Not always of course (there are no givens in shootouts), but I read a study not that long ago that talked about law enforcement having major issues with JHP rounds. The big fuss was because thick clothing such as denim or leather or nylon jackets, things like that, were "clogging" up the actual hole in the hollow point bullet (thus causing it to not expand like it should).
This has not been true for 15 years at least. Every recommended duty load posted here and on most every other forum (authored by Doctor Gary Roberts who is both a Law Enforcement Professional/former military and is recognized as an expert in the field of ballistics) have been and continue to be tested against heavy clothing standards and are not considered viable if they cannot pass this test.
The only "passed" bullet that has occasional issues with heavy clothing is the Ranger T-series .45 ACP in standard pressure loads, due to occasional issues with jacket scoring not being deep enough. +P loads of the same bullet do not suffer this issue.
The study also found that JHP in these types of cases were having the exact same ballistics as FMJ rounds, thus defeating the purpose of having hollow points.
Not at all. The purpose of having a hollowpoint load is to take advantage of the expansion. If the bullet fails to expand, that does not change the ballistic capabilities of a bullet flying at X FPS with Y mass. The bullet doesn't disappear if it fails to expand.
As to the JHP having "the same ballistics as an FMJ" when they fail to penetrate, well, yes, since they will maintain a ball profile and not create a large, flat meplat that in turn causes larger tissue disruption. However, gel tests are not really conducive to discerning exact differences alone, so just saying the two are comparable in gel is not saying much other than the obvious.
All that being said, the faster a bullet moves through a target, the less damage it is going to do, right. Right. (This can clearly be confirmed if you ask anyone that has served in Iraq or Afghanistan). I'm no expert per say but if you ask me, I'd rather my bullet be HEAVY and SLOW than LIGHT and FAST.
Yes and no, and I'm not sure what exactly anyone serving in Iraq or Afghanistan is going to confirm for us on this topic.
I can tell you from having looked at a few thousand wounds now that "the faster a bullet moves through a target, the less damage it is going to do" is completely untrue.
Sparing everyone the gory details of exactly how a gelatinous mass of blood-saturated organ tissues responds to the impact and passage of a bullet, how tissue stretches and expands, and all of that, the basic fact is that the opposite is true.
Rifle projectiles are far more effective, for example, because of their velocity compared to handguns. Above 1900 FPS, temporary cavitation and hydrostatic shock from the bullet cause tissue damage by itself, causing more injury and bleeding than simply because of the passage of the bullet. This is easily observable, and well documented.
On the flip side of that, under 1900 FPS, projectile mass and velocity will show us penetration effects, and from the profile of the bullet we can grasp a rough idea of how well the bullet will damage tissue, but beyond that we really can't say.
We KNOW from medical fact that with handgun projectiles, temporary cavitation does not reach a sufficient severity to do damage to the tissue, leaving only the permanent crush cavity and the corresponding tissue damage as our wounding mechanic. We do not have the ability to measure with any fine detail the exact effects of handgun bullets to tissue beyond our ability to determine through gross study with any certainty.
There are many cases on record of small attackers surviving multiple shots from a .45 ACP, and likewise many cases of large attackers dying because of 9mm, .38, and .357 loads, thus belying the statement that Big and SLOW is preferable to Small and Fast.
Further, you cannot make any qualitative statements beyond gross observations from anecdotal cases because we simply don't have the data to measure with any accuracy what the wounding factors are and separate those from physical condition, psychological condition, and the many many other variables that come from human anatomy and its natural variation from human to human.
The idea being keep shooting till the threat is gone no matter what you use. There is no magic bullet.-Couldn't be more true.
Absolutely. There are far too many variables to say with certainty that any one load is a "magic bullet" or a "Death ray", despite some who desire to dub their pet loads as such.
In handgun bullets and loads listed as acceptable both in the links provided by a poster in this thread and in the "Self Defense and Duty Ammo" sticky at the top of this forum, are recommended because they are able to sufficiently penetrate the minimum required 12" of gel even when first presented with barriers, are capable of managing barriers such as heavy clothing, car doors and auto glass, and overall correspond with both a 90+% expansion reliability and exceedingly good results from actually being used against threats in the real world effectively.
There are many many good loads to choose from that show good penetration, good expansion, and do significant trauma to tissue that has been verified through thousands of real world shootings and medical data. Choose a load that works in your gun, and use it. Practice a great deal. There is no trick to this.