Effectiveness of 200 Grain 38 Specials

[MikeP]

Some time ago I read an article about the stopping effectiveness of the old Webley 38/200 round. If I recall correctly, it was asserted this round was unusually effective as a man stopper. The theory given was that the heavy-for-caliber 200-grain lead boolit, pushed at relatively low velocity (around 600 fps) was unstable when it penetrated the target. This unstable boolit thus was said to twist and tumble upon impact, which caused a great amount of damage. Because of this, so the story goes, the weight of the standard-issue 200-grain lead boolit was reduced to a 178-grain jacketed bullet in the 1930s, as it was thought the lighter bullet would create more survivable wounds which would be more acceptable to international agreements relating to military small-arms ammunition.

Does anyone have any insight on this theory and the effectiveness of a 200-grain boolit in the .38? If the 200-grain boolit is really so effective at this low velocity of 600 fps, it seems it could be a promising boolit in a moderate load for the 38 Special, especially since it would not be dependant on expansion for quickly stopping an attack. Would it be a good recipe for personal protection in a short-barreled concealed-carry pistol?

[Cliff]

The big problem is pentatration. I have seen many of the then common police 200 grain loads fail to go through auto glass if it is angled. As for the bullet tumbling which was claimed for the 380-200 British load it might but of course your accuarcy is only close range. I loaded both 200 Grain cast and Jacketed in the 38 S&W in a Victory Model and they seemed okay to 25 yards. The jacketed would not go through the tread of a radial tire, the lead would. Good luck.

[Bass Ackward]

Does anyone have any insight on this theory and the effectiveness of a 200-grain bullet in the .38? If the 200-grain bullet is really so effective at this low velocity of 600 fps, it seems it could be a promising boolit in a moderate load for the 38 Special, especially since it would not be dependant on expansion for quickly stopping an attack. Would it be a good recipe for personal protection in a short-barreled concealed-carry pistol?

Mike,

The idea is that a bullet that enters, penetrates, but remains in the target so that total shock is absorbed by the target. Tumbling accomplishes this with more bullet weight, thus higher shock. Especially when hollow pointing is not legal for use such as in the military.

The only common sence argument for or against effectiveness that I can make comes from the current shooting world. There is currently no company touting or a cartridge that lives off the claim of superior "stopping" power because of tumbling.

Will they shoot? Probably surprisingly well. And if "you" develop the confidence to take a cool, calculated shot, should it be necessary, then the load will be effective. The biggest problem (IMO) is staying cool and placing that first anything where it will do the most good.

[9.3X62AL]

My 38 Special work with Lyman #358430 (195 grain RN) to around 750 FPS from 6" barrels showed good accuracy and some apparent tendency to cartwheel on impact in jackrabbits. Even those rounds that didn't tumble still anchored the critters pretty decisively--and LOTS more effectively than 9mm subsonic JHP's, FWIW.

I haven't tried out the 38 S&W/195 RN on critters yet from my Webley-Enfield. These are running about 675-700 FPS, and are reasonably accurate considering their DAO platform and its rather strong spring tension--it's no S&W, for sure. Cliff is correct that such slow bullets are susceptible to glance-off on angled auto glass--but A LOT of bullets do that. In 27 years of cop work, I would have to say that shooting at cars in hopes of striking an occupant is a low-probability shot at best, and that rifles at direct angles are the best bet for such engagements. A bit more caliber than 223 might be indicated, too.

[nighthunter]

Be careful when stating that hollow points are illegal for the military. I have read the special forces are definately using hollow points in the new 6.8 mm round. They claim they are quite effective. I think the military uses FMJ because of long term storage, feeding in automatic weapons and penetration against a variety of targets. I once thought it was contrary to the Geneva Convention Rules but have read it isn't.

[MikeP]

I am interested in a load that is effective specifically for close-range stop-an-attack work. In other words, I would like to use the .38 at maybe seven yards maximum, with the hope that I could prevent some crazed drug addict with a knife from reaching me or my family. I practice shooting with this scenario in mind as part of my shooting routine.

I know a larger caliber would be better for this, but I want a relatively light weapon that would not discourage concealed carry. So, the .38 works better for me than a larger gun. I have a hammerless .38 revolver which is nice to carry and comes out very quickly and smoothly without snagging on anything from both pocket and under-the-shirt belly holsters.

In view of the parameters of my quest, I do not care if the gun can shoot through angled glass or tire treads. I just want it for very personal up-close protection to prevent someone from reaching me or my family from very close range after their intentions to harm are quite plain, which I assume would be the only reasonably likely legal way I could be justified in pulling the trigger. I do not need to have a gun that the police need in their wide-ranging array of duties, like stopping a felon in an automobile.

If the 200-grain boolit promises to fit my requirement well, I am interested in it.

Thanks for all your thoughts and replies.

[Scrounger]

Apparently the FBI and many law enforcement agencies consider the most effective .357 Magnum load to be the 125 grain bullet as fast as they can drive it. Is it possible that this same bullet driven as fast as possible in a .38 Special at short range may be a pretty fair stopping load, as good as you can get in that caliber? All the ammo makers have at least one self defense, stopper, loading out in each caliber. In the .357 it is the 125gr bullet at a lot of RPMs. I haven't checked what they put out for the .38 Special. You might check on that and try to duplicate it in a hand load. Just a thought.

[45 2.1]

MikeP-
At the range and use you want, a reversed hollow base wadcutter driven hard in the 38 special is a devastating load. How it would look to a jury is another thing entirely, but it is the Best at dumping every bit of power that the bullet will produce into an animal or otherwise.

[wills]

One of those subjects like politics or religion

http://www.firearmstactical.com
http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm

[Bass Ackward]

Be careful when stating that hollow points are illegal for the military. I have read the special forces are definately using hollow points in the new 6.8 mm round. They claim they are quite effective. I think the military uses FMJ because of long term storage, feeding in automatic weapons and penetration against a variety of targets. I once thought it was contrary to the Geneva Convention Rules but have read it isn't.

NH,

You are correct. The Geneva Convention isn't the culprit. It's the Hague Convention : The Laws of Land Warfare. And yes any expanding bullet is a no no. We have signed on to subsequent documents, but this was the grandady of them all.

[44man]

There has been a lot of controversy about this DUMPING of all the boolits energy in the animal or human. It just does not work that way in the real world. Having a lot of experience with deer and bullets that did not penetrate entirely versus those that went all the way through, I will never again use bullets that stop in game. The wound channel of the boolit that goes completely through an animal is actually larger then from one that expands and stops. Some bullets expand and have sharp edges that cut and promote bleeding but in every case, the best performance is when penetration is great. If this were not the case, the bullet manufacturers would not be building the great bullets we have now and would be making them to stop halfway through.
A tumbling boolit will cause more tissue destruction but the animal will go down quicker with the proper boolit going all the way through and leaving a large wound channel for the greatest distance.
Another thing to consider is that humans have two lung cavities and if one lung is collapsed, the other side can still function. An animal such as a deer has only one cavity and punctering this cavity will collapse both lungs. Still, complete penetration will kill quicker then leaving a boolit halfway in.
There is just not that much energy in a small handgun caliber to do any damage when it stops and DUMPS energy.

[StarMetal]

Bass

It's neither of those two conventions. When war is declared there sometimes are rules, such as made by those two conventions. If the waring parties don't agree or sign the convention then they don't have to abide by the rules. Nighthunter is right, we're using ammo that now in afghanistan and maybe Iraq that wasn't legal in WWII.

Joe

[45 2.1]

There is just not that much energy in a small handgun caliber to do any damage when it stops and DUMPS energy.

All the animals that i've shot with that method would disagree with you, IF THEY COULD, which they can't because they died very abruptly. actual experience beats talk every time. And yes I have done it your way many times, it doesn't work well on smaller game all the time. You have to shoot deer and up, then your way works good. Try it and find out.

[JohnH]

NH,

You are correct. The Geneva Convention isn't the culprit. It's the Hague Convention : The Laws of Land Warfare. And yes any expanding bullet is a no no. We have signed on to subsequent documents, but this was the grandady of them all.

Actually, I believe that our forces in fact are using hollow point ammo in Iraq. Seems that all these treaties are only law amoung the folks who signed them. One of the whole arguements the Bush administration is using in this matter and in the matter of detainees is that enemy combatants, individuals fighting a gorilla war outside the auspicies of any conventional or internationally recognized government, are not covered by any treaty governing the conduct of war....in other words, shoot at us and we'll shoot back, with as nasty an ammunition as we have available to us.

[grumble]

Good post, 44man. I've seen this debate rage on several fora, and I usually stay out of it because it seems to get people emotional when their long-held opionions are challanged.

I'd offer two bits of evidence for consideration:

-Pics of ballistic gel. When a hi-velocity bullet is fired into the gel, there's a "funnel shaped" wound channel that starts fairly small at the entry point, expands almost immediately, then tapers to the point where the bullet either exits or stops. That wide part of the wound channel represents destroyed tissue. A slow moving bullet has a much smaller wound channel, only slightly larger than the bullet itself. That means much less tissue damage.

-Wind tunnel pictography. Very fast moving air acts like a fluid, so the wind tunnel shapes you see in various high speed photos can tell a lot about what a bullet does in a heavier medium, like an animal (or person, for that matter). A pointed nose with a flat base will show considerable turgidity behind a bullet shaped object being tested. The turbulance behind the base of the bullet represents cavitation, and that cavitation would destroy any tissue it encounters. The more tapered the base of the bullet, the less cavitation. The shock wave in front of the bullet gets smaller and more dense as velocity increases through the fluid, and less forceful as velocity decreases. The strength of that shock wave should be proportional to the amount of tissue damaged both in front of and behind the bullet. In other words, a fast moving bullet would tear up the tissue in front of it, push it aside, and then the tissue would collapse back behind the bullet and get thoroughly "mushed up" (that's a technical term used only by a select number of scientists <G>) in the cavitating mess behind the bullet.

I will take you to task on the "dual chest cavity" business, though. Like deer, people have a single chest cavity. if a person were to be shot just under the armpit such that the exit would be out the other armpit, the same number of lungs would be destroyed on a person as on a deer. Two, that is. <G> It's the way we stand versus the way a four-legged animal stands that makes the difference. Our arms usually get in the way for a two-lung shot, and we usually turn our bodies to face danger (or run from it), so a broadside presentation usually isn't available.

[StarMetal]

44man

Probably because you shoot a tremendous amount of cast bullets you're not up on the world of new jacketed bullets specifically for hunting deer on up size animal and these are the new breed of polymer tipped bonded core/jack bullets. Before these come along expanding bullets expanded too violently and didn't penetrate, much as you stated in your post. So everyone in the early days went with the Elmer Keith theory of a heavy for caliber bullet to guarantee penetration. That all came to a halt when Nosler come along with the Partition bullet. So what was really wanted? What was wanted was an expanding bullet that would penetrate. Why? Because expanding bullets do more tissue damage and put more bullet energy and shock into the animal. Another problem with the early expanding bullets is if you shot an animal too close, they basically exploded on the surface of the animal without much tissue penetration and damage. If you shot them too far away for the design they didn't expand and penetrated like a solid. What was ideal? Just what you stated the bullet companies would do if that is what is wanted and that was build a bullet that stops halfway through...well sorta. They built a bullet that first off woulf gaurantee to expand at close and far distances, but a controled expansion, that wouldn't peel away and yet have enough core retention to drive the mushroom to needed penetration. The new bonded polymer tipped bullets do this and do it well. In some case and those are probably in small bodied animals, the core with push the mushroom all the way through for total penetration, but that is not the goal. The goal is to push a large mushroom to deep enough penetration to knock out the animals vitals, which is a sense are halfway.

Joe

[EchoSixMike]

On the HP tangent for mil use:

The US JAG, a gentleman by the name of Col Hayes Parks has ruled that the US may use match style bullets with an open tip for combat use. This is because the open tip is a result of the manufacturing process rather than an intentional design. That being a jacket that encloses the base is more accurate than an open base design and can be formed more precisely. The wounding mechanism of the OTM bullet is similar to that of a FMJ bullet, that being the bullet will tumble(yaw) and often fragment in tissue above a certain velocity threshold. I can verify this works as intended. The US currently uses the 175gn Sierra Matchking in the M118LR sniper 7.62x51 load and also uses the 77gn SMK in the Mk262 Mod 0 and Mod 1 5.56x45 load. There will be others forthcoming, I'm sure. I didn't shoot anyone with the 77gn stuff, but the 175gn 7.62x51 tips the savages over just fine.

IMO, the 200gn 38 works better because it has a flatter nose than the 158gn widowmaker or the 178gn jacketed load and that causes more tissue damage. Same idea as a LBT type ogival flatpoint design, just not executed as well. The fact that they were fairly soft lead at that point in history probably didn't hurt either ;-) S/F....Ken M

[MT Gianni]

Another point to consider in a heavy cast defense load is if it would be used indoors. A heavy bullet will penetrate a lot of wall thickness. Test it out on 4-5 scraps of 1/2" sheetrock and some osb and see if it might well end up in the neighbors house. Gianni.

[StarMetal]

MT Gianni

Read the Box Of Truth if you haven't already. Real eye opener for folks that didn't know that stuff.

Joe

[beagle]

Interesting post here fellas......

Mike Venturino wrote a piece about 20 years back on 200 grainers in the .38 Special and all of the pro and cons. Used the 358430 195 grainer as well as I recall.

At one time, the Western 200 grain was considered the "police load" of choice. I've shot some of the oldies and they don't shoot bad in a K frame Smith.

I've also loaded and shot a lot of 200 grainers in the .38 Special. This included the 358430 (195 grain version) and also the 35875. Both of these bullets probably pack all of the authority you'd need for close in defense work for a 38 Special at short range.

They do have several drawnbacks:

(1) Most shoot high. May not be a consideration at short range.
(2) It's hard to get any decent velociy with them because of the weight unless you push the loading tables and get into the +P category and then you're asking for problems.
(3) They do have pretty good penetration and would chew their way through several dry wall partitions like we have in our houses these days. I've shot them through both doors of a car with straight on shots. An angled shot is different.

I don't know about the stability but the article I read on them says they are just minimually stabilized at the speeds we're forced to use in a .38 Special and this is why they tend to tumble when they strike a target. I do know that at .38 Special velocities, some will go unstable at 50 yards and will almost always go unstable at 100 yards for plinking. Using them in .357 cases with heavier loads makes them more effective. I've shot a bunch of them as well.

For home defense, I like an 870 with light shot. Much more politically correct aalso.

To be honest, if I was an intruder, any individual armed with even a .22 LR would immmediately cause me to leave the scene (probably with brown pants).

To answer the original question. Use the 200 grainer in the .38 Special as fast as you feel safe in pushing it and it should do the job for you as a close range defense load./beagle

[Willbird]

I think a 38 I would use the ammo made especially for snubbies

http://www.thegunzone.com/speer135jhp38sp.html

data looks good in longer bbls too.

Of course I would prefer a Makarov pistol to a 38 snub for most purposes, the snubs are cool, but the mak offers more rounds and the same muzzle energy roughly. The mak is a LOT cheaper too.


Bill

[9.3X62AL]

The Federal 158 grain LSWCHP has a pretty good rep for use in 2" barrels and still retaining a little bit of ability to expand. Since most service 38 Specials are factory-regulated for 158 grainers at standard pressures, this might take care of the sights/bullet strike question.

For the ranges you specify--7 yards or less--and the scenarios you list--practice head shots. A LOT. This sounds horrific, but if you are confronted by plural aggressors with a 5-shot 38 Special, nothing works as well to disable an attacker like an eye socket hit. It provides an uninterrupted gallery to the Brain Housing Group, is devastating psychologically, and may even turn the switch off permanently RIGHT NOW. A doctrine rather slowly and quietly being adopted by the cops in dealing with "active shooters" advocates head shots and the practice of same in preparation for confronting such events. SWAT and other tactical teams have long taught head shot placement with all weapons carried on entries, and such targeting is not difficult to accomplish with frequent practice. "Active shooter" cop scenarios are VERY similar to the circumstances confronting a CCW citizen that is obliged to exchange finality with an armed attacker.

Ditto on the Makarov pistol!

[carpetman]

Deputy Al--Glad you mentioned shooting the occupant of a car as a low probability shot. Before 9-11 the procedure for going onto the Air Force base here was pretty much if you had a decal on your windshield,you just slowed down and they waved you through. Since 9-11 they stop you and check your ID card. Not only that they placed "barriers" at the entrance and exit that you have to weave in and out of. Seems this would make a perp be swerving and a more difficult shot. Don't get me wrong,I'm not against security measures. But there is a high degree of ludicrousness about what they are doing in my books. To start with,with todays technology,having a fake decal and Id card that looked realistic would be no problem for someone intent on terroristic acts or whatever. The "barriers" I mentioned are pipes placed in the pavement and I figure it wouldn't take a pickup nearly as big as Waksupi's to mow them down. The base has chain link fence and a truck could easily create their own entrance and be on base---wouldn't even need wire cutters--just mow it down.. Basically the extra security measures are only keeping honest people honest and increasing the workload of the security folks. Not only that, checking every ID card backs up traffic onto the public highway and creates a jam. I sure don't know what the answer is,but don't think they have it.

[carpetman]

Deputy Al--I am glad to hear the cops are advocating head shots. When the perp might shoot back,why risk that? Rubber bullets etc have their place,but when the perp is armed--that aint the place.

[StarMetal]

The security measures at the nuke plant in town are alot more then the Air Force base then apparently. Their chainlink fence starts atop a concrete wall that has more steel rebar in it then it takes to make an aircraft carrier. Their zig-zags are make of the same concrete barrier. There's no driving anykind of truck through those.

I remember when I was in the Navy and we were based out of Norfolk, VA. The main gates were then ran and gaurd by the Marines. Our naval ID cards were an off white with green print and other charactors. We use to fold a one dollar bill so the back was showing, which is off white wioth green print and flash that to the Marines and they would salute us right through the gate. We use to really laugh about it. I thought how easy it was to get on the base back then. Hell you wouldn't have any trouble driving a truck with a cap on it in, with scuba gear and mines and mine the whole damn Navy base.

Joe

[Buckshot]

..............I don't when they quit, or if they quit, or for how long it was in use, but I'd read sometime back that the NYPD was armed with M10 S&W's and the load was a lead 160gr full wadcutter. Don't know the ballistics of thier load, but the premise was that it would let in a lot of air, let out a lot of blood, and chances were good it wouldn't penetrate on through to hit an innocent bystander.

...........Buckshot

[Paul B]

You can use the Lyman #359430 with 3.5 gr. of Unique to duplicate the original .38 Spl. load. It's shot good groups in every 38 I own. One of these days, I'll get around wo working up a load for the .357 Mag.
Paul B.

[Bass Ackward]

Actually, I believe that our forces in fact are using hollow point ammo in Iraq. Seems that all these treaties are only law amoung the folks who signed them. One of the whole arguements the Bush administration is using in this matter and in the matter of detainees is that enemy combatants, individuals fighting a gorilla war outside the auspicies of any conventional or internationally recognized government, are not covered by any treaty governing the conduct of war....in other words, shoot at us and we'll shoot back, with as nasty an ammunition as we have available to us.


Wow. This turns a light on for me. Sorry for getting off topic here.

The official position for generations was that the US played by the rules regardless of what others did or didn't do. Same as we honor treatment of prisoners of war no matter whether the other country does or not. (Japan, Korea, Viet Nam.)

This was so a soldier's judgement could not be clouded should an emotional situation place extreme stress on an individual forcing a lack of judgement in one of the areas covered by the agreements. If a soldier see's one santioned violation, it becomes easier to see others.

I give you .... Abu Grab.

[StarMetal]

Bass

Throw in the use of shotguns in all the major wars.....how do those figure in? Actually to me all the conferences, rules, regulations...were ********...what if it you didn't play fair? Going to start a war over it? You get my point. I know both sides wanted their soldiers treated fairly,but tell me, what's the difference with mowing a soldier down with say 200 rounds of 30 caliber machine fire and taking him out with one shot with a hollowpoint? or throwing a grenade at him versus taking him out with a hollowpoint?

The Germans got very pissed off about the Swiss or Swede made bayonets that had the sawtooth on the opposite of the blade edge side. Said it was inhumane and was there only to rip up German soldiers more. They retaliated with that it was to serve purpose of sawing wood for fires.

Joe

[AnthonyB]

Bass, to the best of my knowledge, only Special Forces units have been authorized to use expanding ammunition, and then only for SPECIFIC missions where it is authorized in the Rules of Engagement. The average Joe is still carrying the NATO standard 5.56 and 9mm ball. Tony

[EchoSixMike]

There are hollowpoint round in service for use by MP's and others for normal policing duties, I believe it's Mk 243 9mm 147gn hollowpoint.

Some of the sneaky folks use hollowpoints for shooting terrorists during hostage rescue/recovery operations, as that falls far outside the perview of the Hague Accords. Which originally were only intended to apply to signators of those agreements. If you didn't sign, or allied yourself with someone who didn't abide by the agreement, expect getting shot with whatever they felt the need to use. That was the actual statement of the treaty, the reality is that everybody uses FMJ because it's simple/cheap to manufacture. The US is switching to the more effective OTM because it's both more effective and more accurate, although it would be just as easy to make an effective unitary core, heavy weight FMJ in 5.56 that wouldn't cause all the sea lawyers to get their skivvies in a twist.

The confusion comes from marginally educated people(like a certain unit's armorer and a couple staff officers) who seemed to think that OTM(Open Tip Match) bullets were hollowpoints and thus verboten. After showing them the actual JAG ruling, they finally relented, but it was much more useless crap from folks who should have better concerned themselves with their own business, which was in much disarray and probably the reason they were trying to create an incident to distract from their own problems in the first place.

While not an official source, there is a copy of the text of the JAG memo here:
http://www.thegunzone.com/opentip-ammo.html

S/F....Ken M

[Bass Ackward]

Bass

Throw in the use of shotguns in all the major wars.....how do those figure in? Actually to me all the conferences, rules, regulations...were ********...what if it you didn't play fair? Going to start a war over it? You get my point. I know both sides wanted their soldiers treated fairly,but tell me, what's the difference with mowing a soldier down with say 200 rounds of 30 caliber machine fire and taking him out with one shot with a hollowpoint? or throwing a grenade at him versus taking him out with a hollowpoint?

Joe


Joe,

How can you debate that logic?

I can assure you that you spend a large part of your career going over and teaching this stuff. You can and will be punished for violating it irregardless of what you think personally. And your death is a penalty too. Just so you know.

[StarMetal]

John

It's better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6. I just happen to feel it's stupid to have rules of war when alot, if not most, countries didn't abide by them. The Japanese didn't recognize the Geneva conference and all the POW's they had dearly suffered because of it. Oh did I forget to mention napalm?

Joe

[EchoSixMike]

I can assure you that you spend a large part of your career going over and teaching this stuff.

This is undeniably true, and I'd offer it's time that would be MUCH more productively spent on issues that directly effect performance in combat. I know I squandered much time on useless/marginally useful issues such as equal opportunity, sexual harrassment awareness/gender discrimination, concern for other training, stability and support operations, less lethal weapons, multiple redundant classes on the laws of land warfare(once was enough thanks, if you're too damned stupid to get it the first time, you should never be promoted to a position where you don't have someone carefully watching you anyways) and other courses and classes where we studied things that in no way, shape or form had anything to do with what actually occurs in war. However, all that crap does take very little effort or outside coordination on the part of the unit staff and it poses nearly zero risk of some accident happening and putting a crimp in the career of some unit "commander". That was how most of the 1990's were wasted by the military. The main drive, the overarching goal of the 1990's military was to avoid risk to the careers of those in leadership positions. That still lingers today. I believe there is a great deal of concern on the part of the troops that they will be "sold out" if the wind up in a difficult political situation. While the US mil has done the right thing in the cases of Lt Pantano and the Marine in Fallujah who put the anchor shot into that savage, there is a great deal of mistrust. That leads to hesitation, that gets you killed. The appearance that the US government is more concerned about adhering to obsolete international conventions we DIDN'T EVEN SIGN to the point where we are equipped with marginally effective tools is not helping matters.

This is not to say that we are doing the wrong thing in Iraq or anywhere else, it's just pointing out that we tend to retain a peacetime mindset into wartime and we keep trying to go back to that historically repudiated mindset even while the fighting continues!! Or, in simple English, pogues are pogues and will always think like pogues, it's their nature and the nature of large bureaucracies. S/F....Ken M

PS: The savages were often using Federal 123gn soft points. I have the lot numbers in my notebook if you like. They captured it from the Iraqi police when they overran the police station and captured over 60k rds along with AK's and Glock 19's. And as insurgents, who are not uniformed and who wear no distinguishing marking, we should/could be summarily executing these savages when we capture them.

[D.Mack]

Mike P. I have and shoot the 38/200 bullet and love it, BUT NOT FOR CLOSE RANGE SELF-DEFENSE. Look-up Corbon-Glasers, they are the best 5 foot, indoor, my neck is on the line choice available. They are not cheap, about two bucks a shot, but worth every penny. my house gun is loaded with 38 special Glasers, and lying next to it is 2 speed loaders, with 38-200/357's @1300 f.p.s. for outside, down the alley, car busting. The glasers fragment on inpact, causing massive internal damage, wiithout over penatration, and should you miss, the first thing they impact causes them to frament, reducing the chance of going through multiplle walls to hit some one you may or may not care about. Spend the money, buy the glassers, and hope you never need them. D.MACK

[44man]

I found the article that said deer do not have the same pleura as man, read it three times (I won't give the authors name) and had to question it too. I researched deer anatomy and found it is not true and only one lung can collapse. The deer can go a long way if both lungs are not taken out and may even survive. My reason for full penetration by the way. It's funny I never inspected the chest cavity with all the deer I have killed. Of course the thin membranes would not be noticed when gutting. It's also funny that I took his words as truth. I apologize for that. Oh well, back to the meat of the penetration issue.
I was only referring to big handgun boolits and NOT small diameter, expanding rifle bullets. I would not use a cast boolit for deer in a small caliber rifle unless it expands. The .41, .44, .45 and calibers larger then these in a rifle or handgun will not need the expansion and a heavy, flat nose cast boolit that goes deep or all the way through is better then one that stops halfway or less, or stops on the first big bone. And that is what I would worry about with the 200 gr. .38 boolit that can't be driven fast enough to penetrate or break bones and keep on truckin. And if it is soft and expands, it will go even less deep. I am sure nobody wants to shoot a deer with that small of a diameter slug that did not expand, so it needs some velocity.
Here is the sequence a boolit has to take:
hide
rib or intercostal muscle (between rib)
parietal pleura
potential space
visceral pleura
lung
visceral pleura
potential space
parietal pleura
mediastinum (sac containing the heart and large vessels)
mediastinal contents
parietal pleura
potential space
visceral pleura
lung
visceral pleura
potential space
parietal pleura
rib
hide
Sorry, I will not post what I read unless I check it out for myself.

[45 2.1]

44man-
It is possible to shoot a deer thru the rib cage, killing it without touching the lungs at all. I did it only once, the deer dying from the outside air comeing in and collapsing the lungs thereby suffocating the deer. The spot is about 2" above the sternum when the deer has exhaled at about 8" back of the front leg. Both lungs could be held in one hand and were the size of a grapefruit. This was about a 160 lb. deer too. A poor hit at a farther distance than what I thought, but quite unexpected results.

[wills]

Before 9-11 the procedure for going onto the Air Force base here was pretty much if you had a decal on your windshield,you just slowed down and they waved you through. Since 9-11 they stop you and check your ID card. .. Basically the extra security measures are only keeping honest people honest and increasing the workload of the security folks. Not only that, checking every ID card backs up traffic onto the public highway and creates a jam. I sure don't know what the answer is,but don't think they have it for someone intent on terroristic acts or whatever. The "barriers" I mentioned are pipes placed in the pavement and I figure it wouldn't take a pickup nearly as big as Waksupi's to mow them down. The base has chain link fence .

Yep but that is a SEURITIY INSTALATION all secret stuff. The think everyone in town doesnt know what they do there.

[carpetman]

Wills---Yes it is known that Goodfellow AFB does Intelligence training for Dept of Defense(DoD)---all branches. Same with DoD firefighting training. I have been to other training bases and it is very easy to pick up on what the people are learning. For example go to Lackland AFB where they are in basic training,and you'll hear them calling cadence when they walk and other things that tip you off as to what they are doing there. Same with Keesler AFB--you'll hear electronics stuff being spoken. Those in the Intelligence field must be threatened with who knows what,as all the years I spent at Goodfellow,I never heard the faintest trace of anything that would tip it off. I did have a lot of contact with the younger troops that were in classes and you would think there would be some mention---never a slight clue. Not only that,they seem to have an ability to blend in with the woodwork.

[Scrounger]

Wills---Yes it is known that Goodfellow AFB does Intelligence training for Dept of Defense(DoD)---all branches. Same with DoD firefighting training. I have been to other training bases and it is very easy to pick up on what the people are learning. For example go to Lackland AFB where they are in basic training,and you'll hear them calling cadence when they walk and other things that tip you off as to what they are doing there. Same with Keesler AFB--you'll hear electronics stuff being spoken. Those in the Intelligence field must be threatened with who knows what,as all the years I spent at Goodfellow,I never heard the faintest trace of anything that would tip it off. I did have a lot of contact with the younger troops that were in classes and you would think there would be some mention---never a slight clue. Not only that,they seem to have an ability to blend in with the woodwork.

In other words, although they teach Intelligence at that base, you are unable to detect any sign of intelligence there...