Two-Projectile Loads in Snubby for Self-Defense

[35remington]

I will note the OP is very aware of penetration standards and is working diligently to narrow his choices down to those loadings with two projectiles that meet them. For both projectiles fired at each shot.

[Michael J. Spangler]

Yes of course the 12 gauge load is totally fine. Yes it’s better than a 38 or. 357. I’m saying the multiple projectiles at the same speed to make up the same total weight with proper penetration doesn’t really give up anything.
The OP was stating multiple projectiles pushed to top end velocities. He isn’t getting lower velocities with 2-75 grain wadcutters than he is with a 148 grain wadcutter.
I linked some great articles written by the men that refined what everyone knows as modern FBI testing and critiqued just about any other work done on terminal ballistics from the 1700s to modern day.
They were big fans of the full wadcutter for its massive tissue crush and only critiqued it’s excessive penetration at times.
So what would be wrong with 2 of the same profile bullets that reach a proper penetration depth?
Double the tissue crush. Double the chance of hitting vitals. Is there a drawback?
Energy doesn’t kill so lack of velocity vs some super speedy 110 grain hollow point that may or may not expand is a moot point.
The OP is spending time, money and energy to learn. His finding so far have been very positive. I feel like we all gravitate towards results is what we know and what we have read about being tested and can’t quite grip the new ideas.
What do we have to compare this to? Lightweight 38 special ammo loaded to weak factory specs? Heavy weight poorly expanding 38 special loaded to weak factory specs?
I guess I’m just not ready to write this one off in the middle of his tests. I mean no offense to anyone and hope none of this comes across as rude at all.
I’m just intrigued and having read a lot into the IWBA articles and their excessive testing I think he’s onto something cool here.
Check Military Arms channel on YouTube for some cap and ball ballistics gel work. It’s pretty surprising what a little round ball can do.

I guess I'm just trying to say it's cool to come up with theories and educated guesses but lets not jump to conclusions. We have someone spending time and money and effort to learn and teach and I would hate to see someone get discouraged from doing so. Instead of jumping to conclusions lets see what his tests show. Right or wrong it's some cool testing for sure.

That being said there is a great group of guys and gals on here and the knowledge and willingness to learn, teach and experiment is awesome. Also the ability for everyone to keep civil and discuss their thoughts is great. It's a breath of fresh air compared to my local forums which is full of whining, bad jokes and politics.

[pettypace]

So, how much penetration is enough? My gel testing has been limited, but so far I've seen two loads that met and exceeded the 12" - 18" FBI penetration standard in calibrated ballistic gel. (See my post #36).

Is a 95 grain flat-nosed .36 caliber bullet that penetrates 19" of gel an effective defense load? I wouldn't exactly call it a "manstopper." But it certainly could be fatal. And if it didn't do the job, it wouldn't be for lack of penetration.

But what if that 95 grain projectile were followed instantaneously by a second projectile, a 105 grain, .36 caliber wadcutter that penetrates 14" of gel? Would that combination of two projectiles be an effective self defense load?

Consider this: The total bullet weight is 200 grains. The impact velocity is about 700 ft/s. The combined cross-sectional area is equivalent to a .50 caliber bullet. There are two entrance holes, two wound channels, and the total mass of crushed tissue likely exceeds that of a fully penetrating .45 caliber SWC. And, finally, those two projectiles have twice the chance of hitting something "vital."

How that could be judged "a loser on every level" is a mystery to me.

[pettypace]

And I disagree that both projectiles will penetrate the depth needed when we're talking about sub-100 grain projectiles fired from a 38 Special subnose.

Here's a link to a chart on BrassFetcher's site showing the penetration in calibrated ballistic gelatin of various loads fired from a .38 snubby: http://www.brassfetcher.com/Handguns...h%20barrel.jpg

Note the penetration of the old Remington Multiball load: Two 70 grain round balls at 800 ft/s penetrated 16". That's exactly what's predicted by the "Lead Alloy Sphere Penetration Graph" in MacPherson's Bullet Penetration and about 1-1/2" more than predicted by the "expedient equation" in Schwarz's Quantitative Ammunition Selection.

[Michael J. Spangler]

Nice info!
I have a partial box of those sitting in my stash. I might have to pop a few off in front of the labradar tomorrow night.

Here's a link to a chart on BrassFetcher's site showing the penetration in calibrated ballistic gelatin of various loads fired from a .38 snubby: http://www.brassfetcher.com/Handguns...h%20barrel.jpg

Note the penetration of the old Remington Multiball load: Two 70 grain round balls at 800 ft/s penetrated 16". That's exactly what's predicted by the "Lead Alloy Sphere Penetration Graph" in MacPherson's Bullet Penetration and about 1-1/2" more than predicted by the "expedient equation" in Schwarz's Quantitative Ammunition Selection.

[JBinMN]

pettypace,

Well, I am a firm believer in , "if you want to do some testing, just go do it", & the hell with those who say it is a waste of time, & all that other **. You don't have to convince anyone else what you are doing is worthwhile...

Just yourself.

If you want to, show others the data, as ya go or even afterwards & demonstrate why your testing was worthwhile to YOU, then do so, or not.

There ARE some of us who , although perhaps not looking to do what you are doing with double projectiles, are still interested in your findings whether they be successful in your goal or not.

I hope you continue to "keep on, keeping on" , even with the "detractors" opinions that may, or may not have an effect on your thinking of continuing the testing.

I look forward to learning more here all the time & your doings are just another bit of info that will help in that.

So, I am asking that you please continue to update those of us who do not think it is a "waste of time" to do your testing, so we can follow your testing.

G'Luck! whatever ya decide to do. I just hope ya keep at it until the end and share your findings..

[pettypace]

Finally got a chance to do a little more (very little more) gel testing with the two-projectile loads from the .38 snubby.

My last tests were shot into a fresh 6" x 6" x 16" brick of calibrated Clear Ballistic get. Using GI ammo cans for moulds, I melted that block down and re-cast it into two 5" x 5" x 11" blocks. These two skinny blocks were placed end to end giving a 22" path of gel. The gel was not re-calibrated and I don't know whether or how the re-heating process or changing block dimensions might effect calibration. A bit more on calibration later.

I was only able to fire three shots of two-projectile loads:

First shot was two NOE 70 grain wadcutters loaded base-to-base over a stiff load of 4756 at just over 900 ft/s. Unlike the previous test of this load, both projectiles shot through the same entrance hole. They followed a single wound channel for about 6", then the back bullet veered off course, eventually exiting the side of the gel block after about 15" of penetration. The front bullet continued on a straight path stopping after 16.5" inches of penetration. Hoping to get separation at the entrance and keep both projectiles in the block, I fired a second shot of the same load with virtually the same results -- one entrance hole, one path for about 6", the back bullet veering off and exiting the block, and the front bullet penetrating just over 16".

The 16" of penetration far exceeds predictions for a single 70 grain WC at that velocity and I assume is due to the fact that the two projectiles traveled as a single 140 grain projectile for the first six inches of the gel. Unlike my previous tests, this time I had marked the front bullet so I could tell which was which.

The only other two-projectile load fired was with the Lee 356-95 RF load base-to-base in front of a 105 grain H&G #50 WC over 2400 for about 700 ft/s. This load showed clear separation at the entrance, with the wadcutter entering about 1" higher than the front bullet. Both bullets tracked straight with the front bullet stopping at about 12.5" and the wadcutter stopping at almost 15". For some reason, the front bullet penetrated well short of the predicted 16.5" while the wadcutter exceeded the 13" prediction.

Finally, I fired one shot each of the same JHP loads fired in the previous testing. I was hoping that similar results would confirm some sort of calibration of the gel. This time the 95 grain Silvertip penetrated 10" and the 90 grain Hornady did 9". Still pretty sorry penetration for premium JHPs, but better than the previous results of about (if I remember correctly) 8.5".

[JBinMN]

Thanks! for taking the time to share your findings.

[onelight]

Those sound like good penetration results to me I have a hard time understanding how any other load would be more effective out of a short barreled 38 if both bullets are hitting the target.
Most pocket pistols are a short range proposition for most of us anyway.

[Michael J. Spangler]

Pettypace.

How far away is the block?
I shot some of you 70 grain wadcutters last night. 2 stacked in a 38 over 2.3 grains of clays.
At 10 yards shot through a 642 revolver almost every single load printed about 1” projectile spacing.
They were very pleasant to shoot at those light loads and I’m guessing no more than 600 FPS. No really defense loads but fun to play with.
I ran some though a 18” Uberti 1873 and the results showed much tighter patterns with half the wadcutters pairs going through the same hole. Twist? Velocity increase? Tighter bore? $hit luck?
I don’t know.

[pettypace]

Shot five of the 70 gr double ball test loads today out of my 38 chiefs special at 10 yds they tended to separate about 5/8 in center to center, this was with 4 gr hp 38, making up more test loads using powder coated balls plus 73 gr wcs. Will test fire them into water filled plastic jugs to see how much penetration maybe tomorrow. Believe this just may be my self defense load if they have good penetration, maybe a 73 gr wc with 70 gr rb on top, or two wc or two stacked rb. More testing to do.

Have you done any more testing with the two-ball loads? If so, I'd be very interested in the results -- both accuracy and penetration.

[pettypace]

Pettypace.

How far away is the block?

About 10 feet.

[Michael J. Spangler]

Have you done any more testing with the two-ball loads? If so, I'd be very interested in the results -- both accuracy and penetration.

Not yet. I should be ordering some gel soon. I’ll keep you updated.

About 10 feet.

Hmmm maybe too close? Have you tried “stacking” targets at 5 yard intervals to see when the projectiles separate?

[rking22]

Interesting topic and results. For myself and my needs I think the full charge wc is best, but my daughter has different parameters, could be I do a bit of experimenting my own self! I bought the NOE 70wc mold to play with anyhow, may as well give it a spin. Have you considered the 105 on top of the noe 70wc?

[owejia]

Have you done any more testing with the two-ball loads? If so, I'd be very interested in the results -- both accuracy and penetration.

Have been occupied with other chores and just got my bullet catch back up. Hopefully will test some in water jugs next week. Am going to use 1/2" plywood in front of water jugs and maybe two layers of denim on the plywood. Would like to have some dry bones instead of the plywood for testing. If they will not penetrate the chest bone then they will not be effective.

[Michael J. Spangler]

These guys miss the mark a bit but they do agree that the highest importance is penetration and crush.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T6kUvi72s0Y

[owejia]

Interesting video with a lot of good information. All of the gelatin test that I've seen on youtube don't put a "bone" in front of the gel block, not many places for a bullet to hit the heart lung, front on without hitting or going through the breast bone or ribs. Seen some of the shooting bone videos but none that I've watched actually compared the identical bones, one was shooting a 9mm through a fresh cow leg bone and comparing shooting a 38 spl through a fresh cow leg knuckle.He may not have used the same type bullets. That's like comparing apples and oranges. About the only place on my body to not hit a bone would be from the bottom of the rib cage down to the belly button. Layers of fat,muscle, liver,pancreas and stomach/intestines more comparable to shooting into gelatin blocks. From what I got from the video, unless velocity is 2200 ft/sec most calibers are basically the same for stopping power. The bigger the hole [hp expansion] and more holes would speed up the terminal effect of the wound, more nerve damage, bleeding etc. I believe the neck /head area is one of the fastest places for terminal wounds. hit the throat no air,not much distance to the neck bones of the spine, hit the jugular vein blood loss is really quick. So every one should do their own testing and decide what is best for them in an everday carry gun. That is exactly what the original thread was about. Test and practice what works for you, decide for yourself.

[pettypace]

Have you considered the 105 on top of the noe 70wc?

Considered -- yes. And rejected for at least three reasons:

1) Heeding the warnings from 35Remington (and others), I'm more concerned now about excess pressure from deep-seating the bullets. My 105 WC is from a modified Hensley & Gibbs #50 mould and really wants to be seated down to the crimp groove. That will push the 70 grain NOE WC down pretty deep in the case and likely be flirting with pressures beyond +P.

2) Reducing the powder charge enough to compensate for problem #1 will reduce the velocity to the point where the predicted penetration of the 70 grain WC would not come close to the 12" minimum FBI standard.

3) I'd rather have a "roundy" bullet on top both to increase penetration and to make the combination more speedloader friendly.

Given all that, I'd prefer the Lee 356-95 on top of the NOE 70 (#5 in my original post). That should address the three problems listed, shoot closer to point of aim, and give better penetration than the 105/70 combo. Actually, for my purposes, I'm liking the heavier combos (#1 and #3) at lower velocities.

The truth is that I've lost much of my enthusiasm for the 70 grain wadcutter. I bought that mould thinking that muzzle energy was the key to bullet penetration. I figured lower weight allows more velocity, giving much more energy, and much more penetration. But I figured wrong.

It turns out that a small increase in bullet weight increases penetration much more than a proportionate increase in bullet velocity. The following calculation illustrates the point. The calculation is based on the "expedient equation" from the book Quantitative Ammunition Selection by Charles Schultz. It agrees closely with graphs in Duncan MacPherson's Bullet Penetration book and the results of most actual gel testing I've
seen on the internet.

Here's the calculation using the 70 grain WC at 900 ft/s as an example:

900**0.685*70/7000/(0.36/2)**2/3.14

Just copy and paste that mess into a google search and you should get an answer just over 10. That means that a .36 caliber, 70 grain wadcutter, shot at 900 ft/s into a calibrated block of 10% ballistic gel will likely penetrate about 10" inches. Pretty feeble.

There are four "variables" you can change in the calculation: Velocity in ft/s (the 900), a bullet shape parameter (the 0.685 for WCs only), the bullet weight in grains (the 70), and the bullet diameter in inches (the 0.36). With the calculation sitting in the google search, you can change any variable and re-run the search to instantly see the predicted effect on bullet penetration.

For example, try just changing the bullet weight from 70 to 105 grains. Suddenly, the feeble 10" of penetration becomes a more reassuring 15.5".

To make the point about velocity, go back to 70 grains and try to increase the velocity enough to get 15.5" of penetration. Yikes!

It's that 0.685 exponent (for a wadcutter only) that keeps the velocity from having the "expected" effect on penetration. Change the 0.685 to 0.735 and the calculation will be close enough for most any other bullet shape.

Of course, the reason the WC doesn't penetrate as deeply as other bullet shapes is that it's crushing more tissue as it penetrates. But the same can be said for expanded hollow points.

[justashooter]

have used 60 grain wad-cutters, 2-3 in a 38 special case, over 5 grains unique or so. they stay within 2-3" at 25 yards, at about 750 FPS.

fun setting up on a range next to a guy who is shooting target groups, putting 3 rounds into my target for 6 holes, and throwing the rest into his target for a very confused expression when he walks down to get his target.

still have a bag of them on the bench.

[RogerDat]

I'm not likely to do this type of experiment, or even make this type of load. Buck and ball for shotgun is even a faint "maybe" but I do find reading about it interesting so I'm glad someone is and is willing to take the time to post well written write up of their results.