

Perhaps you can post Ayoob's reasoning.

 

[SARDiver]

IIRC, it was that the situation is stopped more quickly with fewer rounds necessary to do so. I can see where it makes sense.

If I fire and connect with a couple of rounds that cause the bad guy to stop quickly, I can work to get him medical attention at the appropriate time, and the doctors are patching up that many wounds.

If I unload my magazine on the guy, and connect with many more rounds trying to stop the guy, there are many more wounds for doctors to patch up. The JHPs cause more immediate damage, but the FMJ wounds can still lead to bleeding out and organ damage. They just don't stop the bad guy as quickly.

 

[Loosedhorse]

If this indeed Ayoob's current opinion then I disagree. However, I suspect his opinion has evolved.

Perhaps you can post Ayoob's reasoning

Hmmm. The logical concusion would seem to be that you were disagreeing with Ayoob...before you even knew what it was exactly that he said.

No matter: the passage you're looking for is here, bottom left of page 48.

(It doesn't copy and paste, so I'd rather you visit the site and read, rather than my typing it all out here, if that's okay.)

Chuck Hawks, while not attributing the passage to Ayoob, lists something very similar at his website:

Lastly, your attacker is safer because he is far less likely to die from one or two hollowpoint bullets than the five or six round-nose slugs you would have had to fire to put him down. Most gunshot deaths occur from shock and loss of blood, and ball rounds tend to make entry and exit wounds, whereas hollowpoints go in and stay put. An attacker shot twice with ball ammo will probably have four holes in him rather than two, and is thus in far greater danger of death from blood loss. If you can avoid killing your attacker you should, for both moral and legal reasons.

Just offered because you asked; I don't expect everyone to agree.

 

[mortablunt]

#1: It reduces overpenetration risks.
#2: FMJ's are not great at stopping men.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Hmmm. The logical concusion would seem to be that you were disagreeing with Ayoob...before you even knew what it was exactly that he said.

I'm familiar with his claim - but it was from years ago - which is why I suspect his opinion may have since evolved.

An attacker shot twice with ball ammo will probably have four holes in him rather than two , and is thus in far greater danger of death from blood loss.

The flaw in this opinion is that it assumes an exit wound increases blood loss.

In a torso hit the majority of bleeding is internal. Blood leaks directly into the abdominal and thoracic cavities. Assuming the two expanding bullets follow the same exact track through the body (as the two non-expanding FMJ bullets) but stop just underneath the skin before they exit, which wound tracks are going to be more severe, and produce greater wound trauma and blood loss?

Which bullets are more likely to produce a temporary cavity that has the potential to rupture non-elastic soft tissues beyond the permanent cavity and increase wound trauma, depending on where these tissues are located along the wound track?

Which gunwriter has written about doctors & medical examiners who have been amazed about the alleged extreme wound trauma produced by 9mm 115gr +P+ JHPs?

 

[antiquus]

All of this stuff begins to resemble "how many angels can dance on the end of a pin?". Placement is the huge factor in effectiveness, then velocity/caliber. Bullet type is way down the list.

BUT - for the people managing law enforcement, and responsible for choosing which ammo is used, powerful rounds are picked to defeat barriers and work at any shooting angle. But to avoid legal issues, you need to stop those powerful rounds in the target and not in a bystander, or even in property.

 

[Loosedhorse]

The flaw in this opinion is that it assumes an exit wound increases blood loss.

Actually, that's one of a few possible flaws; and not the most serious. Doesn't mean the statement is untrue.

Assuming the two expanding bullets follow the same exact track through the body (as the two non-expanding FMJ bullets)

Actually, earlier the quote specifies " five or six round-nose slugs," compared to "one or two hollowpoint bullets;" I think that's where the real comparison lies.

Which gunwriter

I'm not sure: is this the beginning of an ad hominem attack on Massad Ayoob?

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Actually, earlier the quote specifies " five or six round-nose slugs," compared to "one or two hollowpoint bullets;" I think that's where the real comparison lies.

I agree that more bullets fired translates into more potential to hit something vital.

I also agree that a bullet which produces greater blunt trauma sensation has the potential to produce a voluntary psychological effect.

Whether these potential factors play any practical role in making expanding bullets “safer” for the bad guy in any given shooting is questionable.

I incorrectly attributed to Ayoob the quote you posted from the Chuck Hawks website. My bad.

 

[Cop Bob]

We strongly discouraged the use of Ball, or Non-Expanding ammunition in Patrol Rifles... or anything for that matter.. all for reasons previously stated..

 

[Cosmoline]

I understand why people maintain that it's "safer for the person shot," but I also know it's bunk. There's no data I'm aware of suggesting that fewer shots are actually going to be fired with HP's as opposed to FMJ's or RN lead slugs. Modern police vs. criminal shootouts tend to involve a *lot* of rounds fired and as a tactical matter the idea that the cop is going to wait after every few rounds to check to see if the guy trying to kill him is sufficiently incapacitated is unrealistic. He's going to empty the mag and probably get some more backup with the carbines or shotguns. Then they go back in a group and only THEN decide that the shooter is indeed dead or otherwise incapacitated. This is how most of them play out around here, anyway. The only recent exception I know of was a cop who put a few into some idiot playing with an airgun. The cop did stop after everyone yelled it was just an airgun. The fool was a massive fellow, which may have saved him.

Bottom line, if you take on the police with a firearm you're almost certainly going to go down badly and stand a very high chance of dying. It's even become a very popular suicide method. If police were really concerned about not hurting the guy too badly, they would go back to a .32 short lemon squeezer or some other turn of the century piece so weak it truly was almost less than lethal. But of course the primary concern is surviving, and when the lead starts flying the LEO's have *no* time. Time is all gone. They have to stop the threat as quickly and decisively as possible or get to cover.

Nor is there any data I'm aware of suggesting that 2 rounds of properly expanding HP is going to be *LESS* deadly to the target than 4 rounds of FMJ. The HP, assuming it's the right velocity for the bullet, will do horrific damage that often cannot be fixed through surgery. They just have to remove a large piece of the organ or the whole thing. Not to mention the increased risks of infection. And as we know the military forces of the world rejected such rounds as too barbaric in the Hague Conventions. And while that's kind of a silly old notion, there's no denying an expanding round will do more tissue damage and lacerate more blood sources than a RN FMJ. It also stands a fair chance of making a big gory exit wound that won't close up easily and will drain plenty of blood. When you look at expanding carbine rounds, that becomes even more dramatic. And with the 5.56 even the FMJ's are essentially expanding rounds at close range.

But I understand why Mas would want to keep his official position clear as he does take the stand as an expert. Just understand that LEO's have to play a bit of a song and dance on these issues, particularly in big liberal cities.

 

[Loosedhorse]

There's no data I'm aware of suggesting that fewer shots are actually going to be fired with HP's

Nor is there any data I'm aware of suggesting that 2 rounds of properly expanding HP is going to be *LESS* deadly to the target than 4 rounds of FMJ.

You're probably correct that there's no solid data. But a lack of proof that something's true is not proof that it is false. In most cases, without proof in either direction the proposition remains undecided; and I think fewer shots and fewer shots being less deadly may both be true, at least sometimes.

Modern police vs. criminal shootouts tend to involve a *lot* of rounds fired

True. For NYPD the average shots per incident went up from 2.4 in 1988 (mostly revolvers) to 4.6 in 2000 (transitioning to semi-autos). NYPD made the swith to HPs in 1999. I'm not sure if the shots/incident have climbed more since then.

And of course some LE gunfights involve a LOT of rounds, even when no one is firing back. There are many reasons for that, and they were first discussed extensively (to my knowledge) after the Diallo shooting in NYC.

It is however not clear that many of the factors involved in high-bullet-count LE shootings would also be present in most SD shootings by private citizens, although some could be.

 

[Cosmoline]

In most cases, the proposition remains undecided; and I think fewer shots and fewer shots being less deadly may both be true, at least sometimes.

I suppose in theory. There are so many layers of myths and legends about this whole issue in both military and law enforcement I'm inclined to do some additional research into the matter. Maybe put together an article on it going back to Grant's condemnation of the CSA's exploding ball at Vicksburg.

 

[Warp]

In a firefight, chances are that everyone will be behind cover.

This isn't how it works out.

 

[Alex23]

Ayoob has a lot of old opinions out there, like Cooper who once said .45 cal was the only handgun caliber capable of getting the job done.

Cooper's dead and Ayoob has the grace to modify his opinions as technology moves on...

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Most police shootings (see "3 shots, 3 seconds..." Post #5 above) don't meet the definition of "firefight": there's barely time to react defensiively much less take cover, then it's over.

 

[Drail]

Because the police are weapon experts who know everything about guns and ammo and are only issued the very finest stuff. Just kidding. Why does anyone care what the police use? They buy everything from the lowest bidder, just like our military does. Read. Learn. Think. Buy. Don't pay any attention to marketing or sales pitches.

 

[Warp]

If they bought everything from the lowest bidder there wouldn't be departments with Sigs and HKs and they probably wouldn't carry Rangers or Gold Dots

 

[red-demon652]

Yea i like that old bit about the tumble of a full mettal jacket bullet. Wow what a contraversy! The hollow points expand ( just like they are ingineered to) to cause maximum damage to its victom, but used by law enforcement for stopping the threat of an axidental stray passing threw the victom and catching the innocent. But on another note the Jeneava convintion, of witch we fallow in articles of war. We are only allowed to use full mettal jacket in war. I asked why wouldnt we want to use an expanding type bullet? The answer i got was,( the idea of fmj is to stop your enemy with out trying to kill them. So my hypothisis is here. Law enforcement is using to kill, were our solders are armed with less deadly fmj. To me thats sounds backwords.

 

[Drail]

Here in the midwest I have never seen LEOs carry Sigs or HKs. All I see are G-locks and S&Ws.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Related?

In preparing for a particular hunt on large, tough herd animals, I chose an HP for the first shot (not for follow-up shots). The two chief reasons were:

1) To keep the bullet from exiting the animal, and possibly injuring another in the herd.
2) General opinon from experienced hunters that the HP would deliver more of a "whack" to the animal, which might convince him to fold on the spot (so long as he wasn't already on high alert when I shot him).

"Increased damage" as a reason was not on my radar: I knew a non-HP solid bullet, well-placed, would damage him plenty. In fact, solids were my planned back-ups, the ones I'd depend on if things went sideways.

Results: As to #1, I can say that worked out well. As to #2, one animal crumpled in place, one ran (but not too far). Both good chest shots.

Police will not be shooting any suspects "by surprise", so I'm not sure #2 applies to them. However, a private citizen might encounter an attacker who didn't know the intended victim was armed, and may be very surprised indeed to find himself shot.

FWIW.

 

[KenW.]

I've been in on several officer involved shooting investigations. In the first, 9mm Hydrashocks completely penetrated a thin college student.

Most recently, a .40 SW with Gold Dots did not overpenetrate an average size adult male. In another the officer had the foresight to bring his AR out of the car. .223 did not overpenetrate.

In each shooting there were far fewer misses than hits, and the ranges were all within 10 yards.

 

[Warp]

Here in the midwest I have never seen LEOs carry Sigs or HKs. All I see are G-locks and S&Ws.

When I was in Lafayette, IN they carried Sigs.

 

[yellatynot]

I have a thought experiment for all you thoughtful gentlemen. If a deer where attacking you in your living room would you want a FMJ or a hollow point. Same reason cop carry what they do. Fast and hard rounds or slow and soft. I hope my complete lack of thoughtful scientific expression doesn't mask the meaning.

 

[Warp]

I have a thought experiment for all you thoughtful gentlemen. If a deer where attacking you in your living room would you want a FMJ or a hollow point.

What firearm/caliber/bullet/round?

 

[Loosedhorse]

Fast and hard rounds or slow and soft.

Well, I wouldn't accept these as my only two choices: how about fast, heavy, and soft; or fast and just-hard-enough (whatever that means).