Best hollow point today?

[ShortMan]

I keep hearing this argument over and over. Doesnt look like we've had the discussion on the forums recently so I have to ask.
As of May, 2011, what do you think the best hollow points are for personal protection?

Some gun loving associates of mine say:

Best: HST
Then Gold Dot
then Ranger T
then HydraShoks.

I been carrying around Hydras in my LCP for a while. Never had to use them so I dunno if they are considered the best to carry these days.

[Chasbo00]

The Hydrashoks are older technology bullets and probably belong at the bottom of the list. Good arguments can be made for any order of the other three. Personally, I like Gold Dots the best.

Here is a fairly good primer and listing of solid defensive cartridges - plenty to choose from:

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defen ... /index.htm

[ShortMan]

Yeah but the problem is I carry a 380 and theres very little gel data for the exotic rounds. Most of the time I just see generic target ammo.
But it looks like they highly recommend Barnes Tactical ammo, if for no other reason than its the only one they tested.

[Chasbo00]

With a .380, my picks would be a 100 grain hardcast flat-nose lead, 90 grain Gold Dot, and then a FMJ in that order. Sufficient penetration is an issue with the .380.

Buffalo Bore has the hardcast lead in either standard or hot pressure loadings:

http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l= ... tail&p=216

http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l= ... tail&p=127

[Jakeiscrazy]

Truth is there are probably a lot of good ones out there at least above 9mm. Find one that runs well, seems to be consistent in independent testing, and isn't insanely priced.

Now if you just want to talk about the BEST then I'll get the popcorn going.

[Diomed]

I'm rolling the dice with Gold Dots.

My carry loads are from Buffalo Bore.

[gunderwood]

There is no "best" without defining what your preferences are. Do you value total expansion or rapid expansion or reliability or penetration or fragmentation, etc. etc. Perhaps the best compromise? If you believe the FBI then:

Penetration less than 12" is bad, more than 18" is bad. 12-14" is "ideal."
Rapid expansion (or yawing for rifle bullets) within the first 2-3" is ideal.

The hot 9mm, .357SIG, .40S&W, .45ACP, .357Mag, etc. all deliver around 450-550ft-lbs of energy. Please note that I'm not saying that energy is what kills, but that's what bullet designers must work with. Years ago there were huge differences even between the same caliber, but different bullet weights. These days if you look at the various weights you will see that a Gold Dot HP 147gr 9mm, a 124gr 9mm, and a 115gr 9mm are all very different bullets.The HP is "tuned" for the expected impact velocity.

Also, bonded bullets tend to be more reliable if they have to penetrate thick clothing or barriers, but tend to expand a bit less than non-bonded designs. That makes sense if you think about it. On and on. Bullet design is a complex thing.

However, IMHO as long as you are shooting a modern bullet design they all perform fairly similarly and I don't feel bad about carrying any of them. My personal favorites are:

1. Gold Dots
2. Ranger Ts or their bonded version
3. HSTs

The first two have a great track record with LEO shootings. The HSTs seem to be getting a good reputation for lots of expansion, but they aren't bonded (they do make a version but it seems to expand a lot less) and lots of expansion usually means less penetration. It's a trade off game and generally they all have the same amount of energy to use. Use it for penetration or expansion, but you are limited in the common calibers we shoot.

I think the modern designs are different, but all do a "good" job depending on what you're looking for. The exception to that generalization is when you step outside of common LE calibers. There is a lot less money spent on optimizing say .380Auto than 9mm or .40S&W. Another exception is some less known loaders may be offering those same high quality bullets in a hot cartridge. The problem is that they may be exceeding the design parameters of that bullet, which may have less than desirable results. The number I've heard is that modern HPs have about a 200fps window where they work optimally. Designers can move that window around, but its still only about 200fps (I'm sure there is some variance on that figure given other variables like caliber and absolute velocity).

I would not shoot the Hydra-shocks as they are an old design which is well known to have problems with heavy clothing. One bullet I didn't mention is the Barnes all copper SD bullets which are loaded in Corbon's DPX ammo. I carry that in my LCP because they seemed to be more reliable in expansion and still had adequate penetration (not really FBI spec though). Some people say .380 has so little penetration that they shoot FMJ/FN bullets.

[gunderwood]

Please realize that most of the common LE bullets have been designed to meet the FBI spec and as such generally perform very well at it. That may or may not translate to good street results...remember that gel testing and the FBI spec are models. Also, a perfectly performing bullet per the spec may not be enough to stop the threat immediately without CNS damage. Heck, a mag full of them sometimes isn't enough!

[DavidG]

Gunderwood,Any thoughts on the Hornady Critical Defense 90gr. ammo.?

[gunderwood]

Gunderwood,Any thoughts on the Hornady Critical Defense 90gr. ammo.?

From the gel tests I've seen, Hornady critical defense ammo was inconsistent. However, it happens to the best of them too. I've seen tests where RangerTs in .45 clogged and GDs aren't immune either. The real answer is probably that we don't have enough data to statistically separate them out. Some testers have had above average results, but not best in class at anything in particular. Here is a .380 link: http://www.goldenloki.com/ammo/gel/380acp/gel380acp.htm

Be careful reading that table as it may render offset a bit. IMHO, the best performing and most constant load in tests I've seen is the Corbon DPX followed closely by GDs. Hornady's been making bullets for awhile, but they are new to this game. It takes time to really determine how a bullet performs in a variety of calibers. That's one reason GDs are so popular. In virtually any caliber and weight you want they perform well. Not best, but really well. I'd say they are probably better than an old design, but I wouldn't say they are in the same league yet as GDs, RangerTs, Golden Sabers (my #4 choice and a close call with HST).

[SgtBill]

Well I have to agree on the Speer Gold Dot's that is what I and the wife both carry in our Walther PK380 semi autos. I also make my reloads match the velocity and weight as close as possible to the speers so that my wife get's realistic practice with her weapon.
Bill

[CombatVet]

What weight would be ideal for .40S&W?

[Chasbo00]

I favor a heavy for the caliber bullet. So, in a .40 S&W, 180 grain bullets are my choice.

[arkypete]

My preference is a 255 grain SWC out of a 45 Colt. Lacking that a 230 grain Hydroshock out of a 45 auto. Both of these are pretty cumbersum for summer carry, so I'm investigating some sort of 9mm and ammo.
One of the considerations for me is to have the ammo cheap enough to practice with, until I get comfortable with the intire weapon/ ammo system.


Jim

[gunderwood]

My preference is a 255 grain SWC out of a 45 Colt. Lacking that a 230 grain Hydroshock out of a 45 auto. Both of these are pretty cumbersum for summer carry, so I'm investigating some sort of 9mm and ammo.
One of the considerations for me is to have the ammo cheap enough to practice with, until I get comfortable with the intire weapon/ ammo system.


Jim

The Hydroshock is an old bullet design. It's had well documented issues with clogging on heavy clothing. I'd recommend a newer design like the HST or Gold Dots.

What weight would be ideal for .40S&W?

.40S&W is not a caliber I carry, so I don't keep up on those. IIRC though, .40S&W is fairly consistent throughout its weight range. That's also mostly true of 9/45 now. Once manufacturers got serious about designing bullets for specific impact velocities rather than just scaling a single design up or down, most of the weights work just fine (technically mass, but who cares).

[arkypete]

The Hydroshock is an old bullet design. It's had well documented issues with clogging on heavy clothing. I'd recommend a newer design like the HST or Gold Dots.


Many years ago the Air Force had one of the ammo companies make a bunch truncated cone 140 grain FMJ 38 special rounds for the air crews alloy 38 cal revolvers. The flat nose was to aid in energy transfer. Similar thought was applied to the semi wad cutter's flat nose.

I thought that the reason for post in the center of the Hydroshock's hollow point was prevent this fatal clogging. I'm some what sceptical of some of these odd problems newly discovered by marketers. There's a lot folks got real permanent dead using old lead round nose bullets.

I used to use a 45 caliber 225 grain HP, nicked named the flying ash tray. Never had to shoot anything out side of the odd critter and paper, that big open hollow point sure impressed me.

Jim

[gunderwood]

Many years ago the Air Force had one of the ammo companies make a bunch truncated cone 140 grain FMJ 38 special rounds for the air crews alloy 38 cal revolvers. The flat nose was to aid in energy transfer. Similar thought was applied to the semi wad cutter's flat nose.

It's true that a flat nose can do lots of damage. You will often find those types of bullets used in dangerous game hunting. E.g. Garrett Cartridge. However, the wound channel tends to be deeper and smaller in diameter than bullets designed to fragment and/or expand. It's about matching your bullet to the target.

I thought that the reason for post in the center of the Hydroshock's hollow point was prevent this fatal clogging. I'm some what sceptical of some of these odd problems newly discovered by marketers. There's a lot folks got real permanent dead using old lead round nose bullets.

That's the idea, but it works less reliably than newer designs. 10+ years ago HS were among the best, not now. It's not that this is a new development or that the old design can't work, but rather the probability that they work and how efficient they are when they do. Even modern bullet designs sometimes fail, but they generally do it much less than older designs (although we have seen bad lots of even the best).

I used to use a 45 caliber 225 grain HP, nicked named the flying ash tray. Never had to shoot anything out side of the odd critter and paper, that big open hollow point sure impressed me.

Jim

Ultimately its about what the bullet does in the target and how that maps to reality. When the FBI or whomever sets a standard test, that inherently is a verification test. You can verify a bullets performance against the standard test and performance requirements. However, that may or may not map well to reality. We do the best we can and continually move onwards. The old 230gr FMJ can and has certainly killed its share of people, but that doesn't mean it's the best choice today.

Until we have a bullet that works 100% effectively and 100% of the time (which I doubt we ever will), we keep making progress.

Edit: The overall point is that while if I had to carry a 230gr FMJ in my .45 it wouldn't be the end of the world, but I'd rather take a gun loaded with the latest proven designs. I wouldn't go out and buy a new lot of FMJ for carry or of older HPs when newer and better bullets are readily available.

[arkypete]

I want some sort of whiz bang bullet for a mouse gun that is more concealable and comfortable for summer wear.
A 45 cal large meplat bullet will do what is needed just as it come from the factory, where the mouse guns will need expanding projectiles to be effective.
As some one said 'A 45 cal. will not shrink when it hits the target.'

Jim

[Chasbo00]

I want some sort of whiz bang bullet for a mouse gun that is more concealable and comfortable for summer wear.
A 45 cal large meplat bullet will do what is needed just as it come from the factory, where the mouse guns will need expanding projectiles to be effective.
As some one said 'A 45 cal. will not shrink when it hits the target.'

Jim

Buffalo Bore has a retro bullet option in lieu of hollow points - hardcast bullets.

http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l= ... tail&p=216

http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l= ... tail&p=127

I think it's a good option for the .380 in particular given the .380's limited penetration depth with hollow points.

[jrswanson1]

What weight would be ideal for .40S&W?

I carry the .40 Short and Weak and its bigger, older brother, the 10mm. With the .40, I liked running 165gr JHPs, it made follow up shots easier since there was less recoil in the gun I had. Plus they tend to run faster versus the 180gr bullets. Either will penetrate, and there are modern bullets available for both weights.

Jim