Question about hollow point bullets

[Azndude51]

I was watching a show where a cop was shot. They mentioned that the bullet was a hollow point round and that it went straight through the vest. I thought hollow points were poor at penetrating armor. How likely is it that a FHP bullet from a handgun penetrates a cop's vest? I thought FMJ rounds were armor piercing, but I don't know much about guns besides what I see/hear from games and movies.

 

[Mik3y]

hollow points are very poor at penetrating armor. what they do is dig into your flesh and flatten among impact, thus causing some serious damage to your tissues.

 

[Sphexi]

FMJ bullets do not distort when fired or hit their target, and therefore do a better job of piercing different types of armor. They're also more likely to simply injure someone rather than kill them, which is why they're used in warefare a lot.

Hollow points on the other hand flatten out and increase the energy of the impact, basically ensuring that you'll die if hit. I don't know if you've ever been shot while wearing a vest, but even with the best armor on you can still die if hit in the right spot, the energy transferred from the bullet is enough to rupture organs without even going into your body.

 

[EMPshockwave82]

Originally posted by: Sphexi
FMJ bullets do not distort when fired or hit their target, and therefore do a better job of piercing different types of armor. They're also more likely to simply injure someone rather than kill them, which is why they're used in warefare a lot.

Hollow points on the other hand flatten out and increase the energy of the impact, basically ensuring that you'll die if hit. I don't know if you've ever been shot while wearing a vest, but even with the best armor on you can still die if hit in the right spot, the energy transferred from the bullet is enough to rupture organs without even going into your body.

This guy knows what he's talking about.... or it seems like it to me

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: Sphexi
FMJ bullets do not distort when fired or hit their target, and therefore do a better job of piercing different types of armor. They're also more likely to simply injure someone rather than kill them, which is why they're used in warefare a lot.

Hollow points on the other hand flatten out and increase the energy of the impact, basically ensuring that you'll die if hit. I don't know if you've ever been shot while wearing a vest, but even with the best armor on you can still die if hit in the right spot, the energy transferred from the bullet is enough to rupture organs without even going into your body.

Very true. :thumbsup:

 

[DaFinn]

What kind of vest? Cops use a lot basic "underware" vests that offer protection against knives and such, but no real protection against bullets. That said, hollow point is extremely unlikely to penetrate any kind of vest.

 

[LTC8K6]

One fairly common problem with hollow point bullets is their tendency to fill up with material that they impact, such as clothing. The material can "fill in" the hollow point and cause the bullet to act like a regular solid or FMJ round.

 

[Sphexi]

Originally posted by: DaFinn
What kind of vest? Cops use a lot basic "underware" vests that offer protection against knives and such, but no real protection against bullets. That said, hollow point is extremely unlikely to penetrate any kind of vest.

No, they're not designed or likely to penetrate a vest. But they are designed to flatten when hitting a soft target (like kevlar) which can cause a much higher energy impact than a standard bullet. Probably won't make much of a difference, but it may mean the difference between a bruise and a broken rib if you happen to get shot in the chest, and in some people maybe a bit more damage.

Then again without a vest, a hollow point will create a lovely entry hole, and an exit hole probably 2 to 3 times the size. That's why we don't use them in warfare, and haven't for over 100 years now, it's considered wrong and inhumane since very few people survive solid hits from them.

 

[Analog]

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Then again without a vest, a hollow point will create a lovely entry hole, and an exit hole probably 2 to 3 times the size. That's why we don't use them in warfare, and haven't for over 100 years now, it's considered wrong and inhumane since very few people survive solid hits from them.

Actually, we don't use them in warfare because they're against the Geneva Convention, as also is using a bayonet with a blood groove...

 

[Sphexi]

Originally posted by: yellowfiero

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Then again without a vest, a hollow point will create a lovely entry hole, and an exit hole probably 2 to 3 times the size. That's why we don't use them in warfare, and haven't for over 100 years now, it's considered wrong and inhumane since very few people survive solid hits from them.

Actually, we don't use them in warfare because they're against the Geneva Convention, as also is using a bayonet with a blood groove...

Wrong convention ...look back the amount of time I pointed out. The whole reason they were banned is because of the damage they do, getting hit with a regular bullet means that someone might live, getting hit with a hollow point drops that chance by a lot.

 

[Analog]

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: yellowfiero

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Then again without a vest, a hollow point will create a lovely entry hole, and an exit hole probably 2 to 3 times the size. That's why we don't use them in warfare, and haven't for over 100 years now, it's considered wrong and inhumane since very few people survive solid hits from them.

Actually, we don't use them in warfare because they're against the Geneva Convention, as also is using a bayonet with a blood groove...

Wrong convention ...look back the amount of time I pointed out. The whole reason they were banned is because of the damage they do, getting hit with a regular bullet means that someone might live, getting hit with a hollow point drops that chance by a lot.

I'm not disputing your claim, I use hollow points when hunting, and FMJ steel core bullets on the target range. I'm just telling you why they're not used in warfare. It may be 'inhumane' but it is also against the Geneva Convention.

 

[Sphexi]

Originally posted by: yellowfiero

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: yellowfiero

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Then again without a vest, a hollow point will create a lovely entry hole, and an exit hole probably 2 to 3 times the size. That's why we don't use them in warfare, and haven't for over 100 years now, it's considered wrong and inhumane since very few people survive solid hits from them.

Actually, we don't use them in warfare because they're against the Geneva Convention, as also is using a bayonet with a blood groove...

Wrong convention ...look back the amount of time I pointed out. The whole reason they were banned is because of the damage they do, getting hit with a regular bullet means that someone might live, getting hit with a hollow point drops that chance by a lot.

I'm not disputing your claim, I use hollow points when hunting, and FMJ steel core bullets on the target range. I'm just telling you why they're not used in warfare. It may be 'inhumane' but it is also against the Geneva Convention.

It's against the Hague Convention, in 1899. The Geneva Convention came much later, and basically just re-said much of the same. We don't use them because it's wrong to do so, and because it's wrong to do so we had to come up with a convention to say so.

 

[DivideBYZero]

I hope I am never shot by any bullet. Hollowpoint or otherwise...

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: yellowfiero

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: yellowfiero

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Then again without a vest, a hollow point will create a lovely entry hole, and an exit hole probably 2 to 3 times the size. That's why we don't use them in warfare, and haven't for over 100 years now, it's considered wrong and inhumane since very few people survive solid hits from them.

Actually, we don't use them in warfare because they're against the Geneva Convention, as also is using a bayonet with a blood groove...

Wrong convention ...look back the amount of time I pointed out. The whole reason they were banned is because of the damage they do, getting hit with a regular bullet means that someone might live, getting hit with a hollow point drops that chance by a lot.

I'm not disputing your claim, I use hollow points when hunting, and FMJ steel core bullets on the target range. I'm just telling you why they're not used in warfare. It may be 'inhumane' but it is also against the Geneva Convention.

It's against the Hague Convention, in 1899. The Geneva Convention came much later, and basically just re-said much of the same. We don't use them because it's wrong to do so, and because it's wrong to do so we had to come up with a convention to say so.

Screw that. The point of war for the individual is to survive -- making the other poor bastard die for his country, to paraphrase Patton. The ban on hollow points is beyond asinine. I carry a 9mm now, and I would feel MUCH safer if I could load +P HydraShoks into it rather than these crappy FMJ rounds which will just be an irritant. Fact is that I'll be shooting to kill -- why does the amount of damage I can do with each round really matter? Fine for the academics but not for the person trying to defend himself.

As for the protective vest discussion, normal vests aren't worth a damn. I'll take my ballistic plates any day. I'd like to see one of the new Dragonscales vests that I read about a little while ago. Heavy, but the same protection as the plates throughout. At $6,000 per unit, though, not really an option for the entire military!

 

[Jzero]

I dunno about the humane-ness, but from a tactical perspective, an injured casuality drains more resources than a dead one, but the end result is the same - the casualty is no longer shooting back at you (and will probably die of his injuries in the end). As a result, hollow points are often not preferred.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: yellowfiero

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: yellowfiero

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Then again without a vest, a hollow point will create a lovely entry hole, and an exit hole probably 2 to 3 times the size. That's why we don't use them in warfare, and haven't for over 100 years now, it's considered wrong and inhumane since very few people survive solid hits from them.

Actually, we don't use them in warfare because they're against the Geneva Convention, as also is using a bayonet with a blood groove...

Wrong convention ...look back the amount of time I pointed out. The whole reason they were banned is because of the damage they do, getting hit with a regular bullet means that someone might live, getting hit with a hollow point drops that chance by a lot.

I'm not disputing your claim, I use hollow points when hunting, and FMJ steel core bullets on the target range. I'm just telling you why they're not used in warfare. It may be 'inhumane' but it is also against the Geneva Convention.

It's against the Hague Convention, in 1899. The Geneva Convention came much later, and basically just re-said much of the same. We don't use them because it's wrong to do so, and because it's wrong to do so we had to come up with a convention to say so.

Screw that. The point of war for the individual is to survive -- making the other poor bastard die for his country, to paraphrase Patton. The ban on hollow points is beyond asinine. I carry a 9mm now, and I would feel MUCH safer if I could load +P HydraShoks into it rather than these crappy FMJ rounds which will just be an irritant. Fact is that I'll be shooting to kill -- why does the amount of damage I can do with each round really matter? Fine for the academics but not for the person trying to defend himself.

As for the protective vest discussion, normal vests aren't worth a damn. I'll take my ballistic plates any day. I'd like to see one of the new Dragonscales vests that I read about a little while ago. Heavy, but the same protection as the plates throughout. At $6,000 per unit, though, not really an option for the entire military!

IIRC, wounded troops are more of a drain on an army's warmaking ability than dead troops.

The switch from .45 to 9mm is another matter entirely and was a "beyond asinine" move.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Feldenak
IIRC, wounded troops are more of a drain on an army's warmaking ability than dead troops.

The switch from .45 to 9mm is another matter entirely and was a "beyond asinine" move.

It'll switch back to 40 or 45. But its not like it really matters. Not that many soldiers carry a sidearm, and it is your backup weapon. I do get an M9 however, and it works ok. Most of its problems stem from bad magazines, and not the weapon itself.

Anyways, I dont know where you guys are coming up with the hollowpoints being banned. I'd need a source or I'll call shens.

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: DaFinn
What kind of vest? Cops use a lot basic "underware" vests that offer protection against knives and such, but no real protection against bullets.

Um, no that's not true at all. Kevlar doesn't protect against edged weapons...its designed to stop bullets.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Feldenak
IIRC, wounded troops are more of a drain on an army's warmaking ability than dead troops.

The switch from .45 to 9mm is another matter entirely and was a "beyond asinine" move.

It'll switch back to 40 or 45. But its not like it really matters. Not that many soldiers carry a sidearm, and it is your backup weapon. I do get an M9 however, and it works ok. Most of its problems stem from bad magazines, and not the weapon itself.

Anyways, I dont know where you guys are coming up with the hollowpoints being banned. I'd need a source or I'll call shens.

If I was down to my sidearm and had a choice between .45 and 9mm, I would always go for the .45.

As for links:

Declaration III of the Hague Convention of 1899

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.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: DaFinn
What kind of vest? Cops use a lot basic "underware" vests that offer protection against knives and such, but no real protection against bullets.

Um, no that's not true at all. Kevlar doesn't protect against edged weapons...its designed to stop bullets.

lol yeah.. its HORRIBLE at stopping blades... wont stop a straight on rifle shot, but most pistol rounds would be stopped, even without a trauma plate

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Feldenak


If I was down to my sidearm and had a choice between .45 and 9mm, I would always go for the .45.

As for links:

Declaration III of the Hague Convention of 1899

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.

I'm still calling shens. My memory sucks, but I'm 99% sure that I saw hollow points over in the sandbox.

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: DaFinn
What kind of vest? Cops use a lot basic "underware" vests that offer protection against knives and such, but no real protection against bullets.

Um, no that's not true at all. Kevlar doesn't protect against edged weapons...its designed to stop bullets.

lol yeah.. its HORRIBLE at stopping blades... wont stop a straight on rifle shot, but most pistol rounds would be stopped, even without a trauma plate

Fortunatly, we don't face too many rifles. Lots of handguns and shotguns, but not a whole lot of rifles.

 

[ryan256]

Originally posted by: Sphexi
No, they're not designed or likely to penetrate a vest. But they are designed to flatten when hitting a soft target (like kevlar) which can cause a much higher energy impact than a standard bullet. Probably won't make much of a difference, but it may mean the difference between a bruise and a broken rib if you happen to get shot in the chest, and in some people maybe a bit more damage.

Then again without a vest, a hollow point will create a lovely entry hole, and an exit hole probably 2 to 3 times the size. That's why we don't use them in warfare, and haven't for over 100 years now, it's considered wrong and inhumane since very few people survive solid hits from them.

This is actually the same reason alot of the newer landmines were designed to main rather than kill. If you kill a man you take 1 soldier off the field. But if you just blow a few of his toes off you will take that man plus 1 or 2 other soldiers who care for the fallen man off the battlefield. I can see the same philosophy with using FMJ rounds.

 

[jtvang125]

Hollowpoint or not, bullets from today's assault rifles still cause a great deal of damage to the individual. I have a picture of a pumpkin shot with an AR15 (similar to the M16). The entry hole is about the size of a nickel but the exit wound totally ripped the rear of the pumpkin off. Of course a pumpkin is more fragile than the human body but you can clearly see the amount of damage being done.

 

[ryan256]

Originally posted by: FallenHero
Fortunatly, we don't face too many rifles. Lots of handguns and shotguns, but not a whole lot of rifles.

Yeah from what my uncle has told me (retired cop) vests are pretty much useless against high velocity rifle rounds. Some of them (300 winchester, 7mm Mag) are capable of shooting through the plates even with a hollow point round.