Hollow Point vs FMJ

[grimey121uk]

I was out yesterday introducing my younger brother to rifle shooting with my 17HMR,

We started with targets at 50 yards and went out to 150 yards shooting a few eggs, I also decided to test out some HMR 20gr FMJ's to compare accuracy to the 17gr ballistic tips and it turns out threes not much difference in my rifle but the 20gr do drop off a bit quicker which is likely due to the slightly slower velocity.

 

Anyway I decided to demonstrate the difference in penetration and damage (not that I would ever even consider shooting a live animal with an FMJ) on a block of wood that I found which was around 3" thick. The image below shows the exit wounds of each shot which clearly shows the extra knock down power of the hollow points, its also worth noting that the block didn't even move when it was hit with the FMJ.

 

 

I know the results are obviousness and predictable but its nice to see a comparison especially for newer shooters, me included

Edited February 24, 2013 by grimey121uk

[T-Bolt94]

I am guessing you are referring to a Ballistic tip rather than a hollow point? Or have I missed something?

[grimey121uk]

I am guessing you are referring to a Ballistic tip rather than a hollow point? Or have I missed something?

 

I am yes, I could of made it a bit clearer

[T-Bolt94]

No bother, was just wondering if it was something I needed to try out!! Ballistic Tips are a fantastic round, FMJs just don't do a great job unless its a head shot

[ordnance]

Anyway I decided to demonstrate the difference in penetration and damage (not that I would ever even consider shooting a live animal with an FMJ)

 

The army is happy to shoot humans with fmj rounds. FMJ will do the job on rabbits etc.

[Amazed]

 

 

The army is happy to shoot humans with fmj rounds. FMJ will do the job on rabbits etc.

 

The have no choice as lead exposed or expanding ammo was band for use in warfare.

[Dekers]

The army is happy to shoot humans with fmj rounds. FMJ will do the job on rabbits etc.

 

They will indeed, but nothing stands still and over the years there have been a lot more efficient "hunting" bullets developed.

 

As mentioned above the Hague Convention bans expanding type ammunition in warfare.

[Vince Green]

On flesh the impact damage is mainly hydraulic and apparantly theres not as much difference as you would think with very high velocity bullets. My mate in Wales says they now use FMJ .223s on foxes mainly because they can buy them by post. Otherwise they have to make a long drive to buy expanding bullets from a dealer they don't like and don't get on with. Although originally dubious about it they now seem much more OK with the idea.

 

I would also point out he is a very experienced shooter and lives in a very rural area so I am not in any way recommending this as a general principle.

 

I will also tell you one of my old stories. Many years ago I was shooting with the same friend on the zero range at Bisley. His mum (yes it was that long ago, he's 65 now) had given him an orange in his lunch. Not wanting to eat it he put it on the target frame and fired at it with a .303 we were sighting in. It never moved "Haha missed" said I. "I flippin' well didn't" said he and went down to retreive the orange. It had a hole in the front and a hole in the back and was completely hollow.

Edited February 24, 2013 by Vince Green

[ordnance]

As mentioned above the Hague Convention bans expanding type ammunition in warfare.

 

 

 

Yes i know that it doesn't change what i posted.

 

 

The army is happy to shoot humans with fmj rounds

And it has being doing the job for the army for years. PS Some

armies use bullets that tumble after impact to get round the convention.

 

 

I used to shoot rabbets with a air rifle not many moved after a good shot.

[Katash]

The army is happy to shoot humans with fmj rounds. FMJ will do the job on rabbits etc.

 

Hague convention aside, a FMJ wound is more desirable against an enemy as logistically a soldier bleeding to death requires more resources than one who has been reduced down to component parts.

 

Conversely, law enforcement and counter terrorism prefer non over-penetrating rounds for both safety and the requirement for a quick kill.

Edited February 24, 2013 by Katash

[vampire]

 

I will also tell you one of my old stories. Many years ago I was shooting with the same friend on the zero range at Bisley. His mum (yes it was that long ago, he's 65 now) had given him an orange in his lunch. Not wanting to eat it he put it on the target frame and fired at it with a .303 we were sighting in. It never moved "Haha missed" said I. "I flippin' well didn't" said he and went down to retreive the orange. It had a hole in the front and a hole in the back and was completely hollow.

 

Have done similar with a .223,we put an empty redbull tin out at 100 yrds and shot at it,thought we had missed it, but once we walked upto it there were 2 nice neat holes right through it,as we stood looking the gentle breeze was swaying the can.....

[Frenchieboy]

Maybe someone can correct me if I am wrong but I was always under the impression that if you wanted to shoot "live quarry" in the UK you had to use soft points, BTs or the likes and that FMJs were only allowed for target shooting.

As stated, I am often wrong so could someone "in the know" maybe correct me on this one, not that I feel a need for FMJs myself.

Just one more question without it looking like I am hijacking this thread - Are FMJs believed to be more accurate than softpoints?

[Dunkield]

You only 'have' to use expanding ammunition on deer.

[JonathanL]

As others have said, just because the bullet is an FMJ type doesn't mean it won't cause a devastating wound. It's how the bullet actually behaves which is the point. The smaller calibre FMJ's tend to disintegrate as they often yaw on impact which causes the core to stress the jacket and destroy the bullet. The weak point on things like .223 FMJ's is usually the crimp cannelure which is the point at which the bullet gives up.

 

On the point of shooting straight through things; I've seen wooden bowling pins hit with a .303 FMJ and they didn't fall over either. The bullet simply went out the other side causing very little damage.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

Maybe someone can correct me if I am wrong but I was always under the impression that if you wanted to shoot "live quarry" in the UK you had to use soft points, BTs or the likes and that FMJs were only allowed for target shooting.

As stated, I am often wrong so could someone "in the know" maybe correct me on this one, not that I feel a need for FMJs myself.

Just one more question without it looking like I am hijacking this thread - Are FMJs believed to be more accurate than softpoints?

 

Not necessarily. Sierra MatchKings and Lapua Scenar bullets are both target bullets which have a hollow point. The hollow point is a consequence of how they are made and isn't there to facilitate expansion.

 

J.

[Dunkield]

And A Max of course [worms, can of etc etc....]

[Dekers]

Maybe someone can correct me if I am wrong but I was always under the impression that if you wanted to shoot "live quarry" in the UK you had to use soft points, BTs or the likes and that FMJs were only allowed for target shooting.

As stated, I am often wrong so could someone "in the know" maybe correct me on this one, not that I feel a need for FMJs myself.

Just one more question without it looking like I am hijacking this thread - Are FMJs believed to be more accurate than softpoints?

 

Turning that slightly on its head,under the Firearms Acts you are NOT allowed to use expanding ammo under a TARGET condition, unless you have a specific exemption (very rare)!

 

What is expanding when it comes to target :hmm: , lots of debate as already mentioned above!

[JonathanL]

Turning that slightly on its head,under the Firearms Acts you are NOT allowed to use expanding ammo under a TARGET condition, unless you have a specific exemption (very rare)!

 

What is expanding when it comes to target :hmm: , lots of debate as already mentioned above!

 

There aren't any exemptions to allow expanding ammo to be possessed if you only want it for target shooting, as far as I am aware. The only reasons it can be authorised to be acquired and possessed are the ones contained in the Act. The Home Office did initially issue something to the effect that the type of soft-point bullets with a flat nose used in tubular magazine guns could be acquired but that was incorrect as they are designed to expand.

 

That isn't to say that you can't shoot expanding ammo at paper targets as long as you are doing so in accordance with the condition on your FAC which says something to the effect of '...in connection with the lawful shooting of deer'' Shooting at a paper target when zeroing or practicing with the rifle is 'in connection' with the lawful shooting of deer.

 

The 'what constitutes expanding ammo' argument is quite a convoluted one. The accepted wisdom is that frangible bullets (ones which are designed to fragment on impact), such as things like V-Max, are caught by the definition but I'm not sure that that is correct. They aren't designed to 'expand' according to the definition of the word. The Act also says that a bullet which is designed to 'deform in a predictible manner' is 'expanding' for the purposes of the Act but frangible bullets don't do that either, they are simply destroyed on impact, or at least that's what they are designed to do.

 

J.

Edited February 25, 2013 by JonathanL

[Dekers]

There aren't any exemptions to allow expanding ammo to be possessed if you only want it for target shooting, as far as I am aware. The only reasons it can be authorised to be acquired and possessed are the ones contained in the Act. The Home Office did initially issue something to the effect that the type of soft-point bullets with a flat nose used in tubular magazine guns could be acquired but that was incorrect as they are designed to expand.

 

That isn't to say that you can't shoot expanding ammo at paper targets as long as you are doing so in accordance with the condition on your FAC which says something to the effect of '...in connection with the lawful shooting of deer'' Shooting at a paper target when zeroing or practicing with the rifle is 'in connection' with the lawful shooting of deer.

 

The 'what constitutes expanding ammo' argument is quite a convoluted one. The accepted wisdom is that frangible bullets (ones which are designed to fragment on impact), such as things like V-Max, are caught by the definition but I'm not sure that that is correct. They aren't designed to 'expand' according to the definition of the word. The Act also says that a bullet which is designed to 'deform in a predictible manner' is 'expanding' for the purposes of the Act but frangible bullets don't do that either, they are simply destroyed on impact, or at least that's what they are designed to do.

 

J.

 

J

 

I was not about to write a new version of War and Peace! And I am fully aware of ZEROING conditions, that isn't a Target condition, (I attempted to make TARGET condition clear above), zeroing is the simple copout (for some) when using expanding ammo aimed at a target.

 

What any region wants to write on your FAC is the answer, where does it say you can have an AUTOMATIC (NOT Semi) shotgun under the Firearms Acts, but my region gave me one! :D

 

Lets not get picky or debate any entry on a FAC/SGC that you may consider illegal, this could go on for days, and as already said, there are examples of expanding ammo available for target, its just not worth two weeks of debate over the V-Max, A-Max etc situation!.

 

Edit

.....and this is already way more off topic than it needs to be!

Edited February 25, 2013 by Dekers

[JonathanL]

J

 

I was not about to write a new version of War and Peace! And I am fully aware of ZEROING conditions, that isn't a Target condition, (I attempted to make TARGET condition clear above), zeroing is the simple copout (for some) when using expanding ammo aimed at a target.

 

What any region wants to write on your FAC is the answer, where does it say you can have an AUTOMATIC (NOT Semi) shotgun under the Firearms Acts, but my region gave me one! :D

 

Lets not get picky or debate any entry on a FAC/SGC that you may consider illegal, this could go on for days, and as already said, there are examples of expanding ammo available for target, its just not worth two weeks of debate over the V-Max, A-Max etc situation!.

 

Edit

.....and this is already way more off topic than it needs to be!

 

Not trying to start some sort of argument here. However, the fact remains that the police cannot authorise the possession of expanding ammo for any reason that is not provided for in the 1997 Act. Sorry but they simply cannot do it. They cannot write whatever they feel like on a certificate. Well, to be poedantic about it, they could but it wouldn't make it legal. Argue it any way you like but it won't change the fact.

 

Even if they did then your possession still wouldn't be lawful. Other than under one of the exemptions in the Act the only other way to possess it legally would be with a section 5 authority from the home office.

 

I'm quite prepared to accept what you say upon some proof that you are correct. Let me have these examples of people having expanding ammo for target shooting. An easily winnable argument on your part by the sounds of it.

 

Your point about your certificate stating 'automatic' in relation is not the point either. The police can not auhorise the acquisition and possession of a machine gun, and I'm sure you well know that. Again, if they did put that on your cert and you went out an acquired one you would still be prosecuted and most certainly convicted.

 

J.

Edited February 25, 2013 by JonathanL

[Amazed]

What was the topic ?

[CharlieT]

What is expanding when it comes to target :hmm: , lots of debate as already mentioned above!

 

It's actually quite simple. Look at it this way, all ammo is "target" unless it's designed to expand. If it is designed to expand it becomes section 5 and not target.

 

This statement will, of course, bring out the argumentative ones who will try to differentiate between expanding, fragmenting and goodness knows what but that does not alter the fact that "designed" is the key word and no target ammo is designed to expand. Some may happen to do so but they are not designed to.

[Dekers]

Not trying to start some sort of argument here. However, the fact remains that the police cannot authorise the possession of expanding ammo for any reason that is not provided for in the 1997 Act. Sorry but they simply cannot do it. They cannot write whatever they feel like on a certificate. Well, to be poedantic about it, they could but it wouldn't make it legal. Argue it any way you like but it won't change the fact.

 

Even if they did then your possession still wouldn't be lawful. Other than under one of the exemptions in the Act the only other way to possess it legally would be with a section 5 authority from the home office.

 

I'm quite prepared to accept what you say upon some proof that you are correct. Let me have these examples of people having expanding ammo for target shooting. An easily winnable argument on your part by the sounds of it.

 

Your point about your certificate stating 'automatic' in relation is not the point either. The police can not auhorise the acquisition and possession of a machine gun, and I'm sure you well know that. Again, if they did put that on your cert and you went out an acquired one you would still be prosecuted and most certainly convicted.

 

J.

 

I knew!

[Dekers]

It's actually quite simple. Look at it this way, all ammo is "target" unless it's designed to expand. If it is designed to expand it becomes section 5 and not target.

 

This statement will, of course, bring out the argumentative ones who will try to differentiate between expanding, fragmenting and goodness knows what but that does not alter the fact that "designed" is the key word and no target ammo is designed to expand. Some may happen to do so but they are not designed to.

 

It was rhetorical not actual!

 

Please don't start J off, he's already on a mission!

[CharlieT]

It was rhetorical not actual!

 

Please don't start J off, he's already on a mission!

 

You saw through me