I see a lot of talk on the forums and in stores about how modern bullet technology is far superior to the earlier designs that failed to live up to expectations.

I don't doubt this, but curiosity has me wondering what changed so much over the decades in making cartridges that were considered marginal (following incidents like the Miami shootout) to now be considered adequate.

How would a modern JHP bullet of the HST, Hydroshock, or Gold Dot variety be different from it's predecessors?

Let me very up front and clear - I'm not starting a bashing thread. I wasn't carrying in the 80s, so I don't know what was available then or how it performed. I have no dog in this fight, and I don't want it to devolve into the same tired arguments I see.

I would love to know, however, for my own knowledge and curiosity, what types of specific changes have been made to defensive ammo over the years. I'm sure there are many, and I'm sure most of you can probably recite them, but I'm a bit ignorant on the subject, so please help me out. Thanks.

A lot depends on the lead.
It needs to be soft to expand but hard enough to penetrate.

Jacket bullets need to also have the thickness of the jacket
at a certain thickness and chemical make up of strength to be
able to either penetrate, expand, fragment or what ever.

Lead was good.....
Jacket HP are now called better..........
but there is the new coated that might change things, again.

Chemistry and plastics are fun to play with, today.

I wouldn't have mattered much what kind of pistol bullet they were using in Miami. What they needed was a couple of AR-15.

Some differences. They've found ways to score/fold the jacket that make it more reliable in expansion. The bullets are bonded to the jackets better. Companies like Speer have gone to the 'Flying Ashtray' design with a BIG hollow for their Gold Dot line. They can also engineer the thinkckness of the jacket for expansion at lower velocities like the Speer Short Barrel bullets.

I think companies have taken handgun bullets more seriously. Rifle people have always had well constructed bullets available. The pistol stuff, say, back in the 70s, performed more like a plain slug because they didn't expand reliably. (all anybody cared about was high velocity) Especially .38s in revolvers. The .380 acp was not considered to be a good defense round in the old days, but with improvements in bullets, more people are relying on them.

I've seen that if an HP doesn't expand, it acts like an FMJ and goes straight through the perp.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Hmm. Makes sense, thanks for the responses!

Hummm. You're welcome.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

I have a different view. The 9mm Silvertip performed as designed but its expansion limited penetration and it stopped a bit short of penetrating the perps heart. A 9mm FMJ, .38 SWC or RNL, would have punched through the heart and may have caused quicker incapacitation. Unfortunately, most people tie effectiveness to maximum bullet expansion and that doesn't always work out, as the Miami case shows us.

Found this article addressing your question.

Six Reasons Why Modern Defensive Ammo Is Better Than Ever - Guns & Ammo

You can violate the laws of the state or federal government. NOBODY violates the laws of physics. Fast and light gives impressive numbers. Energy is increased as a SQUARE of velocity. Ugly fact, it disssipates as SQUARE as well. Sorry, no free lunch. 38 s&w special lead. 148 grain wadcutters. 158 grain semi-wadcutters at even a medium velocity punch through orbital bone, ribs or sternum and have retained energy to terminate cerebral or cartiac function. Target neutralized. Hyper velocity lightweights work great IF they enter the eye socket or split the difference between ribs. I have seen the aftermath of single lead WC or SWC strikes. Whith proper placement, devastating. Will that 50 grain 1100 fps SILVER BULLET that spits into a 30 grain disc and four five grain shards penetrate sternum once it has hit. Dunno, don't want to find out.
Lyman 358495 and w231/hp38 it 'l do ya. Rem 158 (+p or not) LSW or 148 LHBWC if you aren't into rolling yer own. (40, 36, 37, 38, 340, 638, 642, 442 and the like) 4 inchers can handle the 165 or 180 Cramers.

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

The Miami (it's actually a suburb, the name of which I can't recall right now) shootout referred to above taught some lessons about handgun ammo performance. It also illustrated another old lesson: pistols are what one carries when they have no reason to expect a problem. Anyone who expects a problem and can't avoid it needs to take a long gun (rifle).

As a result of the failure of the SilverTip in that shooting (that wound was not survivable in any setting, but was not incapacitating until he bled out), the FBI put together a wound ballistic workshop with the best experts they could find. Their recommendations results in major changes in terminal ballistics R&D. Today's bullets do reflect that knowledge, paradigm shift, and research, so they do work better for the purpose. Dr. Fackler is gone now, but Dr. Roberts has continued his work.

As TompkinsSP asserts, and for the same reasons, I have ample faith in good quality WC/SWC bullets, heavy for caliber, and moderate in velocity, and use them in some revolvers. In pistol caliber revolvers, I stick with the same loads I would use in a pistol of that caliber, generally. Placement is the first issue to consider, though - one must know and always strive to hit the places that matter.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

Bullet design and component materials has been vastly improved. Expansion has gotten much more reliable. New powders and blends have been developed to drive projectiles faster at lower pressures. Guns are also heat treated so better bullets can be used in them as metallurgy is now so far advanced. There are also many bullets designed for specific guns such as short barrel revolvers.

Most importantly, manufacturers now understand many things and manufacturing methods that were just not known 30 years ago. Records of actual shooting statistics have been kept, compiled, studied and dissected as to performance. Improvements are constantly being done.

Bullets with thick jackets and/or hard material don't change shape as easily as bullets with thin jackets and/or softer material.
Nothing new, just better marketing. Larry