with cavities that comprise about 2/3's of the NOSE of the slug (like the Devastator round). Excessively deep cavities don't readily produce a flat face (meplat) upon expansion, and take longer to open up (if they open at all). Penetration suffers quite a bit from excessive cavity depth from what I have seen, and that was with minimal expansion/deformation.
This is what a hollowpoint is supposed to look like after it has expanded. No hole left.
[IMG]
![[linked image]](http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x65/butcher45/DSCN5667.jpg)
[/IMG]
I like the idea of using a HP for small stuff where lots of penetration isn't wanted, or of any concern. The intrinsic accuracy of the hollowpoint also make for a nice target round.
For big game, nothing performs more reliably, and consistently than a WFN. It reliably travels a straight line (big advantage over a hollowpoint), often producing the highest wound channel volume. A WFN does the same thing pretty much every time, and leaves little to chance.
I think a hollowpoint used on big game needs to be a heavy one to assist penetration, with a cavity that isn't to deep.
Also, I see a lot of people showing pictures of slugs of all types shot into hard mediums that produce a lot of expansion, then people respond by saying "that will do a number on a deer/hog/what have you".
Hollowpoints shot into hard mediums like water (yes water is VERY hard on projectiles), dry books, steel plates, and rocks look impressive afterwards, but those mediums do a very poor job of replicating performance on an actual animal.
Completely (and I mean COMPLETELY) saturated phonebooks/newsprint is a universally available medium that gives one somewhat of an idea how a slug performs in flesh, though there are better mediums available for a $price$.