JHP vs. FMJ

Discussion in 'Ammo & Reloading' started by fls348, Mar 13, 2012.

  1. fls348

    fls348 New Member

    I read a thread somewhere, it might have been on here, about someone saying they'd never carry JHP again in their CCW. Something about tearing up to much flesh, or damaging to much? They said the FMJ would just drill a clean hole....


    I'm just curious how one comes this train of thought?

    Isn't the point to stop the threat immediately? How is a FMJ a better tool for this than a JHP?

    Someone help me out on this one, I'm failing to understand the logic behind this.
     
  2. Yea it was on here in the police/military category. There is so much debate on the internet about FMJ and JHP. Some people will only carry JHP and others still run with the standard ball ammo. I personally think both will work just fine if your shot placement is were it needs to be. If you take a FMJ to the heart or head I'm pretty sure that'll be all she wrote for you. Then again I'm not 100% sure cause I have never been in a shoot out.
     

  3. brutusvk

    brutusvk New Member

    624
    1
    Carrying ball ammo for defense makes no sense. The reason military carries it is due to rules of combat, etc. For defense you run into issues such as over penetration. So I shoot bad guy it goes through them and ends up killing little Timmy who is playing in his yard. WAY too much liability if you ask me.

    The idea behind hollow points is to transfer all of the energy of the projectile into the bad guy. The bullet expands and slows down as it displaces tissue and fluid. (hydrostatic shock)

    If you look on a box of ammo, ball ammo is usually refered to as target rounds whereas JHPs usually are marked protection.

    I see lots of gangbangers that were shot by other gangbangers and they had a little hole in and a small hole out. Because they were shot with ball ammo. Then I see the badguys that survive being shot by cops using JHPs and they usually have colostomy bags, are paralized or have other significant injury. Of course, most shot by quality defense ammo in suitable calibers don't survive.

    But don't take my word on it. Do the research and read about ballistics. See what happens to the projectiles in ballistic gel.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2012
  4. Happysniper1

    Happysniper1 New Member

    13,460
    6
    Just to toss this in:

    The Hague Convention of 1907 (still in effect today) states, in Article 23 "In addition to the prohibitions provided by Special Conventions, it is especially forbidden....To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering..." (see Part IV "Laws and Customs for War on Land", Section II "Hostilities", Chapter I "Means of Injuring the Enemy, Seiges, and Bombardments", Article 23).

    A ruling in The Hague Court following the first Hague Convention (1899) stated that "bullets and projectiles designed to expand on impact" were capable of causing "inhumane" injury, and fall under the category of projectiles calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.

    This is why most armies the world over use ball ammunition and not hollow-point ammunition. It is specifically banned by the Hague Convention, which regulates the rules and customs for military combat. This also defeats the often-stated allegation (everywhere on the Internet) that ball ammo is best because it is what the armies of the world use...they use ball (FMJ) ammo because HP ammo is banned by the Hague Convention.

    The Hague Convention does not apply to police forces, and is also widely ignored by non-Convention countries. Yet another example where the United States fights by one set of rules that the other side does not abide by.

    That being said, I believe what Member Tape was trying to say in his post (post #18 on thread "Have You Ever Shot Anyone" here https://www.glockforum.com/forum/f15/have-you-ever-shot-anyone-2437/ ) is that the damage caused by the JHP ammo he fired caused so much tisssue damage that it bothered him, hence his decision to carry only FMJ ammo. At least, that is what I gleaned from his post.

    JHP ammo is designed to accomplish one specific task: massive damage to soft tissue.

    FMJ ammo is designed to accomplish one specific task: penetrate solid materials as well as soft tissue.

    You will hear arguments that hollow points lack the penetrating power to go thru layers of clothing. You will hear arguments that ballistics gel does not ideally mimic human tissue in that it is not as elastic as tissue and organs, and that ballistics gel blocks do not account for musculature anchored to bone.

    These are some of the reasons why current government testing (FBI Labs) uses a different material, called Sim-Test, and also requires 4 layers of denim cloth over the target material. Ballistics gel is still used, but to establish wound forensics, Sim-Test is the current material favored.

    The upside to HP ammo is that it causes more massive tissue trauma on penetration. However, some calibers and some loadings require so-and-so bullet velocities, that are sometimes not achieved, and the HP does not expand, or the fluid cavity is filled with solid material and fails to expand. In those cases, the HP round simply act as a FMJ round with weaker penetration. Overall, hollow-point or soft-point expanding bullets are designed to enter the target, expand, transfer all their kinetic energy inside the target, and stop.

    With FMJ ammo, it causes a neat entry wound and an neat exit wound with only incidental damage to tissue and organs. Unless a bone is hit (and the bullet breaks up, with fragments tunnelling in different directions) or a vital organ or artery is hit, the target will generally survive with little more than a surface scar after his visit to the ER. FMJ ammo simply drills holes thru the target, and retains its kinetic energy until it hits a solid object or until gravity, loss of momentum, and air resistance cause it to eventually stop or decellerate to a point it will not even penetrate flesh. Remember Einstein? Energy = mass times speed...reduce one or the other, mass or speed, and the resulting impact energy is also reduced.

    I hope this helps.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2012
  5. Very interesting perspectives on this one.

    Shouldnt round size come into play with this arguement? IE... on a 22 or 9 Id rather shoot a JHP... a .40 or .45... either will do what you are intendiong to do, thus being stop whatever is happening you are needing to fire at.
     
  6. fls348

    fls348 New Member

    The simple fact of over penetration is what I'm having a difficult time with. If you know and understand ballistics why would you carry ball?

    Maybe, and it's a big maybe, if you were out in the sticks with virtually no chance in hitting anyone else....but even then why not JHP?
     
  7. BORIS

    BORIS New Member

    789
    0
    The USA signed the ageement this century, not last. It was put into practice here in early 2009.

    It only covers declared war if all parties are part of the convention. Otherwise it is not relivant.
     
  8. brutusvk

    brutusvk New Member

    624
    1
    Yes, for a small underpowered round such as .25 ACP I would use ball ammo. That is because the round has so little energy, etc.
     
  9. ROYALE-W-CHEESE

    ROYALE-W-CHEESE New Member

    479
    1
    I believe you're referring to the thread "Have You Ever Shot Anyone?" in the Off-Topic forum. The poster of that comment (Membername Tape) was relating how he felt about the damage created by JHP. It seems in the scenario he describes, FMJ would've done the same job but with less... mess. That was my take on his comment. The referenced shot was into the chin and out the other side of the skull.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2012
  10. brutusvk

    brutusvk New Member

    624
    1
    To me, if you want to create less injury/less mess than you probably shouldn't be using deadly force. Again, you "shoot to stop" the threat. If my life is dependant on the firearm I want the best chance of it working to stop the bad guy.

    If you are worried about how it looks in court, buy the same ammo that the local PD uses. Than, it "looks better" than buying some exotic, crazy sounding rounds. (Ie: Black Talons, etc) Not to mention the best thing is to be smart and do your best to keep out of a situation where you need to use deadly force. Not everyone should carry a gun for protection. If you are not ready/willing to pull that trigger and end a life if need be...don't carry a pistol. Otherwise, you may end up on the business end of your own gun.
     
  11. BORIS

    BORIS New Member

    789
    0
    Most the massive damage you see is from when a projectile hits bone. If a hollowpoint slips between two ribs, passes through an air filled lung, it wont do as much damage as one that hits a rib first. If a ball round hits a rib it will still do a good bit of damage.

    I have a pic of a deer shot at 12 yaerds with 9mm M882 ball. It was a quartering shot and i was shooting downhill at him. The exit wound was the size of my fist. A hollowpoint could not have done anymore damage. I hot his spine.

    Gello is not a good test. Yep i said it. Its a very thick liquid. You can poke your finger into it and it has no bones or air filled organs. Try and poke your finger into your belly for comparison, cannt do it can you.

    I also have three tours under my belt as an 11 series. If i had to pick ammo I KNOW works it would be ball. Just sayin....
     
  12. Kmurray96

    Kmurray96 Well-Known Member Supporter

    Just love those "rules" of war. Napalm was "outlawed" by these same professionals whose closest experience to war is their TV.

    I believe if napalm was still in use we wouldn't have our boys still getting killed in Afghanistan after 10 years.:mad:

    Guess they were scared we might get the notion of frying their poppy fields.

    Ya' think?:eek:
     
  13. Much of what I believe on the subject comes from our instructor on using firearms for home defense.
    Some of this has been stated above, as well.

    Basically, you are carrying a defense weapon for one reason: To stop a bad guy from hurting/killing you or a loved one. The best way to stop a bad guy is to use hollow point ammo.

    The reason that the military can get away with full metal jacket is that they are hundreds of feet or yards away from their targets. They also aren't too concerned about what's behind their target because it's likely to be another enemy.

    So I am carrying JHP in 9mm. I want it to enter my attacker, do enough damage to stop him in his tracks, but not go all the way through and hurt someone on the far side.
     
  14. BORIS

    BORIS New Member

    789
    0
    In 9mm yes it might repenetrate if you shoot unsafely with innocent people behind your target. Chances are you will miss and put a hollowpoint in the same innocent person. Unsafe shots are unsafe shots, choose wisely.

    I seen a double tap with 230 45 ball that just hit a wall and fell to te floor after full penetration. It might have left a bad bruise on an innocent behind a badguy on an unsafe defensive shoot. Highly unlikely it would kill them.
     
  15. glockboyshawty2012

    glockboyshawty2012 New Member

    12
    0
    JHP is the way to go to defend your self and your family. I carry 45 auto 230 grain GR GDHP when i CC.
     
  16. Happysniper1

    Happysniper1 New Member

    13,460
    6
    The Hague Convention


    A little illumination on United States Military History, from "American Military History", Oxford Companion Guide, viewable on the Oxford Law Library Online:

    The first Hague Convention was actually a peace conference proposed by Czar Nicolas II of Russia in 1899, initially as a means of limiting arms (and maintaining parity with) the arms of other countries, most notably Germany, and to discuss limitation of arms at sea, an extension of the 1894 Geneva Convention (regarding treatment of prisoners, also signed by the United States), as well as the first discussion of the laws of land warefare. After it was labelled a "peace conference" (as opposed to arms limitation talks), a total of 26 countries attended (and later signed and ratified) this conference. Great Brittain, mindful of the outcome of the War of 1812, insisted the US attend. Officially talks began at the Dutch capital, The Hague, on 18 May 1899. By 29 July of the same year, all 26 participanting governments met once more at The Hague to sign what became known as The Hague Convention, including President Garret A Hobart, on behalf of the United States of America. The agreement was ratified and took effect on 4 September 1900. In the strictest technical terms, the terms of the Convention were agreed upon in the late 19th century, but did not take effect until the start of the 20th century. The year "2009" was still 109 years into the future.

    In 1904, US President Theodore Roosevelt proposed to The Hague Conference (ref The Hague Convention of 1899) a second "peace conference" to deal with real discussions on limitations of arms and other topics, and the Second Peace Conference was held, again at The Hague, beginning 15 June 1907 and was attended by 44 governments (including the United States). Most of the topics at the Second Peace Conference had to do codifying what has come to be known as the Rules For Land Warfare, an extension of those rules to govern war at sea, and an added clause (proposed by the Russians after the unannounced Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1904) that required belligerent countries to formally declare a state of war before initiating hostilities. The 1907 Convention dealt in detail with rules of warfare on the high seas, with Russia still suffering from the Russo-Japanese War (the first big war of the 20th century) from 1904 to 1905, ending with Russia suing for peace after Japan had invaded and occupied Port Arthur in Manchuria and the Sakhalin Island chain (some of these islands still belong to Japan, and were contested by the former Soviet Union). The original members of the First Peace Convention proposed to call both the First and Second Peace Conferences collectively as "The Hague Convention", and it was accepted by the 44 countries (including the United States) that signed it on 18 October 1907, and it took effect on 26 January 1910.

    The Hague Convention led to the concept of a World Court, which later led to the foundation of the League of Nations (to which the United States did not participate) and was largely ineffective, and later to the United Nations (to which the United States did become a member). The World Court still exists, it is still held in The Hague in the Netherlands.

    Since that time, many world conferences have taken place under the auspices of The Hague (and also called part of The Hague Convention), including provisions for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (ratified in 2009) and the terms for International Abduction, the Abduction of Children, and international Adoption of Children. There have also been many numerous conferences on the protection of international patents and copyrights, most of which have taken place late in the 20th century or early this century.

    The Hague Convention applies only to parties who are assignatories to either the First Hague Peace Conference and/or the Second Hague Peace Conference. The United States is an assignatory to both, and it governs how the United States Military is allowed to act and with what limitations on arms. Parties that did not sign either agreement have no obligation to obey the terms. But the United States is under obligation, and has been under the obligation, to obey the terms of The Hague Convention, from the first writing in 1899 to the present time.

    I could not find any reference to any ban, prohibition, or discussion, on the use of napalm or other incendiary devices, or any conventions related to warfare or military action, that took place on or took effect in the year 2009.

    If there is such a reference, please illuminate me by posting the details of such a declaration, convetion, discussion or proposal.

    My apologies to the Original Poster, and to other posters to this thread. I felt it was important to present the correct, factual and substantiated information, instead of making what could be interpreted as an unsubstantiatable declaration.

    Thank you for your patience.
     
  17. brutusvk

    brutusvk New Member

    624
    1
    Boris I read your comments and I think you are pulling our leg. There is no logic to your points. Also expanding bullets have a GREATER chance of strinking bone. The comment about the deer and a 9mm round would get you in some hot water in my state. I have to believe you are just trying to see if anyone will call you to task on your outrageous comments if not, do some real research.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2012
  18. BORIS

    BORIS New Member

    789
    0
    Mk262, M118LR, Mk318........

    Trust me, they expand and they are used. Even M855 is designed to fragment. Some think the very tiny and flat front steel portion of M855 is designed to 'penetrate' metal. Not the case. It's designed to cause a break and fragnemtation of the projectile. It is terrible for even shooting into very thin skinned cars. The pieces left after penetrating the lightest of barriers will injure at best. M955 is the real penetrator with its tungsten carbide core. Even Soviet 7N6 has a dual core with the lead up front. The long skinny projectile yaws quicker than the SS109 projectile for M855 ball but dont fragment. The wounds are wicked.

    Just because its called 'ball', dont mean it will punch straight through and only injure..... Thers ways around the ball 'restriction' and we found every one of them. Mk318 is nothing more than ATKs trophy bonded bear claw projectile re labeled for use in war.
     
  19. Happysniper1

    Happysniper1 New Member

    13,460
    6
    just to make things clearer for the audience on this thread:

    Boris, are you saying Ball (FMJ) ammunition is better than JHP for soft tissue damage (which is what we are looking for in defensive ammunition in the first place)?
     
  20. brutusvk

    brutusvk New Member

    624
    1
    Well, I was the sergeant responsible for the infirmary for a very large county jail for over four years. I saw first hand the difference between ball ammo and JHP ammo and/or fragmenting rounds. Also comparing rifle projectiles to pistol rounds is silly. They are far different ballistally. Look at the energy and volocity of a 5.56 NATO or 7.62 NATO compared to a 9mm.

    Ballistics gel is not like Jello. It is a very close comparrison to human tissue. They also use bones inside the gel to give a more "lifelike" test. They also use ballistic clay to show a wound cavity. This expands and stays expanded to show how much tissue is displaced.

    If the military could use the projectiles LE can use, they would. But that is a mute point. Military operations are nothing like person protection or LEO activities. For one, a wounded soldier may take several out of the fight. (the wounded soldier and those that attempt to save him) In a law enforcement setting you need to end that deadly encounter immediately. Also every bullet you fire you are accountable for. Even if you are justified BUT there is over-penetration and someone else gets injured, you got big problems legally.

    How many police departments issue ball ammo? I don't know of any.