JHPs tend to be better stoppers and thus you have to shoot the other person less. And that actually makes it more survivable as there are no where near as many entrance and exit wounds, all leaking blood.
This is what tends to cause long running threads and flame fests.
For the record, I'll state it and then leave everyone to their own opinions on the matter. I'll also throw in a bit of rehash for folks who may be new to the issue.
There are only 3 things that will cause a "man stop" (so to speak) from pistol caliber rounds.
First, there is a Central Nervous System hit. Brain, spine, etc. It's hard to do and usually well protected by bone, but sometimes can be hit and if a bullet bounces off of one it can sometimes cause temporary disruption of the system. It's rare to get a good CNS hit with a pistol so don't really count on it. (we can all agree that the "slug" part of the ammunition is called the "bullet" right?)
Second, there's psycho-somatic effects. A lot of people have been "programmed" by decades of SVU and the like to believe that if they're shot they should drop to the ground and flop like a fish for a moment and then expire. It is not unheard of for people to mimic exactly this. However, they have to first believe that they are supposed to react that way, and second, believe that they have been shot. If you can get that magic mixture then you can "man stop" with a starter pistol or blanks. Again, it's not reliable.
Third, is bleed out. The target looses so much blood due to external and/or internal bleeding that his blood pressure to the brain drops below minimum and he loses consciousness. This may or may not be accompanied by continued blood loss and the target expiring.
These are pretty much the only ways and, of those, the third is really the only certain way to "man stop." Some folks talk about hydrostatic shocks reverberating through the target and causing disruption to the internal organs and CNS but this is hard to do with a pistol caliber and, last time I saw the research, unconfirmed (at best). Long arms are a different animal, of course.
Most folks agree on these stipulations (though, admittedly, not all). The point of contention becomes, how is the best way to cause bleed out. The truth is that multiple through and through holes through the center of mass (where most of the organs reside which the circulatory system feeds) will cause bleed out most quickly, barring a "lucky" hit to a major artery or vein (ask the knife-fighters where those are ;-) Two holes bleed more than one. This points to moderately powerful pistol rounds, such as the 9mm Para, with bullets designed to penetrate and not deform. However, these are highly susceptible to "over penetration" which puts bystanders at even greater risk because not only are they vulnerable to rounds which do not hit the target but also to those rounds which pass through the target.
Further, there is a compelling case made that "bigger holes" cause more bleeding. This points to larger caliber handguns, such as the .45 ACP, and/or expanding bullets.
Additionally, the case is made that, for maximum public safety, over penetration should be minimized and, ideally, eliminated. For the best compromise, it is reasoned, the wound channel caused by the bullet should piece the entire body, through and through, stopping just before exiting the skin at the other side of the target. Because this is impossible with current technology a compromise is made. Handgun caliber bullets targeted at LEO and SD applications are designed to penetrate a minimum distance (in calibrated ballistic gelatin) but not to penetrate beyond a maximum distance, giving the ammunition manufacturer a range to work within. They usually accomplish this by engineering expanding ammunition which will expand as dramatically as possible after the minimum distance (or leading up through that), usually as defined by the FBI "Minimum Penetration" standard.
What it boils down to is that, in the Diallo and similar cases anyhow, Ball ammo is neither "less survivable" nor "more survivable" than expanding ammo. The point of shooting someone is to stop him, and the BEST way of doing that is, unfortunately, the same sort of thing that kills him. Mr. Jackson's "judge, jury, and executioner" statement is, predictably, stupid, uniformed, and illogical. No offense intended, but in my personal opinion, countering it with a statement of, "well expanding bullet ammunition stops better and is more survivable" is, at best, misleading and equally illogical.
I know it's been said that you can't use logic to argue a person out of a position taken without logic, but using illogic doesn't seem to work either.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
