Why Use Hollow Points?

[Marine Cpl]

So I read a post in Arfcom and I have to say, the guy had some compelling arguments.

What does a hollow point gain you except limit penetration? Expansion you say but does a millimeter or two of expansion really make a difference?

If you get shot in a non vital area such as an arm or a leg by a bullet that is .355 millimeters in width compared to a bullet that is .50 millimeters in width after expansion, the result would be the same. You'd bleed profusely. You aren't going to bleed more to make a difference with an extra millimeter or two. In fact, you'll have an entry and an exit wound with a bullet that passes through.

However, if shot in a vital area with either the non expanding bullet at .355 or the expanded bullet at .50 you'll die just the same.

His argument is that the FBI went to expanding bullets to limit penetration to stop in the human body to limit collateral damage from overpenetration from bullets that still have power to do damage beyond. This is lawsuit related according to him.

For many years, flat pointed .38 Specials had an excellent track record. Nobody complained then. Guys who were shot with them died depending on if vitals were hit. An NYPD Officer killed a Polar Bear in the zoo with such a round. Recently, an Alaskan Guide also killed a Grizzly Bear with a Flat Pointed 9mm.

I tend to agree with him that it's just a liability issue.

Missed shots are overpenetrators as well.

If an extra millimeter or two really makes a difference in stopping an attacker then why doesn't the FBI just use a bullet that hits that magic number of width?

Food for thought. Flat Point bullets have killed many men and animals with no issues in the past. In fact, they are preferred for big game handgun hunting.

What say you?

 

[Darth]

Frying pans.


And I believe most people do it to stop the round inside of the target...

Liability or not.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Yea I get that. Which is why more powerful calibers which have the potential to both expand and penetrate past 18 inches after expanding in gel are designed not to penetrate past 18 inches.

In scenarios where overpenetration is not an issue, there is no real benefit.

Now in scenarios where overpenetration is an issue, missed shots are a liability as well. So assuming you miss, it's moot.

You have to be a crack shot to not have any bullets leave the target.

 

[Greywolf224]

Just imagine a HP the fully expands hitting a vital area.
A little extra insurance for me that you're dead that much more.

I prefer HPs because chances are almost 100% that God for bid I have a need to fire I will be around many people and the last thing I want on my conscience is to have killed an innocent bystander.
I don't ever see myself in the open country having a shoot out like you see in the old west.

 

[Darth]

Yea I get that. Which is why more powerful calibers which have the potential to both expand and penetrate past 18 inches after expanding in gel are designed not to penetrate past 18 inches.

In scenarios where overpenetration is not an issue, there is no real benefit.

Now in scenarios where overpenetration is an issue, missed shots are a liability as well. So assuming you miss, it's moot.

You have to be a crack shot to not have any bullets leave the target.

?

Your argument is "well you might miss, so there is no need to have that safety feature there if you don't?"

 

[Marine Cpl]

?

Your argument is "well you might miss, so there is no need to have that safety feature there if you don't?"

I guess if you put it that way.

I'm throwing my rifle away then. It overpenetrates. Not safe no matter what round I use.

 

[Darth]

...is your argument.

Mine is, we have a technology that can limit those risks, and you think that it not stopping 100% of issues makes it useless.

?

 

[Marine Cpl]

I will still carry HP's in my pistol. I'm just putting an opinion I read out there that I sort of agree with .

But you have to admit that the point about the rifle has merit. If technology exists for limiting overpenetration in pistols and you have a pistol, then why use a rifle that'll grossly overpenetrate?

 

[mosquito]

The HP projectile (when it expands) tears the flesh and creates a more devastating wound channel, as compared to a round nose FMJ. That small amount of expansion "could" be the difference between nicking a vital organ and stopping the threat as opposed to, a smooth entrance and exit wound that may, or may not bleed as bad! Again, over penetration (exiting the target) is the main reason for using HP's. You want to have the projectile expand and cause as much damage as it can without exiting. The expansion is like stomping on the brake pedal of your car!

Skeeter

 

[MilesTeg]

I have to admit I'm in the category I don't worry about over penetration or misses. I know people don't agree with me here but here's my reasoning. The situation degraded so bad that not only have you drawn your firearm you have now pulled the trigger. I'm not talking about making bad shots or negligent shots. In this case of a justified shot I don't care if my round passes through the bad guy and hits someone behind. It's not my fault for pulling the trigger it's the bad guys fault. This goes for missed shots too. I can't stand that our society loves to hang the good guy out to try for trying to stop a deadly threat, it's Fucking retarded that's what it is.

OK with that let's look a ballistics, not worrying about over penetration or missed shots. What is your goal when a round hits soft tissue? Personally I want it to penetrate to the vital organs and dissipate all of its energy as efficiently as possible. This isn't just for wound this is also to create hydrostatic shock in the target. With does aid in killing but does more to stop the target.

So what does a ball round do when it enters soft tissue? It passes through with minimal deformation and exits. This often can create a wound great enough to die from but doesn't transfer much energy or shock to the target.

A hollow point does basically the opposite. It enters the soft tissue and starts to deform. As the bullet starts to deform it transfers it's energy to the target. The nature of the deformation determines how the energy is transferred.

Real life experiment to see what I'm talking about. Hunters grab you old shotgun and tap it deer hunting. Shoot a deer with some of those old school bullets that aren't jacketed. If you have a broadside shot most of the time it will pass through with about the same size hole as the entrance. Also the deer will usually run away. Now take out your rifle with a hunting bullet. Often when a deer is shot with one of these there is no exit wound. If there is it's massive. Also if the shot was placed right the deer never too another step. The difference is how the round transferred the energy. The same end result the game was killed but two totally different out comes from a round impacting.

 

[mosquito]

What is your goal when a round hits soft tissue? Personally I want it to penetrate to the vital organs and dissipate all of its energy as efficiently as possible. This isn't just for wound this is also to create hydrostatic shock in the target. With does aid in killing but does more to stop the target.

I couldn't agree more with this!

 

[Eddie Gunks]

To sell more (expensive) bullets

 

[Greywolf224]

In this case of a justified shot I don't care if my round passes through the bad guy and hits someone behind.

I agree with everything you said accept the above. I do think that we need to care and take every precaution to avoid hitting an innocent person as much as possible.
Listen, its not to say that it can't happen, but I sure as hell am going to do everything I can so that it won't.

Just as I am protecting my life to stay alive, I am sure that innocent by-stander is feeling the same.

 

[Marine Cpl]

The rounds in question are Flat Points that tear and destroy tissue rather than pointed FMJ's that push tissue to the side. An good analogy is being pierced with a flat pointed rod compared to a pencil. The flat pointed rod will push through and destroy tissue rather than pierce it cleanly and stretch it.

As far as Hydrostatic Shock goes, I read in some report (I think it was from the FBI. I'll have to look for it.) a long while back that said the temporal stretch cavity from hydrostatic shock is a myth and does not affect killing power with handgun bullets due to their relatively low velocity. This is why pistol rounds suck compared significantly smaller rifle rounds. Hydrostatic shock actually occurs and affects wounding in bullets that are traveling well over 2000 fps that stretch the cavity beyond elasticity to the point of tearing it.

I don't know much about the subject. I'll have to research it more.

 

[Phazer]

I like to carry JHP rounds. I keep a handful in my pocket when I'm out and around in the county. No pistol, though. I don't have a carry permit.

 

[NirvanaFan]

Excellent post @MilesTeg

It's important to note, if a 9mm round nose bullet doesn't expand, it keeps it's same dimensions and has a circumference of 1.1147". That's how much tissue is disturbed on it's way through. A round nose bullet could also "push" the body parts away instead of cutting/scraping like a flatter hollow point would.

If we take a 9mm Federal 147gr HST bullet (which is a very common defensive round) and look at it, we can see that it expands to .61" in diameter and penetrates roughly 14", which is enough for a pass through on a decent portion of the population. It has a circumference of 1.9154". It has even more surface area to cut with because of the "petals." That disturbs a lot more tissue than the FMJ round. It also imparts all (or most) of it's energy inside the body. This causes hydrostatic shock (at least to some degree). Hydrostatic shock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Marine Cpl]

I like to carry JHP rounds. I keep a handful in my pocket when I'm out and around in the county. No pistol, though. I don't have a carry permit.

Why bother. A Phazer is much more devastating set to Wide Beam.

 

[MilesTeg]

The rounds in question are Flat Points that tear tissue rather than pointed FMJ's that push tissue to the side.

I read in some report (I think it was from the FBI. I'll have to look for it.) a long while back that said the temporal stretch cavity from hydrostatic shock is a myth and does not affect killing power with handgun bullets due to their relatively low velocity. Hydrostatic shock actually occurs and affects wounding in bullets that are traveling well over 2000 fps that stretch the cavity beyond elasticity to the point of tearing it.

I don't know much about the subject. I'll have to research it more.

The highlighted part I agree. Hydrostatic shock has very little to do with killing power. It "might" do some additional tearing but I think that's a long shot. My point is shot with just about any bullet (with proper shot placement) will kill you. My concern is the time the bullet hit the target and the target expires.

My point with the deer shooting thing illustrates this point both end up dead, no arguments there. The key point is one has the ability to run a distance after being mortally wounded the other is instantly incapacitated and stays put until it passes away. To me this illustrates a key point that I hold dearly. God forbid I have to shoot someone, I want them out of the fight instantly. I don't want them to be able to continue the fight until they expire from their wounds.

 

[MilesTeg]

I agree with everything you said accept the above. I do think that we need to care and take every precaution to avoid hitting an innocent person as much as possible.
Listen, its not to say that it can't happen, but I sure as hell am going to do everything I can so that it won't.

Just as I am protecting my life to stay alive, I am sure that innocent by-stander is feeling the same.

I disagree still with this principal. If I have to pull the trigger my only goal is to stop the threat everything else is meaningless at that point. Once again this has nothing to do with bad shots or questionable shots only responsible necessary shots.

If you believe you wont take a shot when a bad guy is coming at you and your family because you are unsure of what is behind him, that's OK. It's a free country and I'm not saying your wrong, I'm saying I don't agree with it and that's Ok too. I can tell you if my life and or my family's life is endangered as in the scenario above I am taking the shot all day without remorse.

 

[Marine Cpl]

The highlighted part I agree. Hydrostatic shock has very little to do with killing power. It "might" do some additional tearing but I think that's a long shot. My point is shot with just about any bullet (with proper shot placement) will kill you. My concern is the time the bullet hit the target and the target expires.

My point with the deer shooting thing illustrates this point both end up dead, no arguments there. The key point is one has the ability to run a distance after being mortally wounded the other is instantly incapacitated and stays put until it passes away. To me this illustrates a key point that I hold dearly. God forbid I have to shoot someone, I want them out of the fight instantly. I don't want them to be able to continue the fight until they expire from their wounds.

I agree with you about the deer thing but the key point here is velocity. A hollow point fired from a long gun is totally different than from a handgun in regards to Hydrostatic Shock.

The low velocity of the handgun doesn't stretch the temporal wound cavity nowhere near as much as the stretching that occurs when fired from a long gun which stretches it so large to the point of the temporal wound cavity becoming permanent.

 

[NirvanaFan]

The highlighted part I agree. Hydrostatic shock has very little to do with killing power. It "might" do some additional tearing but I think that's a long shot. My point is shot with just about any bullet (with proper shot placement) will kill you. My concern is the time the bullet hit the target and the target expires.

My point with the deer shooting thing illustrates this point both end up dead, no arguments there. The key point is one has the ability to run a distance after being mortally wounded the other is instantly incapacitated and stays put until it passes away. To me this illustrates a key point that I hold dearly. God forbid I have to shoot someone, I want them out of the fight instantly. I don't want them to be able to continue the fight until they expire from their wounds.

Have you ever shot a deer in the neck? You don't have to hit the spinal cord or a major artery to kill it. The impact from my .308 rifle dropped a nice 8 point buck before it took a step. It entered and exited the neck right below the spinal cord. When I cleaned it, there was no major apparent injury to the spinal cord. Obviously, a bullet fired from a rifle is different than one fired from a handgun.

Researches have found evidence of hydrostatic shock from handguns though. The Strasburg goat test showed this, although some people don't agree with the conclusions. Michael Courtney and others did an experiment shooting deer with handgun calibers that showed hydrostatic injuries. https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0702/0702107.pdf See page 8 for the conclusions.

 

[MilesTeg]

That's why I stated I don't hold any belief that you do any more damage with the shock from a handgun bullet. But my point remains if a round has passed through the body and exited it did not expel it's energy inside the target and a hollow point tries to expel all of its energy in the tissue, what is the result of the energy dissipation?(Whether or not it does is a whole different argument) The energy dissipation is the hydrostatic shock created in the body. Once again has nothing to do with lethality in a handgun bullet but has 100% to do with stopping the target from continuing the engagement.

 

[Greywolf224]

Guys/Gals all this statistical mumbo-jumbo bullshit warrants field testing.
Darth you up for holding the frying pan!

 

[Podmonkey]

FMJs just zip straight through with little disruption to the tissue, the wound track is no greater than the diameter of the bullet. Also aside from liability issues, anytime a bullet over penetrates through a target that is wasted kinetic energy. HPs create bigger wound channels and cause greater and faster blood pressure loss. And they also utilize all of the available energy of the bullet. Check any of the many ballistics gel tests for dramatic evidence of the difference in wound potential between FMJs and JHPs. The only reason one would use FMJs is if ones gun wouldn't feed HPs. Or if one lived in Jersey....<shudder>.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Guys/Gals all this statistical mumbo-jumbo bullshit warrants field testing.
Darth you up for holding the frying pan!

I'll take the first shot.



Kidding. I don't want you to die so I'll use my 1911.

 

[MilesTeg]

Have you ever shot a deer in the neck? You don't have to hit the spinal cord or a major artery to kill it. The impact from my .308 rifle dropped a nice 8 point buck before it took a step. It entered and exited the neck right below the spinal cord. When I cleaned it, there was no major apparent injury to the spinal cord. Obviously, a bullet fired from a rifle is different than one fired from a handgun.

Researches have found evidence of hydrostatic shock from handguns though. The Strasburg goat test showed this, although some people don't agree with the conclusions. Michael Courtney and others did an experiment shooting deer with handgun calibers that showed hydrostatic injuries. https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0702/0702107.pdf See page 8 for the conclusions.

I'm not saying that a rifle and handgun terminal ballistics are the same. As Willjr pointed out correctly the shock of a rifle round is great enough to create a permeant wound cavity that aids in the lethality, while a handgun doesn't(if does it's minimal). My argument is that the shock from a hand gun round doesn't help the lethality rather stops the target from anymore engagement. This factor is almost impossible to test for other than mathematically. I do believe it makes a huge difference in self defense. When I pull the trigger it's not to kill the guy the best, its to stop the guy efficiently. Lets face it there's probably no one alive that has been shot with the 2 different types of bullets that can attest to this phenomenon.

 

[Marine Cpl]

FMJs just zip straight through with little disruption to the tissue, the wound track is no greater than the diameter of the bullet. Also aside from liability issues, anytime a bullet over penetrates through a target that is wasted kinetic energy. HPs create bigger wound channels and cause greater and faster blood pressure loss. And they also utilize all of the available energy of the bullet. Check any of the many ballistics gel tests for dramatic evidence of the difference in wound potential between FMJs and JHPs. The only reason one would use FMJs is if ones gun wouldn't feed HPs. Or if one lived in Jersey....<shudder>.

Flat Points. Not FMJ's.

And energy dump doesn't kill or else you'd die if hit wearing a bullet proof vest.

And whether the wound is .355 inches in diameter compared to .50 inches in diameter, blood loss will be the same. A millimeter or two makes no difference.

 

[Podmonkey]

Flat points are a kind of Full Metal Jacket. Handgun ammo does generate a shickwave, just not a very powerfull one. If a shockwave intersects the CNS it can cause an effect, including loss of consciousness. Also its not just about energy dump either, an FMJ that passes through its target has wasted its potential that energy could have gone into creating a bigger wound via expansion.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Dr. Martin Fackler, a Vietnam-era trauma surgeon, wound ballistics researcher, a Colonel in the U.S. Army and the head of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory for the U.S. Army’s Medical Training Center, Letterman Institute, claimed that hydrostatic shock had been disproved and that the assertion that a pressure wave plays a role in injury or incapacitation is a myth.[16] Others expressed similar views.[17][18]

Dr. Fackler based his argument on thelithotriptor, a tool commonly used to break up kidney stones. The lithotriptor uses sonic pressure waves which are stronger than those caused by most handgun bullets,[citation needed]yet it produces no damage to soft tissues whatsoever. Hence, Fackler argued, ballistic pressure waves cannot damage tissue either.[19]

Dr. Fackler claimed that a study of rifle bullet wounds in Vietnam (Wound Data and Munitions Effectiveness Team) found “no cases of bones being broken, or major vessels torn, that were not hit by the penetrating bullet. In only two cases, an organ that was not hit (but was within a few cm of the projectile path), suffered some disruption.” Dr. Fackler cited a personal communication with R. F. Bellamy.[16]However, Bellamy’s published findings the following year[20] estimated that 10% of fractures in the data set might be due to indirect injuries, and one specific case is described in detail (pp. 153–154). In addition, the published analysis documents five instances of abdominal wounding in cases where the bullet did not penetrate the abdominal cavity (pp. 149–152), a case of lung contusion resulting from a hit to the shoulder (pp. 146–149), and a case of indirect effects on the central nervous system (p. 155). Fackler's critics argue that Fackler's evidence does not contradict distant injuries, as Fackler claimed, but the WDMET data from Vietnam actually provides supporting evidence for it.[20][21]

 

[NirvanaFan]

the shock of a rifle round is great enough to create a permeant wound cavity that aids in the lethality, while a handgun doesn't(if does it's minimal). My argument is that the shock from a hand gun round doesn't help the lethality rather stops the target from anymore engagement. This factor is almost impossible to test for other than mathematically. I do believe it makes a huge difference in self defense. When I pull the trigger it's not to kill the guy the best, its to stop the guy efficiently. Lets face it there's probably no one alive that has been shot with the 2 different types of bullets that can attest to this phenomenon.

How wouldn't it? From the link I posted a little while ago.
"We also observed mild hemorrhaging along the abdominal walls and rear rib cage on the right side. This is the area directly opposite from the entrance wound, but several inches caudal (rearward) from the point where the bullet exited the rib cage. Thus this region was out of reach of both the permanent crush cavity and the temporary stretch cavity, and it seems that the most likely cause of the hemorrhaging was the pressure wave."
There was additional hemorrhaging related to the hydrostatic shock.

From page 8, the conclusions.
"Even without reference to the Strasbourg tests, our experiment in deer supports the pressure wave hypothesis. Comparing two bullets with comparable permanent crush cavity volumes demonstrates that the bullet with the larger pressure wave magnitude incapacitates significantly more quickly."

And whether the wound is .355 inches in diameter compared to .50 inches in diameter, blood loss will be the same. A millimeter or two makes no difference.

I disagree with that. It only takes a little bit more area to do more damage to an artery or vein, or nick another one.