Working on a HP load...'Barrel Lengths Matter'

[runfiverun]

I know the penetration will be inhibited also.
and it isn't my MO either.
but this is what Charlie wants for his situation.
the wet pack and Gel tests will maybe show something else and point to another direction.

[35remington]

The drift of the thread seems to be heading toward "more, More, MORE" expansion!!!!"

What needs to be recognized is we have tilted towards imbalance when penetration is concerned, which is not a good thing. There should be a balance. What should be also recognized is that reasonable penetration is more significant as a "must have" than expansion.

Considerable research and informed opinion suggests 38 bullets fired out of snubbies should only expand modestly if they are to strike this reasonable balance. Classic wide mushroom expansion coupled with a short bullet shank is actually very much to be avoided.

Just a gentle suggestion that Charlie may want to revise his "wants" for something else. Widely expanded, low velocity 38 bullets are very penetration challenged. Given no one knows his shot angles and obstructing limbs beforehand, bias in load selection of this sort should be toward reasonable penetration, not eye appealing double diameter expansion.

Further testing will no doubt be interesting, but valuing expansion alone is putting the secondary criteria first.

[35remington]

One other thing about "home defense" loads (the suggested point of this thread in terms of chasing silver dollar size expansion) is no one seems to think they'll ever miss. Great concern is heaped upon bullets that have been slowed significantly by passage through humans.....as if the standard penetration depths suggested by the FBI are "too much" (which they are not). Let me assure you that unless you're using a nonexpanding fairly heavy bullet in a 38 snub, a bullet that passes through an assailant, his clothing, then through a couple of walls to do fatal damage to another human just ain't gonna happen. Quite frankly I even have some doubt about that nonexpanding bullet.

Admittedly I am kinda odd, but we used to do a fair amount of shooting up of old farmhouses to see what shot through what......not hard in my neck of the woods especially if you explain to your amused farmer friends what you are doing and you happen to work in an NRCS office. Low velocity handgun bullets that hit something substantial before hitting the drywall are pretty penetration challenged. Solid or solid acting bullets that hit nothing else first can go through a fair amount of house if there are no studs or metal in the way. I am more worried about the latter, but having some clue of what lies in the way of a miss is probably more valuable than anything else you could do or any preventative action you could take. Actually you could more fairly say I am more worried about my shooting discipline that the bullet used in the somewhat fantasy type scenario. How often have you heard of an overpenetrating bullet passing through someone and killing someone else in the house?

Anyone? Me either.

Years ago the army spent considerable time in determining that about 400 fps impact velocity is needed to produce a fatal wound. The elastic stretch of skin and clothing on the exit side of the body has a not surprising ability to arrest fairly high remaining velocities of bullets that have expanded to any degree or have tumbled. Exit velocities of pistol bullets conforming to this description are quite low. Many police shootings find that the loads recommended as conforming to the "FBI standard" are contained within the body or at most are captured on the exit side by clothing.

Let me offer a suggestion. Go to youtube and look up tnoutdoor's gelatin test of the Buffalo Bore 158LSWCHP. The bullet really did not open up much if at all, essentially being a cup pointed wadcutter. It penetrated 19 inches, a mere inch more than the FBI standard. It is doubtful that this bullet has sufficient remaining velocity to exit a human then both penetrate sheet rock and inflict a wound of any significance. This will give a clue that very little expansion is required to notably attenuate penetration in a 38 snubby.

What would be ideal is about 40 caliber expansion (relatively little petal protrusion) and maximum shank. FBI standards would be well met but not exceeded. Penetration in terms of too much or too little would not be a problem.

[OS OK]

It's been years since I watched a program on how the FBI test the rounds so I found this, hopefully it will reflect what your trying to hammer into my head.

***The BLUE highlights are some considerations I feel are important in the application I'm working.

*** GREEN below was my opening statement in post no. 1 of this lengthy thread.

Some of you fellas already know that I've been working on a .38 Special load that could be an 'in house defense load' that would most likely stay in the perp and not exit and pass through a wall and injure someone else. I wanted that load for my wife's .38 Taurus 1 7/8'ths snubby.

***The RED highlighted below are further tests the FBI does that don't apply in my in house shooting scenario. I believe that to conform to those I would be trying to develope a cast that is considered adequate for a basic combat application...or in the least a street fight. I don't intend to shoot through car doors or windshields or plywood or combinations thereof...I simply set out to find a cast SWC-HP that would perform in my set of criteria...that's all.

Don't you think that trying to get me to adhere to the FBI standards is a little over the top?

http://greent.com/40Page/general/fbitest.htm <<< THIS IS THE SOURCE LINK for the information below...

FBI Ballistic Test Protocol: Briefly, the performance standards are simple. A handgun bullet must consistently penetrate a minimum of 12 inches of tissue in order to reliably penetrate vital organs within the human target regardless of the angle of impact or intervening obstacles such as arms, clothing, glass, etc. Penetration of 18 inches is even better. Given minimum penetration, the only means of increasing wound effectiveness is to make the hole bigger. This increases the amount of vital tissue damaged, increases the chance of damaging vital tissue with a marginally placed shot, and increases the potential for quicker blood loss. This is important because, with the single exception of damaging the central nervous system, the only way to force incapacitation upon an unwilling adversary is to cause enough blood loss to starve the brain of its oxygen and/or drop blood pressure to zero. This takes time, and the faster hemorrhage can occur the better. The FBI Ammunition Test Protocol is a series of practically oriented tests to measure a bullet's ability to meet these performance standards. The result is an assessment of a bullet's ability to inflict effective wounds after defeating various intervening obstacles commonly present in law enforcement shootings. The overall results of a test are thus indicative of that specific cartridge's suitability for the wide range of conditions in which law enforcement officers engage in shootings. The test media used by the FBI to simulate living tissue is 10% Ballistic Gelatin (Kind & Knox 250-A), mixed by weight (i.e., one pound of gelatin to 9 pounds of water). The gelatin is stored at 4° Centigrade (39.2° Fahrenheit) and shot within 20 minutes of being removed from the refrigerator. The temperature of the gelatin is critical, because penetration changes significantly with temperature. This specific gelatin mix was determined and calibrated by the U.S. Army Wound Ballistics Research Laboratory, Presidio of San Francisco, to produce the same penetration results as that obtained in actual living tissue. The 10 % gelatin has been correlated against the actual results of over 200 shooting incidents. Each gelatin block is calibrated before use to insure its composition is within defined parameters. Copies of the test protocol are available upon request for those interested in duplication the testing or reviewing the procedures in greater detail. The gelatin blocks for handgun rounds are approximately six inches square and 16 inches long. As necessary, additional blocks are lined up in contact with each other to insure containment of the bullet's total penetration. Each shot's penetration is measured to the nearest 0.25 inch. The projectile is recovered, weighed, and measured for expansion by averaging its greatest diameter with its smallest diameter. The Ammunition Test Protocol using this gelatin is composed of eight test events. In each test event, five shots are fired. A new gelatin block and new test materials are used for each individual shot. The complete test consists of firing 40 shots. Each test event is discussed below in order. All firing in these eight tests events is done with a typical service weapon representative of those used by law enforcement. The weapon used is fully described in each test report.
Test Event 1: Bare Gelatin	The gelatin block is bare, and shot at a range of ten feet measured from the muzzle to the front of the block. This test event correlates FBI results with those being obtained by other researchers, few of whom shoot into anything other than bare gelatin. It is common to obtain the greatest expansion in this test. Rounds which do not meet the standards against bare gelatin tend to be unreliable in the more practical test events that follow.
Test Event 2: Heavy Clothing	The gelatin block is covered with four layers of clothing: one layer of cotton T-shirt material (48 threads per inch); one layer of cotton shirt material (80 threads per inch); a 10 ounce down comforter in a cambric shell cover (232 threads per inch); and one layer of 13 ounce cotton denim (50 threads per inch). This simulates typical cold weather wear. The block is shot at ten feet, measured from the muzzle to the front of the block.
Test Event 3: Steel	Two pieces of 20 gauge, hot rolled steel with a galvanized finish are set three inches apart. The steel is in six inch squares. The gelatin block is covered with Light Clothing and placed 18 inches behind the rear most piece of steel. The shot is made at a distance of 10 feet measured from the muzzle to the front of the first piece of steel. Light Clothing is one layer of the above described T-shirt material and one layer of the above described cotton shirt material, and is used as indicated in all subsequent test events. The steel used is the heaviest gauge steel commonly found in automobile doors. This test simulates the weakest part of a car door. In all car doors, there is an area, or areas, where the heaviest obstacle is nothing more that two pieces of 20 gauge steel.
Test Event 4: Wallboard	Two pieces of half-inch standard gypsum board are set 3.5 inches apart. The pieces are six inches square. The gelatin block is covered with Light Clothing and and placed 18 inches behind the rear most piece of gypsum. The shot is made at a distance of ten feet, measured from the muzzle to the front of the first piece of gypsum. This test event simulates a typical interior building wall.
Test Event 5: Plywood	One piece of three-quarter inch AA fir plywood is used. The piece is six inches square. The gelatin block is covered with Light Clothing and placed 18 inches behind the rear surface of the plywood. The shot is made at a distance of ten feet, measured from the muzzle to the front surface of the plywood. This test event simulates the resistance of typical wooden doors or construction timbers.
Test Event 6: Automobile Glass	One piece of A.S.I. one-quarter inch laminated automobile safety glass measuring 15x18 inches is set at an angle of 45° to the horizontal. The line of bore of the weapon is offset 15° to the side, resulting in a compound angle of impact for the bullet upon the glass. The gelatin block is covered with Light Clothing and placed 18 inches behind the glass. The shot is made at a distance of ten feet, measured from the muzzle to the center of the glass pane. This test event with its two angles simulates a shot taken at the driver of a car from the left front quarter of the vehicle, and not directly in front of it.
Test Event 7: Heavy Clothing at 20 yards	This event repeats Test Event 2 but at a range of 20 yards, measured from the muzzle to the front of the gelatin. This test event assesses the effects of increased range and consequently decreased velocity.
Test Event 8: Automobile Glass at 20 yards	This event repeats Test Event 6 but at a range of 20 yards, measured from the muzzle to the front of the glass, and without the 15° offset. The shot is made from straight in front of the glass, simulating a shot at the driver of a car bearing down on the shooter.
In addition to the above described series of test events, each cartridge is tested for velocity and accuracy. Twenty rounds are fired through a test barrel and twenty rounds are fired through the service weapon used in the penetration tests. All velocities are measured and reported. Two ten-shot groups are fired from the test barrel, and two from the service weapon used, at 25 yards. They are measured from center to center of the two most widely spaced holes, averaged and reported. Test barrel results demonstrate a round's potential independent of any weapon factors which can affect performance. Test barrel results are the purest measure of inherent capability for accuracy and velocity. Repeating these tests with a service weapon shows how well the cartridge/weapon combination may realize that potential.

Now...unless I'm forgetting something, overlooking something, misinterpreting something...I honestly think that I have met my criteria in this last test at 6.2 BHN. As I said earlier in another post...I have been looking into an efficient way to conduct the 'wet paper' testing without a big to-do. A way to repeat it over and over with various rounds and not end up with 1/2 ton of wet newsprint to haul off...I'll get to that part later when I've decided.
So...as to this FBI certifying it's rounds...could we agree that their methodology does not apply here?

Please don't get me wrong, I appreciate all comments and try to use some, actually I consider all of them until I figure they don't apply and then I move along.
This testing takes a lot of time and effort as I'm sure you already realize and in the end of it all, if you have followed it page by page and comment by comment, test by test...I think that I have results here that we can all take something from...whether it is 'what not to do' or 'what to do'...all the little subtle changes just might match something someone else has tried and found failure and have stopped before achieving success in their individual projects.
Could be people have given up on projects due to the lack of anothers empiricle evidence...in the end here, this has been like a science lab experiment showing all the results.

I thought and still think that this has been a worthy pursuit.

charlie

[OS OK]

Critical DEFENSE® = Backup
Weapons/Off-Duty Carry

Critical DEFENSE® handgun ammunition is ideal for backup weapons, off-duty carry or for those serving in executive protection, undercover operations, or any dedicated close quarters situations.

Critical DEFENSE® provides controlled expansion while reducing the potential of over penetration. The patented FTX® bullet and associated Flex Tip® technology used in Critical DEFENSE® ammunition eliminates the clogging and inconsistent expansion and penetration that often plagues hollow point bullets.

All Critical DEFENSE® ammunition is loaded in nickel-plated cases for improved feeding and increased visibility in low-light situations. Critical DEFENSE® is unaffected by thick, heavy clothing (including denim and leather) and delivers superior controlled expansion with deep wound cavities over a wide range of velocities. Premium low*flash propellants have been specifically tailored for short-barreled handguns to deliver proven performance.

*As defined by the "FBI Protocol" handgun ammunition tests.




I haven't been ordering J-type projectiles in so many years I was not aware of this aspect of Hornadys efforts...it seems as if my concept of 'limited penetration' is not as archaic as you claim.
So far, I haven't found anything on the standards here either...*As defined by the "FBI Protocol" handgun ammunition tests.

charlie





It appears that you either want to penetrate and have 'controlled expansion with controlled penetration' as stated in the above advertisement or...You want to defeat various barriers first and then have 'controlled expansion with controlled penetration'.
I guess that there now is two different standards out there...the first of which a cast can be designed to do without a Jacket...then there is this second scenario where they want to defeat barriers first...in this case I cannot see where a cast Hollow Point would even be considered.....Perhaps if I were to try to develop a cast for this second scenario I'd start out working on a heavy RNFP. ***Pictures of the Critical Duty didn't copy/paste but below is their write-up on this ammo.

Critical DUTY® = Tactical
Critical DUTY® handgun ammunition is built to meet the needs and requirements of LAW ENFORCEMENT and TACTICAL PROFESSIONALS, as well as those law abiding citizens who prefer a full-size handgun for their personal protection and demand superior barrier penetration and subsequent terminal performance.*
The FlexLock® bullets loaded in all Critical DUTY® o erings are rugged, heavy jacketed bullets that deliver “barrier blind” performance (i.e. total penetration, weight retention and expansion are practically the same) when shot through common urban barriers* (bare gelatin, auto glass, sheet metal, plywood, drywall, heavy clothing*). In addition, Critical DUTY® loads are “full power loads” designed to function in full-size handguns. Designed to work awlessly in ALL handguns, these loads are not optimized for
short barreled, concealed carry style handguns; they will deliver standard recoil during ring. *As de ned by the “FBI Protocol” handgun ammunition tests.
U.S. Patent No. 8,413,587
U.S. Patent No. 8,413,587
Critical DUTY® ammo features waterproof sealant around the primer.
Critical DUTY® ammo features an “H” on the tip. Critical DUTY® ammo is packaged in 50-count boxes for Law Enforcement.

[35remington]

Quick notation of your comments:

Your bullets do not make "minimum penetration" so that is not a given as required in your quoted text and expansion is a handicap in attaining that most necessary base criteria.

Yes, it makes sense for you to conform to the FBI standards. Why? Because you're flying blind without them and tossing out free research conducted for years about the issue. Further, in your scenario the "overpenetrating" bullet strikes a human first. Velocity is slowed significantly. This does not mimic anything the FBI does, so how is your information comparable?

Attenuation of bullet velocity is considerably greater passing through a human than a piece of sheet rock or thin sheet metal. Peruse Vincent DeMaio for the velocity loss occasioned low velocity bullets in passing through a human. A low velocity bullet has little to spare.

Given that exiting low velocity bullets (and exit velocity will indeed be low given the velocities produced) are horrible barrier penetrators, and given the bassackaward comparison, there is little to contrast here.

Remind yourself that the FBI standard was also intended to address overpenetration as well as underpenetration. Given that you are ardently striving to produce a bullet that will underpenetrate on an unobstructed shot, and the standard is to frown on such a thing, how is confidence obtained pursuing this angle? A bullet that shoots through a barrier to penetrate the perp may not be as relevant here, but given you're chasing a bullet that underperforms in a best case scenario with zero obstructions in the way, you might want to de emphasize pancake shaped bullets.

[35remington]

Here it is in a nutshell:

if your bullet hits the bad guy first, penetration subsequent to this is extremely poor and very very unlikely as a concern when building materials are involved. If it misses the bad guy overpenetration through building materials is very much a problem. No matter what bullet you use.

Far more of your concern should be directed toward full velocity missing bullets than low velocity exiting ones. Way, way more. There is absolutely no comparison between the two in terms of barrier penetration.

[Spector]

I suspect this thread will do well if we state what we use in our weapons, and any special criteria for why. Pictures are good along with descriptions and the capture medium.

These disagreements are old.....like Ford versus Chevy......Martin Fackler versus Evan Marshall & Gary Sanow.

I would encourage those participating here to demonstrate what you believe to be true, but to resist the temptation to try to show the dangers in following what another poster says is their way.

This, so far. has been a very good thread overall and I would hate to see it devolve into personalities. So even if you believe you are doing those who you believe are less experienced a favor by refuting another's views, please resist that temptation.

Participating partners contributing in an ongoing experiment rather than competitors out to prove others wrong in order to make themselves right.

Mike

[OS OK]

OKAY...I Yahoo'd Vincent DeMaio...got a total of 66,000 hits. What I wanted to reference is evidently in book form only, and for my purchase. Where's a link I can follow on what your specifically talking about?

It looks to me like you have completely discounted my efforts here to work up this HP because it doesn't comply with FBI Standards. The FBI is your benchmark and you will not consider any thing short of that...I understand that thinking.

I just pointed out to you that their standards have included in them...'penetrating a barrier' first!
If they do that, then they will do that after they exit a person, either way...they have 'X' amount of foot pounds of energy combined with their weight and velocity...what the heck am I missing here?
As I said before...Why would I want to use a cast HP to break through barriers and then expect it to have any chance of expanding? Why not just load a 'hardcast blunt', load it to '+P+' and use it for a battering ram?
If I wanted that why not just buy some pre-made rounds that tout "FBI, FBI, FBI", ours will blow through all their stuff and cook your goose too!

I am not considering this aspect as I said before, I am not interested in law enforcements powerful rounds for street combat scenarios, period!
I haven't even gotten to the 'wet media' testing for any proof of penetration and already I'm sorry I even started this thread.

Perhaps a well meaning and generous Moderator will come along soon and just delete the whole dang thing and save us all from this mishap. I know it would save me a lot of time, energy and effort in trying to do this thing, test, photograph and share what I'm learning...yeah, I think I'm sorry for wasting everyones time here.

In the future I'll just do my own thing, keep it to myself and go merrily along in a foggy bliss! Obviously this forum is not designed for sharing anything contrary to the FBI's standards.

charlie

[Spector]

Your thread....your choice, but I hope you reconsider, knowing that a lot of us are enjoying reading about your experimentation.

I can filter out the personalities who become irritants. Hope you can too.

Mike

[Blackwater]

Keep going, OS OK! This is a great thread, and a worthy goal. I have settled on a fairly hard cast SWC for my own use, but I can't NOT be interested in your experiments. It pays to broaden one's horizons, and listen to countering views. Here in my own home, I don't really have to worry about penetrating walls, etc., because there's only my wife and I here. That makes considerations a lot easier in .38 2" loads, at least for me. I really like this thread, and check it every day for what's been posted. Sometimes we experiment just to prove "it can't be done," and sometimes, we surprise ourselves with the result.

The snubby .38 load presents us with some highly countering requirements. We need velocity to get penetration with good expansion, and that's just not available in a snubby .38. So .... experiments in what CAN be achieved are DEFINITELY worth while. I'm trying to "go to school" on your experiments as much as I can. Keep up the good work. I think lots of us are interested in what you're doing.

[Strtspdlx]

i agree with the fact you should keep on, don't let the opinions of anyone deter your efforts and cripple you. not sharing the information you have so far would be a waste to the general population here on cast boolits. I have been following this thread with great enthusiasm.
you have your standards and your goals and if you feel your testing and methods are able to achieve them, then why stop. if you doubt anything then it may be time to rethink some things, but I wouldn't just give up and let this all go to waste now.

[runfiverun]

I don't think the opposing view detracts from the thread in any way.
think about what he just did.
he got Charlie to do more research into his tests.

it also re-inforces the fact that there are no free lunches in the ballistics game.
you either concentrate on one thing or the other.
it's almost impossible to have two things happen at the same time unless you inhibit one or the other of those 2 things.
this doesn't just happen with cast it happens with jacketed too.
I have been trying to learn how to tune a bullets terminal affects by changing the velocity at impact. [and by changing some things about the bullet too]
if I keep the impact on soft tissue and slow things down I get very good results.
now change the angle or involve a bone and instantly my results are impacted.
the slower velocity is still too much and I get too much surface wounding and a shallow wound channel.
the one thing that helps is in trying to keep the velocity [moderate] but upping the weight of the projectile.

[Kosh75287]

If this has already been suggested, then please forgive the repetition, but has the subject of inverted 148gr. HBWCs been discussed? I would expect that a moderate charge of Unique would launch them somewhat over 800 f/s, which isn't trivial. Expansion is all but guaranteed, since the "front" of the projectile is flat edged and quite open. Accuracy may not be match-grade, but almost certainly is better than minute-of-intruder, especially within a dwelling.

[35remington]

No! Keep going! Info always is good. Just suggesting that you cannot use differing methodologies and figure penetration is the same. Human then barrier is vastly different than barrier then human.

I am just pointing out that a low velocity bullet exiting a human is a poor barrier penetrator. Because it is.

Putting a flimsy barrier in front of gelatin like the FBI does has zero to do with what you are supposing where the bullet hits a human and has the velocity slowed greatly.....before it hits the barrier. The bullet in the FBI test has high remaining velocity when it hits the gelatin (human simulant). Your bullet has quite low velocity after it exits a human when it hits any subsequent wall or house fixture that might be shielding someone you care about. The FBI simulated test has far more potential bullet energy and penetration when it hits the human analogue. Because the first thing the bullet hits is pretty flimsy.

FBI test: flimsy barrier, human simulant. Your test: human simulant, barrier, human simulant. If you want to test for such a thing, set it up that way. The one thing poorly modeled by tissue simulants is skin. Simulants are often penetrated by velocities that would bounce off humans....e.g, slingshot like velocities.

And also, quite frankly, the harm your loved ones face from a low energy low velocity bullet exiting a perp in your house in very low, especially if there s a wall between you and them. Missing your target makes all the "overpenetration through my intended target is bad" concerns as moot as it really is. Full energy bullets are the real problem.

I do not in the least figure on dissuading you from a search to get what you want. Just giving you info that hopefully aids in makng the correct choice.

The most important info I have to convey is that with the velocities discussed here the concern over a bullet exiting a bad guy and then passing through your house and then deeply penetrating someone else in a harmful way is really overblown. Low velocity exiting bullets have rotten penetration potential on someone behind a wall. Actually they have poor penetration on the wall itself. Unimpeded bullets that have hit nothing and are carrying their full velocity are a far bigger worry.

Shoot straight! Know where loved ones might be.

The book by DeMaio is called Gunshot Wounds. Warning: quite gruesome. Heads blown off, gutter wounds of the face, shotgun blasts, etc. The most pertinent part is the velocity loss of handgun bullets as they traverse the human body.

[NavyVet1959]

Maybe try some tests with ballistic gel (or a substitute) set up in front of a chrony? That way, you could see what velocity the bullet was traveling after it went through the "body" and you might be able to decided from that whether it should be a concern. I would suggest also doing it with a regular round nose copper jacketed round for a baseline comparison. My personal experience is that even a copper jacketed RN out of a snub nose .38 will not necessarily go through some parts of the body even if no bones are hit. And the person might not even know he was shot. In the end, shot placement is what is important.

[paul h]

An interesting thread and thanks for sharing all of the experimental results!

I'm of the school that thinks with marginally powerful rounds you can either have penetration or expansion, but not both. I'd rather patch drywall than be unable to penetrate the vitals of a thug, but that's just me. Put a heavy winter coat on a 300# guy and I would not trust a 38 sp with hp's to penetrate the vitals.

[JakeBlanton]

As an RVer, I'm pretty sure that any round I fire would go through the walls of my RV in addition to the walls of the next couple of RVs near me. I hope it never comes to that though since I don't want to have to start gluing and riveting patches to my RV.

[OS OK]

My friend...'ELVIS AMMO' @ ... elvis ammo ...did the gel test and just this morning posted his gel test video on his You-Tube channel...

Hollow Point (CONTROLLED EXPANSION) Initiator Rounds ===)

Now, we can see a lot more empirical evidence and get this thread back up and running and also argue about some different aspect of a different test...<(just kidding...just trying to keep a good attitude for whatever may result out of this).

OK...so go see this video, leave Elvis a kind word or two in the comments section for the work he now has invested into this crazy scheme of 'limited penetration self defense rounds'.<...Is that a valid name for them or even a valid concept?

Well...?

[NavyVet1959]

I think you need to do a baseline comparison with a bullet of the same weight, but with a full wadcutter profile.