Hp vs. Fmj

This is a discussion on Hp vs. Fmj within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I am confused! Having read many articles, comments, etc., re. the above, I'd like to hear what you have to say re. carrying the .32acp ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Hp vs. Fmj

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Array Philly Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio.
    Posts
    1,115

    Hp vs. Fmj

    I am confused! Having read many articles, comments, etc., re. the above, I'd like to hear what you have to say re. carrying the .32acp hollow point vs. the FMJ in my Beretta Tomcat. At the range, some of the HP's I have shot do better as far as FTf & FTE are concerned, but the opposite is also true with some ammo. Charts I have seen suggest that the FMJ is a better cartridge for the .32acp with 60 gr. at 130 ft.lbs. can you help me out here? Thanks.
    Chicken Little? Who the heck is Chicken Little? And what does she know, anyway?!

    " The will of the majority, the natural law of every society, is the only sure guardian of the rights of man." Thomas Jefferson.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Senior Member Array Spidey2011's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    887
    The biggest reason to carry FMJ in such a small caliber is penetration. Most of the hollowpoints fail to penetrate deep enough. If I were you, I'd be getting some water jugs ad testing the penetration of different loads before deciding what to carry.

  4. #3
    Senior Member Array crue2009's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    nv
    Posts
    792
    IMO,penetration is more important then expansion..generally speaking,you won't get both from a .32acp or .380..i carry Magtech FMJ's in my LCP...

  5. #4
    Moderator
    Array bmcgilvray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,079
    I'd carry a .32 automatic pistol loaded with FMJ and wouldn't depend on any sort of hollow point. I would want the confidence in knowing that I've done everything possible to insure adequate penetration. I've owned several pistols chambered for .32 ACP over the years and have observed that the round can penetrate pretty effectively.

    I wouldn't go for any sort of staggering of FMJ with hollow points either.

    This also holds true for both .25 ACP and .380 ACP. I am no fan of hollow points for any midget cartridge.
    Charter Member of the DC .41 LC Society

    “No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”

    Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893

  6. #5
    Senior Member
    Array Philly Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio.
    Posts
    1,115
    Thanks, Guys! I really appreciate your thoughts. Looks like I will stick with the FMJ's for my Tomcat. Is this a great thread or what?!
    Chicken Little? Who the heck is Chicken Little? And what does she know, anyway?!

    " The will of the majority, the natural law of every society, is the only sure guardian of the rights of man." Thomas Jefferson.

  7. #6
    Member Array Ianator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    304


    Got to 0:48. You will see the .380 hollow point does not even expand. So if you are going to use hollow point in a less powerful caliber, make sure you test the velocity and expansion rate. It may surprise you.

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array 10thmtn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,973
    Go see some of the gel tests on Goldenloki. I also carry FMJ in my .380, and would do the same in .32 - penetration before expansion.
    The more good folks carry guns, the fewer shots the crazies can get off.
    www.armedcitizensnetwork.org - member
    Glock 30, 19, 26; Ruger SP101, LCR, LCP (2), Mini 14; Marlin 336 .30-30; Mossberg 500
    CT Lasers

  9. #8
    New Member Array jframe.38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    6
    I shot .380 JHP through a large telephone book. The tears in the back were about 4 inches across. I could not find the slug.

  10. #9
    Senior Member Array Lotus222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,158
    From my experience, water isn't the best thing to test bullet ballistics on...

  11. #10
    Member Array CountShotula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    150
    I always opt for expanding ammo.
    If your worried about reliability get some Corbon Pow'R Bball in .32 acp.
    I carry Winchester Expanding Point in .25 acp, a lead HP with a LRN profile. No worry about reliability issues.

    The trick to shooting sub-caliber ammunition is understanding their limitations and adapting to them, which means good (really good) shot placement.

  12. #11
    Senior Member Array JohnLeVick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Texas High Plains
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by Lotus222 View Post
    From my experience, water isn't the best thing to test bullet ballistics on...
    No, but the best thing will get you in trouble eventually.

    Seriously, if one knows the limitations and recognizes the fact that no "tissue simulant" perfectly simulates shooting a live human or animal, water is better than many other commonly used media, and, it's free, for all practical purposes. Animals, including humans, are heterogeneous. If one is shot, the bullet enters skin, then some amount of fat, then muscle, then (maybe) bone, then peritoneum, then internal organs, etc. Any homogeneous substance is going to be less than fully representative. Typically, a bullet that expands in water will expand to some degree in flesh. There have been some bullets that would often not expand in water that expanded well in flesh, like the 1st generation of Hydra-Shok. Penetration in water will usually be greater than in 10% ordnance gelatin, with gelatin penetration usually being about 2/3 that of water.

    Phone books or newspapers, water-soaked or otherwise, are not worth much to test expansion, although they are not bad for comparative tests of penetration. I think that if you don't want to go to the trouble of mixing and chilling ordnance gelatin, water is the next best medium.

  13. #12
    Senior Member Array Danimal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    891
    Another issue with .32 ACP JHP ammo is that it is prone to rimlock. Most JHP .32 ACP ammo has a shorter overall length than FMJ loads, and the .32 ACP is a semi-rimmed cartridge. The loaded rounds in the magazine will have a tendency to shift and "hang up" on each other.

    My Kel Tec .32 will not feed JHP because of this.

  14. #13
    Senior Member Array adric22's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Ianator View Post
    Got to 0:48. You will see the .380 hollow point does not even expand. So if you are going to use hollow point in a less powerful caliber, make sure you test the velocity and expansion rate. It may surprise you.
    Okay, this is an interesting thread. Let me ask this question. If the .380 doesn't expand, then how would it be any better or worse than using a plain FMJ? Wouldn't they essentially act the same way?

    For years I carried FMJ in my Glock 19 because I felt like HP was just a marketing gimmick like car dealers do when trying to sell you nitrogen in your tires, etc. But after it was explained better to me, I switched to HP and also had my wife switch to HP in her .380. Now I'm wondering if that was the best decision in the .380. I guess I'll keep reading as this thread progresses.

    I've often asked the same question for .22 caliber and there don't seem to be any good answers there either. All of the "good" ammo with high velocities tend to be HP on the .22 whether you want it or not. Yet, many tests I've seen done show that the .22 HP typically doesn't expand anyway, in which case I guess it makes no difference.

  15. #14
    Senior Member Array Spidey2011's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    887
    Quote Originally Posted by adric22 View Post
    Okay, this is an interesting thread. Let me ask this question. If the .380 doesn't expand, then how would it be any better or worse than using a plain FMJ? Wouldn't they essentially act the same way?

    .
    Possibly. Possibly not. Some .380 HP's do expand, but they typically lack the desired penetration. In the case of the ones that don't, there is still a chance that they would expand as intended. This is the whole reason I wouldn't carry anything less than a 9mm as a primary. Anything less is just a gamble as to effectiveness.

  16. #15
    Senior Member Array paul45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    SML, VA
    Posts
    712
    Quote Originally Posted by Danimal View Post
    Another issue with .32 ACP JHP ammo is that it is prone to rimlock. Most JHP .32 ACP ammo has a shorter overall length than FMJ loads, and the .32 ACP is a semi-rimmed cartridge. The loaded rounds in the magazine will have a tendency to shift and "hang up" on each other.

    My Kel Tec .32 will not feed JHP because of this.
    Go to the kel-tec web site and buy the kit to prevent rim lock in your .32. It works.
    "Being PARANOID is just plain smart thinking when they are really out to get you!"

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

.22 hp vs fmj
,

.22 hp vs.fmj

,
.22 hp vs.fmj defense
,
.32 acp fmj penetration
,
.32 h.p. vs. fmj
,
25 acp expanding point
,

32 acp fmj vs jhp

,
32 ammo fmj vs hp
,
fmj or hp for lcp
,

fmj vs hp

,

hp vs fmj

,
lcp fmj vs hp
Click on a term to search for related topics.