Two-Projectile Loads in Snubby for Self-Defense

[Michael J. Spangler]

Gel and water are very good at comparing bullet expansion in those mediums I don’t know if there is anything better to test bullet expansion. But they are not the same as clothing flesh and bone.
Brassfecher has his bone substitute in tests for a few calibers and the are only 2 or three type bullets that expand after passing through it. I think it would be hard to predict bullet expansion penetration from expanding bullets in the 650 to 850 FPS you normally get from 2” or less barrels in clothing flesh and bone but that is just 1 guys opinion we all get to have one. That is why I like wadcutters Or large flat point bullets , or possibly multiple projectiles.
Short barrels compromise power and performance.

I agree that there are more variables to look at and better choices. Luckily ammo companies re making lots of short barrel ammo now.
As far as bone tests you have a great point. That might negate the idea of this multi load all together. I’m hoping to get some denim to test with next week. I just hate the idea of imbedding bone into my nice gel.
I’ll have to look up alternatives.

[onelight]

I agree that there are more variables to look at and better choices. Luckily ammo companies re making lots of short barrel ammo now.
As far as bone tests you have a great point. That might negate the idea of this multi load all together. I’m hoping to get some denim to test with next week. I just hate the idea of imbedding bone into my nice gel.
I’ll have to look up alternatives.

I don’t blame you I would not want to mess up the gel either.
I don’t think the bone would negate the multi ball load , you have provided great information that is a viable option for handloaders that might be a good choice .
All pistols commonly carried for defense are a compromise compared to long guns the smaller the gun the more compromises in power , controllability and accuracy I see your work up as trying to make the most of a platform 2” snub , which I think is a great pocket gun my wife’s are an lcr and Smith 649 I am just not a big fan of pocket guns. I am fortunate in that I can CC a 4.2” 357 or 3 to 4” 9s 40s or 45s iwb or owb but every ones circumstances are different. Some times I have a 380 in my pocket . your 38 2 bullet loads seem that they would be about twice as good as a 380 , you have shown they have the penetration and accuracy , the rest is hard to test to many variables. But nice to have another choice.

[Low Budget Shooter]

The phenomenon of the two bullets staying near each other to help with penetration to 7-8 inches, then dividing for double damage, seems very promising. It was good to see your video capture of that.

I do think bone simulation would be a good next step to this test, because anecdotal evidence on the value of 650 fps wadcutter in self-defense incidents includes the slow, flat-front WC being stopped very shallow by bones that a 750 fps RN or SWC or JHP would have penetrated.

[Hickory]

I have enjoyed the discussions. Dead is dead, whether by round ball, LSWC, WFN, or LFN. Carry on.
luvtn

I'd want them dead before they tired to kill me, not afterwards.

[owejia]

Pettypace , have been looking for information on a bone simulant. Found a reference to an article from Journal of Forensic Sciences, Volume 60 Issue 3 pgs 627-637, in Wiley online Library published in 2015,[ Evaluating Simulant Materials for understanding Cranial Back Splatter from a Ballistic Projectile ]" Medium density fiberboard is better simulant for a human skull than polycarbonate, and lorica leather is a better simulant for a human skin than natural rubber." Hope to do some more testing on 2 ball loads this week, depending n the weather. Also read where the ballistic gel is an average of the human body, to me that is like grinding up an oak 2x6 and hitting it with your fist instead of hitting the solid 2x6 oak board. Which is going to be easier to penetrate? Believe the solid 2x6 will do more damage to the fist "projectile" than the saw dust will.

[pettypace]

owejia -- Thanks for the leads on the bone simulants.

Looking at Brassfetcher's bone simulant testing of a .38 snubby, it's clear that his definition of JHP failure against bone simulant is something like "failure to expand with subsequent over-penetration." His concern is certainly not lack of penetration.

But even though Brassfetcher tested some 110 grain bullets (close to the 95 and 105 grains I've been using), his muzzle velocities are higher (900-1000 ft/s vs 600-700 ft/s), so bullet energy is at least twice that of my two-projectile loads -- bullet for bullet. And given that Hatcher found pine board penetration to be proportional to bullet energy, it may be that under-penetration after striking bone is a problem for a low-energy two-projectile load even though over-penetration is the concern for a relatively high-energy JHP load. This should be tested.

On the other hand, I doubt it will turn out to be a problem. According to Brassfetcher, a center of mass shot has at least a 50% chance of striking bone before reaching something more vital. But guys like Fackler and company who helped develop the FBI 12" to 18" penetration standard were not unaware of human anatomy. It's hard to believe the FBI standard does not take the high probability of hitting bone into account.

Still, it makes sense to hedge your bets. For a two-projectile load, I think the bullets should be hard (to minimize deformation on hitting bone) and heavy (to maximize tissue penetration after hitting bone).

[Bill*B]

Pondering the equation for penetration which is provided in post #78, even small changes in "shape factor" result in substantial penetration increases. The trade off for wound channel (wadcutter) vs depth of penetration (round nose) is an interesting one.

I guess I shouldn't obsess about this, as any .36 caliber shape 110 grains or heavier, driven to 600 fps, gives 12" of calculated penetration.

[pettypace]

I'm leaning toward one from column A and one from column B -- a 95 grain RFN in the front and a 105 grain WC, base forward, in the rear. The RFN adds some penetration "insurance" and makes the round speed-loader friendly.

I suppose my obsession will show when I try to make the case that this two projectile load offers some practical advantage over other more obvious choices for civilian self-defense from a .38 snubby.

[ofitg]

Do you mean wider like this?

Attachment 241523

Pettypace, did you ever try the .45 duplex load in your post #138?

[onelight]

If you look at any tests you can find for the 410 buck out derringers or revolvers they may be closer to what you are working on than traditional loads.

[pettypace]

Pettypace, did you ever try the .45 duplex load in your post #138?

Yes. I tried it and moved the project to the back burner for a variety of reasons. As 35remington advised, the high compression ratio with the short .45 ACP case makes finding a suitable load problematic. I didn't want to strain a 1917. And then found out that the .45 ACP cylinder for my Blackhawk would not handle a .45 AR or reliably fire even a moderately crimped ACP round. (Excuses, excuses, excuses...)

If I get back to it, I'll probably start with the .45 Colt for penetration testing.

[owejia]

Pettypace glad to see you are still experimenting with two projectile loads. Have finished my berms for my shooting range, hopefully I can get back to more testing as soon as my chores get finished. The wheels are still turning in my head as to exactly what and how to test. Keep up the good work.

[pettypace]

For what it's worth...

At last week's Snubbyfest I fired five rounds of the 105WC/95FRN combo into a well-seasoned brick of Clear Ballistic gel that had already been pre-punched by five hard cast 230 grain .45s (which all stopped between 16" and 20"). No "calibration" rounds were fired. No temperature was recorded. (But it was plenty hot!) No velocities were measured. (The chronograph doesn't cooperate in bright sunlight.) And the .38 ammo had been baking in the back of my wife's Volvo for most of the morning. But with all those disclaimers, here are the penetration results:

Three of the front 95 grain RFN bullets penetrated through the full 22" of gel. Two of the front bullets collided with .45 slugs already in the gel and stopped at 19" and 20". The five back 105 grain WCs stopped at 17.5", 18.5", 18,5", 19", and 19".

Of course this test will need a lot of polish before it's ready for submission to the scientific journals. But as is, it leaves me wondering about the relative effectiveness of those five .45 slugs vs the ten .38s.

[GhostHawk]

That is enough to make a person think alright! TY for reporting results.

[35remington]

The reported penetration of the hard cast 230 45s has me wondering why they did about half of what is commonly found in gelatin in terms of said penetration. In any other testing I have been in on or seen they will easily outdo your snubby duplex loads...and would be expected to do so via McPherson’s index or real life. The SD of the snubby duplex bullets as individuals would be notably lower, and the drafting effect is not enough to make up the actual difference.

Something about the 45s is different or hasn’t been mentioned. Care to give it a go?

[pettypace]

The reported penetration of the hard cast 230 45s has me wondering why they did about half of what is commonly found in gelatin in terms of said penetration. In any other testing I have been in on or seen they will easily outdo your snubby duplex loads...and would be expected to do so via McPherson’s index or real life. The SD of the snubby duplex bullets as individuals would be notably lower, and the drafting effect is not enough to make up the actual difference.

Something about the 45s is different or hasn’t been mentioned. Care to give it a go?

The short answer is that the .45s tumbled.

But I can see that I may have left the impression that the .45s and .38s were fired into the same block of gel to compare the effectiveness of the two loads. Not so.

Actually, a shooting buddy just wanted to see if bullets from his new NOE mould (with a gaping hollow point cavity) could be induced to tumble if cast hard enough and loaded light enough so the hollow point didn't expand. And I just wanted to use up the last five rounds from some previous testing and decided to shoot them into the gel instead of into a target.

Of course, with the .45s and the .38s in the gel, it seems natural to wonder about the relative effectiveness of the two.

[35remington]

I thought there was an extenuating circumstance(s), and there was.

Bottom line is I wouldn’t want to get shot with anything that hit the gelatin that day.

[pettypace]

I thought there was an extenuating circumstance(s), and there was.

Bottom line is I wouldn’t want to get shot with anything that hit the gelatin that day.

35remington: You don't miss much. And those tumbling .45's do look pretty nasty. Years ago I passed on a minty Royal Irish Constabulary Webley with short barrel and bird's head grip in .455 Eley. Wish now I had bought it. I'm sure it would be a Snubbyfest crowd-pleaser and I'd love to see just what those long 265 grain bullets do in the gello.

[Groo]

Groo here
I have mostly discounted the FBI spec as I am retired and see little need to shoot through car doors or glass.....
As we want to stop [ Kill is not the "intent"] We need to cause PAIN [aka. "No Mas"] as passing out due to blood loss takes too long.
And as most Pain is felt in the skin and muscle that is where the most damage needs to happen.
Here again, the big bore [larger hole, more pain] and the FAST opening HP [aka 357 mag 125 gr sjhp at 1400+] do the best.
Ps. the FBI spec causes the bullet to work like a hunting bullet [kill game] not a stopping bullet [ouch that hurts I quit]

[Piedmont]

Groo here
And as most Pain is felt in the skin and muscle that is where the most damage needs to happen.

How do you know that? We aren't talking about the innervation of the tongue or fingertips. It seems to me blowing a major bone to smithereens might hurt quite a lot. Similarly, liver kicks and punches are devastating, so why wouldn't a bullet to the liver cause extreme distress?