You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Dumb question
- Thread starter theaceco
- Start date
troy_mclure
New member
no bullet is "dangerous" as of its self. its the energy behind it that make it an effective tool.
hollow points are more effective on bringing down game(and BG) than solids/full metal jackets, due to the fact that they are designed to expand on impact. this does mainly 2 things: it creates a larger wound channel, imparts more of its energy into the target.
the larger wound channel causes more/faster blood loss, and by depositing more energy causes more damage to the target.
hollow points are more effective on bringing down game(and BG) than solids/full metal jackets, due to the fact that they are designed to expand on impact. this does mainly 2 things: it creates a larger wound channel, imparts more of its energy into the target.
the larger wound channel causes more/faster blood loss, and by depositing more energy causes more damage to the target.
Lost Sheep
New member
Hollowpoints?
theaceco,
Welcome to the forum.
Merry Christmas
The only dumb questions are the ones you don't ask.
My first advice to you is to only give credence to opinions expressed by people who explain the reasoning BEHIND their opinions.
How do you define "more dangerous"? How much injury is caused by the bulletste (Terminal ballistics or wound ballistics; Google the phrases.) or how likely death is to be caused by the bullets.
Some people believe full metal jacketed (FMJ) bullets are more deadly because (in most social shooting situations - that's people on people) one generally keeps shooting the shootee until the shootee quits doing what justified shooting in the first place. Hollowpoints generally take fewer hits to stop a person than solids, therefore fewer bulletholes. Less likely to cause death. More likely to cause dramatic, large wounds.
So, which is more dangerous? The ones that are more likely to cause traumatic injury or more likely to cause death?
Many police departments switched from round nose lead to hollowpoints because there were fewer fatal shootings and more successful perpetrator stops than before. You could argue that hollowpoints are less dangerous, despite each single hit being more injurious.
I choose hollowpoints because they are more EFFECTIVE at stopping illegal and threatening activity. Being less FATAL is a happy side-effect. Therefore, I opine that they are less dangerous to me.
Lost Sheep
Remember, only believe half of what you see and one quarter of what you hear. That goes double for what you get from the internet. Even this post. Maybe especially this post.
Do your own independent, confirming research when ANYONE gives you new facts on the web.
Also remember, even the idiotic stuff might have a kernel of truth buried in there somewhere.
Lost Sheep
disclaimer: I do not know you, so if my advice seems over-obvious, take into account my ignorance of your experience level. Also, other readers of all experience levels are reading.
theaceco,
Welcome to the forum.
Merry Christmas
The only dumb questions are the ones you don't ask.
You keep hearing that because you keep listening to people who don't explain themselves.theaceco said:I keep hearing that hallow points are fairly more dangerous than the usual bullets. Why?
My first advice to you is to only give credence to opinions expressed by people who explain the reasoning BEHIND their opinions.
How do you define "more dangerous"? How much injury is caused by the bulletste (Terminal ballistics or wound ballistics; Google the phrases.) or how likely death is to be caused by the bullets.
Some people believe full metal jacketed (FMJ) bullets are more deadly because (in most social shooting situations - that's people on people) one generally keeps shooting the shootee until the shootee quits doing what justified shooting in the first place. Hollowpoints generally take fewer hits to stop a person than solids, therefore fewer bulletholes. Less likely to cause death. More likely to cause dramatic, large wounds.
So, which is more dangerous? The ones that are more likely to cause traumatic injury or more likely to cause death?
Many police departments switched from round nose lead to hollowpoints because there were fewer fatal shootings and more successful perpetrator stops than before. You could argue that hollowpoints are less dangerous, despite each single hit being more injurious.
I choose hollowpoints because they are more EFFECTIVE at stopping illegal and threatening activity. Being less FATAL is a happy side-effect. Therefore, I opine that they are less dangerous to me.
Lost Sheep
Remember, only believe half of what you see and one quarter of what you hear. That goes double for what you get from the internet. Even this post. Maybe especially this post.
Do your own independent, confirming research when ANYONE gives you new facts on the web.
Also remember, even the idiotic stuff might have a kernel of truth buried in there somewhere.
Lost Sheep
disclaimer: I do not know you, so if my advice seems over-obvious, take into account my ignorance of your experience level. Also, other readers of all experience levels are reading.
Uncle Buck
New member
I choose hollowpoints because they are more EFFECTIVE at stopping illegal and threatening activity
I agree with you on this definition. But I know people who carry hollow points because they believe the shock alone will kill anyone who is hit by them.
Also, there are different types of hollow points on the market and each one performs a little differently. I do not know what others have heard, but I have been told the Air Marshals carry a very highly frangible hollow point bullet when flying. The reason is so if they have to shoot in the aircraft and for some reason miss, they do not puncture the aircraft skin and cause depressurization.
How the round is loaded also makes a difference. (Amount of powder in the casing.)
but I have been told the Air Marshals carry a very highly frangible hollow point bullet when flying. The reason is so if they have to shoot in the aircraft and for some reason miss, they do not puncture the aircraft skin and cause depressurization.
FYI,not true. Air Marshall's carry hollow points and bullet holes in the fuselage of a plane will not cause some type of catastrophic decompression. This information I got directly from conversations with Air Marshall's and a Senior Accident Investigator for the NTSB.
357 Python
New member
As a Police Officer I have to use the duty ammo issued by the agency. We're issued Beretta 92FS pistols with 115 gr. FMJ rounds. Off duty we can carry what ever we want with whatever ammo we want. The agency has no official policy other than when not on the job you are a private citizen just like every one else. I prefer hollow points in all my personal firearms. The objective is not to kill but to stop an attacker from continueing the violent criminal activity. The hollow point bullet is believed to have a better chance of doing this.
Expanding / Hollow Point bullets
Do work better, for many applications. For others, solids (cast, or even FMJ) are preferred. For hunting, game laws specify what kinds of bullets are allowable. Generally, expanding bullets of some type are required, and for sporting purposes, cast lead is also considered "expanding", even if the reality is somewhat different. Full Metal Jacket bullets are (generally) not allowed for hunting.
As others have explained, hollow points expand the area of bullet effect, and so, are more effective than a non-expanding bullet in the same spot. In simplest terms, when a hollowpoint expands, it becomes in effect, a bigger bullet.
While the fact that using hollowpoints often means that fewer shots are needed to stop an adversary, (and the fewer non-lethal holes in a person, the more likely modern medicine is able to preserve their life), this fact is not the reason the change was made. Nor was officer safety and preservation the driving force either, although that is also a benefit of hollow point use.
The change to using hollowpoints came about finally, because of one thing. Politics. And by that, I mean the politics of perception, within police management. The hollowpoint bullet is not a new thing. Not even remotely. For more than the past century, police could have been using hollow points, yet they did not. Because they were not allowed to, by their political masters, the police chiefs. Police chiefs/mayors/etc. did not allow their officers to carry hollow points, due to their belief that the public perception of the police using hollowpoints would be that the police were "killers".
Officers were "always" lost during the performance of their duty, it was one of the recognised, and accepted risks of the job. To those making the decision, arguments from the officers about increased effectiveness of hollowpoints did not carry as much weight as their fears of unpopular public reaction. And they held this view for genrations, because the public could see the ammo the officers carried.
Back when virtually all police carried revolvers, their spare ammo was carried in loops on their belts, open to public view. Even after the police switched over to dump pouches or speedloaders for their carry ammo the attitude of "no hollowpoints, they scare the public" persisted for a long time. It wasn't until police began switching over to semiauto pistols (where the ammo in the spare magazines could not be seen) that this entrenched attitude on the part of police managment finally went away.
Once this roadblock was finally overcome, and hollowpoints became general use, their benefits in officer safety, and survivability became widely recognised, and the public's (and police management's) attitude has changed, as reality finally sinks in. It could have been done generations ago, and many fine officers who are gone would likely have not had their lives cut short, but politics (including internal police politics) always seems to lag behind reality at least somewhat.
It is a good thing that the attitude today is so much different, with officer safety and effectivness being much more important to the public, and the police policy makers.
Blowing out a window in a jet airliner will cause a loss of pressure, and the oxygen masks will drop down, but it will not (and cannot) cause people to be sucked out of the plane, like one sees in the movies. It is not like opening the airlock on a spaceship. Planes are pressurised, but the difference between inside and outside is not very much, comparatively. And the pressure inside changes (notice how your ears pop?) airplanes leak air all the time. It supposed to be that way. A number of years back, one airliner lost 12 FEET of cabin roof! One person, a stewardess, who happened to be standing directly underneath, was sucked out. No one else was, and the plane did not crash!
The real reason Air Marshals carry frangible ammo is not that there are worries about shooting through the skin of the plane, but worries about shooting through the hijacker/terrorist/bad guy, seats/cabin walls, and hitting the pilot or cockpit controls, or other innocent passengers.
Do work better, for many applications. For others, solids (cast, or even FMJ) are preferred. For hunting, game laws specify what kinds of bullets are allowable. Generally, expanding bullets of some type are required, and for sporting purposes, cast lead is also considered "expanding", even if the reality is somewhat different. Full Metal Jacket bullets are (generally) not allowed for hunting.
As others have explained, hollow points expand the area of bullet effect, and so, are more effective than a non-expanding bullet in the same spot. In simplest terms, when a hollowpoint expands, it becomes in effect, a bigger bullet.
Actually, this is only partly true.Many police departments switched from round nose lead to hollowpoints because there were fewer fatal shootings and more successful perpetrator stops than before.
While the fact that using hollowpoints often means that fewer shots are needed to stop an adversary, (and the fewer non-lethal holes in a person, the more likely modern medicine is able to preserve their life), this fact is not the reason the change was made. Nor was officer safety and preservation the driving force either, although that is also a benefit of hollow point use.
The change to using hollowpoints came about finally, because of one thing. Politics. And by that, I mean the politics of perception, within police management. The hollowpoint bullet is not a new thing. Not even remotely. For more than the past century, police could have been using hollow points, yet they did not. Because they were not allowed to, by their political masters, the police chiefs. Police chiefs/mayors/etc. did not allow their officers to carry hollow points, due to their belief that the public perception of the police using hollowpoints would be that the police were "killers".
Officers were "always" lost during the performance of their duty, it was one of the recognised, and accepted risks of the job. To those making the decision, arguments from the officers about increased effectiveness of hollowpoints did not carry as much weight as their fears of unpopular public reaction. And they held this view for genrations, because the public could see the ammo the officers carried.
Back when virtually all police carried revolvers, their spare ammo was carried in loops on their belts, open to public view. Even after the police switched over to dump pouches or speedloaders for their carry ammo the attitude of "no hollowpoints, they scare the public" persisted for a long time. It wasn't until police began switching over to semiauto pistols (where the ammo in the spare magazines could not be seen) that this entrenched attitude on the part of police managment finally went away.
Once this roadblock was finally overcome, and hollowpoints became general use, their benefits in officer safety, and survivability became widely recognised, and the public's (and police management's) attitude has changed, as reality finally sinks in. It could have been done generations ago, and many fine officers who are gone would likely have not had their lives cut short, but politics (including internal police politics) always seems to lag behind reality at least somewhat.
It is a good thing that the attitude today is so much different, with officer safety and effectivness being much more important to the public, and the police policy makers.
They do carry frangible ammo, but the myth of a bullet hole (or several) causing depressurization is just that, a myth. An important plot device in the James Bond movie Goldfinger, but a hollywood myth, just like so many others.Air Marshals carry a very highly frangible hollow point bullet when flying. The reason is so if they have to shoot in the aircraft and for some reason miss, they do not puncture the aircraft skin and cause depressurization.
Blowing out a window in a jet airliner will cause a loss of pressure, and the oxygen masks will drop down, but it will not (and cannot) cause people to be sucked out of the plane, like one sees in the movies. It is not like opening the airlock on a spaceship. Planes are pressurised, but the difference between inside and outside is not very much, comparatively. And the pressure inside changes (notice how your ears pop?) airplanes leak air all the time. It supposed to be that way. A number of years back, one airliner lost 12 FEET of cabin roof! One person, a stewardess, who happened to be standing directly underneath, was sucked out. No one else was, and the plane did not crash!
The real reason Air Marshals carry frangible ammo is not that there are worries about shooting through the skin of the plane, but worries about shooting through the hijacker/terrorist/bad guy, seats/cabin walls, and hitting the pilot or cockpit controls, or other innocent passengers.
oldman1946
New member
I carry and use JHP exclusively, even on the range. Having seen them used successfully several times, I feel better with them.
IMHO, shot placement is more ciritcal than bullet type.
IMHO, shot placement is more ciritcal than bullet type.
ursavus.elemensis
New member
The info above seems to suggest that the bad guy will have a more likely chance to survive if the innocent crime victim (armed good guy) uses hollow points.
I wonder if the decision about carrying FMJ or JHP should be made based on the caliber and the barrel length. I usually carry a S&W 642, .38 Special with 125 grain JHP. Thankfully, I've never had to use my gun to protect myself from a deadly threat. I have read and heard debates that say that JHP in this size barrel will actually function as a FMJ anyway, on the idea that the bullet may not gain enough velocity and the hollow cavity may get plugged up with clothing and body tissue. I wonder if instead of acting like a FMJ, the JHP might actually be significantly less likely to penetrate at all compared to RNFP FMJ. I even wonder if 9 mm is better off with FMJ compared to JHP for the same reason. On the other hand, with a .357 Magnum, it probably is much better to use JHP compared to FMJ.
I have wondered for a long time if I should take out my JHP carry ammo and replace it with 125 grain FMJ.
I wonder if the decision about carrying FMJ or JHP should be made based on the caliber and the barrel length. I usually carry a S&W 642, .38 Special with 125 grain JHP. Thankfully, I've never had to use my gun to protect myself from a deadly threat. I have read and heard debates that say that JHP in this size barrel will actually function as a FMJ anyway, on the idea that the bullet may not gain enough velocity and the hollow cavity may get plugged up with clothing and body tissue. I wonder if instead of acting like a FMJ, the JHP might actually be significantly less likely to penetrate at all compared to RNFP FMJ. I even wonder if 9 mm is better off with FMJ compared to JHP for the same reason. On the other hand, with a .357 Magnum, it probably is much better to use JHP compared to FMJ.
I have wondered for a long time if I should take out my JHP carry ammo and replace it with 125 grain FMJ.
Three main types of wounds
There are three main types of bullet wounds. Fatal (either instantly or within a very short time), Life Threatening (meaning that prompt medical attention is needed to keep you alive), and Other. Other can range from a flesh wound scratch to shots through muscle and bone, but without major organ damage or arterial bleeding (which would be life threatening).
Now, all three can stop an opponent. Fatal/life threatening hits stop attackers who don't want to stop. Other wounds can stop attackers, if they choose to stop (and a great many do). The object of defensive shooting is to STOP the attack. Whether the attacker lives or dies as a result of being stopped is, and should be, of no concern until after the attack has been positively stopped.
Hollowpoints (when they work) do more damage than FMJ, and so, are more likely to produce a wound (in the "other" category) that convinces an attacker to stop. Being shot once or twice with JHP ("other" category hits) is more survivable that being shot 7 or 8 times with FMJ. In that regard, hollowpoints are more "humane".
Hollowpoints that fail to expand (for whatever reason) tend to perform just like RN bullets. They will have similar penetration to RN FMJ, and do similar damage. The only reason not to use hollowpoints for defense is if they jam in your gun. If they expand properly, fine. If they expand a little, that's still a plus. If they fail to expand at all, you are still no worse off than if you were using FMJ.
There are three main types of bullet wounds. Fatal (either instantly or within a very short time), Life Threatening (meaning that prompt medical attention is needed to keep you alive), and Other. Other can range from a flesh wound scratch to shots through muscle and bone, but without major organ damage or arterial bleeding (which would be life threatening).
Now, all three can stop an opponent. Fatal/life threatening hits stop attackers who don't want to stop. Other wounds can stop attackers, if they choose to stop (and a great many do). The object of defensive shooting is to STOP the attack. Whether the attacker lives or dies as a result of being stopped is, and should be, of no concern until after the attack has been positively stopped.
Hollowpoints (when they work) do more damage than FMJ, and so, are more likely to produce a wound (in the "other" category) that convinces an attacker to stop. Being shot once or twice with JHP ("other" category hits) is more survivable that being shot 7 or 8 times with FMJ. In that regard, hollowpoints are more "humane".
Hollowpoints that fail to expand (for whatever reason) tend to perform just like RN bullets. They will have similar penetration to RN FMJ, and do similar damage. The only reason not to use hollowpoints for defense is if they jam in your gun. If they expand properly, fine. If they expand a little, that's still a plus. If they fail to expand at all, you are still no worse off than if you were using FMJ.
Edward429451
Moderator
hollow points are more effective on bringing down game
Easy with those blanket statements. Game would depend on exactly what game you were talking about, and there is a lot of Game out there that it would be stupid to go after with hollowpoints.
chris in va
New member
As a Police Officer I have to use the duty ammo issued by the agency. We're issued Beretta 92FS pistols with 115 gr. FMJ rounds.
FMJ?? That's nuts. Why would a police department issue what equates to the M9, right down to the ammo? I'd be asking to use my own firearm in that situation.