Quote History Quoted:
Can we discuss the theory on why they use certain rounds in police work versus the U.S. where we tend to see hollow points?
I guess I see the thought of frangible rounds, but most ARFCOMers know why we dont use frangibles in self defense.
View Quote
Most (all?) of these are rather old designs, coming from the era when the Relative Incapacitation Index was thought to be the end-all, be-all of terminal ballistics. The RII placed great emphasis on temporary cavitation and pretty much ignored penetration. Bullets that scored well on the RII were light for caliber in order to maximize velocity (and, therefore, temporary cavity). For the same reason we got prefragmented /frangible designs.
The wound ballistic research coming out of Europe at that time was almost exclusively focused on velocity. This erroneous focus may be partially due to their uniform use of soft soap as a terminal ballistic medium, rather than ballistic gelatin. Soft soap dramatically over-emphasizes the temporary cavity. This, combined with a focus on military (read: rifle) relevance only reinforced the cult of velocity.
Since Eurocops didn't get much practice shooting dirtbags, and their institutional culture is not one of free exchange of information between police and forensic pathologists (cops only rarely attended forensic autopsies), there was little to no feedback on terminal ballistics. They also tend to use submachine guns much more frequently, and multiple hits cover up a lot of terminal ballistic sins.
I may well be mis-remembering, but I don't recall too much concern at the time with the ability to penetrate body armor, although there were plenty of commie / muslim terrorists (Bader-Meinhof gang, Red Brigades, PLO, etc.) about.
Finally, we cannot ignore the political power of the Green movement, with their hatred of lead in all forms. I believe there was / is also a political prejudice against hollowpoints for the usual "they look scary" reasons.