Gibson, not Camp or Ayoob, right about Win vs Rem FBI Load Lead Softness

[Low Budget Shooter]

Okay, 38 Special revolver guys, some newly-compiled data has cleared up a question for us: Whose lead is softer in the FBI Load, Winchester's or Remington's? Two of our best gurus, who are usually right about everything, have issued conflicting opinions.

Here's what the late Stephen A. Camp wrote: "The bullet at the left is from Remington and is softer than the deformed, flattened one on the right, which is from Winchester." He showed pictures of Remington SWCHP bullets that had deformed more than had their Winchester counterparts fired from the same gun into the same medium.

link: http://hipowersandhandguns.com/38%20Special%20158gr%20LSWCHP.htm

But here's what Larry Gibson wrote: "I have pulled several Winchester bullets and they are dead soft at 5.5-6 BHN."

link: http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?140081-38-SPL-158-Grain-LSWCHP-quot-FBI-Load-quot-Hardness

Who's right?

If the Winchester bullet is dead soft lead, the Remington bullet couldn't be softer. But Camp had found the Remington bullet deformed more readily.

So, for the past few years, I have wondered what the truth is. Anybody else wonder about that?

Recently I found the answer in the gold mine of data recently published by LuckyGunner.
link: http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/revolver-ballistics-test/#38spl

Their tests, all shot through heavy clothing into gel, show that the Remington bullets expanded at 824 fps and above, but not at 818 fps and below. The Winchester bullets expanded at velocities of 814 fps and above, but not at 784 fps and below. When you line up two of those data points, you see this:

818 fps - Remington does not expand
814 fps - Winchester does expand

So, Gibson is proven correct about Winchester being softer. But Camp was right about the Remington bullet expanding more readily. It wasn't due to the alloy, though, but the velocity. The reason Camp thought that the Remington bullet was softer is that he assumed the two loads had similar velocities, which they do not. He was testing expansion from 2" and 4" barrels without knowing the velocities generated by the two different loads. Here it is from the LuckyGunner data:

2" Winchester 750 fps average
2" Remington 802 fps average

4" Winchester 839 fps average
4" Remington 921 fps average

By the way, Massad Ayoob was tricked into the same wrong conclusion as Stephen Camp was. He wrote this:

"When I ran across rare failures to expand, it tended to be the relatively hard Winchester bullet, which was hardened to eliminate complaints about excessive leading. On the other end of the scale, the Remington brand -- used for many years by DEA in the backup guns of its agents and the hideout guns of its undercover operatives -- always seemed to open even when fired from snubbies, DEA instructors told me . . ."

So, our own Larry Gibson was right---the Winchester bullet is dead soft, and expands at a lower velocity than the Remington bullet. BUT, the Remington load, including its present "HTP" iteration, apparently, is significantly faster, and so expands better in snubbys.

HEY, WINCHESTER, PUT SOME MORE GUN POWDER IN THE CASE, AND WE'LL BUY YOUR AMMO!
HEY, REMINGTON, TAKE THE ANTIMONY OUT OF YOUR ALLOY, AND WE'LL BUY YOURS, TOO!

Do you think they heard me?

[44MAG#1]

Are both hollow points the same shape and size? Have you or anyone else given a thought about that? Or is it just jump on and hang on?

[sniper]

L B S: Sounds good to me! :goodpost:

[Low Budget Shooter]

Here's a picture of the two HP bullets. I don't know if this is current.
198027

[saleen322]

When I was still shooting distinguished revolver matches, the factory Remington 158 RN was pretty accurate at 50 yards. I was trying to meet or exceed the accuracy of the Remington load so I did a lot of testing to improve performance. The Remington averaged 770 FPS from a 6" S&W 14 and the just about the same from a 6" Dan Wesson 715.

It is also correct that some of the Remington loads were soft lead because even at that speed, I personally seen severe leading on model 64 and 65s when I was training staff using those revolvers and shooting thousands of rounds. Now this leading was the exception not the rule and you can see a great deal of variation from lot to lot of ammo even with the same brand and bullet. The Winchester (and Federal) did appear harder but not as accurate as a general rule. I never did detailed testing of Winchester or Federal because the Remington was better at 50 yards. YMMV

[Low Budget Shooter]

Interesting.

[44MAG#1]

Just looking at the photo one cannot tell the internal design to the bottom of the cavities. Still will ask are the cavities the same or not?

[35remington]

Assuming the chronigraphed velocities are always relatively the same over time is probably unwarranted. Various lots of ammo do not necessarily generate lower or higher speeds all the time compared to something else. Ask me how I know that. Yes, in regard to this ammo.

Given velocities can vary 100 plus fps with powder forward to powder backwards positioning, it is also possible expansion failures have a lot to do with where the powder is when the gun is fired. This can create expanding and nonexpanding bullets fired from the same gun and the same box of ammo.

There are too many velocity variables present to believe a Winchester bullet will always be slower and a Remington faster. Actual results suggest velocities could be the other way around the next time.

[Low Budget Shooter]

35rem, of course you're right about how ammo velocity varies, but within those variables, I think this velocity difference between Rem and Win is real. Here's another data point to help the discussion along:

1989 FBI Ammunition test 3" Barrel Model 13s

Remington 871 fps
Winchester 808 fps

198028

[35remington]

Well, the last lot of Winchester I shot did 940 from a four inch and 850 from a snubby and I will find similar results posted elsewhere. Not hard for me to dig some up. Incidentally the same snubby does 750 with the same ammo powder forward.

[Low Budget Shooter]

I think the most helpful data will be Rem and Win tested together, because of the variables you mentioned.

[35remington]

Here ya go, Win and Rem tested together.

http://www.perfectunion.com/vb/handgun-reloading/84375-38-special-chronograph-test.html#/topics/84375

Note the difference between lots of Winchester compared to Remington. Note also the velocity variation between lots.

Winchester always substantially slower?

No.

[Low Budget Shooter]

35rem, thanks for link! I'm copying the most pertinent data below. It seems to me that when compared to the more current Winchester offering, we are seeing Remington 37 to 67 fps faster, which is right in line with the 1989 FBI info and the 2017 LuckyGunner info. Right? bmcgilvray states that the older box of Winchester is c. 1980.

2" Barrel
875 Remington
808 Winchester (newer)
843 Winchester (older)

4" Barrel
942 Remington
905 Winchester (newer)
943 Winchester (older)

6" Barrel
964 Remington
922 Winchester (newer)
949 Winchester (older)

[35remington]

Yes, and I am telling you my last lot of Winchester gray box ran with the Remington. That is another data point personally contributed. I am sure I can find more.

[35remington]

Before we start arguing in detail about whether what we have seen is true for all the ammo we have not personally shot or tested, let us not miss the most relevant point:

Where the powder is in the case when the gun is fired probably has more to do with whether the bullet expands or not than brand of ammo used. That variable overshadows anything else to some degree. That is the thing both Ayoob and Camp missed that goes furthest in explaining variable expansion especially from snubbies.

[Three-Fifty-Seven]

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s220/ShawnTVT/Guns/IMG_0073_zpskodqvzqt.jpg (http://s153.photobucket.com/user/ShawnVT/media/Guns/IMG_0073_zpskodqvzqt.jpg.html)

[44MAG#1]

Does the hollow point shape and volumn contribute to the expansion of said bullets or is the hollow point an also ran? Does anyone know this? Has anyone even examined the hollow point shape of are you just dukeing it out over velocity because you don't know?

[Low Budget Shooter]

44mag, I would like to answer your question, but I don't know how to compare those cavities. How would you like me to?

[Larry Gibson]

Looking at my old data from the mid '70s chronographing the older White Box 158 LSWCHP +P out of my old duty 5" M15 S&W (I still have this revolver) and a 4" M15 S&W which was my duty revolver at the time of the tests using an Oehler M12. The velocities are from 10 shot tests.

198030198031

The velocity out of the 5" M15 S&W was 960 fps with the start screen at 10'.

The velocity out of the 4" M15 S&W was 923 fps with the start screen at 10'.

The test ammunition came out of the same box of Winchester ammunition. The LE agency I was the firearms/officer safety instructor for adopted the Winchester 38 SPL 158 LSWCHP +P in early '75. The ammunition was rotated and replaced every 6 months. That included the rounds the officers carried and the extra box of ammunition in the patrol vehicles. Note the "9-75" date written on the box. That was when that box was put in one of the patrol vehicles.

I doubt the original test I conducted back in early .75 was with ammunition out of that same box. However, it probably was with ammunition out of the same case. on September the 8th, 2011, just before moving to Arizona from Washington, I chronographed a 10 shot string out of the pictured box using the same 5" M15 S&W. The test was done with an Oehler M35P chronograph. The velocity was again 960 fps. A second test was done the same day of ammunition from the same box shot in my 7.94" Contender test barrel using an Oehler M43 PBL to measure psi also. The muzzle velocity was 1046 fps (ES 52 fps, SD 16 fps)at 17,900 psi(M43).

As the firearms instructor I soon implement training at every other quarterly firearms training/qualifications the LEOs would fire their carried duty ammunition (the Winchester 158 LSWCHP +Ps) in realistic scenarios. every 18 months I also had the LEOs shoot a 50 round TRC (Tactical Revolver Course) with the ammunition carried in the vehicles (rotated out every 6 months) for qualification. The officers cleaned their weapons, I inspected them and then issued new ammunition prior to their leaving the range. We never had any leading issues with the Winchester ammunition.

Larry Gibson

My old 5" M15 service revolver in case anyone is interested;

198035

[44MAG#1]

Surely you can look into the cavities with a critical eye or even do a water volumn test by weighing the cartridges with the HP cavities empty the filling them with water and re weighing them to find out.

[Low Budget Shooter]

Okay, so did Win reduce velocity of load sometime in the 1980s?

[35remington]

I do not have an ability to compare the HP shape of the latest lot of Remington HP to Winchester HP as I do not have any new Remington to compare. Shot it a year ago. I am not answering because I do not have an answer.

From snubbies, I am told that the HP +P more commonly resembles a rumpled up WC than a mushroomed bullet when recovered from actual shootings. Due to clothing and attenuated velocity this makes sense. Thankfully I have yet to dig any 38 HP's out of people intent on doing me harm.

[35remington]

Since we probably do not have a statistically valid sampling of 38 ammo over time I am not sure anyone can provide an answer we can bet on. All I can tell you is what I have seen may bring into question definitive declarations absent statistically valid sampling.

[Outpost75]

It isn't purely a matter of alloy and striking velocity, it is also a matter of cavity geometry, force distribution and fluid flow. Good application for finite element analysis.

[GhostHawk]

I have yet to come to regret any information I obtained by reading and believing Larry Gibson. Period. YMMV, but for me, every fact I have checked (where possible) he has been right on, in the 10 ring, every single time.

So it is of zero surprise to me that he has outdone the experts.
A long long time ago, a dairy farmer told me a very simple fact of life.

"If your more than 50 miles from home, your an expert"

Based on the very simple fact that chances are no one knows you well enough to contradict you, or call your findings into question.

In the 40 years and more since I have seen a LOT of experts who could not pour water out of a shoe if the instructions were printed on the heel.

From what I can see, Larry on the other hand believes in testing every conceivable variable for himself. So he can truly comprehend and understand in the most accurate way exactly what is happening when we pull the trigger.

And he is good enough to share his data and his conclusions.

Unfortunately all too often it is pearls before swine. People can not accept that their preconceived notions might not be correct. So it is Larry who is wrong.

And if this little rant gets me in trouble, so be it. I call it the way I see it. Dead simple, dead honest, with no ill will or evil intent towards anyone. But if I ruffled your feathers, well that was not my intent. Simply one man speaking his honest opinion. And is not that what we do here?

[Outpost75]

I don't disagree with Larry and I heartily support independent empirical testing.

Winchester has used different lead alloys over the years, and sometimes adjusted to mitigate leading to meet contract requirements. Remington has always optimized their load to perform in the shorter barrels, and it has been a consistent performer since I first tested it in the 1980s.

Original specifications for the X38SPD specified velocity from a 4" vented test barrel with 0.008" cylinder gap. Performance suffered when fired from shorter barrels because some of the powders needed to meet the 4" barrel velocity spec. within the allowed pressure limits produce poor ballistic uniformity when fired from barrels shorter than 3".

[nagantguy]

I have yet to come to regret any information I obtained by reading and believing Larry Gibson. Period. YMMV, but for me, every fact I have checked (where possible) he has been right on, in the 10 ring, every single time.

So it is of zero surprise to me that he has outdone the experts.
A long long time ago, a dairy farmer told me a very simple fact of life.

"If your more than 50 miles from home, your an expert"

Based on the very simple fact that chances are no one knows you well enough to contradict you, or call your findings into question.

In the 40 years and more since I have seen a LOT of experts who could not pour water out of a shoe if the instructions were printed on the heel.

From what I can see, Larry on the other hand believes in testing every conceivable variable for himself. So he can truly comprehend and understand in the most accurate way exactly what is happening when we pull the trigger.

And he is good enough to share his data and his conclusions.

Unfortunately all too often it is pearls before swine. People can not accept that their preconceived notions might not be correct. So it is Larry who is wrong.

And if this little rant gets me in trouble, so be it. I call it the way I see it. Dead simple, dead honest, with no ill will or evil intent towards anyone. But if I ruffled your feathers, well that was not my intent. Simply one man speaking his honest opinion. And is not that what we do here?

Waaa waaaa waaa my feelings are hurt cause the grey box of treats ain't as good as the green on Wednesdays in July on odd years.
Just ruffling your feathers I see sound logic in your words and find arguments/debates about the virtues or deficiencies of one brand of ammos ballistics over another absolutely fascinating and I took no umbrage at your words and have found Mr.Gibsons research to be spot on the few times I researched and tested any of his theories/findings that were pertinent to my own interests or needs!

[Silver Jack Hammer]

Larry, I sent you a PM

[30calflash]

The info presented here gives us a chance to gain valuable knowledge not readily available in the general stream of things. With the production of lighter weight jacketed +p loads especially for 2" barrels, I would think you will see less tests and new info on the +P 158 SWCHP loads discussed.

If your the person who acquires a box for your personal carry needs, you may not have the access to be able to test such as shown here. That plus we don't have several boxes from various lots available to us, usually. I find that locally it's extreme hit and miss, they have the latest $25 per 20 rounds of whatever new stuff happens to be out, not the older 'formerly' popular.

The one thing that may help with the performance, and I hope others here can speak from experience, is we can check our revolvers with a feeler guage to see what kind of BC gap we're dealing with. I'm unsure as to what kind of performance change you would see with a .005 vs .008 gap in a 2" barrel. It is one thing that we can have some say over, even if it means taking a feeler guage with you to the LGS when looking at new 38's.

[Outpost75]

The expected change in velocity with standard-pressure .38 Special ammunition is about 10 fps for each 0.001" change in cylinder gap from Mean Assembly Tolerance of 0.006."

Therefore a 2" barrel gun assembled at minimum cylinder gap Pass 0.003"/Hold 0.004" would be expected to produce about the same velocity as a 4" gun at maximum accepted tolerance of Pass 0.008"/Hold 0.009".

The observed difference is likely to be greater with +P or .357 Magnum ammunition, due to differences in propellants used, but this approximation agrees well with with experience.

A difference of -30 to as much as -50 fps in going from a 0.005" to 0.008" gap is "normal," depending upon the ammunition used.

[Thumbcocker]

Wonder if mainstream ammo companies will try soft lead powder coated boolits for self defense ammo. I remember nyclad from federal in the early 80's but I think it died off.

[sawinredneck]

Wonder if mainstream ammo companies will try soft lead powder coated boolits for self defense ammo. I remember nyclad from federal in the early 80's but I think it died off.
It was killed off! They got labeled as cop killer bullets because the teflon let the penetrate a vest.:killingpc

[lefty o]

i can pretty much guarantee you no centerfire bullet from any manufacturer is dead soft lead. heck even rimfire bullets have some antimony in them.

[lefty o]

It was killed off! They got labeled as cop killer bullets because the teflon let the penetrate a vest.:killingpc

as of 2 to 3 yrs ago, federal still sold nyclads. since then, im unsure.

[9.3X62AL]

Lotta great info in this thread, posted by guys whose opinions and experience I respect deeply.

Just some random observations I've made over the years........I have cast pure lead #358429s, sized them @ .359", and run them to 900 FPS in 38 Special brass from a 5" Model 10 and in 357 Magnum brass from a 4" Model 686. There was zero leading in either revolver after 50 rounds each, lube was Javelina BW/Alox 50/50. FWIW.

My 4" 686 (with .004" cylinder gap) consistently produces higher velocities with every load I have sampled than does my pre-Model 27 x 6.5" with its .011" gap. Yes, it needs some work.

If I ever carry a 38 Special in harm's way again, it will be filled with factory 158 grain LSWCHP +P loadings.

[sawinredneck]

as of 2 to 3 yrs ago, federal still sold nyclads. since then, im unsure.
Well, a little research, they pulled all of them in 2002-2003 because of a movie. They reintroduced the 38spl 125gr standard pressure load at the '09 SHOT show. I can find places with it listed but it's either listed as out of stock or discontinued. Other than overpriced listings on Armslist and Gunbroker, I can't find any for sale.
Interesting bit of history if nothing else.

[44MAG#1]

That was the KTW BRONZE jacketed teflon coated bullet. Not a teflon coated lead bullet labeled as a bullet that would penetrate a bullet proof jacket.
KTW teflon coated bronze jacketed not teflon coated lead.

[sawinredneck]

That was the KTW BRONZE jacketed teflon coated bullet. Not a teflon coated lead bullet labeled as a bullet that would penetrate a bullet proof jacket.
KTW teflon coated bronze jacketed not teflon coated lead.
You know this, I know this, but Hollywood doesn't know this and most of the general public doesn't know this, so "it was in a movie, it has to be true!"
Remember to big scare about the Black Talons? I had to educate a couple of cops after they commented "God I hate seeing these thing on the street!" They thought hollow points would penetrate their vests and kill them all in one shot!
Then the hysteria when Glocks first came out? But I'm getting off topic.

[Lefty Red]

A lot of good info.
But I take "Jello Results" tongue in cheek. Good for loose guidelines, but not the end all.

Lefty


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ddixie884]

I thank all, for the info.............

[Petrol & Powder]

I have a long dedication to the "FBI Load" and have no reason to question the information provided in this thread. I will say that taking a limited sample of ANY load is bound to produce numbers that are not true when compared to a larger sample. That's nothing more than sampling error.
I'm not certain that any of this information changes much. I've used every factory loading of the "FBI Load" over the years but the Remington load is by far the most common and easiest/cheapest to acquire; therefore the load I've shot the most.

I've always operated under the theory that bullet expansion is just the icing on the cake. If the bullet expands, great. If the bullet doesn't expand but penetrates adequately, I can live with that.

Over many years, decades actually, the basic FBI load has proven to be a reliable self-defense load when fired from short barrels. It is that short barrel performance that makes the FBI load shine. The Remington version may be slightly better when fired from a 2" barrel but only a large sample tested against an equally large sample of another load will tell the tale.

[Texas by God]

It was killed off! They got labeled as cop killer bullets because the teflon let the penetrate a vest.:killingpc
Nope. They were Nylon coated lead - CCI Blazer makes them now. You're thinking of the Teflon coated bronze KTW loads that were sold ONLY to Police in the first place.

[Texas by God]

Does anyone know the hardness of the Hornady swaged/knurled 158gr lead hollow points?

[CHeatermk3]

Thomas, they are dead-soft.

[Texas by God]

Thank you sir. As far as the Nyclads- I bought some in 9mm persuasion by CCI but labeled Herters' last year.

[44MAG#1]

KTW loads were sold only to police later but not earlier. SSK industries marketed them at one time

[ddixie884]

I wonder why the major ammo companies don't load a FBI type load especially to deliver 850fps+ from a 2" barrel, since expansion is so limited at 800fps.

[sawinredneck]

I wonder why the major ammo companies don't load a FBI type load especially to deliver 850fps+ from a 2" barrel, since expansion is so limited at 800fps.

I'd imagine it's from a recoil perspective, with .357's so readily available now people use full house .357's for carry and .38's for plinking. Why take the abuse from a diet .357?
I obviously can't back any of that up though. Buffalo Bore does make a 158grn at 1,100fps if you really want one.

[Green Frog]

Are both hollow points the same shape and size? Have you or anyone else given a thought about that? Or is it just jump on and hang on?


Wonder if mainstream ammo companies will try soft lead powder coated boolits for self defense ammo. I remember nyclad from federal in the early 80's but I think it died off.

I was wondering about the Federal Nyclad +P loads the FBI carried in the '70s as well. I've been holding on to a small supply for years for serious use in my CCW/EDC gun. I'm currently at about a half box or so but would dearly love a couple hundred more. :mrgreen:

Froggie

[ddixie884]

Wonder if mainstream ammo companies will try soft lead powder coated boolits for self defense ammo. I remember nyclad from federal in the early 80's but I think it died off.

Underwood offers a .38spl +P Hi-Tech Coated SWCHPGC. I ordered a few boxes just at the beginning of the present unpleasantness......

[pettypace]

I wonder why the major ammo companies don't load a FBI type load especially to deliver 850fps+ from a 2" barrel, since expansion is so limited at 800fps.

Is it possible that the FBI load actually performs better from a 2" barrel?

Here's Fackler's wound profile for the FBI load from a 4" barrel:

283177

Here's another way to look at the same load:

283178



What happens from a 2" barrel? Less velocity and less expansion. Exactly how much less of each is speculation. But let's speculate that velocity drops to 775 f/s and expansion drops to 0.47". Now, the penetration and wound mass look like this:

283179

With more penetration and equal wound mass, I think the snubby might be more effective than the 4 inch barrel.

Of course, this is just speculation. But some half gallon milk cartons full of water, a cardboard box full of pillow stuffing, the cut-off legs from some old jeans, a snubby, a chronograph, and a vernier caliper could turn speculation into science. Oops! I forgot the most important part -- a box of FBI loads. That's the part I'm missing. I'll check at Snubbyfest today to see if any of the usual suspects have FBI loads.

[30calflash]

Being an old guy that carries this in my edc I can't recall where I read it but the story stated that the round expanded to about 70 cal when fired from a 4" bbl, about 50 cal from a 2" bbl. Prolly fired into water without clothing to change things.

Less expansion = more penetration.

[44MAG#1]

Here comes ole simple minded me. I would just carry a nice 3 inch 1911 or a Glock M36 with a good FP cast bullet of around 230 grains and be done with it.
No fuss or bother just simply put it in my waist band or OWB holster and go.
The reason I said what I said is it seems there is a lot of concern about what the FBI did, does or will do.
Just trying to look at something in a simple way. NOT trying to deflect in a negative way but just trying to sooth some peoples concern.

[USSR]

My personal FBI Load hollowpoint testing, done using a 2.5" S&W Model 19. Middle 158gr HP at 845fps, and the one on the right at 940fps.

Don

283183

[popper]

Not in the FBI so I don't care. bullet expansion is just the icing on the cake. If the bullet expands, great. If the bullet doesn't expand but penetrates adequately, I can live with that.
An OP did a 38 snubby cast test here several years ago, got best expansion/penetration/wt retention with 50/50 Pb/Sn moderate HP.

[RJM52]

As to using the FBI load in a snubby...a friend shot a guy who had just shot at him and missed at less than 10 yards. The bullet hit the guy in the neck. Guy dropped the gun and ran. Friend ran after him (the guy had burglarized a business) and after a knock-down-drag-out fight shot him this time with a 25-5 .45 Colt (long story).

The guy died from the shot with the .45 Colt and at the autopsy the unexpanded .38 round was removed from the guys neck... My friend's gun was a 2" Model 60... I'm not sure which brand of ammo it was as it was issued duty ammo that varried with the contract. I do know that it chronographed at 950 fps from a 4" 64...

If I ever carry a snubby again it will be with the Buffalo Bore +P that is running 1000 fps from a 2". My general purpose load of 6.0 grains of Unique runs 960 from a 2" 649.

Bob

[FergusonTO35]

For hunting or defense, I just stick with ammo that is accurate and reliable in my guns. If I can place the boolits where they need to go then I have the best chance of success. Carrying my Ruger LCP II .22 with Aguila Interceptor 40 grain as I write this. Its accurate, reliable, and gets 1000 fps out of this little gun across my chronograph.

[Outpost75]

Barrel-cylinder gap is very often the determining factor. Many current J-frame hammerless revolvers have huge cylinder gaps, over 0.008", compared to older ones which were generally 0.004-0.006. Also a typical J-frame snub barrel really isn't 2 inches, but is 1-7/8". The combined effect produces a Delta-V of minus~40 fps, and often -50 fps or more if firing in a .357 vs. a .38 Special chamber.

[pettypace]

The most suspect of the usual Snubbyfest suspects came up with a box of Remington FBI loads, a few of which he was willing to donate in the interest of science.

I took three shots, each through four layers of denim, through a 1/2 gallon milk carton of water, and into a cardboard box full of pillow stuffing. First shot was from a 4" S&W Heavy Duty the next two from a 2" 640 (38 Special, B/C gap=0.006").

283189

[Butzbach]

Surely you can look into the cavities with a critical eye or even do a water volumn test by weighing the cartridges with the HP cavities empty the filling them with water and re weighing them to find out.

How ‘bout a Play-dough cavity cast in fluorescent pink?

[44MAG#1]

How ‘bout a Play-dough cavity cast in fluorescent pink?

Do as you wish. I know I would.

[pettypace]

Here's what the late Stephen A. Camp wrote: "The bullet at the left is from Remington and is softer than the deformed, flattened one on the right, which is from Winchester." He showed pictures of Remington SWCHP bullets that had deformed more than had their Winchester counterparts fired from the same gun into the same medium.

link: http://hipowersandhandguns.com/38%20Special%20158gr%20LSWCHP.htm


The picture below is NOT from Stephen A. Camp comparing Remington with Winchester bullets.

283261

Instead, this picture shows a Remington bullet at 841 f/s on the left with another Remington bullet at 778 f/s on the right. Both cartridges came from the same box; both were shot from the same 2" S&W 640; and both were fired through four layers of denim into a half-gallon milk carton of water and captured in a cardboard box full of pillow stuffing.

In this comparison, differences between the two manufactures (alloy hardness, hollow point cavity configuration, and velocity) are eliminated. Given that I wasn't thinking about it at the time, I'm liking 35remington's powder positioning explanation.

[Bigslug]

Interesting to me that we're still spilling so much ink (pixels?) over the performance of 40 year old ammo in the context of modern defensive shooting. I think the load was successful because it accomplished a pretty good approximation back then of what we have realized does a pretty good job now. . .but it's clear that it had its limitations.

The .38 Special is an entire family of dinosaurs evolved over eons. There's the original black powder dinosaur; there's the target-loaded dinosaur; the +P dinosaur; and the jacketed dinosaur. Then you complicate the matter by the fact that within each of those families, every clutch of eggs might produce a runt - the snubnosed, belly-gun dinosaur that still has to call whatever the loading was "Mommy and Daddy", even though it doesn't really behave like its parents.

Keeping that in mind, going to the local sporting goods emporium to seek a single box of ammo to solve the defensive needs of both 2" and 4"+ guns that will make them two completely different cartridges may well be folly.

It may be wiser to consider that the snubbies are not too far removed from the .380 auto in terms of their limitations - you may be dealing with a system that can penetrate or expand, but not both; or you might be dealing with expansion being inconsistent or problematic.

There is a significant market trend these days toward flat-pointing the bullets in what would otherwise be the old standby 130 grain FMJ .38's or 95-100 grain .380's which will increase their effectiveness at damaging tissue over the basic RN's without giving up too much needed penetration. When considering ammo for guns that compromise velocity by either barrel length or powder capacity, this is probably the most consistently performing solution to the "little gun" problem. Probably best if we think of the 4" duty guns as a completely different category of firearms.

[pettypace]

There is a significant market trend these days toward flat-pointing the bullets in what would otherwise be the old standby 130 grain FMJ .38's or 95-100 grain .380's which will increase their effectiveness at damaging tissue over the basic RN's without giving up too much needed penetration. When considering ammo for guns that compromise velocity by either barrel length or powder capacity, this is probably the most consistently performing solution to the "little gun" problem. Probably best if we think of the 4" duty guns as a completely different category of firearms.

You can't do much more "flat-pointing" than a wadcutter. Some pretty knowledgeable folks favor that solution.

If you believe guys like Charles Schwartz and Duncan MacPherson (which I do) there's not much difference between TC, RN, and SWC when it comes to tissue damage.

Maybe it's time to crank up the "two-projectile" thread again. That's what all that extra space in the .38 Special case was intended for. :wink:

[USSR]

It may be wiser to consider that the snubbies are not too far removed from the .380 auto in terms of their limitations - you may be dealing with a system that can penetrate or expand, but not both...

Thanks for the laugh, comparing a 158gr SWCHP at ~900fps to a sub-100gr .380 ACP.

Don

[35remington]

It is a relevant comparison in the sense that both 380 and snubbie 38 are challenged in the same way as to bullet performance. Velocities are not 900 fps from a snubby, but potentially are more like 100 fps or more less than that with a factory 158 depending also on where the powder is. Velocities and energy of the two calibers are more alike than different especially with short barreled 38s.

Note pettypace’s pictured results. The discussion is what the factory load actually does when fired from various barrel lengths, and Big Slug’s commentary is relevant in that both calibers have difficulty in bullet performance when measured by the yardstick of, say, a 9mm. It is also relevant to note that despite this variability in expansion for the 158 SWCHP, which I think is notably influenced by velocity based powder position, it still had a good rep from short barrels.

The rumpled up but mostly nonexpanded 158 in PP’s photo is still effective whether it expands or not.

[pettypace]

The rumpled up but mostly nonexpanded 158 in PP’s photo is still effective whether it expands or not.

I'd bet pizza and beer that the "rumpled" bullet "tumbled" -- otherwise it might still be going. My experience (very limited) has been that bullets that fail to expand also fail to stop in the pillow stuffing.

Here's a screenshot from one of Lucky Gunner's tests in Clear Ballistic Gel:

283276

None of the five shots expanded a whit. That's to be expected given the relatively low velocity and that C-B Gel is supposed to be "softer" than real gelatin or water.

But if a 158 grain .38 at 750 f/s doesn't expand, it's got no right stopping in just 15" of C-B Gel -- unless it "tumbled." The first shot is obviously heading the wrong way. The other three short bullets must be doing the same. The one bullet that didn't tumble did just what .38s want to do -- penetrate.

So maybe the FBI load is effective in a snubby because if it doesn't expand, it's likely to tumble?

[Char-Gar]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Answer: Who cares. Both makers loads work for their intended purpose. Remington does not load them anymore, so who cares. I don't know if Winchester still offers their version.

[USSR]

It is a relevant comparison in the sense that both 380 and snubbie 38 are challenged in the same way as to bullet performance. Velocities are not 900 fps from a snubby, but potentially are more like 100 fps or more less than that with a factory 158 depending also on where the powder is.

Yeah, I suppose a 95gr .380 can expand and penetrate like the cast bullet on the right did AT 940fps out of my snubbie using published load data.;)

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=283183&d=1501980404&thumb=1

[35remington]

I don’t doubt tumbling is a factor, but I will also note that the “unexpanded” bullet also resembles a wadcutter. Combine the effects of a blunted front to reduce penetration before it swaps ends and add in possible tumbling and you have a bullet that doesn’t need a classic expanded shape to be effective.

But I’m quite aware that was the point you were making, and such explains why it had a good rep despite not looking like conventional wisdom says it ought to look.

[35remington]

I am unaware that the FBI Load discussed was ever issued to police and FBI in handloaded form. It gets nowhere near 900-940 fps in short barrels. The range PP showed in his results is exactly representative of what snubbies actually get with the Remington and Winchester factory ammo, worst to best case.

Thus BigSlug’s comments remain relevant. Buffalo Bore and Brian Pearce in Handloader magazine offer hotted up 380 loads, Pearce also adhering to SAAMI spec. Pearce claimed a 90 JHP at around 1130 fps from a tiny LCP. Cops and FBI don’t use those 380 loads either.

[35remington]

One of the downsides to the 38 in short barrels and with the FBI load is that velocities will vary enough with variances in powder position that the same gun with the same ammo may fire nonexpanding and expanding bullets from the contents of the cylinder.

I mentioned this earlier in the thread and some years ago in time. It remains true. This is one of the downsides to the unused case capacity of what was originally a black powder round. If you are wanting bullets to always classically expand it is a problem, but in actual practice from short barrels the often nonexpanding FBI load did not have a reputation for over penetrating and a good reputation for effectiveness.

So yes, the tumbling thing seems to be the actual occurrence and somewhat mooted the need for bullet expansion.

Jack Ruby’s 158 RN from his snubby didn’t go through Oswald either, and this seems more likely if it tumbled. Probably was doing only 650-700 fps at the muzzle and this likely contributed to that.

[Bigslug]

Thanks for the laugh, comparing a 158gr SWCHP at ~900fps to a sub-100gr .380 ACP.

Don

If the .38 fails to open due to it's speed being robbed by a short barrel, a coroner won't be able to definitively say that the wound track came from the .38 or an FMJ .380 until they arrive at and measure the actual bullet. .35 caliber is .35 caliber - soft tissue does not care what the headstamp says.

The problem with .380's that DO expand is they then often don't have the gas to make it to the Tootsie Roll center of the Tootsiepop. Ask Archduke Ferdinand and his wife how they feel about the performance of non-expanding .380's.

My point being that either the snubbie (through velocity loss) or the .380 (through minimal starting mass and velocity) tend to place you in a ballistic quandry where you have to choose between two performance characteristics - those being penetration and expansion. The advantage of solids is that they behave MUCH more consistently at different impact speeds. I would rather have that than the "might or might not" uncertainty of expansion of rounds leaving the gun below their intended impact speed.

[USSR]

If I was forced to use a .380 ACP for self defense, I would use a FMJ and not an expanding bullet. Reason: The low SD of sub-100gr bullets. Due to their low weight in relation to diameter, expand these bullets and you pay a big price in penetration. Not so with a heavy 158gr SWCHP. That's why the FBI used them.

Don

[35remington]

When the FBI load did and does expand to the classic shape, penetration is barely over the FBI “minimum” in gelatin. In actual use, and especially in snubbies, the bullet often fails to expand in the “classic” manner.

Which means in practical use less may actually be more. I’d prefer the extra penetration.

Of the 380 ACP expanding bullets the Hornady XTP is one of the few that meets the FBI minimum in gelatin by expanding to a smallish diameter. Penetration is comparable to a 158 FBI SWCHP that expands “classically.” As in just over 12 inches.

Wouldn’t care to get shot with either, and the smallish edge the 38 holds has to be balanced against the size and capacity of the gun itself. I personally prefer a five shot 638 to my LCP, but I can see why some may prefer a small 380. I own both but feel somewhat more secure with the 38 on a per shot basis. Sales of the LCP indicate many differ on that opinion.

[44MAG#1]

All the above points me in the direction of the 45 Auto.

[ddixie884]

One of the downsides to the 38 in short barrels and with the FBI load is that velocities will vary enough with variances in powder position that the same gun with the same ammo may fire nonexpanding and expanding bullets from the contents of the cylinder.

I mentioned this earlier in the thread and some years ago in time. It remains true. This is one of the downsides to the unused case capacity of what was originally a black powder round. If you are wanting bullets to always classically expand it is a problem, but in actual practice from short barrels the often nonexpanding FBI load did not have a reputation for over penetrating and a good reputation for effectiveness.

So yes, the tumbling thing seems to be the actual occurrence and somewhat mooted the need for bullet expansion.

Jack Ruby’s 158 RN from his snubby didn’t go through Oswald either, and this seems more likely if it tumbled. Probably was doing only 650-700 fps at the muzzle and this likely contributed to that.

I think someone posted it was a 200gr in Ruby's snub.

[35remington]

I recall 158. The 200 was a bit of a rarity even then. I’ll recheck my copy of the Warren Report but I think I’m pretty sure. The 156 standard velocity RN was far and away the most common 38 used at the time.

[curioushooter]

My own testing with hand cast HPs in 38+P out of a S&W 442 found that expansion was minimal and unreliable, especially if barriers are involved. Put the same load into a 4" Model 19 and it was great. 850 FPS is about where you want to be to get expansion using 98% pb-2% sn.

Hands down best of everything I've tested in calibrated ballistic gel for the 38+P out of snub is the Federal 130 grain HST. The Speer 135 grain JHP and all hand cast bullets were inferior.

Most published book loads with 38 special in snub managed about ~750 FPS. PowerPistol and Unique I found to be the best powders for velocity in +P loading.

[35remington]

Assuming powder near the primer standard pressure loads of Unique and Power Pistol topped out at 810-820 fps with Unique and PP in my 638 snubbie. Plus P handloads for both hit around 860 fps. This with a 158 grain bullet. From a four inch these would do around 960-970 with Plus P handloads.

[robertbank]

FWIW my Bush Cary right now is 200gr Lyman 358430 RN over 6 gr of Unique. Over my Chrony avg vel. of 10 rds is 1,031 fps five yards from the muzzle. Test done muzzle up. Standard deviation was 8, Ext. Spread 48 out of my 4.2" Ruger GP-100.

Both my Ruger GP100 and 686 No Dash are very accurate out to 20 yards. Beyond that the variable would be me not the cartridge or gun.

We don't CCW up here and Wildernous Carry is not widely held but it occurs to me IF I lived in an urban setting and actually felt I needed to be armed, a 9MM polymer pistol 4" or less would be my first choice. Those little .380's are nice but their bark ie recoil was far greater than their bite. Surely a Glock 19 or the S&W M&P Compact both in 9MM would now be better options than a short barreled revolver. Time moves on.

Take Care

Bob
ps I know our situations are completely different and the above is not meant to be critical. Your options for self defense using handguns has changed since the 1960's

[Naphtali]

How many years has Stephen Camp been dead? How many years ago did he obtain his information? Repeat for each claimant.

Was Lucky Gunner's testing comparing ammunition at the time of each conflicting result having been rendered by writer making the claim?

[ddixie884]

I recall 158. The 200 was a bit of a rarity even then. I’ll recheck my copy of the Warren Report but I think I’m pretty sure. The 156 standard velocity RN was far and away the most common 38 used at the time.

I read up on this on the internet and I believe you are right and what I read was wrong. Sorry bout that......

[jem102]

as of 2 to 3 yrs ago, federal still sold nyclads. since then, im unsure.

To my dismay the Nyclad is no longer made. I called Federal and ask why and was told they could not make enough profit on them...The actual verbiage was "they are too expensive to make"...