I wouldn't want to risk a mis-feed in a pistol that's a picky eater. Can you imagine the hoplophobic horror in the prosecuting attorney's voice, and his jury, as he hands one to each of them? I'll stick with my tried and true EFMJ -- -- Oh, and they're paid for.
Standard, run-of-the-mill, hollow points are already portrayed as evil, murderous, "cop killer" bullets.
These must be the new pregnant woman killer, child rapist bullets.
I carry RA-40T's (Ranger-T's) in my XDm. (Not in my SA 1911 as I'm worried about nose profile and feed properties, therefore, I opt for POW-R-Balls since they have the profile of a FMJ from their round polymer nose) The expansion properties along with the wicked "razorlike" petals of the Ranger-T's make a devastating wound channel in ballistic gel. In the faux world of "stopping power" (there's no such animal) what most uneducated folks attribute to "stopping power" is actually the ability of a particular round to cause an attacker to "bleed out". The bigger the wound channel, the quicker blood loss causes them to "stop"....= "stopping power". (This is all secondary to shot placement. A direct shot to the heart with a .22lr has more "stopping power" than a miss with any other particular caliber, or bullet type, so this whole "stopping power" argument is only relevant if you take shot placement out of the equation.)
The particular properties of this projectile raise another question its sales pitch fails to adress:
It advertises a 6" wound channel. Is it a true 6" wound channel, or is it simply multiple smaller wound channels that are 6 inches apart? If I throw a handful of ball bearings at a piece of drywall and the distance between where they punch through is measured at 3 feet, can I honestly say I knocked a 3 foot hole through the drywall, or did I truthfully only poke tiny little holes through it that are 3 feet apart?
I KNOW my Ranger-T's cause a single, devastating wound channel. I would seriously question the effectiveness of several smaller wound channels in comparison as it hasn't really been tested.
What we have here is simply a marketing ploy: These rounds LOOK scary = they must be effective.
No thanks. I'll choose actual science, known qualities, and actual, proven effects over "These things look awesome, they must work great!" 10 times out of 10, every time I'm offered the choice.
I would be interested to know if having such a wide spread of projectile expansion would cause an effective increase to the actual shot placement. In English: Would the fact that a 6" spread of smaller wound channels allow for more leeway in missing vital organs? i.e. If I achieved a "hit" 3" from the heart, would one of these smaller wound channels the separate "petals" offer allow me to actually hit the heart with a shot so far away? A definitive answer to this question would be interesting, however, a favorable answer still wouldn't be enough to alleviate my concerns about bullet profile/feed properties.