Is there a significant difference between the terminal performance of HP and Round-nose 22LR at similar velocities (~1200fps)?
I have long been shooting Winchester 555 bulk pack through my Marlin Model 60, but I like the increase in bullet weight that Federal Lightning offers (36 vs 40gr.) at a nearly identical muzzle velocity. However, the Win 555 is a HP whereas the Fed Lightning is round-nose, and I am curious if the HP feature in 22LR actually performs enough to warrant its preference over the round-nose. Additionally, the Fed Lightning is considerably cleaner as it is not bulk packaged.  
The primary use of the ammo would be plinking and some small-game, but I would also be stocking up on it as a reserve SHTF ammo, secondary to my 5.56 stash.

there used to be SGB or Small Game Bullet dies that you could stick a standard .or HP .22 round into and file off the tip of the nose.

the large meplat is supposed to be good on small game and reduces the weight slightly which will increase the velocity.

i had one from a guy who sold them, but he's been out of business for a few years and i can't find the directions i had for making one from a piece of oak or other hardwood. unfortunately the die is somewhere around here, lost in the shuffle.

From what I've seen first hand over the years of using them and even painless's box o' truth confirms normal 22lr hp's don't expand and neither do 22 mag hp's for that matter. So what ever shoots best... use it, hp or not.

That's what I was looking for. Thank you.

I've had the exact opposite experience.

I've seen a dramatically significant difference between HP and round nose .22LR ammo when used on critters.

ETA: If you have a link to O_P's article about that, I'd be interested to see it. I just did a little searching but I'm not seeing it.

in my experience, there is no expansion or fragmentation in .22 LR typically. However, the longer Colibri Sniper Subsonic does have a tendancy to be unstable, and will occasionally enter sideways.

I'll say this, I don't usually dig for fragments to see how the bullet performed. But if you shoot a smaller animal, the difference is clear as day without doing that.

Hmmm... now this gives me something else to consider. The other side of the table... I have heard from others, that there is considerable difference in small-game wounds when using HP vs Round-nose, but haven't honestly shot anything(in the animal kingdom) with round-nose to be able to compare.

Run a test, and base your judgement off of your findings. If ballistic gelatin isn't available you can try firing various 22 rounds into a wet phone book. Don't be shocked if you can't tell much difference between standard round nose and hp rounds ballistically.

I don't know about ballistics gel or phone books, but the difference is clear as day on animals.

I used to shoot a lot of chipmunks back home. A round nose through a chipmunk typically had a nice little entry and exit hole, and it was without a doubt more likely that the chipmunk would keep going long enough to get into a hole. A shot with a hollow point had the same entry hole with the other side of the body blown out. I've seen the same effect on squirrels, only less prominent given the larger body.

Depends on what hollow point you are talking about. Mini Mags, Stingers, or the like? Yes they have decent terminal ballistics. Wally World flavor of the week bulk plated HP? Not so much.

Over the years I've shot a lot of small game with 22s. I recall once shooting a opossum in the head with a quality HP. Neat hole in one side of his head, big exit wound in the other. That didn't stop him from flopping around a while after I shot him. I've also shot a lot of Chipmunks with everything under the sun. Sometimes those little suckers just don't go down right away no matter what you use. I practically shot one in half last fall and he still crawled into his hole.

My preference now is normal velocity lead round nose in 40 grain. They tend to flatten out on impact and the heavier bullet transfers energy well. I also firmly believe rimfire lead round nose bullets tend to be more accurate than similarly priced HP ammunition. I think they make better contact with the riffling in the barrel and have better aerodynamics.

I think the tool mentioned for forming bullet noses is the Acu-rzr by Paco Kelly. You can look it up on www.leverguns.com

As a former semi-pro ground squirrel eradicator.( I used to shoot 30K a year, when the farmers would give me ammo and fill up my gas tank) I have observed the following. hollow points in the bulk boxes such as the Fed Champions and Rem golden bullets are no more effective than round nose. American eagle  HP and Win Expert lead HP are decent expansion. the best expansion in the 1200 fps range are CCI Mini mags and WIn Power Points.  Round nose solids will kill , but only with chest/head shots lots of run-offs hit any where else. the CCI Small game flat points are somewhat better than round noses; Except for Russian subsonic lead steel/brass cased "Biakal", they seem to knock squirrels better than any other round nose. never figured out why. Just my observations in 41 years of shooting vermin.

the question is, are you talking about real hollow points, or the dimpled lead round nose the CCI mislabels as hollowpoints?

I am talking about the basic, Win 555 bulk-pack plated hollow points. Not really looking at Stingers(already have em), Quik Shock(which according to gelatin tests... sucks. 4" of penetration isn't sufficient for really anything)  or others such as those, just your basic bulk-pack HP.

CCI makes a segmented subsonic .22lr round that fragments into multiple pieces and creates separate wound channels.  In gel tests it is pretty impressive but in my experience it doesn't group for shit.  I have shot dozens of skunks, red foxes, grouse, etc. with regular CCI subsonic ammo (which is hollowpoint) and it always has done the job effectively.  I have no idea if a round nose would have preformed exactly the same but my guess would be that it would kill just as effectively.

well, one night I shot a raccoon(with the appropriate permits) in the back yard, 3 times with CCI hollowpoints(i don't remember the exact load). he ran off, like he was perfectly fine. the next morning i finished him off with a round of #4 shot from a 12 gauge right outside of the garage. he was bleeding pretty bad when i went into the garage to feed the cats.

It all depends on the rounds. I did some testing a few years back. It was more of a test of how modifying the rounds helps performance but I do have some photos of unmodified rounds when fired into water for a 4.5" PacLite Ruger.

These are unmodified Winchester Subsonic HP's:

They expand to just over .50 in water without any modifications and slightly above .60" with a deeper HP.

Here are pictures of the dies I made to modify the rounds. It uses a standard press and I made the shell holder. The die increases the size of the round like a Paco tool but in a more controlled fashion. I didn't do any serious accuracy testing but in all the use since then I will say they are at least as accurate as unmodified rounds.






The modifications are a Hydrashock style post in the middle of the HP, a large shallow HP and a tiny deep HP. Here are the results:





I was more concerned with testing mod against mod than testing round against round. In all the testing a round nose never changed. If I were going to pick a single 22 LR round for performance it would be the CCI Velocitor because you are starting out with a 40 grain bullet and the velocity is up, even in pistols. In all the chronogrpah testing I have done there has never been a CCI Stinger or any of the other hyper velocity rounds that achieved anything above 1000 fps out of a pistol, it takes a rifle to get the advertised velocity. And because the hypervelocity rounds all use lightweight bullets you are getting the worst of all worlds in a pistol, a lightweight bullet and low velocity.

Dolomite