Hollow Points VS. Solids

I am about to state something that goes against conventional (American) firearms wisdom, and will probably vilify myself in the eyes of many. Here it goes: for most handguns and handgun applications, full metal jacket (from here on FMJ) or "solid" projectiles that are not made to expand or fragment are superior to hollow pointed bullets or those designed to fragment.

Let's unpack that. First, what I stated I only believe true for handguns; this does not apply to rifles although the same operating principles are at work in both. Second, the word "most" is key as there are exceptions.

Before this article gets ahead of itself, a few working definitions are in order. "Solid" projectiles, with reference to firearms are usually lead bullets with an outer layer called a "jacket" that is made of another alloy - usually copper or cupronickel. Sometimes they do not have a jacket but rather are cast or swaged out of a single metal/alloy. That alloy is usually something harder than pure lead like copper, bronze, or most commonly - alloyed lead. These bullets are designed so as not to fragment or expand, though sometimes they do.

Hollow points are what the name implies - the front is designed with a cavity so when it hits tissue it expands. Though not the same, I would also put bullets that are designed to fragment in the same category for our purposes.

There are two schools of thought on this. The first is what some refer to as L.E./cop or American school of thought. The second is what some would call the military or European school of thought. I side with the second school of thought and for good reason.

American firearms enthusiasts typically hold to the law enforcement school of thought as many of the firearms, philosophies, etc. of American shooters are influenced by the large number of police agencies and officers in the U.S.A. This school of thought is very concerned with over penetration and with quick kills with few shots - one shot being the ideal number. Typically, "beat" cops engage their enemies at very close range. They also must account for every bullet - usually bullets shot in a heavily urban environment.

The European school of thought is more influenced by military type protocol and scenarios. Enemies are engaged at greater distances, and bullets are often obstructed by vehicles, flora, buildings, or heavy clothing. Penetration is valued more than in the other school and this is what makes the big difference between the two.

Firearms have been around for awhile now and there has been extensive testing done in all kinds of medium. Also, loads of statistical information from real world events have been recorded and one fact keeps coming up in all the data that has been collected: most bullets fail to adequately penetrate and this is especially true for handgun bullets. Penetration is what incapacitates. Penetration is what kills.

It should be stated that what I am advocating is already accepted gospel for small caliber handguns (normally anything smaller than a 9mm Parabellum/Luger). "Mouse gun" lovers already know that their .380's, .32's, and .22's of various assortment are hampered, not helped, by bullets that mushroom on impact.

Most people want hollow points for an obvious reason: a bigger wound channel is better. However, that bigger wound channel must reach vital organs or tear through a ton of tissue. If not, it might cause pain but it will fail to shut down an opponent. Even when a bullet does reach vitals like the lungs and heart it would do better to keep on going; the spine is behind all those organs. Also, it is possible with a few shots for an opponent to be incapacitated in seconds due to blood loss. As any hunter will tell you, an entry and an exit wound generate greater blood loss than an entry would alone.

All guns are lethal, its just a question of range and accuracy. A .22 behind the ear will kill but in order to shoot behind the ear you have got to be extremely close. The same principle holds true for other, larger bullets. A hollow point may adequately penetrate at a close distance of say 60 ft. but may fail to adequately penetrate beyond that. The same bullet, if it was an FMJ/solid, would have a greater range if all other factors are the same. Not only do FMJ bullets penetrate better, they usually have better in flight ballistics as well (though not always). This line of sight (range) issue is of paramount importance. With handguns, you can almost always see your enemy, in open ground, before you can hit him. He who has the greater EFFECTIVE range has a big advantage.

Lastly, it should be noted that in some cases FMJ bullets feed better in gas operated pistols. For manually operated handguns (revolvers and derringers) this is not an issue. Admittedly, in recent years, firearms and ammunition manufacturers have responded well towards the desire of the general public to reliably fire hollow point ammunition. It used to be that FMJ rounds were the only ones that would feed with any kind of reliability. The situation has improved greatly for hollow points in this regard, but FMJ's are still more reliable across a large spectrum of gas operated handguns.

As stated earlier, there are exceptions. Handguns that use rifle cartridges, or cartridges with very rifle-like performance (example .357 Magnum), will for some scenarios outperform solids. These rounds have enough muzzle energy and cross-sectional density to hit tissue, expand, and keep going. However, the laws or physics still apply and this ability to expand comes at the expense of range. Even with these cartridges, if long range, body armor, tough hide, or thick clothing are issues than an FMJ/solid may be the better way to go.

A possible third category, or compromise between the two, is ammunition that has a flat front end. These bullets vary in construction but truncated cones, wadcutters, semi-wadcutters, and the like typically generate more tissue damage compared to bottle nose or round nose bullets. These bullets do not expand but rather push tissue out of the way generating more damage. This is done at the expense of penetration, and in flight ballistics, but the sacrifices are small. Think of it as being hacked to death with a blunt axe verses a super sharp one.

The crux or the issue, and the argument, is under penetration is a bigger problem than over penetration. Most handgun bullets fail to kill with multiple torso shots, let alone one; those shots usually do not fully penetrate a given body. There is a connection. Consider that rifles are much better at killing and incapacitating yet most common rifle cartridges have considerably narrower diameters (wound channels) than most common handgun cartridges. Pistols have bigger wound channels and rifles penetrate better - winner rifles. I wrote about that too:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/346426/rifles_vs_pistols.html?cat=11

I am sure I will catch all kinds of flack for the above. That happens when you go against group think
. . . or "conventional wisdom". However, the science is there: penetration trumps wound diameter. Research and meditate on the issue and you too will find that for most handguns - boring FMJ ammunition is the way to go.