Two-Projectile Loads in Snubby for Self-Defense

[pettypace]

I do not know what firearm these are being shot through, but will note that 200 grains of weight seated as deeply as these bullets appear to need to be seated to produce the claimed 750 fps in a functional length cartridge probably exceed plus P pressures from a snubby.

Combo 6 and possibly 5 with the top bullet seated partway out of the case appears viable. The remainder appear either ill advised or not at all recommended, again depending upon what gun is shooting these loadings.

Heaving 140 grains of double wadcutters at 1000 fps out of a snubby is exceeding Plus P pressures as well. 850 is more sane if the bullets are not deeply seated in combo and the gun is a Plus P rates J frame 38, for example..

Yes... Given the bullet weight and seating depth, I didn't find much published loading data to go on. So my starting loads were tested first in a BSA Martini Cadet rifle chambered in .357 Magnum, then tried in a .38/44 before finally moving to a +P rated 640 snubby. The velocities mentioned are from the snubby.

The 2400 loads with the 190 - 200 grains combinations are below the starting loads for a 195 grain bullet listed in the 45th Lyman manual. I don't doubt that these are +P loads, but primers are roundy, extraction easy, and still plenty of unburned powder. Certainly not the best load, but I believe it's safe.

The 140 grain loads with 4756 are a different story. I still started with the Martini and 38/44 before moving to the snubby. And my final load (with a five-shot average of just under 1000 ft/s from the snubby) was under the starting load published in the (notorious) Speer #8 manual for a 158 grain jacketed bullet. But unlike the 2400 loads, these were starting to flatten the primers and cases were not sliding easily out of the cylinder. 4756 is definitely not the right powder for this sort of thing. But by the time I soured on the 4756, I also learned that sectional density, not velocity, was the key to increased penetration and so moved to the heavier bullets.

[nicholst55]

The Army experimented with this for some time, and ultimately rejected the concept.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...not-have-been/

[35remington]

Given my own use of double round ball loads, I am not one to go so far as to say the idea is completely without merit.

In gelatin the trailing bullet may be traveling in a void making its passage easier.

In deciding its value, the degree of dispersion of the two projectiles at the intended range may carry some weight.

Two projectiles that equal the standard weight of the projectile normally fired.....approximately 158 grains in this case, will shoot close to the fixed sights on most guns. Notably heavier will hit notably higher.

I see little benefit from straying far from the double round ball/double wadcutter combo, with the double wadcutter having the edge in my opinion due to better case grip on the bullet(s) and some conjectured advantage to the flat point on the projectiles.

Try the 70 grain wadcutter fired singly into the gelatin to assess penetration depth to mimic a situation where the projectiles due to range of the shot or load characteristics have separated enough to penetrate as individual rather than a combo. If penetration is adequate under this scenario it will be fine under all instances most likely.

Due to the poorer loading density of a single light projectile some adjustment of the power charge and settling the powder near the primer for every shot would be needed.

To extract the best characteristics in my opinion, the double wadcutter load should mimic wadcutter seating depth to reduce case capacity and velocity variation. For Plus P levels something like Pearce’s Plus P 148 grain wadcutter load of 4.9 grains of Power Pistol should be used. This would get about 860 fps.

[WehrmannsGeweher]

At the range a snubby would typically be used, <7 yards, can't see any advantage over a hot HP load.

[pettypace]

Given my own use of double round ball loads, I am not one to go so far as to say the idea is completely without merit.

In gelatin the trailing bullet may be traveling in a void making its passage easier.

In deciding its value, the degree of dispersion of the two projectiles at the intended range may carry some weight.

Two projectiles that equal the standard weight of the projectile normally fired.....approximately 158 grains in this case, will shoot close to the fixed sights on most guns. Notably heavier will hit notably higher.

I see little benefit from straying far from the double round ball/double wadcutter combo, with the double wadcutter having the edge in my opinion due to better case grip on the bullet(s) and some conjectured advantage to the flat point on the projectiles.

Try the 70 grain wadcutter fired singly into the gelatin to assess penetration depth to mimic a situation where the projectiles due to range of the shot or load characteristics have separated enough to penetrate as individual rather than a combo. If penetration is adequate under this scenario it will be fine under all instances most likely.

Due to the poorer loading density of a single light projectile some adjustment of the power charge and settling the powder near the primer for every shot would be needed.

To extract the best characteristics in my opinion, the double wadcutter load should mimic wadcutter seating depth to reduce case capacity and velocity variation. For Plus P levels something like Pearce’s Plus P 148 grain wadcutter load of 4.9 grains of Power Pistol should be used. This would get about 860 fps.

Obviously, two shots (four projectiles) isn't much of a penetration test. But even so, it does seem curious that with both shots the back bullet (the 105 grain WC) penetrated a full 2" more than either the Schwartz or the MacPherson models predict. The idea that maybe the back bullet is somehow "drafting" the front through the gel seems plausible. And your suggestion that gel testing the same bullet at the same velocity, but solo, should help sort that out.

I might add that I see no indication in the bullet tracks through the gel that anything weird happened. For both shots, the entrance and exit holes were separated by about the same distance -- 1-1/8" to 1-3/8" -- and bullet paths were pretty much straight lines with no obvious anomalies. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine that the temporary cavity created by the front bullet wouldn't have some effect on the flight of the back bullet traveling in it's wake.

But suppose the "drafting" hypothesis could be proven -- that the back bullet consistently penetrates farther than the same bullet at the same velocity running solo. That would then raise another question about the physiological effect of the back bullet. And I can't imagine how that question could be answered at the range.

I kinda lost interest in the 70 grain wadcutter when both penetration models predicted barely meeting the FBI minimum 12" standard even at 1000 ft/s. There's just not enough sectional density in 70 grains and .36 caliber for the wadcutter shape. On the other hand, a round ball penetrates more easily than a wadcutter. MacPherson's model predicts that 000 buckshot at 800 ft/s should penetrate about 16" -- just what a chart on Brassfetcher's site shows for his testing of the old Remington Multiball ammo.

As for accuracy and dispersion at the intended range, the target below is typical. This is 10 shots at 7 yards with the 95FN/105WC combo at about 700 ft/s. The target was shot from the DAO snubby with a two-handed 6 o'clock hold on the X ring. Each shot was deliberate but fairly quick with a glance at the chronograph between shots.

Attachment 238482

[Lloyd Smale]

heres my take on it. snub nose revolvers are right in your face arms reach self defense guns. there already on the underpowered side of stopping someone. Me id take a heavy flat point bullet like a wfn or even a full wad cutter that I know is going to penetrate any thick clothes and penetrate deep and maybe even hit the central nervous system. Shooting two light bullet with poor bc's is going to limit penetration, chances are the penetration they do isn't going to be straight and when the (I know very rare) 15 yard shot comes along you don't have a clue where those balls or chunks are going. possibly even into someone you don't want to shoot. Want more damage out of a 38 special? Sell it and buy a 357 snubby and load it with 125 jacketed hps. these kinds of projects are nothing new. Guys were trying it 30 years ago. Want something that really works? Ask yourself if your state police or fbi would trust there lives to it. Want to shoot a bunch of round balls get a 12 gauge and some buckshot. A 38 is a 38 and its been around for a 100 years and today we have the best ammo ever made for it. Plus p hollow points. Want to save a few bucks practicing cast some bullets. Want to protect your family buy a box of gold dots..

[Earlwb]

I am quite partial to the multiple projectile rounds. I bought, test fired and subsequently carry the Flak .45 ACP rounds too. It uses a 175 grain HP bullet, with a bunch of birdshot, followed by a sintered metal wad/spacer which also serves as a projectile too. The first three rounds in my .45 are Flak 45's and the rest are Ruger ARX Polycase rounds. I liked the concept where if the bullet misses the birdshot may still cause a big distraction on the assailant.
https://www.firequest.com/FLAK45.html

Also using a .45/.410 revolver is a good home self defense gun too. Those Hornady .410 Critical Defense rounds ought to work really well.

[mnewcomb59]

For Plus P levels something like Pearce’s Plus P 148 grain wadcutter load of 4.9 grains of Power Pistol should be used. This would get about 860 fps.

What OAL? Flush seated? What issue were those loads in? Thanks.

[GhostHawk]

I went down this road with the .32sw long, not for man stoppers, but for belly crawlers.

I had discovered fairly early in my reloading for this caliber that a 00 buckshot run through a .314 size die makes a fairly good if light weight projectile.

From there it was a pretty small step to add one or later 2 #1 buckshot on top of the 2 grains of Red Dot, then the sized 00 buck.

On paper, at 20 feet all 3 tended to be in about a 1" triangle group.
Aimed at a snake threatening myself or a loved one I felt this would significanly improve my chances of connecting with a head shot that would disable the offending crawler.

Thus far have had no need to use it, or a single lead slug vs anything other than paper.

From my experience our old friend Murphy likes to stick his oar in and make things go sideways that we'd sooner not have go sideways. But it has been my experience that if ol Murphy comes sniffing around and finds you prepare for just about anything. He'll most often go looking for someone else not prepared and ready and leave you be.

So on our adventures in Arkansas and Louisianan this winter I only shot the .32sw long once, and that at a range, and with my normal .314 90 gr truncated cone TL cast lubed with BLL (2 light coats) over 2 grains of Red Dot.

Never saw a slithering creature.

That being said I will still make a few double/triple ball loads from time to time.
I simply take a black sharpie and make 2 or 3 black dots on the top of the ball.
Makes it easy to see what they are. If I was going back into the swamp I'd probably load 2 of the tri ball and 4 singles, and hope I never need to use them.

As for man stoppers, I have one rather simple philosophy. If he's going to do onto me, I'm going to do onto him first. And my prefered method would be to put one in his eye.

Now it may or may not kill him. I have no way of knowing. But my reasoning is a man who has just been shot in the eye is very likely to have a very good reason to cease and desist what his original thought was, and worry about his eye. I doubt he'd be likely to come back for seconds. Now I could be wrong as this theory is totally unproven.

Frankly I'd sooner go to my grave not knowing.
Given a choice between a gun that is

A scary
B requires real intestinal fortitude to pick up and shoot.
C Has more recoil, more muzzle blast, noise that messes with my head.

And a gun that is small, light, easy to conceal.
D Goes pop when it goes off
E has no appreciable muzzle blast
F Is easier to get on target, has consistently tighter groups.

I'm going to go with what is comfortable for me. Depending on the situation that could be anything from a .22lr semi auto, a bigger Ruger Mk III 22/45 with Red Dot, or the .32sw long in either a 2.5" snub nosed H&R double action or the Ruger NM Single Six shooting you guessed it .32sw longs.

But that is just me, YMMV. You may have different idea's or theory's.

[owejia]

Two holes with one trigger pull sounds good to me. More holes more bleeding cannot be bad in a life or death self defense shooting. Been wanting to experiment with multiple shot payloads, even in my old Nagant revolvers. Following this thread with interest.

[str8wal]

I think all you are accomplishing is achieving the worst of both worlds.

While you will make two holes in a piece of paper, you're not getting a free lunch in terms of accuracy, penetration or anything else for that matter.

Because two projectiles will raise the total weight of the payload AND reduces the available case capacity - you must compensate by using lighter projectiles. You end up with the pressures associated with a 190-200 grain projectile but the penetration of a slow moving 70-100 grain projectile, plus you give up the higher velocity normally associated with a lighter projectile.

This concept is a loser on every level.

This is not something "new" and "recently discovered"; this is something old and previously rejected (repeatedly) for the above listed reasons.

I'm sorry to rain on your parade but this one has been long settled.

I agree completely. Sacrificing energy and penetration for the sake of having two projectiles? Doesn't make sense to me at all.

[Earlwb]

I agree completely. Sacrificing energy and penetration for the sake of having two projectiles? Doesn't make sense to me at all.

I had watched some of the videos showing the Hornady Critical Defense .410 shotshells and those did really well in ballistics gel. it would defintely ruin someone's day to get shot with it. Even better, more than once too.
The Flak 45 acp rounds I like use a 175 grain Sierra HP bullet, so it still has a heavy bullet besides shot and a metallic wad too.

[35remington]

My opinion from similar testing is that a single 70 grain cast wadcutter at 850 fps will exceed 12 inches by a reasonable to goodly amount. Blunt nosed 380 ACP of 90-95 grains at 850 fps do well in excess of 20 to 24 inches, and while the wadcutter is lighter, it does not expand either.

Sectional density is relevant, but post expansion sectional density of a hollowpoint is very notably lower and drag through tissue higher than an undeformed wadcutter even if it is short due to the hollowpoints wider frontal area.

I will make the prediction here that at 850 fps you will find the 70 grain wadcutter fired singly meets the minimum FBI requirement. Of course the rest is up to you to confirm that.

Pearce’s load of 4.9 grains Power Pistol under 148 DEWC crimped in the crimp groove with the short amount of flat front protruding from the case was printed in a recent issue of Handloader under a review of the Smith 638, wherein he had it pressure tested as under the max allowed for Plus P loads and obtained a bit in excess of 850 fps from the 638.

[35remington]

And, since actual animal tissue does not show the temporary cavity effects that flabby gelatin does, I would guess the “drafting” effect to be notably less and the second projectile more damaging than gelatin modeling suggests.

Incidentally, the little 32 Smith and Wesson, shooting a pointy 88 grain bullet at only 660 fps, penetrates past the minimum FBI standard. Yes, the bullet is pointier than a short wadcutter, but it is going 200 fps slower than a reasonable load you could shoot in 38 and has a tendency to turn sideways at some point in its travel.

Think about that, then get the gelatin testing done singly with the 70 WC and then decide. Information from actual testing rather than theoretical modeling is always superior to theory.

[Michael J. Spangler]

I agree completely. Sacrificing energy and penetration for the sake of having two projectiles? Doesn't make sense to me at all.

I think your post just shows that there is a bunch o common misconception out there.
If you read into McPherson's work and all of the other contributors to the IWBA articles. Energy doesn't kill. Look at the guys on here shooting whitetail with a 44 special pistol loaded to standard pressure and dropping them in their tracks.

The OP was stating that he was able to still get all of the penetration needed to meet the FBI test standards. So no sacrifice in penetration.

As far as energy and multiple projectiles have you done the math on a 12 gauge shot loads?
Say #1 bucks has 15 pellets and gets about 1500 pounds of muzzle energy. Each pellet has about 100 pounds of energy respectively. No one will argue that it's an amazing choice for self defense. Based on the FBI test protocol to hit the proper penetration dept.

Now take a 38 special with about 200+ pounds of energy at the muzzle. Split that into 2 projectiles which each have 100+ pounds of energy and will penetrate to the proper depth according to FBI and McPherson's protocol. Why won't it work?

Reminds me of the thread on the hunting forum here where the guy posted on multiple forums that he shot a deer with a 9mm and gave the same bullet and velocity spec and listed it on other forums as a 357 used to kill the deer. He had 90% approval for the 357 mag kill and 90% disapproval rate on the forums where the load was listed as a 9mm
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...eer-with-a-9mm

Energy doesn't kill. Tissue damage does. The full wadcutter has more crush than any other solid profile and a lot more than an unexpanded hollow point. As long as both projectiles reach the minimum penetration depth the dual projectile should cause more tissue crush, cause more bleeding and have a better probability to score a central nervous system hit.

lots of reading here.
https://drive.google.com/drive/mobil...3pWYVVJeGlGaFE

[pettypace]

Earlier in this thread, I wrote that my penetration testing of two-projectile loads had been minimal (only two shots) but encouraging (all four projectiles penetrating end-to-end through a fresh 16" brick of calibrated Clear Ballistic gelatin. Yesterday I did some more testing with another fresh brick of gel. This time I set the previous perforated brick at right angles behind the fresh gel, giving a T shape with a total of 22" of gel, the first 16" fresh and the last 6" with some bullet tracks at right angles to the line of sight. For all intents and purposes -- 22" of fresh gel.

I fired a total of six shots into this gelatin: One shot each of three different two-projectile loads (#1, #3, and #6 from my first post in this thread), one shot each of two different factory JHP loads (a 95 grain +P Winchester Silvertip and a 90 grain Hornady Critical Defense Lite), and one shot of a hard-cast 158 grain SWC over a stiff load of Unique. All six shots were fired from a 2" revolver from about 5 yards. Exact velocities are unknown as no chronograph was available at the test site. But from previous tests I would estimate the two heavy two-projectile loads (#1 and #3) at about 700 ft/s, the light duplex load (#6) at close to 1000 ft/s, and the hard-cast SWC at maybe 850 ft/s. I have no clue about the velocities of the JHP loads.

Here are the measured penetration distances:

Load #1: Front bullet: 19.5", Back bullet: 14.5"
Load #3: Front bullet: 20.5", Back bullet: 18.5"
Load #6: One bullet: 13", Other bullet: 10"
95 grain Silvertip: 8.25" (Obvious expansion not yet measured.)
90 grain Critical Defense: 8.5" (Obvious expansion not yet measured.)
158 grain SWC: More than 22" (maybe still going?)

Although these results are encouraging enough to keep me working on the project, I don't expect anyone to rush to the loading bench and whip up some crazy two-projectile loads to replace their well-considered choice of premium JHP carry ammo. On the other hand, if you happen to be carrying either of the two different JHPs I tested yesterday, you really should reconsider that choice.

[RED BEAR]

I feel it is more of w here you shoot than what you shoot. If double projectiles makes you feel better then use them. Me personally i just use a quality defence round for my carry guns. Now i don't want to start a fire storm but i use only factory ammo for carrying. I will agree that the type of ammo has never been used to determine charges or to obtain a conviction. But i have read and actually told in person by a lawyer that it was brought up at trial and did cost there client extra money for expert witnesses to debunk this. Was the story true who knows but as we were just shooting the bull why would he lie? I didn't read the court transcript so i can't say for certain but with all the quality self-defense ammo out there why chance it.

[Good Cheer]

The Army experimented with this for some time, and ultimately rejected the concept.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...not-have-been/

It was tried for multi-piece minies in the 1860's war as well.
More recently there was the quad-cutter ammo such as was featured in the movie Dogs Of War.

And speaking of minies, why wouldn't a stubby little small caliber minie with the base plug shaped like the nose let you stack some nestled together?

[Gray Fox]

Several years ago Mike Venturino wrote an article in which he described building double ball .45 Colt rounds using .454 round balls lubed with Lee tumble lube. I made about half a box of them and shot them in my 4" Smith 25. It yielded two holes at point of aim about 2" apart out to about 15 yards with a velocity of about 750 fps. This is pretty much the equal of putting two Civil War .44 cap and ball rounds into a body at the same time and I think would settle most antisocial situations. They might be even more damaging if they were 3-4" apart center of mass, say heart and one lung. GF

[35remington]

Sorta looks like Remington’s double ball load with an equivalent seating depth (case space) to a 160 grain bullet driven to Plus P pressures of 800-850 fps would be the wheel to semi reinvent if you do the double projectile thing. A bonus would be that it would hit to fixed sights.

At least mine do in 32 and 38.

Which of the very short double wadcutters penetrated further....top or bottom?

I also cannot help but wonder if penetration would differ if both wadcutters had their little button noses forward. Any appearance of tumbling in the gel in the two recovered?