My background (first time I touched a gun was in the military) is such that I never spent much time on the ins and outs of different kinds of ammunition. Now that I CC, I really want to make sure that I'm making every effort both to be safe and to keep bystanders (and, yes, even attackers) safe from needless injury.
So I wanted to double check the sense I'm starting to form from my reading:
Despite that armed forces supposedly use ball ammo because it's more "humane," it has a higher risk of exiting, causing (1) more holes in an attacker, increasing their chances of dying from blood loss, and (2) raising the odds of a round continuing on to strike a bystander. (Point 2 also applies to missed shots penetrating walls and other inanimate objects, I suppose.)
And despite that hollow point ammo has this popular reputation of being designed to increase damage, it in fact (1) decreases the likely number of holes in anyone shot with it, therefore also decreasing that person's chances of dying from blood loss, and so (2) has little chance of passing through the attacker or some inanimate object to strike a bystander.
Does this sound accurate? Specifically, do you think it's accurate to say, essentially, that one has a case for using HP ammo because it is in some way the "safest" or most "conscientious" style of round to use?
Or is the "safety" that results from an HP round's decreased risk of exiting cancelled out or significantly reduced by the way an HP round behaves in tissue, etc? (While I could imagine the kind of person who would see increased "risk" to an attacker as a non-issue, we could of course still be talking about a bystander, here.)
If it matters, the calibers available to me for CC are .38, .357 (not preferred, it's a snubbie), and .40.