Mate,

Because you specifically asked. Wasn't going to comment on hydros any more. For a while at least.

If people want to shoot them, do so.

But my opinion, they are just an expensive solid.

A compromise projectile which is lesser IMO than a convential FMJ, and nowhere near as effective as a good controlled expanding soft point.

Main purpose IMO is for jurisdictions where lead core bullets are banned.

Lots of hype about them. Some of it contrived.

Don't see any point in using a solid on medium game. Except maybe some people might want to, to reduce meat damage, or fur damage.

If people want to do it, of course its up to them.

I am not a physicist, but I don't see why a flat or cupped front is less likely to veer than a round nose. In front logically a square front is more likely to veer in physics I think. As for personal experiences, lots of people don't report bad experiences. Round noses have been used since bullets were invented. and are also far more common. Sample size in controlled examples may not be large enough or representative.

Again not a physicist, but the "bubble" claim to me reads like BS.

Also some logical paradoxes here. Claims of a "bubble" creating a wider wound channel. But also claims of wundebarr penetration. Wider wound channels mean more friction and resistance. Deeper penetration means less resistance. Huh??

But of course a solid will penetrate well, compared to a expanding bullet.

Maybe one day I will do my own controlled comparision test on gel just for the sake of it.