Hollow Point versus Ball: does it really matter for self defense?

Quote. FMJ tends to pass through, risking the lives of others.

Most people will be hit by rounds that miss the target than shoot trough. Example the police shooting in new york recently. So how can is be safer for others hit by expanding ammo that has missed the intended target. :confused: The shoot trough argument doesn't stand up.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you can compare animals with humans as some are. Some animals will run on with the heart destroyed by a rifle bullet. I doubt if any humans would do the same.
Click to expand...

Of course they will. A person might not run as far as a deer, but that's because a deer runs faster than a person and can cover more distance before its muscles run out of oxygen.

I'd say a person is more likely to stop- because he knows he's been shot. But that doesn't mean he has to.
 
Quote. I'd say a person is more likely to stop- because he knows he's been shot. But that doesn't mean he has to.

There are plenty of examples of animals running on after their heart being destroyed i am sure plenty on this forum have witnessed it. Give me a example of a person continuing on fighting after having their heart destroyed by a rifle bullet.
 
yes it does matter, and it isn't only about the hollow points. There is cheap ammo out there that is really good for practice but some people think it is just as good as better ammo which it isn't. I could be wrong but in my opinion this is sometimes why you hear about someone living after being shot 5 or 6 times(this last sentence is a guess).
 
If memory serves me correctly, there was a time when the 9mm bullet in JHP didn't expand quit as well as the current 9mm bullet. Many people and some LE agency's had a hard time converting to the 9mm back then for lack of expansion and over penetration. Over time, the construction/design of the 9mm JHP bullet has come a long way as far as doing its job and expanding with better consistency. When that happened, more LE and other gov't agencies started carrying the 9mm. As we all know, today many use them.

IMO, not only have great advances been made in the design of the 9mm JHP bullet to help insure expansion but most all JHP SD handgun bullet's as well. Again, IMO, today's SD JHP bullets ,although are not yet 100%, have the best success rate of expansion then ever in history and it's a 'no brainer' whether to use them.

YMMV
 
I think realistically it would not matter whether you used FMJ of JHP if proper shot placement is used i.e. head, chest, torso. If you shot someone in the head it probably would not matter what bullet you used.

But ideally, yes JHP would be more effective. Any advantage with a pistol bullet is always good. Otherwise I'd use a shotgun with 00Buck or a Rifle
 
well that's just it; if you don't hit a vital organ one round has much less of a chance to be fatal(in some instances...depends on the particular ammo)
 
There are plenty of examples of animals running on after their heart being destroyed i am sure plenty on this forum have witnessed it. Give me a example of a person continuing on fighting after having their heart destroyed by a rifle bullet.
Click to expand...

I can tell you of one rather recent example of an aggressor continuing the fight after being hit multiple times, to include one with a .223 passing from right to left thereby destroying the heart and portions of both lungs. He was still struggling when being handcuffed and had fired his weapon again after being hit that last time. If you want details or a link just PM me Manta.

The guy was high as a cat on crack cocaine and meth to be sure, but it is not like that is unheard of with criminals.
 
Ammo: It's always being reinvented by new claims as being bigger, better, faster. Kind of reminds me of the mouse trap inventor. He who claims they've invented a new mouse trap wins the public's eye for a time till there's another new claim and another. Motto: Tried and true will always prevail when one has the ability to make a informed decision. It's just hard at times to see our way thru the smoke screen is all.

S/S
 
Last edited:
In a hurried situation most don't aim and their preference is a H.P. known for its tissue destruction verses a military or police action. Those men in uniform. They prefer weapons function and reliability in their use of FMJ. Those fellows are known to shoot accurately and more often to get the results they want/need.
Click to expand...
AFAIK almost all LE officers in the USA have used expanding bullets for their duty ammo for about the last 30-40 years.

IIRC the hit rate in shooting incidents involving ordinary patrol officers- as opposed to SWAT team actions- is not that different from civilian SD/HD incidents.

Military use of FMJ is due to several reasons which have been covered extensively in past threads, but I'll try to summarize them quickly.

The first is that the laws of war under the Hague Convention prohibit the use of expanding ammo when "lawful combatants" are fighting one another. The second is that infantry combat generally involves far more rounds fired over a longer period of time than civilian or LE shootings (more about this in a moment), so reliability is paramount. The third is that the nature of most military shootouts is fundamentally different than most SD/HD/LE incidents; it often involves a group of people trying to dig another group of people out from behind cover at much longer ranges- usually 50m+ vs. across the room. The extra penetration of FMJ does a better job of blasting through vegetation and lightly-constructed buildings than JHP in these situations. Finally, an individual shooter in military combat is generally subject to little or no direct civil or criminal liability for inadvertent civilian casualties in the combat zone.

One last note about hit rates: have you seen statistics from any recent military conflict? The number of rounds fired per enemy casualty is usually in the high 4 figures! :eek:
Winchesters Black Talon is ATF ban. While Remingtons Golden Saber wasn't.
Click to expand...
This is another topic that has been covered in depth elsewhere, but I'll try to summarize it.

The Black Talon was never banned by the ATF. It was voluntarily dropped by the manufacturer because of bad publicity; anti-gun political factions managed to convince some powerful people that it was unusually lethal and/or armor-piercing, when neither was actually true. However, due to the public hubbub, Olin/Winchester decided it was more expedient to rename it "Ranger SXT" and drop the ominous-looking black packaging, "evil" name, and the so-called "armor piercing Teflon" (actually black Lubalox) bullet coating, which was actually intended to reduce barrel wear, but didn't really work very well in practice.

The ATF did in fact ban armor-piercing pistol ammo in the aftermath of the Black Talon controversy, but the actual regulations wound up being much less restrictive and all-encompassing than what the anti-gun factions wanted, and were not directly related to the discontinuation of Black Talons.
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen any recent statistics about rounds fired in combat. Where can I find them. And by the way, all that matters is whether you win or lose, not how many rounds it took.
 
Ops I stand corrected. Being I never read the many reports you Sir have. I've been in era for many years then. I only wrote what I thought to be true and concise with the information I was given or read first hand. As far as police duty rounds (choice) probably at the time of or before their switching from wheel to semi-auto's indeed may have initiated departmental changes I wasn't aware of. (That I consider an honest mistake on my part. I'm sorry, I wasn't in the loop)
As far a Black Talon ammo. At the time when it was being hotly debated. Many wondered why the need for such type ammunition be made available for civilian purchase. I know at the time there was talk of it being ban Sir. Whether removal from the shelves and done voluntarily or chance an outright ban for Winchester. Winchester (according to you) no doubt chose the lesser of two evils. (More likely I'm sure it was at the behest of many Public & (LE) officials they having and exerting a lot of their influence is the true reason for Winchesters decision like you've said.) Because of packaging and marketing techniques that's a matter of opinion I believe and open to debate. Thanks for your time Sir. I appreciate your effort in trying to enlighten me.
 
There are plenty of examples of animals running on after their heart being destroyed i am sure plenty on this forum have witnessed it. Give me a example of a person continuing on fighting after having their heart destroyed by a rifle bullet.
Click to expand...

I don't think he was disagreeing with you. Purely theoretical here, but as long as there is oxygenated blood in the muscles and brain, someone could still act. The only sure "one shot stop" would be to sever the spinal column, since that would prevent the brain from giving instructions to the rest of the body.

I'm not saying there is a case of someone's heart being destroyed, and still fighting on, but from a theoretical standpoint, it's possible.

EDIT: To add to this, for those that say shoot through isn't an issue. According to Massad Ayoob in The Gun Digest Book of Concealed Carry, he concluded that in 1995 and 1996, 46% of bystanders who were shot by the NYPD (they didn't switch to HP until 1998) were due to shoot through (either through a person, or an object). Not saying this is conclusive, but shows that the possibility is there.

More on this, as to why HP ammo is going to be better in most cases, in the same book, Ayoob talks about the last high profile shooting before the NYPD switched to HP ammo. 4 officers engaged a man who they thought was pulling a gun. In 5 seconds, 41 rounds were fired. 19 rounds hit the man. 16 of the 19 hits passed right through. There's some interesting conclusions here.

First, of the 41 shots fired, only THREE ended up staying in their intended backstop. This left 38 rounds that could have potentially passed through the man and hit a bystander. Assuming HP's were used, and the same number of rounds were fired, it can be safely assumed that close to 19 of the 19 hits would have stayed in their intended backstop (and if they passed through, they would likely not have the energy to do any serious damage). This left 22 rounds that could have hit a bystander. Not a great number, but that's still about 42% fewer rounds that could have injured or killed someone.

The last assumption here, is it's VERY likely, this man wouldn't have needed 19 rounds to stop him if they were using HP. This means less lead flying through the air. Meaning there shouldn't have been 19 holes in this man. This meant fewer rounds fired, meaning fewer misses.

I know that I am making some assumptions here, but if you look at the history of police and personal defense use of HP vs Ball, you'll see that HP are safer for the person shooting them (quicker stops) and safer for innocent bystanders.

Now, would I want to be shot by either? No way. But I'm willing to pay a little extra to ensure that myself and my family are safe. I'll leave the ball ammo for the range.
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen any recent statistics about rounds fired in combat. Where can I find them.
Click to expand...
I've read several books about military logistics and can't really remember exactly where I read this. :o I'll get back to you...
And by the way, all that matters is whether you win or lose, not how many rounds it took.
Click to expand...
The interesting aspect is that numerous studies by the USA, UK, and the former Soviet Union in the aftermath of WWII revealed a strong correlation between victory in an engagement and a larger number of rounds fired per soldier. :D The widespread deployment of lightweight, select-fire, small-caliber infantry rifles was a direct outgrowth of these studies; the smaller cartridges allow a soldier to carry more of them while making the rifle less fatiguing to fire repeatedly, and they're cheaper and easier to manufacture and distribute to the front lines in massive quantities. :)
I know at the time there was talk of it being ban Sir. Whether removal from the shelves and done voluntarily or chance an outright ban for Winchester. Winchester (according to you) no doubt chose the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...
+1. In addition to the menacing packaging, IIRC Winchester had engaged in an aggressive ad campaign that touted the Black Talon's lethality; most gun and ammo companies have since toned down their marketing rather than risking a rehash of this episode.
 
WE had a victim in a local shooting here who took 10 rounds of UMC FMJ .40 cal from a Sig 229, all torso hits and lived. I know this is probably a one in a million stroke of dumb luck kind of incident but I can't help but wonder of the results would have been different if the shooter had used quality SD ammo. Don't feel bad for anybody here, it was rival motorcycle gang incident.
 
I the words of Chuck Schumer ,the Black Talon "hooks into the flesh " ! It was just part of the anti-gun thing and it was a poor choice for the name .

The whole 'stopping power thing involves the nervous system .Drugs can greatly alter the nervous system .Try to stop someone on meth , LSD, PCP ,the new 'Bath salts'.The rule then is shoot and continue to shoot until the BG is no longer a threat !!

Having been around for a long time I can tell you that there has been a great improvement in bullet design.Some early JHPs wouldn't expand even if they hit a rock !! Others would open on anything !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top