Talk:Hollow-point bullet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Firearms (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is inconsistent with the Wikipedia Article "Stopping Power"[edit]

This article states that hollowpoint bullets are more effective than other bullets. This is in direct contradiction to the Wikipedia Article on "Stopping Power" which states that bullet deformation and energy transfer, especially in handgun calibers, are not significant factors. This should be researched and corrected. One or the other has got to be incorrect. 19:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a problem--both are correct depending on the references you cite... Hollow point bullets limit penetration, and increase the diameter of the cavity left by the bullet--that is a fact. Whether this is good or not depends on the application, and that's where opinions differ. Shooting at a prarie dog, it's almost universally a good thing. Shooting at a charging Cape Buffalo, it's almost universally a bad thing. Any other application (especially defensive handguns) and there's significant disagreement. The number one concern in all cases is placing the bullet in the right spot. You can't have enough power to make a miss effective. scot 19:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
As observed above, the "facts" often depend on whether one is talking rifle, or handgun. There is recent (2 - 10 years?) growing consensus that states that hollow/soft points, in (most) handguns, is not a measurable factor in stopping power. In handguns, the consensus regarding (especially field observed) "stopping power," or quick incapacitation, seems to be shifting toward long wound channels and deep penetration. In handguns, soft/hollow point bullet expansion is (dangerously?) unpredictable, opening up on contact with clothing etc, to never opening up. This long-standing debate and related issues/concerns should be argued in the article.
But typically vastly more powerful rifle bullets on impact; have utterly different characteristics as well as the obvious quantitative differences.
-- (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Some improvements (2003)[edit]

I made a couple of small corrections:

  • the pit is not drilled, it is actually cast in place
  • It's the Hague Convention that covers expanding ammo, reference to Geneva Conventions is a common (nearly universal!) error
  • JHP's aren't just used in pistols, they are very common in rifles as well.
  • The article gave JHPs are rather illicit sound, so I pointed out that they are in fact the norm, and actually required in many cases
  • pointed out that calling JHP's "dum-dums" is at best slang (and arguably just wrong, since it really refers to soldiers illegally modifying service ammunition)

-- Roger 14 Aug 2003

Merge with "dum-dum"?[edit]

I think this should be merged into Dum-dum Jooler 17:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The term "dum-dum" refers to a modified FMJ bullet, not an intentionally designed bullet; this is a very significant distinction. Militaries bound by the Hague convention must use FMJ ammuntion (although non epxanding hollow point rounds are used by US snipers), and modifying these bullets to expand by filing down the tip is illegal. The resulting bullet is not actually a hollow point, but rather a soft point bullet, which, all else being equal, expands at a slower rate than a hollow point. Modern hollow point bullets are carefully designed from the start to yeild very specific expansion performance under given circumstances. While "dum-dum" needs to be cross referenced with hollow point and soft point bullets (and probably FMJs as well, since that's what dum-dums start as) they are certainly worthy of different articles. Now I admit that much of the first paragraph of the dum-dum article probably belongs somewhere else, but the history and the Hague convention portions (the Hague convention being in direct response to dum-dum bullets) should stay there. scot 20:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

No, the dum-dum bullet was intentionally designed by the British Army in India as the article points out. Who says that dum-dum bullet refers specifically to a bullet illegally modeified? Jooler 00:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Who modifes bullets anymore, when high performance hollow point and soft point ammunition is readily available? There is a device made to cut hollow points into match grade .22 Long Rifle bullets, as match grade ammunition is not sold with hollow point bullets (note however that these are NOT jacketed bullets, but are solid lead--the cutter is not made to deal with jacketed or plated bullets). This is the only case I know of, and it's pretty uncommon--I think the practice of handloading rimfire ammunition with better bullets is probably more prevalent. In cases where expanding ammunition is not available, modifying a bullet to make it expanding would almost always be illegal, and military use of expanding ammunition in international conflict is a violation of the Hague Convention. Modifying bullets by cutting the tip also tends to destroy the accuracy, as it is very hard to do so accurately enough that the bullet retains its balance, and EVERY modified bullet is EXACTLY the same weight. So if the correct use of the term Dum-dum refers to bullets modified to be expanding (which I would consider the case) then I see very few cases where Dum-dum would refer not legal ammunition. scot 15:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, there are people in jurisdictions like Brazil, where commercial hollowpoint ammunition is not available to civilians, or prohibitively expensive, where people are still known to modify ammunition intended for defensive use.
Also, at least in American English, in modern literary use (there is a passage about this in Heller's "Catch-22," for example, about some character "shooting rats at the dump with a .45 and bullets he'd dumdummed with a hunting knife") the term "dumdum" carries the implication that the ammunition was modified, probably by the end user, probably crudely with hand tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

About the Hague convention[edit]

There should be some more talk about the Hague convention's ruling here. This article here adheres to Neutrality for sure, but come on, it's a bullet designed to rip the flesh tissue when it goes in!

Yeah, as opposed to all those other bullets designed to apply a gentle moisturizing lotion to the skin on impact instead of ripping a hole in it. --Raguleader 06:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


When the article states the head of the HP expands in a mushroom shape, I'm assuming that the head expands outwards (radially) and flattens to form a mushroom shape - is this correct? I just thought the current description was a little vague and could use some clarification. Virogtheconq

That is correct. Infortunately, I don't have any mushroomed bullets handy or I'd take some pictures. I may see about getting out and doing some shooting and capturing a few in the not too distant future. scot 22:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I added two images of a 38 spl hollow point bullet. These images are an excellent example of the intended terminal ballistics of a hollow point bullet sometimes referred to as mushrooming.

--Rickochet 02:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Added an image of an expanded bullet. Not the "nicest" expandation but it can do until someone takes a better picture (and it has travelled more than halfway through a moose ;).If someone maybe can add what the 6.5x55mm (Mauser I think) is called in USA (if it is called anything). But don't remove the current designation please. --User:Zoeds 13:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The only 6.5x55mm I'm familiar with is generally called the "6.5x55mm Swede" or just "6.5mm Swede", as it's generally found in Swedish surplus military arms. scot 15:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Just popped over to your user page, and since you're Swedish, I'm going to assume that round is what Americans call a 6.5 x 55 mm Swede, and change the caption accordingly. scot 16:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
6.5 x 55 mm Swede seems like a good name. There is a slight difference in the charge I belive between the army version you talk about and the "civil" one which is the on the image, but it's not worth mentioning. The recoil when shooting with the army version is a bit stronger. --Zoeds 17:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Could be loaded to a slightly higher pressure in the military version; the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO round has both a higher max pressure and a longer throat than the civilian equivalent .223 Remington. Also, given the prohibition of expanding bullets in warfare, which is mentioned in the article, I think it can assume that the reader will make the connection and realize that that's a civilian loading, not a military one. scot 18:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The difference is in pressure loading. Civilian ammo 6.5mm Swede is typically downloaded out of concern for the safety of antique Norwegian Krags chambered in this caliber.


Plagiarism was suspected, but all is OK[edit]

This whole article is plagerized from here: or vice versa.

Vice versa. Many, many sites, including, mirror Wikipedia, which is entirely legal, as long as they attribute the information to Wikipedia (which does do; take another look). Look at the article history here, and you can see the evolution of the article on Wikipedia and see who the authors are. scot 14:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

New pics[edit]



"As a side effect, hollow point bullets can offer improved accuracy by shifting the center of gravity of the bullet rearwards."

Why does this make the bullet more accurate? It seems to me that it'd make it less stable, hence less accurate. —wwoods 23:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

One explanation I have heard is that hollow point bullets are jacketed in reverse (compared to FMJ). In other words, the nose of the bullet is where the jacketing ends, instead of the base. This jacketing over the base of the bullet prevents deformation and vaporization of the lead upon firing, which in theory results in better stability of the bullet in flight. I would imagine this advantage, if it indeed exists, would be found in the newer TMJ bullets as well. There are some other reasons cited for improved accuracy of hollow points, but this is the only one I am familiar with. SquareWave 06:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, moving the center of mass forwards, NOT BACKWARDS, will result in increased stability. Look at aeronautical engineering, it is virtually universally accepted that for a vehicle, the CG should be ahead of the Center of Drag. For example, look at any rocket, the fins will be at the back, which moves the center of drag rearward, and thus behind the CG. Further, i do not believe that the above post, about hollow point being reverse FMJs, to be accurate nor relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, and more. It's BS. I think that whole dubious section should be removed. I did make some changes, plus some REM notes there. Almost that entire section seems to be based on un-cited military claims/wishes, contrary to just about the the entirety of this article and common knowledge! Whoops, google search seems to confirm! Consider this forum conversation snippet about the noted Sierra Matchking hollow-point example:

"Imagine, if you will (or can), that Sierra suddenly declared that their OTM bullets expanded and were acceptible for hunting. The US military would immediately and forthwith cease ANY purchases of such projectiles, and Sierra's bottom line would do an impression of a lead balloon. Don't you think money COULD have something to do with why they don't recommend a bullet for hunting that has a documented history of working well in that application?...." at

-- (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford


Maybe wiki should have a listing of the different types of bullets at the bottom or something... I'd do it if I knew enough about wiki coding + bullets, which I don't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nafango2 (talkcontribs) 05:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

So why are hollowpoints banned in warfare?[edit]

Title says it all...

This article mentions they're banned, but doesn't say -why-? What reasons were there for banning them?

--Penta 15:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

To find the root cause, you have to work your way back through the laws of warefare. From the article:
The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use in warfare of bullets which easily expand or flatten in the body. The relevant statements are:
The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.
The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.
That explains when and why hollow points are banned, as they do expand readily in the human body. To find out why that is a bad thing, you need to go to the earlier St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which states:
That the only legitimate object which States should endeavour to accomplish during war is to weaken the military forces of the enemy;'
That for this purpose it is sufficient to disable the greatest possible number of men;
That this object would be exceeded by the employment of arms which uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable;
That the employment of such arms would, therefore, be contrary to the laws of humanity;
The Contracting Parties engage mutually to renounce, in case of war among themselves, the employment by their military or naval troops of any projectile of a weight below 400 grammes, which is either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable substances.
This was due to Russia's use of small caliber bullets (i.e. infantry weapons, not cannon) that were provided with a small quantity of explosive that detonated upon impact, causing far more serious wounds than a solid lead projectile. The Dum-dum article covers the history of the expanding bullet, but to sum up, the Brits discovered that their new high velocity .30 caliber bullet wasn't doing nearly as much damage as their older, slower .45 caliber bullet, so they began to experiment with open tipped jacketed bullets that would expand upon impact, to produce a wound comparable to the .45 caliber round with the .30 caliber bullet. The international community then decided that this was similar enough to the Russian's exploding bullet that they tacked it onto the rules of war as causing aggravated suffering. Modern military bullets, which are even smaller at .21-.22 caliber, generally tumble and/or break in two, which produces a more severe wound than would otherwise be generated. scot 16:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
So if I understand correctly, they're banned, even though a) in a war soldiers tend to shoot each other to take each other out, b) the damage is comparable to a bullet which was not banned and c) modern bullets are even worse.
This all seems to be based on a rather dogmatic argument. Didn't they find it necessary to do some actual research on what the optimal humanitarian stopping power is and stick to that? Or they could have simply decided that soldiers should accept that getting killed is an occupational hazard. Shinobu (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
First, it doesn't sound like you are understanding correctly. The expanding, jacketed .30 caliber bullet does about as much damage as the solid .45 caliber bullet it replaced, which is much more than the original .30 caliber FMJ bullet. So why not stick with the .45? The .30 caliber bullet is lighter (allowing more ammo to be carried), has a flatter trajectory (and therefore longer effective range), and allows a higher rate of fire (bigger magazines, less recoil, faster repeating actions). So while the Dum-dum bullet wasn't more destructive on a shot-by-shot basis than the .45 caliber bullet, it was "cheating" in that you could now get more rounds on target without sacrificing wounding ability like you did with the .30 caliber FMJ bullets. Likewise, the step from .30 to .22 caliber bullets (5.56mm and 5.45mm) made the same tradeoffs as the .45 to .30 step.
As for the overall philosophy of wounding power, that's a conflict between political and military goals. Just about every generation of military small arm in the past century and a half has moved to a smaller, lighter, faster bullet, with a higher rate of fire, because it's far more effective to poke a tiny, distracting hole in someone than to completely fail to put a really big hole in them because you missed or were out of ammo. However, the political ramification of trying to make a given size bullet make a more severe wound is that there is no "optimum"; you either limit it in some way, such as the prohibition of expanding bullets (so most armies go with fragmenting or tumbling bullets), or you don't limit it, and end up with poisoned or exploding bullets, which is something no one wants. scot (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Militaries of the world by now have long adhered to the doctrine that non fatal casualties are far more detrimental to an enemy force than fatalities. Caring for the wounded uses up significant production power and capital, while neglecting, executing, or otherwise purging them is morale-destroying. Most militaries including the largest and highest funded (united states) routinely chose to both expend significant energy recovering them and also neglect them later denying them adequate care. Grabba (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I have heard history professors say, but cannot document a verifiable and authoritative source, that the single most important motivation for the Hague Convention restrictions was that European governments had noted US/CSA use of large-caliber, unjacketed soft lead bullets during the US Civil War, and their perception was that one of the results was the creation of a disproportionate number of maimed and crippled war veterans who could not support themselves and required (very expensive) pensions. While these bullets were not generally of hollowpoint construction or design, they were still of very large caliber, of very soft lead alloy, and very frequently deformed in a manner similar to a rivet while traveling through soft tissue, making especially grievous wounds that were perceived to be very likely to require amputation as treatment if they occurred in a limb. Ironically, in the First World War, the new high-velocity jacketed bullets driven by nitrocellulose based propellants often yawed and tumbled in soft tissue (especially if the bullets were of the pointed "spitzer" shape, which has its center of gravity well to the rear of its geometric center), which made wounds every bit as nasty as the old large caliber unjacketed bullets, and all participants in the war ended up having to pay the pensions to their armless and legless veterans anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyediting style: hyphenation[edit]

As professional copyeditors know, there are times in life when a hyphen would be best but can't be easily introduced because the majority of the population using a certain term is used to omitting it. A good example is high speed steel, as discussed at High speed steel#Copyediting conventions. In the case of hollow-point bullet, there is an added wrinkle: The term is shortened by nominalizing the unit adjective hollow-point. Logically, the hyphen should remain when writing the nominalized form. However, this distinction is lost on most of the population, and if we were to style the nominalized form thus in this article, I suspect that we would constantly be upbraided by users telling us that the "right" way to style the nominalized form is hollow#point, as evidenced by 38 million Google hits, etc. (BTW, "#" is the editing symbol for a word space.) What the epistemology boils down to is that you either have to implement the style and then bother defending it from "correction", or you have to accept the styling hollow#point for the nominalized form, because its usage outnumbers the usage of hollow-point in that application. I currently vote for the latter because I don't care enough to bother about the former. But I bothered to write this discussion here because I felt like this topic is eventually going to come up among edits to the article. So here is the full answer, pending someone asking. — Lumbercutter 22:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I "googled" my ammunition inventory and Hornady, Winchester, Remington and CCI use the style "hollow#point" (that is, "googled" as in used my "googly eyes" as the song goes). Naaman Brown (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Use in/by America[edit]

It should perhaps be more explicitly mentioned, due to the formatting of this article that it is entirely lawful and commonplace, to use Hollow Point ammunition in the United States for both Military and Civilian use for any and all applications, as the US is neither a signatory of the Hague Conventions, nor does it's laws in any way restrict its use. Alexander (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but that is NOT true. Many local governments in the United States restrict expanding ammunition, and the United States military, while it does use one type of hollow point ammunition (in the form of a number of Sierra Match King bullets used by snipers, considered by them to be the most accurate .308 caliber bullet made; I've also seen mention of special forces use of the 77 grain .223 Match King as well), it is not intended to expand on impact, nor does it produce wounds significantly different from non-expanding bullets. While the US is not a signatory to the Hague or Geneva conventions, it DOES abide by the provisions on deforming ammunition (the contentious points are on land mines, cluster bombs, and the like). The prohibition covers "bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions." Most military bullets are not truly "full metal jacket", as they are open at the rear, but that does not significantly impact the terminal performance, so they are not at odds with the actual prohibition on easily deformable bullets. See here for a reprint of the US Judge Advocate General's opinion on the use of these bullets; see also this article on the Joint Combat Shotgun program, which discusses the German protest of US use of shotguns in WWI, and the mention of hardened vs. soft lead shot, which shows that jackets per se aren't really relevant to the issue at all, but rather actual terminal performance. scot (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The United States military does use Sierra Match King / M118LR bullets but they are not "hollow points" as you say. Since this kind of open tip only allows for improved accuracy and is not a hollow point, and its use does not violate the U.S. military's voluntary hollow point ban. You are not the only one to use the term hollow point sloppily, as you can read about here, even JAG makes mistakes. 1. SJSA 00:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
From Sierra: "For serious rifle competition, you'll be in championship company with MatchKing® bullets. The hollow point boat tail design provides that extra margin of ballistic performance match shooters need to fire at long ranges under adverse conditions." If the manufacturer calls it a hollow point, I'm going to have to go with them. If you want to claim that Sierra is wrong on the point, I think you're in for an uphill battle. scot (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Sierra caused the initial problem. They erroneously marked their ammo boxes with something to the effect of "not for use in combat" becasue they thought they qualified as hollow points. They misused the term. Other more appropriate terms such as hollow tip and open tip may not have been in wide use at the time they originally decided to call their rounds hollow point, but the fact remains, there is a difference and it is an important one. SJSA 06:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Right, the important part is that while the Sierra design is a hollow point (the point of the bullet is, undeniably, hollow), it is not designed to be an expanding bullet. A look at the cross-section shown on that page will show that the tip is very clearly hollow, with a tiny opening in the tip of the jacket. However, the design is not optimized for expansion. Comparing the MatchKing to the BlitzKing, the opening in the BlitzKing (disregarding the plastic tip added for ballistic reasons) is wider, and extends down into the core a significant distance. The GameKing and ProHunter soft point designs show a distinct tapering of the jacket at the tip, which is not evident in the MatchKing line. I suspect, though they do not say, that there is also a difference in the core hardness between the expanding and non-expanding bullets. This all, however, irrelevant quibbling. The prohibition made in the Hauge accord is against bullets that expand or flatten, no matter what the design; this is why the analysis of the use of the shotgun for the Joint Combat Shotgun program specifically notes the use of plated or antimony hardened buckshot is required for compliance, while pure lead buckshot would lead to a violation of the accord. The difference here is obviously not a matter of design, as a solid sphere is a solid sphere, but in other characteristics that determine terminal performance. I really don't think you can say the premier bullet manufacturer in existence is wrong on this point; the use of terms other than "hollow point" are merely attempts to force "hollow point" to mean "expanding", which has never been the case. scot (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'll concede the point then, pardon the pun. SJSA 21:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Diagram requested[edit]

I think a diagram (particularly an animated diagram) would help this article considerably, to illustrate the peeling/fragmenting upon entry into the target. The Black Talon explanation, in particular, left my head swimming and it would benefit a lot from a diagram, too, if someone has the energy to create two. Tempshill (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a first attempt; I'm not sure though that it's clear that the bullet is in constant motion, so I may try again.
Hp impact anim slow2.gif
scot (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a thought; if I expanded this and made the bullet move, and the background still, I could also show temporary and permanent cavity formation; this would be more work, and bandwidth, but it would also be a useful image in more articles, such as ballistic gelatin, terminal ballistics, and such. scot (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ballistics coefficient[edit]

Article states that moving the CG backwards improves the ballistics coefficient, but these are irrelevant terms, as the location of the CG has nothing to do with drag/velocity retention characteristics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

True. And others have argued similar problems in the above "Accuracy" discussion. I think that entire section of the article is bogus and should be removed. It's a symptom of vested interests, seemingly the bullet maker Sierra, & the US military. It pretty much contradicts the whole rest of the Hollow Point article, and what we have all known since children. That it has remained unchallenged so long is proof that Doublethink is not just real, but common.
-- (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Talking out of both sides of your mouth[edit]

The page says

"The United States military, for example, uses hollow-point bullets in some sniper rifles for their exceptional accuracy at long ranges,"
"NATO members do not use small arms ammunition that is prohibited by the Hague Convention."

Needless to point out, both cannot be correct... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 20:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

In this instance, I'd say that the first sentence is incorrect, both in use by the US (contrary to the Hague convention, so forbidden to the military), and as to the fact that hollow points are definitely less stable for long range shooting than ball ammo or spitzer bullets. Looking at the reference looks genuine, though, so it can be assumed that the US could be taken to task for reneging on the Hague convention (non ratification of later codicils not changing their stopping adhering to the principles)... I'd still like to see the size of the hollow on those match grade rounds compared to a standard dum dum one... increasing the front surfaces causes air drag and can't be good for long rainge precision.. --Svartalf (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
While it may seem at first that a hollow cavity an he nose of the bullet would increase air resistance and degrade performance, this is not always the case. Sierra spent a lot of time and money developing the Match King (and that is Match, as in shooting match, where nothing but accuracy matters) bullet and it is a pretty safe assumption that the cavity in the nose of this bullet is there for a reason. Traditionally, a cavity in the nose of a bullet was intended to enhance terminal expansion but such expansion is not simply a function of whether the bullet has a hollow point or not. Bullet metallurgy and design is not a simple science. Other factors have a very significant impact on expansion, too. The Hague Convention outlawed expanding bullets, not specifically hollow points. Since the Match King bullet is designed for extreme accuracy and not enhanced expansion, there is no contradiction involved. If I had one, I'd be glad to put up a photo of it. The Match King is not the only military bullet with a hollow cavity. Much of the surplus Russian & Warsaw Pact 7.62x39 ammo on the market today also has such a cavity and no one ever made any big deal of it being a violation of the Hague Convention. The hollow tip on all these bullets is very small, perhaps 1mm in diameter. Finally, the US military cannot be taken to task for using expanding bullets, even if it did, since the Hague Convention only applies to conflicts between two signatories and the Taliban and Al-Quaeda are most certainly not signatories to any such agreement between nations.--SEWalk (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hornady Handbook of Cartridge Reloading 3rd Ed. shows a diagram of the Boat Tail Hollow Point on page 655 under bullet types and lists load data for the .308 Winchester (7.62 NATO or 7.62x51mm). Hornady Product Number 3050 30 Cal 168 gr. BTHP. Optimal Usage is Target-Match. Different 30 Cal. bullet designs are listed for optimal usage as "Varminting, Hide Hunting, Medium Game, Heavy Game, Dangerous Game". The .30 Cal Game hunting bullets are all the softnose variety with the exception of the 110 gr FMJ (hide hunting), 150 gr (hide hunting) and 220 gr FMJ (dangerous game). Hornady manufactures bullets for defense, hunting and target shooting: the .30 hollow point bullets are designed for usage as Target-Match for accuracy not for expansion. If they expand, they are not as effective as the soft point bullets designed for hunting. The 3050 30 Cal 168 gr. BTHP is a recommended bullet for military or police sniping use because of its precision accuracy and not because of its relatively inefficient expansion. There are full metal jacket (FMJ) bullets (like the .303 Mark 7) fully Hague Convention compliant that tumble or yaw on impact and inflict more damage than the BTHP design. Naaman Brown (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The hollow in the point of the BTHP design is about the diameter of a fine sewing needle allowing air to escape as the bullet is formed in manufacture from the core and jacket, the lead core (inserted into the solid base jacket from the front) has a flat nose, leaving a short conical air space in the nose of the jacket, as the jacket is formed into a near-spitzer shape. The goal is to have the weight centered with an extended aerodynamic nose. This would not be my choice for an expanding hunting or pest control bullet. Naaman Brown (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Revisit: In examining diagrams of hollow point bullets designed to expand for game hunting or self-defense, the hollow includes the lead core and not just the jacket. In the Sierra Match King and Hornady .308 168gr Boat Tail Hollow Point BTHP bullets designed for long range marksmanship, the lead core is flat nosed and there is an airspace between the hollowpoint of the jacket and the core, and the jacket nose is relatively thick. In a hollow point bullet designed as expanding for hunting or self-defense, the lead core is hollowpointed and the jacket material is thinner or even weakened to promote a mushroom effect on penetration. It is not "talking out of both sides of your mouth": some bullets designed to expand are hollowpoint, but not all hollowpoint bullets are designed to expand. Naaman Brown (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Black talon controversy[edit]

Nancy L. Jones, M.D., Atlas of Forensic Pathology, Igaku-Shoin, New York - Tokyo, 1996, discusses the Black Talon on page 64 and shows autopsy results of a police shooting with the Black Talon on pages 94 and 95 (Chapter 4 Injury Due to Firearms, figures 4.53, 4.54a and 4.54b).

There is a bullet available on the market that is called a "Black Talon". This particular bullet is designed for use by police because the deformation of the bullet which occurs at the time of impact causes the bullet to form talon-like structures which grab and hold onto the tissues within the body of the intended target. This prevents these bullets from perforating or passing through the target and then striking or injuring an innocent bystander. It also increases the wounding capability or stopping power of the bullet. These talons are very sharp and are extremely dangerous to the person recovering the bullet. It is very helpful to have Teflon-coated hemostats or forceps to recover these bullets. The Teflon coating prevents the instrument from scratching the bullet.

The caption to Figure 4.53 adds: "A Teflon-coated instrument or the chain-mail autopsy glove are useful in recovering this type of bullet." This advice is not unique to Black Talon. One, Teflon-coated instruments are recommended for removal of any bullets that cannot be removed by the rubber-gloved hand to avoid obliterating microscopic ballistic marks on any type of bullet. Two, chain-mail autopsy gloves are recommended for any wound with broken glass, broken knife blades, copper jacketed bullets, etc.: any wound with fragments (including broken bone) that might cut or tear a rubber glove.

The comments of the medical examiner are a stark contrast to the hype from the "ban the black talon (or anything gun-related for that matter)" crowd: the Black Talon was designed to reduce collateral damage to innocent bystanders and to stop the intended target with fewest shots necessary, points that are lost in the propaganda to promote a ban. One animation used to promote the ban showed the "talons" acting as a buzz saw, whereas the ME describes them acting as snags to hold and stop the bullet within the intended target. Naaman Brown (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, the same portion of the article ends with one true and one false statement. Where it says that Olin/Winchester continued development of the Black Talon bullet, changed its name, removed the black coating, and began marketing it to law enforcement only, this is true. That ammunition currently, as of late 2011, is normally sold packaged in a yellow and gold box of fifty rounds labeled "RANGER" under the brand name "T-Series." But where it describes the "Ranger Bonded"/"PDX-1" plated jacket hollowpoint as "a very similar design," it really isn't. The unfired bullets are cosmetically similar, as the hollowpoint cavity is punched into both using an approximately hexagonal punch, but the "Ranger Bonded" bullets do not form sharp "talons" of jacket material, as the copper jacket is plated onto the lead core and does not separate from it to form any cutting edges. Its construction and performance are very similar to those of the Speer "Gold Dot" plated hollowpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hollow-point in NJ[edit]

They are most certainly NOT expressly illegal. They are perfectly lawful in most ordinary situations a citizen would be in. i.e. trips to the shooting range, and home defense. The link in the reference ironically confirms this fact, and goes against the article's wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hollow-Point usage in US Military[edit]

Hello, after reading this article, i came away with the distinct impression that wikipedia is not aware that the US military sanctioned hollow point bullets for its police forces in 2010, and has been using them for years before that as well. I also carried a 9mm Beretta pistol with 1 clip of ball ammo, and 1 clip of hollow point ammo. The proof is in found easily enough in the following Army Times article As well as my own personal anectdotal at best proof of having carried that particular type of ammunition on a nearly daily basis for 4 years. If you need a little more digging for an official press release maybe then let me know. Germloucks (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This is surprising only in the context that it took the Provost Marshall General several decades to catch up to the rest of the law enforcement agencies operating in the United States. The PM's decision applies only to law enforcement operations within the United States and has nothing to do with the decision of the military to abide by the outdated and idiotic provisions of the Hague Convention.

And you were never issued any "clip" of 9mm anything. It is called a magazine and you should know better if you really were a MP. --SEWalk (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I added something on this, but an expert should include SEWalk's citation and info as well.

Mdnahas (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The US did not sign the Hague Convention on expanding bullets (Declaration IV,3), but chose to abide by it. List_of_parties_to_the_Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907#1899_Hague_Conventions_and_Declarations

Stargzer (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hollow-point bullet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hollow-point bullet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)