Hollowpoint bullets

[amitc]

Hi,

I am new to shooting and firearms as such. A simple question, how is hollowpoint ammunition different? I saw some for a .22 handgun.

Thanks
Amit

[CITADELGRAD87]

Well, let me try to explain.

The transmission of energy into the target, along with the actual wound inflicted, are factors in how "effective" any given round is.

You probably already know that the bigger the bullet, the more potential for damage, ie a .45 should be more effective than a .25, partly because of the size of the bullet as it makes the wound track.

A hollow point is supposed to open to an even larger diameter than the origional caliber of the round upon contacting the target(depending on what it is, ie, it won't open when it hits a paper target, but should open when it hits a metro phone book.) The larger diameter means a bigger hole, therefore more wound damage. If it works right, it's been said to have mushroomed, from the shape it takes. It is caused by the cavity in the front of the bullet, the soft interior of the bulet, and the relatively hard jacket.

Second, a larger diameter bullet transfers more energy into the target rather than pass straight through. .22s are notorious for screaming right through and leaving the target with lots of wasted energy, ie energy that was not transferred into the target. This is parly due to both high velocity and small frontal area, ie little drag passing through the target.

Some weapons will not reliably feed hollowpoint ammo because of the different front shape resulting from the cavity. This can often be fixed by a competent gunsmith.

In a .22, I really don't know if hollowpoints reliably open.

Hope I answered what you were asking.

[This message has been edited by CITADELGRAD87 (edited September 22, 2000).]

[amitc]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CITADELGRAD87:
Hope I answered what you were asking.
[/quote]
Yes and quite well. Thanks.

Also from this, I gather it is not really required for target practise. Especially on a .22 handgun.
And is typically used to make a self-defence gun more effective.

[sjones]

If you use a full metal jacket(ball) the same weight as your hollow point,it should hit the target at the same place,allowing you to shoot more for less money than hollow points. Be sure to test out the hollow points that you intend to carry though,to make sure they function reliably in your pistol. Have fun and be safe. sj

[WalterGAII]

While the explanation of hollow points is correct, the assumption that hollow points are not appropriate for target shooting is not correct. Many match bullets, eg., Bergers, Starke's, Sierra hollow point boat tail match, are hollow points.

[Ledbetter]

Greetings,

A lot of .22 ammo is hollowpoint. One gunshop in my area carries Winshester hollowpoint .22, and the other shop carries Winchester FMJ .22. Same general price. The round points are better for target shooting, IMHO, due to better feeding reliability. I assume they are more aerodynamic.

Regards.

[RWK]

Amtic,

One additional piece of information, which I hope will complement the excellent posts already provided in this thread.

Obviously, much firearms research and development results directly from military activities. However, the Geneva Convention on Land Warfare specifies the use of "ball" or full metal jacket (FMJ) ammunition. This is due to the less horrific wounds associated with FMJ rounds throughout much of the last century. In essence, ball ammunition tends to cleanly pass-through as contrasted to "mushrooming" and/or tumbling. As powerful as the .30 round was in WWI, WWII and Korea, in the late '50s/early '60s researchers developed "assault rifles", which were first widely employed during Vietnam. The rounds for these weapons (the .223 for example) were lighter and faster in comparison to previous generally used combat ammunition. In addition, the weapon and ammunition weighed a lot less than its predecessors (always a major infantryman's plus). The speed and relatively small caliber of the assault rifle rounds provided increased energy-delivery -- plus the FMJ bullet tended to tumble in the body to a far greater degree than earlier standard-issue rifle ammunition. This tumbling action essentially created enlarged wound channels, without violation of the Geneva Convention's strictures re FMJ loads.

[This message has been edited by RWK (edited September 24, 2000).]

[Skorzeny]

Hmmm.

I was under the impression that, contrary to popular belief, Geneva Convention did not specify FMJ ammunition for war.

I believe it was the Hague Convention that banned the use of "Dum Dum" bullets (so named because they were produced by the British in the Dum Dum Arsenal to make bullets more lethal against the NW Frontier natives).

I believe that Dum Dum bullet was nothing more than a flat-nosed soft lead bullet that tended to expand or fragment once entering the body. It was not a modern jacketed hollowpoint as we see in the commercial market today.

What is more, I believe that the US never signed and ratified the Hague Convention.

Skorzeny

------------------
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu

[Skorzeny]

Oh, one more thing...

The "assault" weapon ammunition (intermediate cartridge) was pioneered by the Germans.

During the latter stages of WWII, the Germans came up with a selective fire "assault" rifle (Sturmgewehr) chambered for a shortened cartridge (7.92 Kurz as opposed to the 7.92 Mauser). It was called MP44 and later StG44. The name "assault rifle" (Sturmgewehr) was coined by Adolf Hitler himself.

After detailed analysis of fire fights, the Germans decided that the "typical" fire fights took place within 300 yards and that the lethality, long-range accuracy and weight of the traditional rifle ammo were "over-kill." Shortened ammo provided "enough" lethality while allowing selective fire weapons and lighter ammo, which were important traits for mobile battles of the Eastern Front.

MP/StG44 was later copied by the Soviets into the AK-47 (7.62x39, which is a shortened version of their 7.62x54 Mosin-Nagant).

The US doggedly held onto the full rifle cartridges (.30-06 then .308) until Vietnam and switched to an even smaller cartridge of even higher velocity (5.56x45). Since then, most "free" world forces have switched to this cartridge. The Soviets eventually followed with 5.45x39 (thinner still of 7.62x39), which is used for the AK-74 variants.

Skorzeny

------------------
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu

[LIProgun]

Whether "the transmission of energy into the target" is a factor in the "effectiveness" of handgun ammunition is debatable. I am aware of no scientific studies conclusively establising this, or even persuasively arguing it.

Moreover, the available evidence seems to run counter to this assertion. Many people have been shot with handguns, and even rifled shotgun slugs, while wearing body armor. In the cases where the projectiles were stopped by the armor, the target doubtless received 100% "transmission of energy." Not only do lots of people in this situation suffer only minor blunt trauma, plenty of them never even knew they were hit.

If transmission of handgun-level energy was a real phenomenon, I think the after-action reports from body armor shootings would be quite different.

Also, as noted, the Geneva Convention has nothing to do with hollowpoint ammo. The "Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets" adopted at the First Hague Peace Conference of 1899 states, "The contracting parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions."

However, the U.S. did sign on to the 1907 Hague Convention which bans "projectiles ... calculated to cause unnecessary suffering."

For more detail, see:
http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-hague.html

[CITADELGRAD87]

LIProgun--

I thought that many shootings involving soft armor result in serious trauma such as heavy bruising, broken ribs, internal injuries ,etc.

I know that I have seen at least one color picture of an LEO's ribcage with some serious bruising after his vest stopped a shot. We are talking about a few hundred foot pounds.

On the other hand, I guess we could ask the guy who shoots himself in the stomach to demonstrate his product, he seems no worse for the wear. I think he owns Second Chance.

[LIProgun]

CITADELGRAD87 is absolutely correct. Some body armor shootings do result in severe trauma.

When I wrote, "Not only do lots of people in this situation suffer only minor blunt trauma, plenty of them never even knew they were hit." I did not mean this happens in all cases. My point was simply that enough times we have seen the "energy transfer" take place but have little, if any, noticable effect on the person hit.

If "energy transfer" was a real factor in the effectiveness of a bullet, I think we'd see different, and consistent, results in these "compelete energy transfer" scenarios.

[Skorzeny]

I'd like to suggest a hypothesis:

If a person is shot (without wearing a body armor), the energy would be transferred to a very small portion of the body, which would suffer the full effect of the trauma.

If a person is shot while wearing a body armor, the "full energy" would be transferred to the body/armor, but the energy would be dispersed to a larger body area by the armor.

In addition, there is the fact that an unarmored person would suffer blood loss, internal damage AND psychological trauma (from being shot while unarmored).

Just a thought...

Skorzeny

------------------
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu