Defence/Hunting bullets: JHP's Vs. Cast WFN/LFN

[youngmman]

I would really appreciate the opinions or real life experience on the effectiveness of Jacketed Hollow Point Bullets versus Cast Wide Flat Nose or wide meplat SWC's like the Keith type bullets. Specifically, I mostly hunt small game up to coyote size animals with a handgun, .357, .44 mag, and recently 45 ACP W/LBT 225 LFN Bullet. The bullets I use are the .44 mag LBT 250gn WFN loaded to about 1000fps and the .357 LBT 155gn WFN loaded to about 1,100fps. I have tested loads for the 45 ACP but haven't hunted with it yet.
In short I see the tests the FBI and others have done regarding JHP's and that most police departments use JHP's in duty weapons and I wonder why? The WFN bullets I use have a much more devastating effect on the game I shoot than any hollow point I have used. I am assuming the goal of the police in using weapons is to disable or kill a threat as quickly and cleanly as possible. With that as an assumption then it would seem like the WFN's would be used. The wound channel produces such immediate and devastating hydrostatic shock that the animal drops like a stone.
I posed this question to Veral Smith a few years ago, from LBT, and he couldn't understand it either since when Remington developed a commercial hunting load for the .357 they chose his WFN bullet. His statement to me was "sometimes it seems these decisions are made by people who don't know how to shoot". I'm not sure I buy into that totally but I would love to hear opinions from this group (yea, I know police can't carry .44 mags.) about why the JHP's?

[35remington]

YM, some of your phraseology suggests you're a little overly enamored of the WFN idea and misunderstand police and self defense requirements. Given that a HP that does expand presents more frontal area than a WFN, and given that small game and humans don't require the penetration a moose does, the selection of HP's by police is entirely understandable. It is the hollow point that allows the bullet to work according to FBI spec and penetrate 12 to 18 inches in gelatin.

The WFN would penetrate far more than this and that is not considered a good thing. Given that penetration needed is relatively shallow, for these sorts of targets the JHP is considered to have a larger wound volume when the vitals lie relatively close to the surface. As in humans and small game.

Arguing the point won't be terribly productive. Relative bullet performance is well known by the Ph.D types and for the reasons stated there is absolutely no way the police will adopt WFN's. They have what they want now.

In no way am I dissing the WFN. Just explaining why for smaller targets the HP's are considered superior and have the wound ballistic studies to back that up.

On bigger meaner critters it would be WFN all the way.

[35remington]

And...expecting humans to "drop like a stone" when hit with service appropriate calibers shooting WFN's is a ridiculous expectation. Humans often don't drop like a stone when shot with pistols, mostly because it takes time to die and pistols do relatively little damage no matter what bullet is used.

This is reality. To believe otherwise is drinking the Koolaid.

You must be aware that some of this "devastation" is really salesmanship. 40's and 9mm's won't turn into death rays with WFN's aboard.

It is not because they are ignorant that WFN's are not used.

[Bigslug]

Oh, it's a lot more complicated than just terminal effect on the bad guy. Administrator-types want a handgun bullet that can be fired 180 degrees away from a perpetrator by an incompetent marksman, be turned around by GPS, dodge around children, little old ladies and small dogs, penetrate the three feet of granite the felon is hiding behind, strike with sufficient force to liquefy even his DNA, and yet somehow be stopped by a sheet of wet Kleenex immediately after exiting.

For lots and lots and LOTS of people, "over"penetration is the boogeyman. Never mind that well over half of the rounds fired in gunfights are statistically likely to miss and penetrate things not intended. Never mind that they have to penetrate ENOUGH to damage vital anatomical structures to incapacitate a threat. Never mind that most cops get some version of the Gunsite safety rules in their training - you know, the one that ends with "Be sure of your target, what is in line with it, and what lies beyond". The modern hollowpoint is constructed as much to coddle the overpenetration pansies as to actually negate the threat.

The other problem is simple - these rounds have to feed 100%. Not only do they have to feed 100% in a lot of different guns, they have to feed 100% in guns that aren't necessarily being properly cleaned, lubed, maintained, or run properly. I'm having a great deal of fun with my Lyman 452423 feed-testing, and think it can be made to run reliably in many things, but I'm a long way from saying that a 75% meplat is the duty auto slug for any duty weapon it's likely to be stuffed into. While I don't think modern HP is going to be more effective a fight-stopper than something heavy with a big, flat nose, I DO think it will be better at getting into the chamber.

[shoot-n-lead]

The "over penetration" hysteria is the reason LEO use of WFN bullets is unacceptable.

This talk of lack of effectiveness of cast bullet wound channel is done by folks that have little or no experience hunting with cast bullets. The meplat on the WFN produces a devastating wound on a human just as it does on big game and to suggest otherwise is counter to fact.

A 45acp pistol stoked with a 255gr WFN round loaded to a very attainable 900fps will function all day long and deliver unequal fight stopping performance regardless of barriers such as clothing or glass that must be defeated or angle that it strikes the bad guy...and bones are also no contest for it...which is more than can be said for HP ammo.

And, if handguns produce so little damage...how are so many people killed every day in this country by handguns? It is ludicrous to continue to recite this very tired argument.

[Whitespider]

Well... you asked for "opinions or real life experience"...
First, my opinion... for most "killing" purposes hand gun bullet/boolit construction/shape is overrated.
Now the experience... I've killed near everything living in my area of the country with a handgun, from Whitetail and turkey to field mice and sparrows (no human beings). I've never noticed that caliber or bullet/boolit construction/shape made dry-spit difference in how dead they became... or how fast they became that way. That is, if I put the shot where I intended... a gut shot deer will run a long way, and a WFN boolit ain't gonna' shorten that distance (I know that from experience also). Heck, a Brenneke 12 gauge deer slug is about as wide and flat as it gets... and I've seen deer run miles after getting hammered with a poor shot by one of those. I used a .45 Colt LRN (swedged) at about 700 FPS to kill my first deer with a handgun... it dropped as though struck by lightening. Last winter a car hit a deer in front of my place and busted one of it's legs, the deer hobbled about 20 yards into the field before I could get a shot off... it dropped as though struck by lightening... I used a .32 S&W Long loaded with LRN (because that's what I had handy).

Now I ain't sayin' a WFN boolit don't have it's place. If I was hunting big, tough, ornery critters, especially those wearing sharp, ugly teeth and/or claws... well...
But I tend to load my handguns with what boolit shoots best... I don't really give nose shape much thought.
*

[35remington]

The statement that handguns don't drop humans immediately when they are shot isn't a tired argument, and that was the specific point. It's fact. Deer rifles don't drop deer immediately when shot in most cases either, and they produce way more wound channel and damage than service pistol calibers do.

One of the things to be expected on a cast bullet site is some amount of rah-rah in describing the performance of a cast bullet. The sad fact is that there is only so much you can expect a bullet to do in terms of immediate incapacitation. That is, hit something like brain or spine. Miss that and the guy might and very well may not fall over immediately. A WFN won't convey 'devastating" effect, sorry to say. In terms of shooting humans with pistol calibers, it's not any better and very well may be worse in some situations than what is currently used.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the LE types to say, "Oh my goodness! You cast bullet shooters were so right! Hit them with a WFN and they go toes up immediately from the utter devastation! We never shoulda used hollowpoints like we did!"

I can't forsee a single less likely thing to happen than the above. Dramatically better performance isn't in the cards given how defensive pistols are used. If it was so dramatically better we'd be using it already, and it would be thoroughly well known. The fact that we're not should tell you something.

Over penetration is indeed oversold when most bullets miss. But assuming the WFN has dramatically better performance for defensive use over the better hollowpoints made these days is probably a very arguable assumption and the central flaw in this thread's premise.

Given the FBI criteria, the current vogue in handgun bullet design parameters, underpenetration of the duty rounds has been addressed, even in hollow point form, when discussing defensive use. Auto glass is tested, as well as clothing, modest amounts of sheet metal, and other things. If you have to shoot through two moose and a fire hydrant to get to the bad guy the WFN may be better. But on the shots most likely to be taken the WFN may come up short in terminal effect compared to the hollowpoint.

This has been extensively tested like no thing ever has in terms of tweaking hollow point bullet performance. What is sold and promoted now is the end result.

Those campaigning for a WFN design for law enforcement use are wasting their time.

And, by the way, I hunt with flatpoint cast bullets. Hollowpoints too.

The diameter of the wound channel of bullets approximating service pistol velocities through the lung tissue of deer is rather modest, whether it be HP or flatpoint traversing the lungs. This is from my own experience. The WFN does not produce a more "devastating" wound. In fact, compared to a deer rifle bullet of much higher velocity, the damage is very modest. "Devastating" it ain't. Afraid that's another fact, too.

[youngmman]

I want to thank you all very much for replying. The real life experience of experienced shooters means a lot more, at least to me, than theoretical lab tests.

Shot placement is the most important thing assuming a reasonable bullet and load for the occasian is an obvious conclusion.

Thanks again.

[DougGuy]

Shot placement is the most important thing assuming a reasonable bullet and load for the occasian is an obvious conclusion.

Thanks again.

I think you answered all your own questions right there.

Furthermore, "reasonable bullet and load for the occasion" encompasses quite a few different scenarios. What would be reasonable for LEO or CCW carry in summer vs winter where clothing can be a big issue? Same boolit for both? I think not.

Now with small game vs large, of course you can discombobulate a coyote with a .44 caliber WFN, as well as take a bull elk with the same boolit, but they are game animals, and not so worried about over penetrating or legalities coming in to the picture, I tend to use the same boolit for hunting because it's the most accurate, regardless of what the game is. I may want a harder alloy for hogs than I would want for deer or black bear, but the boolit is the same, and like you just said, shot placement is the most important thing.

[shoot-n-lead]

The statement that handguns don't drop humans immediately when they are shot isn't a tired argument, and that was the specific point. It's fact. Deer rifles don't drop deer immediately when shot in most cases either, and they produce way more wound channel and damage than service pistol calibers do.

One of the things to be expected on a cast bullet site is some amount of rah-rah in describing the performance of a cast bullet. The sad fact is that there is only so much you can expect a bullet to do in terms of immediate incapacitation. That is, hit something like brain or spine. Miss that and the guy might and very well may not fall over immediately. A WFN won't convey 'devastating" effect, sorry to say. In terms of shooting humans with pistol calibers, it's not any better and very well may be worse in some situations than what is currently used.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the LE types to say, "Oh my goodness! You cast bullet shooters were so right! Hit them with a WFN and they go toes up immediately from the utter devastation! We never shoulda used hollowpoints like we did!"

I can't forsee a single less likely thing to happen than the above. Dramatically better performance isn't in the cards given how defensive pistols are used. If it was so dramatically better we'd be using it already, and it would be thoroughly well known. The fact that we're not should tell you something.

Over penetration is indeed oversold when most bullets miss. But assuming the WFN has dramatically better performance for defensive use over the better hollowpoints made these days is probably a very arguable assumption and the central flaw in this thread's premise.

Given the FBI criteria, the current vogue in handgun bullet design parameters, underpenetration of the duty rounds has been addressed, even in hollow point form, when discussing defensive use. Auto glass is tested, as well as clothing, modest amounts of sheet metal, and other things. If you have to shoot through two moose and a fire hydrant to get to the bad guy the WFN may be better. But on the shots most likely to be taken the WFN may come up short in terminal effect compared to the hollowpoint.

This has been extensively tested like no thing ever has in terms of tweaking hollow point bullet performance. What is sold and promoted now is the end result.

Those campaigning for a WFN design for law enforcement use are wasting their time.

And, by the way, I hunt with flatpoint cast bullets. Hollowpoints too.

The diameter of the wound channel of bullets approximating service pistol velocities through the lung tissue of deer is rather modest, whether it be HP or flatpoint traversing the lungs. This is from my own experience. The WFN does not produce a more "devastating" wound. In fact, compared to a deer rifle bullet of much higher velocity, the damage is very modest. "Devastating" it ain't. Afraid that's another fact, too.

No one is campaigning for WFN use by LEO (at least I am not as I do not care what they use)...but that does NOT change the fact that it IS just as effective as a jacketed HP at administering a deadly wound to flesh. And, despite your epistle to the contrary, only those under a rock will regurgitate the argument that handgun rounds are not effective at stopping people...IT HAPPENS EVERY DAY ACROSS THIS COUNTRY...do you not watch the news or read news reports. Also, if handguns are such ineffective manstoppers, please explain why LE, in their infinite quest for the absolute best equipment, continue to issue them to officers.

Also, to compare handguns and handgun rounds to centerfire rifles and ammunition fails to understand the differences in the weapons and how they are typically used. Most folks do not carry a rifle around as it would be widely frowned upon and be very inconvenient.

You can espouse your hunting and shooting experience using all manner of bullet designs, all you want, but that does not change the fact that cast bullets WILL stop a threat just as a jacketed HP will...you said yourself that no handgun round is effective...so you must mean the the jacketed HP is not effective, also.

Not all of us are impressed with your "knowledge" of what will and will not work as most of us are not noobs when it comes to knowing the effectiveness of what we have used for a considerable number of years, even if we are relative newcomers to casting...such as myself.

Like you, I have used cast swc, wfn, hollowpoints and jacketed HP bullets...I find the cast bullet in any configuration to be considerably more consistent in it's performance than any jacketed HP that I have ever loaded and used.

Lastly, let us not forget that for years the highly touted "FBI" load was a cast hollowpoint. The fact that it has been displaced by a jacketed bullet does not necessarily mean that it is less effective....as our government agencies seem to have lost all ability to make sound judgements on their policies across the board...I can grant you that the "FBI" has not been immune to that.

[leftiye]

Oh well,,,,,,,,

[dubber123]

[QUOTE=shoot-n-lead;2761370] "Also, if handguns are such ineffective manstoppers, please explain why LE, in their infinite quest for the absolute best equipment, continue to issue them to officers.

Also, to compare handguns and handgun rounds to centerfire rifles and ammunition fails to understand the differences in the weapons and how they are typically used. Most folks do not carry a rifle around as it would be widely frowned upon and be very inconvenient."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you answered your own question.. As for effectiveness, I rarely read about too many instant incapacitations from handguns. I do hear of quite a few fleeing the scene, and being found dead later, or being caught while seeking medical treatment. Often these people have been shot more than once during an altercation, so I also don't consider them terribly effective, just convenient, and the best we can reasonably carry on a daily basis.

[WRideout]

A great many LE officers are military vets, who are familiar with what are commonly called the Geneva Convention rules, and military ammunition. International convention forbids the military use of any type of ammunition that causes excessive wounding; it is assumed that one could survive a clean pass-through of jacketed bullets, while a soft lead or hollow point would only cause maiming, instead of killing. There are a few contradictions in the rule; all rifle and pistol ammo has to be hardball, but shrapnel from artillery shells of a certain caliber is fully acceptable. Land mines also. Shotguns are okay for guarding prisoners, but not for combat.

When police departments consider the type of firearm and ammo to be used for routine duty use, it becomes a political decision, in the dictionary sense, meaning that a group of people have to get together and reach a mutually agreeable decision. Sometimes this is driven by understanding (or misunderstanding) of existing laws and international agreements, and sometimes by public perception.

One of the things that I have noticed for many years now is that the general public has a serious lack of factual knowledge about terminal ballistics. It is even more amplified now with the mythology about laser-guided munitions, and drone technology. For some reason there are still people who believe that shooting to wound is a viable option for law enforcement. This would embrace the idea of hardball for duty use, since it would potentially be less likely to kill, but rather wound "cleanly" leaving the victim to recover and lead a normal life. This of course, is poppycock. The attached link is to an article about the LAPD decision to use hollow points for duty use.

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-04-18/local/me-1244_1_hollow-point-bullets

When I signed up to be an Army medic in 1972, I was issued a rifle, with instructions that it was only to be used in defense of myself, or my patients. I never had any illusions about what it was for; when the world was young, the rifle was used to kill the enemy. Nowadays, soldiers are taught to "suppress" which carries the intimation that no one is actually being killed.

As an aside, I truly believe that the reason everyone voluntarily follows the Geneva Convention regarding full-jacketed ammunition, is that it is actually very effective for military purposes. In combat, complete penetration is a very good thing, and many combatants have died from being shot by one of these. Rant over

Wayne

[C. Latch]

YM, some of your phraseology suggests you're a little overly enamored of the WFN idea and misunderstand police and self defense requirements. Given that a HP that does expand presents more frontal area than a WFN, and given that small game and humans don't require the penetration a moose does, the selection of HP's by police is entirely understandable. It is the hollow point that allows the bullet to work according to FBI spec and penetrate 12 to 18 inches in gelatin.

The WFN would penetrate far more than this and that is not considered a good thing. Given that penetration needed is relatively shallow, for these sorts of targets the JHP is considered to have a larger wound volume when the vitals lie relatively close to the surface. As in humans and small game.

Arguing the point won't be terribly productive. Relative bullet performance is well known by the Ph.D types and for the reasons stated there is absolutely no way the police will adopt WFN's. They have what they want now.



Precisely.

[CWME]

Unless you carry your handgun 24-7 the boolit or bullet that is in it sitting on the night stand at home makes zero difference when faced by a bad guy. I get people at church and at work asking me what the "best Ammo" to cary is. Really makes no difference after I ask them what they are packing and get told "nothing". A .22 short is better for self defence than "nothing".

[35remington]

s-n-l, your apparent indignation at handgun bullets being labeled as relatively poor stoppers doesn't change the fact that they are, no matter what they are loaded with.

We aren't and never have been talking about killing people.....just shutting them down in a short period of time. Unless the CNS has been hit handgun bullets don't do that very well. Most people that get shot with handguns survive, and you need to peruse the reports of actual police shootings and review some videos of people actually getting shot with handguns. Often they proceed with their physical abilities not greatly impaired and with full capability to continue with their deadly course of action despite hits to the chest and are often found some distance away when they finally do die if hit mortally. Fortunately, handguns are not single shots, and they certainly need the extra ammo.

Handgun bullets not stopping people happens every day across the country, and in a depressingly large percentage of instances. They most certainly aren't instantly incapacitating ray guns.

I don't live under a rock. Since I do not, I am quite aware that those who study such things for a living categorize handgun bullets as poor stoppers. Your being in disagreement doesn't matter because they are poor stoppers no matter what you believe. Yes, that includes jacketed hollowpoints in service pistol calibers......and the WFN in service pistol calibers. They all aren't that great, but for police use a hollowpoint is better at the task given the many things it must do, and not do.

The original poster is advocating WFN for police use. For the reasons given above, including the fact that it is unlikely that WFN's would be more effective than what they are using now, they will not be adopted.

You need to direct your arguments at something that matter. Your argument that handgun bullets are good "stoppers" has no real foundation. All actual use data contradicts this. I am explaining why the police use what they use, but for some reason the facts seem to pass unnoticed in your readings of what I've posted here.

Cops don't carry shotguns and rifles (which would be much better choices than handguns) because they don't fit in belt holsters very well. The fact that they carry handguns has everything to do with availability and little to do with effectiveness. I suspect that you know this already but for some reason don't want to acknowledge it.

This gentleman was shot in the chest with the trooper's service pistol. Not only was he able to return fire well after being shot.......he drove off as well!

He was found a half mile later, dead. So much for being great "stoppers." This guy wasn't impaired one bit despite a fatal chest wound. Still want to tell me how well service pistol calibers "stop" people? He lived at least 30 to 45 seconds AFTER being shot in a non survivable location. What "stopping power" was present in this case? He even managed to pick up a dropped magazine and insert it back in the pistol before running off......and moved dynamically and ran AFTER being shot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcD_CkdJWo8

I'd say this makes my point very well. I'd say it refutes your objections and very convincingly so. I'd also say it confirms I watch the news and read news reports. The news, in this case, doesn't validate the idea of handguns being good stoppers.

[youngmman]

"The original poster is advocating WFN for police use. For the reasons given above, including the fact that it is unlikely that WFN's would be more effective than what they are using now, they will not be adopted."

Let me say, as the original poster, that I was not advocating the use of WFN bullets over JHP's for police use. I WAS asking the question of why hollow points are used in favor of WFN's. The reason I ask is that based on my personal experience in hunting situations using both JHP's and WFN's the WFN's were more effective killers of small game up to Coyote size. The handgun is a weapon of convenience and not choice for police or anyone else who carries one. Bill Jordan in "No Second Place Winner" said "If you are going into a situation you know will be hostile, get a double barreled shotgun and quit worrying about unimportant details", enough said.

I thank you all for responding. I have learned a lot from informed opinion. Any more comments are more than welcome.

[35remington]

Make no mistake....if the bullet penetrates adequately to reach vital organs, and another bullet that carries the same energy penetrates considerably further, the bullet that penetrates the lesser amount has a wider wound track, especially at penetration depths where vital organs lie which are reasonably close to the surface. Since this describes the needed characterisics of a bullet used on humans, the hollowpoint bullet can be characterized as having better wounding effect than the WFN types where comparatively shallower rather than deeper penetration is needed.

The performance of the WFN on humans is most likely inferior on unobstructed shot to the HP's available now. Neither is a death ray, as the video above so clearly illustrates. We are all talking about degrees of adequacy or inadequacy, from whichever angle you wish to approach it.

Please excuse my mischaracterization, but given you claim much "better" performance with the WFN on small game and you were asking why not the WFN in law enforcement where stopping someone is the priority when a handgun, I saw your relating better performance of the WFN as an advocacy of sorts based on said experience.

[fredj338]

Problem with a WFN in a sd load, it's going to over penetrate, almost 100% of he time. A jhp or LHP is a better tool IMO.

[Piedmont]

The reason I ask is that based on my personal experience in hunting situations using both JHP's and WFN's the WFN's were more effective killers of small game up to Coyote size.

I've never shot a coyote, but used to shoot a lot of woodchucks. The thing about woodchucks is that in addition to being tough, they are always near a burrow. If you don't hit them very hard, they are running to the hole, even with a vital wound. My experience comparing cast large meplat .44s at 900-1200 fps. was they were not impressive on the chucks, whereas cast hollow point .357s at around 1200 fps. put them right down. Cast expanding .44s at 1200 fps put them down immediately also.