Two-Projectile Loads in Snubby for Self-Defense

[pettypace]

I've been experimenting recently with two-projectile loads in a snubby for self-defense. I'm wondering who else has given this serious thought.

Here are some combinations I've tried:

238451

(1) Lee 356-95 RF base-to-base with 105 grain H&G #50 = 200 grains
(2) Lyman 356402 base-to-base with NOE 70 grain WC = 195 grains
(3) Two Lee 356-95 RF base-to-base = 190 grains
(4) Two Lyman 356404 base-to-base = 190 grains
(5) Lee 356-95 RF base-to-base with NOE 70 grain WC = 165 grains
(6) Two NOE 70 grain WC base-to-base = 140 grains
(7) One 000 buckshot over NOE 70 grain WC = 140 grains

I've been using 2400 powder for the 190 - 200 grain loads with velocities about 750 ft/s with easy extraction and no serious flattening of primers. I've flirted with 4756 for the 140 grain loads with velocities approaching 1000 ft/s but I don't like it. I won't list any specific loads and caution anyone first trying something like this that the bullets are probably going to be seated deeper than a single bullet of the same weight, so even published loads might give excessive pressure.

With everything I've tried, accuracy at 7 to 10 yards has proven more than adequate for the purpose. So my bigger concern has been penetration. Early on, i was relying on Hatcher's energy-based formula for penetration through 7/8" pine boards. That's what (mis)led me to the 140 grain combinations at high velocities and I won't admit how much time I wasted trying to determine a useful R (for resistance) value for ballistic gel. Then I finally broke down and bought the kindle version of MacPherson's Bullet Penetration book. From MacPherson I learned (what I should have already known) that penetration depends more on sectional density than energy.

Both MacPherson's graphs and the "expedient equation" from Schwartz's Quantitative Ammunition Selection show that the 190 to 200 grain combinations at, say, 750 ft/s, should exceed the 12" FBI minimum penetration standards in bare gel. So far, my actual penetration testing has been limited to a few shots into some homemade (uncalibrated) gelatin and a couple shots into a fresh brick of Clear Ballistic gel. With the homemade gelatin, three shots of the #3 combination -- two Lee 356-95 RF bullets loaded back-to-back at about 750 ft/s -- coasted through a 14" brick of uncalibrated gel proving absolutely nothing.

To date, I've only fired two shots (#1 combination -- Lee 356-95 over 105 grain H&G #50 WC at about 750 ft/s) into a 16" brick of calibrated Clear Ballistic gel. The results were at least thought-provoking. Both MacPherson and Schwartz predict the front bullets should penetrate over 16" and the back WCs about 13-14". Surprisingly, all four bullets penetrated the full 16". More testing awaits the construction of a mould to re-melt the gel.

Now, I suppose the obvious question is "Why bother?" One answer is that I accept the "Shot placement is King and penetration is Queen" mantra. But to that I would add "Lady Luck is the Court Jester." Given good shot placement and adequate penetration, whether any given bullet hits a vital target and immediately ends the threat is very much a matter of luck. And if I'm shooting at the Fitz Luck Target, I figure I have a much better chance of a winning score with two shots rather than one.

But another answer to "Why bother?" has to do with what I call the "Hamburger Factor." There seems to be some consensus that the mass of tissue crushed in the permanent cavity is a reasonable measure of wound trauma. Given full penetration of a non-expanding and non-tumbling bullet, MacPherson sets this wound mass for a .38 at 24 grams for a wadcutter and 16 grams for any other bullet nose shape. The corresponding numbers for a .45 would be 39 grams and 26 grams.

So, if both bullets from combination #1 really will reliably penetrate more that 16" of ballistic gel. That would indicate a wound mass of about 40 grams per shot and put a cylinder full from a 2" snubby on a par with a magazine full of GI hardball from a 1911.

Now, I understand that there's a lot of hand-waving involved in this with graphs and equations and theories. But 200 grains of lead at 750 ft/s is nothing to scoff at and two .36 caliber holes are bigger than one .45 caliber hole and two shots at the Fitz Luck Target will usually out-score one shot. So, if I can convince myself that the back wadcutter will reliably penetrate 16" of gel, I think I'll become a believer.

[JBinMN]

Interesting concept.

I will be pondering on this.

I do not have anything helpful to say, though, as I have not considered this before.

I am thinking someone here , with all the experienced folks on this forum, will possibly be able to offer you some reasonable & helpful advice for your doings.

G'Luck!
:)

[Tom W.]

I've done it using some 77 (or so) gr. collar button bullets a man sent me once. I loaded them up into my 4" S/S Security Six. They did better than I expected, and I had several e-mails with a now deceased person who went by the name of "Wooly." I don't know if I still have the papers or not. They were in my loading shed about two months ago.....
I do remember that I used a pretty light load, due to the novel nature of the attempt. I was a lot younger then, but as I look at it I realize that the two little boolits almost equaled or exceeded the weight of a full wadcutter.....

[RED BEAR]

I have actually seen loads like this with 2 and 3 bullets stacked for self defense.https://www.lehighdefense.com/collections/multiple-projectile
Is one
https://www.venturamunitions.com/categories/defense/multiple-projectile.html.
Is another. Not sure just how effective it is but surely worth looking into.let us know how t goes.

[JSnover]

I tried it years ago with a .357, medium charges of 2400 and Blue Dot and round balls. It worked ok but kept splitting cases.

[rintinglen]

238463238464238465238466
I have done a fair bit of experimenting along these lines, mostly with 358-101 75 grain wadcutters, 358-345 115 SWC"s in 38/357, but also with NOE 434-110 wc in 44 magnum.
Generally, all three projectiles strike within 2 inches of one another, often with two in virtually the same hole and the third an inch or so away.
Photo number one shows both a 3, 358-101 load 357 load and a two boolit one WC, and SWC. Both in 357 cases. Approx 225 grains in the former and 190 in the later.
Photo two shows 6 shots, 3 boolits each, from a 357. IIRC, this was at 33 feet.
Photo Three shows 10 shots of 3 boolits in 44 Magnum, intentionally scattered about, they were printing too close together at 7 yards
Photo four depicts the 3 boolit 44 magnum load. Approx 330 grain.
In loading these multiple ball loads it is necessary to size the base boolit 1 to 2 thousandths under nominal to prevent bulging the cases beyond the size that will chamber. The base boolit in the stack of 357 is .355. The base boolit in the stack of 44 magnums is .427.
I can not recommend them for defensive purposes. The heavy weight loads reduce velocity to the point where the light-for-caliber boolits would have trouble penetrating, especially if used in a short barreled revolver. They are however, fun to play with.
Both Dean Grennell and George Nonte wrote about similar loads back in the day.

[Petrol & Powder]

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

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

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

This concept is a loser on every level.

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

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

[Winger Ed.]

That's what some of the .410 self defense loads do, and some have three OOO buckshot balls in them.

Depending on the legal climate where you are- you ever shoot someone with a re-load, even if it's reduced power-
When you're in front of a judge, some attorney is going to try and make you look like a kill freak/gun nut
that was looking for a chance to murder someone.

[MT Gianni]

I have had good luck with 15 00 buck out of a 3" 12 gauge. Other than that reread Petrol&Powders post above.

[MT Gianni]

That's what some of the .410 self defense loads do, and some have three OOO buckshot balls in them.

Depending on the legal climate where you are- you ever shoot someone with a re-load, even if it's reduced power-
When you're in front of a judge, some attorney is going to try and make you look like a kill freak/gun nut
that was looking for a chance to murder someone.

Mossad Ayoob made his claim as a gunwriter with this statement. To the best of my knowledge, 30+ years later there has yet to be a court case involving this thought process.

[stubshaft]

In the 70'2 Remington made some 3 ball loads for the .357 magnum to be used by police only. I still have a box of them around somewhere and they worked well on paper. Don't know if anyone ever used them in a shoot out.

[onelight]

That's what some of the .410 self defense loads do, and some have three OOO buckshot balls in them.

Depending on the legal climate where you are- you ever shoot someone with a re-load, even if it's reduced power-
When you're in front of a judge, some attorney is going to try and make you look like a kill freak/gun nut
that was looking for a chance to murder someone.

Some of the .410 have 5 buckshot

[jjay]

Does this include Civil Cases too. The world is filled with “hungry” lawyers. I load all my carry guns with factory ammo.

[Petrol & Powder]

Does this include Civil Cases too. The world is filled with “hungry” lawyers. I load all my carry guns with factory ammo.
This horse has been beaten to death a hundred times over.

In a criminal case the use of deadly force will either be justified or not. The type of ammunition will not come into play in that decision.

In a civil case,.....a savvy plaintiffs attorney could attempt to use the defendant's choice of ammunition as evidence that the defendant was seeking to use deadly force long before the event. I don't know if that tactic would work and I don't know if it has ever worked.
One line of thinking is, "why even give a potential plaintiff's attorney that tiny toe hold if you don't need to"? A person that decides to carry a weapon has no time to make those decisions when confronted with an imminent threat but he/she has all the time in the world BEFORE the event when selecting ammunition.

Do as you see fit but remember the time to make those decisions is way before a use of force. There is NO opportunity to make those decisions about ammunition once the events start to unfold.

[35remington]

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

Combo 6 and possibly 5 and 7 with the top bullet seated partway out of the case for all the combos appears viable. The remainder appear either ill advised or not at all recommended, again depending upon what gun is shooting these loadings. I would back the loads 6 and 7 way way off if the 140 grain combos see the top projectile flush with the case mouth. Of course combo 5 cannot be anything but loaded with the top bullet seated out.

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

[JSnover]

Mine worked ok on paper but I just never felt like they would have been any more effective than anything else in the real world.
If the shooting was justified, you didn't break any laws/conceal evidence, etc and you can behave in the courtroom, it won't matter what you loaded. If the shooting wasn't justified or you managed to blow your own case, it won't matter then either.

[shooting on a shoestring]

Pettypace, here’s a thought on cheap but effective test media. Gallon water jugs lined up in a row. It’s not calibrated, but you can use a known factory load, see how many jugs it penetrates, then you have a comparison, maybe a rough one, but often for my purposes, it’s close enough. Boolits stop quicker in gelatin, so a rough comparison is if a boolit goes 24” in water jugs it’ll probably get about 12” in gelatin. I work with my SD loads and consider penetrating 4 jugs to be what I want.

It’d be interesting to compare your 38 full wadcutter load and how many jugs it’d penetrate and compare to your double projectile loads and see how far they get. If the double gets close the same or pretty close to what a wadcutter does, it might be a good SD load.

I’m a big fan of full wadcutters cast soft and driven hard. I’ve seen them expand in 44 and 357, and stop in the 4th jug, absolutely shreading the first three. In snubby 38s I think the full throttle full wadcutter is as good as it gets. But I’m open to anything that can be shown to me to work better.

[Bigslug]

It seems that what you're trying to to is have your .38 shoot two .32's or .380's at the same time.

Now the thing I recommend with .32 and .380 auto is to run a flat-nosed FMJ because when you ask rounds with that little mass and that little speed to expand, they no longer penetrate enough to reliably reach the Tootsie Roll center of the Tootsiepop. However, as long as they don't expand, they can penetrate deeply enough to make the FBI's protocol happy.

Thing is, there are loads for .38 snubbies that both DO expand and CAN penetrate deeply enough.

My next concern - where do your duplex projectiles land relative to the sights? At what distance? How far can you reliably reach before you have to worry about uncontrolled strays?

Rather than hope for a shotgun effect to maybe put a projectile into something that will solve your problem, I would contend your energies would be better spent on practicing with A LOT of cheap wadcutters. Then putting the bullet where it needs to be will be more a matter of skill and less counting on the law of averages.

[big bore 99]

I've tried them in 45Colt with 2 balls and unique. Had decent results.

[Michael J. Spangler]

Subscribed.

I like this idea.
If you are in fact getting that much penetration with each projectile then you’re doubling the crush which is what really does the damage. Permanent wound cavity not temporary.
Very interesting.

Have you read all of the IWBA articles? McPherson has some good stuff to teach.
I have a link to alll of the files if you want it. PM me

[pettypace]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[nicholst55]

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

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/04/30/m198-the-cartridge-that-should-not-have-been/

[35remington]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[WehrmannsGeweher]

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

[pettypace]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

238482

[Lloyd Smale]

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

[Earlwb]

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

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

[mnewcomb59]

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

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

[GhostHawk]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Never saw a slithering creature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[owejia]

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

[str8wal]

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

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

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

This concept is a loser on every level.

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

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

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

[Earlwb]

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

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

[35remington]

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

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

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

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

[35remington]

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

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

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

[Michael J. Spangler]

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

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

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

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

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

Reminds me of the thread on the hunting forum here where the guy posted on multiple forums that he shot a deer with a 9mm and gave the same bullet and velocity spec and listed it on other forums as a 357 used to kill the deer. He had 90% approval for the 357 mag kill and 90% disapproval rate on the forums where the load was listed as a 9mm
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?371969-Killed-a-deer-with-a-9mm

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

lots of reading here.
https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/0B_PmkwLd1hmbd3pWYVVJeGlGaFE

[pettypace]

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

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

Here are the measured penetration distances:

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

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

[RED BEAR]

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

[Good Cheer]

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

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/04/30/m198-the-cartridge-that-should-not-have-been/

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

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

[Gray Fox]

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

[35remington]

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

At least mine do in 32 and 38.

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

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

[35remington]

Then the other thing that comes to mind is if the wadcutters were 80 grains each instead of 70. I just may get off my duff and try that myself.

[pettypace]

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

At least mine do in 32 and 38.

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

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

Although I've been shooting handguns for well over 50 years, my interest in the .38 snubby is recent. Back in the good ol' days, on the very few occasions I felt the possible need for self defense, a 97 Wnchester or a 1917 Smith seemed appropriate. But I can't run so fast now. So the urge to carry is more frequent and I've found that neither the '97 nor the '17 goes in or out of the pocket as well as a hammerless J-frame.

When I first started thinking about what to feed a snubby, I was surprised to see in a chart on BrassFetcher's site that the old Remingon Multi-Ball load (as well as target wadcutters) did a better job of meeting FBI penetration standards than any of the premium JHP ammo he tested. Which is a long-winded way of saying that the Remington Multiballs got me started on this project.

I'm not 100% sure which of the two 70 grain WCs penetrated farther. I should be able to tell for sure when I cut the bullets out of the gel. But I've been lazy and I'm hoping to take some better pictures before I cut. I can't tell from the orientation of the bullets in the gel, because neither bullet points head on and I have no idea how much turning they may have done. On the other hand, the higher entrance hole leads to the deeper penetration and I suspect that was the back bullet.

Both of the 70 grain WCs showed signs of tumbling. But with such a short bullet, who knows what effect that might have on penetration. Ditto with the button nose pointing fore or aft. I suppose either could be tested. But given that it took close to 1000 ft/s (and some signs of pushing the pressure limits) to barely reach the 12" FBI minimum penetration standards, I'm not excited about the 70 grain wadcutter. The 80 grain WC that you mentioned should give better penetration. But I doubt it will be much better. On the other hand, I'm sure there are better powders than 4756 for this -- Longshot, maybe?

[onelight]

My concern is dispersion of the bullets at ranges longer than 7 to 10 yards . We are responsible for every bullet , as range increases under the best of circumstances my accuracy decreases .
So if they have good penetration they might be a good choice in certain environments but I need all the help in bullet placement I can get I would hate to cause harm to someone because I chose a tool I could not control well even at the range.
I gave this some thought when a man who helps with security at our church showed me his Judge loaded with buckshot .

[pettypace]

My concern is dispersion of the bullets at ranges longer than 7 to 10 yards . We are responsible for every bullet , as range increases under the best of circumstances my accuracy decreases .
So if they have good penetration they might be a good choice in certain environments but I need all the help in bullet placement I can get I would hate to cause harm to someone because I chose a tool I could not control well even at the range.
I gave this some thought when a man who helps with security at our church showed me his Judge loaded with buckshot .

Accuracy is a valid concern that I can't yet address with conviction. So far, I haven't done any accuracy testing or tuning at all. That's next on the agenda.

But I'm optimistic. In chronographing loads, I've shot plenty of targets at 5 yards, usually a cylinderful at a time. In this shooting, I've tried to maintain a consistent 6 o'clock hold on the X ring so I could get an idea of how the load shot with respect to point of aim and the spread between the front and back bullets. For what it's worth in terms of accuracy, probably not much, these five-shot groups (10 holes) were generally about 1-1/2" center-to-center of widest shots. Here's an example that's probably better than average, but more or less typical. Even at just 5 yards, I'd be hard-pressed to shoot a better 10 shot group with a DAO snubby with good target ammo.

238878

Also, you should check the targets posted earlier in this thread by rintinglen (post #6). These aren't at long-range, either. But they show that a three-projectile load, even with a total of over 300 grains, is still capable of decent accuracy.

You mentioned having some concern about the possibility of errant shots from a Judge loaded with buckshot. Given some of the .410 loads that could be fired from the Judge, your concern may be well-founded. Shooting the Bull has a good video on the Judge that's worth watching.

[onelight]

I am impressed with the groups in this thread and what you guys are working up . The only experience I have is with the .410 pistols and buck shot by 20 yards they are all over the place.
If nothing else , it is an interesting experiment . And I enjoy seeing the results.
Thanks

[35remington]

The orientation of the rifling marks should say which was top and which was bottom. Do pass that along after you cut them out. If 12 inches or more can be obtained with both projectiles at the needed weight that would be food for thought. I like the idea of two projectiles of near standard weight if penetration can be brought into the acceptable range as that shoots to the sights.

Speaking of rounball loads, the dispersion is not such that projectiles are whizzing off into the blue.
I am not sure that saying a background safe for a single bullet is unsafe for a biprojectile load is accurate. In many instances the standard bullet presents more downrange danger.

Reason I said that is I spent considerable time lobbing double round ball loads at a pond downslope near Unionville Missouri. It was up to two hundred plus yards off depending upon where I stood. I have a pretty good idea of what they do at distance.

[owejia]

One positive way to identify which bullets went which direction in the gelatin or wet paper would be to powder coat them different colors. I have the Noe 73 grain wad cutter mould and with powder coating they will gain a couple more grs of weight. This experiment is in my future testing. Will try the round balls [different colors] in my Nagants. If used for nothing else but target practice or might be useful shooting varmints.

[onelight]

I don’t know if any of this info will translate to 38 loads with bullets but there is a lot of info on 000 buck at similar velocities in gel.
http://www.410handguns.com/410_gel_results.html

[Earlwb]

The Hornady Critical Defense 410 shells look really good in the gel tests too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtdYVk4ugHc
They shoot a 41 caliber bullet and two 35 caliber buckshot balls.

[dverna]

I am impressed with the accuracy achieved. I expected much more dispersion.

Interesting read as well

[owejia]

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.

[str8wal]

So, what advantage do two 70 grain projectiles impacting within 5/8" of each other have over one 140 grain projectile?

[Baltimoreed]

The old question about which can you throw farther or harder, a ping pong ball or a golf ball? Weight matters. I also experimented with multiple .45 disc loads in my reloading youth. They kinda work but the judicial liability of using them as an actual self defense load negates them to just an interesting experiment. I’ll use factory hp.

[rking22]

Read something, many years ago, that multiple simultaneous impacts (think buckshot)creates more shock than the same impacts separated by a time span. Also those 2 , if they have the penetration, equal a .50 caliber in cross sectional area. The “double tap” with each pull of the trigger. 10 shot J frame,,:lovebooli

[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.

There's a good youtube clip on a two-ball .38 load. Google "38 Special 2 Ball Duplex Loads"

I'm anxious to see your testing results!

If you find penetration with the 73 grain WC is marginal or inadequate, don't give up on the idea. I think two Lee TL356-95RF, loaded base-to-base will do the trick. What you can gain in penetration from the extra bullet weight will more than compensate for what you lose in velocity.

[Petrol & Powder]

If your goal is to make two holes per shot in a piece of paper, then two projectiles per casing has merit.
In the realm of self defense this concept is a complete loser.
Each individual projectile is lighter than the single projectile and initially traveling no faster than that single, heavier projectile. You're gaining NOTHING.

If you want TWO projectiles in your adversary that penetrate deep enough to stop the attack - PULL THE **** TRIGGER TWICE !

[Michael J. Spangler]

If your goal is to make two holes per shot in a piece of paper, then two projectiles per casing has merit.
In the realm of self defense this concept is a complete loser.
Each individual projectile is lighter than the single projectile and initially traveling no faster than that single, heavier projectile. You're gaining NOTHING.

If you want TWO projectiles in your adversary that penetrate deep enough to stop the attack - PULL THE **** TRIGGER TWICE !


So a 12 gauge with buckshot is useless for home defense and we should all use slugs by that merit.
I think a lot of people are missing the point that both projectiles will penetrate the depth needed.

[Petrol & Powder]

So a 12 gauge with buckshot is useless for home defense and we should all use slugs by that merit.
I think a lot of people are missing the point that both projectiles will penetrate the depth needed.

I'll reprint the first line of this thread for your benefit:
Two-Projectile Loads in Snubby for Self-Defense


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.

[DougGuy]

So a 12 gauge with buckshot is useless for home defense and we should all use slugs by that merit.
I think a lot of people are missing the point that both projectiles will penetrate the depth needed.

The 12ga is a factory load that is already loaded to supersonic velocities am I right? What's the velocity of a high brass 3" 00 buck load? 1200fps at the very least out of a 20" cylinder bore barrel maybe?

Each projectile in this scenario is not traveling slower because it was loaded on top of another ball into a small pistol case with a compensated charge of powder, it is traveling at it's full advertised velocity and will penetrate accordingly. The balls in the pistol case travel much slower, theoretically the same velocity as a single projectile of the same weight, so they lack the energy to penetrate the same way that the same ball in the 12ga load penetrates, because they are traveling much slower. This will definitely limit penetration.

The fact that they split apart and each takes a separate channel in the target lessens their weight, which again will definitely limit penetration. A single projectile, double the weight of the two balls, will penetrate a LOT farther, it's simply bound by the laws of physics, and the wound channel bears that out. You cannot explain this fact out of the equation.

[onelight]

If they get what is commonly considered acceptable penetration 12 to 16” and both hit the intended target then you are trading maybe expansion from 2” 38 iffy at best for two 38 wound channels from the 2 bullet load. Kinda like shooting them twice with a 380 each pull of the trigger.
Interesting

[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/38%20Special/38%20Spl%202%20inch%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/38%20Special/38%20Spl%202%20inch%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.

[rking22]

Pettypace, I was referring to the combination #5. Should have gone back to check that before posting question, sorry bout that. Thanks for the reply and I absolutely agree on vel vs penetration. My mold for the Lee 95 is a group buy 105 of the same (RD) design. I was thinking that a generally 180 gr round flat combo that separated after impact might be close to standard loading parameters. Your most recent test results lead me to that thought.

[pettypace]

Pettypace, I was referring to the combination #5. Should have gone back to check that before posting question, sorry bout that. Thanks for the reply and I absolutely agree on vel vs penetration. My mold for the Lee 95 is a group buy 105 of the same (RD) design. I was thinking that a generally 180 gr round flat combo that separated after impact might be close to standard loading parameters. Your most recent test results lead me to that thought.

So, you're thinking the 105 RF over the 70 WC. I don't think it would strain a snubby to get that combo to, say, 700 ft/s. The Schwartz equation then predicts about 16" of penetration for the 105 RF and about 9" for the 70 WC. But I wouldn't be surprised to see the WC go deeper, somehow "drafting" the front bullet. At least I think I've seen that effect with the little gel testing I've done.

[Ozark mike]

While it isn't even close to being a stubby my bfr 45-70 loaded with 30 grs of h332 with 3 RBs will do a number on deer stumps rocks probably humans to. I can't remember the exact weight but it's cast of ww holds a decent pattern to 25 Yard's does good in the guide gun just as well

[JBinMN]

I think using P. Harrells "meat target" would be the method I would use rather than ballistic gel. I think I can get more use out of the remains of the testing with that meat & fruit than I can with the gel after all is done & possibly more "real life" examples of what the projectiles are going to do in the end.

Of course the ballistic gel allows for better measurement with tape measures etc, for "comparative" use, but the actual effect on the clothing, meat, fruit, etc, that simulates what may be the results of the intended use of the projectile(s), to me at least, seems like a more "visual", as well as "real life" type simulation/scenario that is repeatable if necessary, & also there is a good use for the "leftovers" of the test. If nothing else as dog food.
(IOW, What they hell do ya do with the gel after it is not usable for testing rounds anymore? With the meat & fruit, after ya cut out the bad parts you can always eat it, or feed it to the dogs. ;) )

Regardless of that, I am enjoying reading about the results of the tests.

[LouisianaMan]

Pettypace, my compliments on your interesting duplex load experimentation! It's another possible way to maximize the incapacitation potential of solid .38 projectiles at modest velocities, along with the marginally stabilized tumbling heavy bullet concept many of us have discussed elsewhere.

I'm not the best judge of how well your multi-projectile options might work. But using Fackler's published discussions as a guide, here's what I'm thinking: a 2-second burst of 5 shots, delivering 10 hardcast, sharp-shouldered projectiles into a BG's torso, each projectile chopping a wadcutter wound profile, many of which are in close proximity to each other and therefore likely to turn some temporary cavities into more expansive permanent cavities...seems to provide lots of promise.

The penetration depths for several of your combinations seem to offer promise in that crucially important regard, too, without being a candidate for overpenetration. Since momentum is more important than velocity or foot-pounds of energy when it comes to penetration, I'm leaning strongly towards a heavier bullet + a lighter bullet duplex load. The differing bullet weights should help create at least minor dispersion, which I suspect is beneficial.

As you've reported, case length and crimp groove locations of various bullets all influence your load configurations, and that in turn leads to differing dispersion tendencies of the two projectiles. I think that a very small dispersion is ideal, as it should enhance a critical terminal effect I mentioned above: the front bullet creates a temp cavity somewhat exceeding its diameter, and perhaps before that temporary effect subsides, the second bullet penetrates and possibly cuts through the temp cavity. End result (ideally, hopefully) being enhanced permanent cavities.

A good illustration of that general effect is provided by the SMG wounds of 1930's gangsters and WWII (and later) combat casualties. These apparently often demonstrating a ripping effect visibly greater than a mere row of individual 9mm or .45 bullet holes.

Some options that occur to me:

1. Use a LFP or LRNFP in front to ease speedloader work, with the WC in rear. My sense is the WC should be the heavier bullet. If dispersion fails to occur, you still get decent penetration and wound channel from what amounts to a single large LFP/LRNFP.

2. As above, with LWC in front to ensure full-caliber crush cavity.

3. If having the LWC in front (Option #2 above) proves superior, then you can load two duplex versions: carry the "LWC in front" option in the gun, with the "LFP/LRNFP in front" version in your speedloaders and speed strips.

I realize that "remote neurological damage" has been shown to be limited to velocities of at least 2200-2400 fps, far above what we're discussing here. I'm not sure anybody has, or can, completely rule out that the human body and mind are affected in some way, to some degree, by a larger number of individual traumas happening within a short time frame, vs. a smaller quantity of comparable traumas. Perhaps the human body's shock response often renders it a moot point, but does it always do so?

Would inflicting 10 caliber-diameter hits in the same time as 5 hits serve to confuse, delay, or overload the human nervous system to any noticeable degree? Analogous to the 2200-2400 fps velocity floor for remote neurological damage, 10 traumas vs. 5 might not suffice to overload the human nervous system to a significant degree. I have no idea. Perhaps Fackler spoke to this idea, or perhaps the US Army's 7.62mm NATO duplex load experiments in the Vietnam era (I think?) discussed the issue.

Now, a few ideas re. bone: ballistic gel doesn't provide much insight into how handgun bullets inflict damage upon human bone, nor illustrate how bone strikes affect bullet expansion, tumbling, or wound track. I know BrassFetcher has experimented with a simulated bone material, but I don't know how other wound ballistics professionals evaluate the validity of his experiments.

One thing is certain: it matters whether a bullet hits bone. It can matter a lot: HP expansion, orientation and stability, penetration, possible deviation from wound track, etc. Whether two lighter bullets in a duplex load give up too much penetration in soft tissue is an issue you're already working to address. But if a 148g LWC smashes through bone and still penetrates to the vitals, whereas the lighter duplex bullets can't, that would be a show-stopper. Same goes for the extensive modern testing of JHPs, which leaves open the question of bone-related effects.

BF's skeletal diagrams and surface area calculations do a great job of portraying just how much, and which parts, of the human body are protected by bone--albeit of differing densities between structures, and between individual persons. His percentage figures of skeletal protection of our anatomical vitals make it clear that a great proportion of bullet impacts will strike bone in one way or another. Food for thought by us all, I believe. Variations in bullet shape, velocity, weight, momentum, hardness, and profile all impact handgun bullet wounding mechanisms profoundly. If I thought about it for too long, I might chuck it all in favor of caliber, weight, velocity, shape, and cutting edge!

[Michael J. Spangler]

239900

This was 5 rounds from a S&W 642 at 10 yards. It was hitting a little low for my buddy so he kept adjusting just aim till he was in the middle. It worked out picture wise to show the dispersion.
My group was a little more centered but had a big old mess of overlapping holes so it was hard to tell what was what.

[pettypace]

LouisianaMan: Thanks for your last post -- as always, thoughtful, provocative, well-crafted, and just plain fun to read.

[pettypace]

239900

This was 5 rounds from a S&W 642 at 10 yards. It was hitting a little low for my buddy so he kept adjusting just aim till he was in the middle. It worked out picture wise to show the dispersion.
My group was a little more centered but had a big old mess of overlapping holes so it was hard to tell what was what.

Well done, Mike! Is that a 50 ft timed and rapid target? What bullets and powder? Could you tell if there was an elevation difference between front and rear bullets? Do there tipping?

[Gray Fox]

Ozark Mike: What diameter balls did you use in the .45-70, and did you check ball dispersion past 25 yards? GF

[bruce drake]

Interesting. I would think the two smaller weight wadcutters would provide the bet chance of "accuracy" but if we are being honest, you are just really looking at something to hit a bad guy at under 5 yards. so if one of the bullets are tumbling from the duplex loading, it still will hit and do some damage.

That saying, I've experimented once with a duplex load in a 357 Magnum case ( a Lee 148gr wadcutter over a Lee 124gr RN) just to try it but never really went deep into exploring its full capability.

Bruce

[Michael J. Spangler]

Well done, Mike! Is that a 50 ft timed and rapid target? What bullets and powder? Could you tell if there was an elevation difference between front and rear bullets? Do there tipping?
Your 70 grain wadcutters. 2.3 grains of clays (just what my measure was already set up for)
Not sure how they grouped but I have 5 left so if I get to the range tomorrow night I can shoot them individually and circle the “patterns”

The pattern with the 1873 was might tighter.

[Texas by God]

Does anyone else remember Wiley Clapp’s article on the”.357 QuadraMaximum? A snubby Colt .357 was reamed out to take .357 Rem Max brass loaded with Four “tuna can” .38 wadcutter bullets- hence the name. Experimenting with loads is fun; carry on. No one who criticizes your work would be willing to “play catch”with your loads- I’m quite certain of that!

[owejia]

Does anyone else remember Wiley Clapp’s article on the”.357 QuadraMaximum? A snubby Colt .357 was reamed out to take .357 Rem Max brass loaded with Four “tuna can” .38 wadcutter bullets- hence the name. Experimenting with loads is fun; carry on. No one who criticizes your work would be willing to “play catch”with your loads- I’m quite certain of that!
Reamed out a cylinder of a N frame S&W 6" barrel last year to use the 357 max brass bee killer loads in, had not even thought about loading multiple wad cutters or rb in it. Another experiment need to do. Should be a really good home defense night stand round.

[pettypace]

The novelty of gel testing is wearing thin for some of my shooting buddies. So at today's Snubbyfest I was able to claim exclusive use of two bricks of Clear Ballistic gel. I decided to stick to a single load -- two Lee 356-95 RF bullets loaded base-to-base over 2400 to about 725 ft/s. I fired a cylinder full of those guys into the gel from about 5 yards.

The picture below was not taken at the range, but shows how the two ammo can size bricks of gel were arranged allowing for a total of 22" of penetration.

240032

The next picture shows the second gel block at a better angle for measuring penetration. Nine of the ten projectiles are visible. The front bullet from one shot exited the second brick after 22" of penetration.

240035

Average penetration of the front bullets was 20.8". Average for the back bullet (flying base forward) was 17.8". Only one bullet showed any signs of tumbling. That bullet turned almost 45 degrees right at the end of its penetration, maybe on the rebound?

NOTE: At the time of this test I thought there was an inch-to-inch correspondence between penetration in Clear Ballistic gel and in validated 10% ordnance gel. I've since learned that this is not true. Roughly speaking, bullet penetration will be less in 10% ordnance gel than in C-B gel. Recent testing has shown that penetration in real gel would likely be only about 80% of what I measured above. Making that correction would give the front bullets above an average penetration of about 16.5" in 10% ordnance gel and the back bullets an average penetration of about 14".





240137

The two entrance holes for each shot were separated by about 1/2" with the back faux-WC cutting a noticeably bigger hole above the front bullet hole.

This is the second re-casting of the C/B gel and I have no clue how re-casting effects calibration. But I did fire one round each of two different factory JHPs also fired in previous tests for a sort of pseudo-calibration. The 90 grain Hornady FTX Critical Defense Lite penetrated just over 9" and is visible in the first picture just to the left of the middle window of the house in the background. A 95 grains Silvertip +P round penetrated to 10" and stopped at the bottom surface of the first block. I pulled that bullet out with my fingers and forgot to replace it for the picture. But the hole I yanked it from is visible as a white dot centered under the middle window and just about in the vertical center of the first gel block.

I've liked this load from the start and with this test I'm beginning to believe it has enough penetration to be an effective self-defense load. I think my next step will be to load up a bunch and see what sort of accuracy it has beyond 7 yards.

[pettypace]

Reamed out a cylinder of a N frame S&W 6" barrel last year to use the 357 max brass bee killer loads in, had not even thought about loading multiple wad cutters or rb in it. Another experiment need to do. Should be a really good home defense night stand round.

Yes, indeed! "...a really good home defense night stand round."

Two 100 grain hard-cast wadcutters at 850 ft/s have a predicted penetration of about 14". Each shot would have a total weight of 200 grains and a combined cross-sectional area of a .50 caliber bullet. That rivals the performance of premium JHPs and, so long as the two wadcutters separate, the "expansion" is guaranteed.

But to me, the biggest advantage of a two-projectile load is the potential to double your score on the Fitz Luck Target. When I mentioned this earlier in this thread, some folks figured I was talking about some sort of "spray and pray" advantage. That's not the point at all.

240133

The actual Fitz Luck Target is about the size of a solid center of mass area. And given a solid center of mass hit, the chance of hitting something "vital" is pretty much a matter of luck. A fraction of an inch could mean the difference between, for example, severing an artery or not -- just like the difference between a "9" and a "1" on the Fitz Luck Target. With two projectiles for each pull of the trigger, you're considerably increasing the probability of a good center of mass shot hitting something vital. That, to me, is the real advantage of a two-projectile load.

NOTE: I lifted the picture above from the 'net some time ago and now can't find the URL for proper attribution.

[LouisianaMan]

Pettypace,
I'd never seen the Fitz Luck target, or at least it never registered, but I think it's both funny AND illustrative of the problem at hand. Well, add in movement. Lighting. And hostility. And often lots of "target medium" between gun muzzle and the actual 1-9 score waiting behind....I wish we could at least have BGs agree to wear one of these when they're out and about!

Your underlying point is vitally important IMO, all kidding aside. We can poke holes in a BG if we're fortunate amidst our ill-fortune of finding ourselves in such a fix. But our ability to place shots with surgical precision is generally minimal to downright non-existent. Our problem is not military combat, but a SD/ HD situation in which we find ourselves suddenly and unexpectedly in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm. Nothing in that equation is inherently conducive to precise shot placement, although exceptions can occur when the stars align. Fundamentally, we're in a life or death struggle we didn't invite, on a battlefield we didn't choose, in a tactical situation selected by the BG(s), not by us.

A quote, or near-quote, from Fairbairn and Sykes in "Shooting to Live with the One-Hand Gun": "the more our pistols shoot like submachine guns, the better we like them." I think they would've given a belly laugh of recognition when given a look at the quandary posed by the Fitz Luck target. If Fitzgerald had anything to do with it, they probably did that very thing, as their idea of the perfect concealment gun was a Fitz Special Colt New Service .45 Colt.

I think if your dual projectiles prove to have adequate penetration, F/S would approve of it for the use you foresee, i.e. close range SD. Pull the trigger 5 times and poke 10 holes = a good thing.

If I recall correctly, F/S selected three specific instances to illustrate their views on the crucial issue of "stopping power." One was a BG hit 5-6 times with a .45 Auto, another who was hit 5-6 times with a .455 Webley. In both cases, their Shanghai Municipal Policemen finally stopped the BG only by bashing him in the head with the butt of their gun. The only instant knock-down they'd seen was brought about by a single shot of .380 ACP FMJ from the 1908 Colt of a Chinese SMP member. After dropping like a sack of potatoes, that BG subsequently jumped up and lit out at top speed, escaping arrest.

Their point? Put bullets in your BG first, fast, and try to get good body shots. Even then, deliver your fire with "all the aggressiveness of which you are capable. You'll probably need it."

[Ozark mike]

Ozark Mike: What diameter balls did you use in the .45-70, and did you check ball dispersion past 25 yards? GF

457 Lee mold about a 4 in group at 25 yards it's supposed to be my home defense load so I don't go thru to many walls . No I didn't check past that probably loose to much energy. I imagine they don't have much energy past that cause you have to divide the energy into 3. I maybe wrong who knows. For more info look up 4570 guard load

[JBinMN]

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=240133&d=1555767908&thumb=1
Fairbairn & Sykes was the first thing I thought of, when I saw this pic. Secondly, I thought of Skeeter Skelton, who mentioned that type of handgun on occasion in his articles, and how he was not a fan of the cutaway trigger guard.


There are other surgical procedures that you may perform on your sixshooter, but not all of them will make it healthier. When I was younger and more eager, I loved the looks of the belly guns which had the fronts of their trigger guards cut out and their hammer spurs ground as slick as a dehorned steer. In those days, the front blades of both Colt and S&W double actions were of a profile as round as an apple pie, and most gun jockeys took a file to them and ramped off the back of the blade for a slicker draw and, in some cases, a sight picture that was a hair sharper after holster wear began to set in.

Removal of the front half of the trigger guard, while it makes the belt gun look vicious, serves no good purpose. I know because I’ve tried it a few times. Without the guard, I always felt that I was about to drop the gun. Although I knew it took a harder shove than I was likely to give it to make the cutaway job go off when hung in the clothing, I always took great pains to slip the little demon into my waistband or pocket without hanging the trigger.
A little practice showed that the guardless revolver was no whit faster from draw to shoot than an unaltered specimen. Those ginks with hands large enough to have trouble inserting their finger in the trigger guard (I wear a size 10 glove, and don’t) will do well to emulate gunswift Bill Jordan. Bill has compromised by cutting a half circle from the forward part of his trigger guards, making a passing lane for his big fingertip while still leaving a protective ring of steel around the trigger.

Source:http://www.darkcanyon.net/Home_Gunsmithing_Your_Six_Gun.htm

I d find that Fitz Luck target to be interesting though & I plan on either making or acquiring some to give to my grandsons to shoot at, to make just one more "game" they can do when shooting. A few of the adults might have a little fun with them as well could be a possibility too.
;)

[pettypace]

457 Lee mold about a 4 in group at 25 yards it's supposed to be my home defense load so I don't go thru to many walls . No I didn't check past that probably loose to much energy. I imagine they don't have much energy past that cause you have to divide the energy into 3. I maybe wrong who knows. For more info look up 4570 guard load

Ozark Mike: The multi-ball load in your 45/70 BFR sounds like a serious self-defense load. Here's what the Schwartz penetration calculation says about a .457" lead round ball at 800 ft/s:

800^0.745 * 145 / 7000 / (0.457/2)^2 / 3.14

Just copy that line of calculations and paste it into a google search. Google should return an answer of about 18" of penetration in ballistic gel. You can change the 800 to match your load.

For HD, I would think three soft lead .45 round balls at, maybe, 800 ft/s would discourage the BG.

[pettypace]

A couple days ago I got to the range to test a couple of the more promising two-projectile loads beyond the 5 - 7 yards I've been shooting. I shot at a standard 50 yard slow-fire target set at 25 yards. The gun was a 2" Centennial. Six o'clock hold on the black. Two-hand hold on the gun. Slow, deliberate, double-action fire, glancing at the chronograph between shots.

Load #1: Two Lee 356-95 RF bullets loaded base-to-base over 7.5 grains of (old) Hercules 2400. Fired 10 shots. Average velocity: 640 ft/s. SD: 35 ft/s. Total of 17 hits on the paper. Front bullets (10 hits): group centered at point of aim, about 17" high and 7" wide. Slight signs of tipping. Back bullets (7 hits): group centered about 12" inches above point of aim, about 7" high and 12" wide.

Load #2: Lee 356-95 RF over 105 grain H&G #50 WC over 7.5 grains of (old) Hercules 2400. Fired 10 shots. Average velocity: 703 ft/s. SD: 28 ft/s. Total of 18 hits on the paper. Front bullets (9 hits): group centered at point of aim, about 13" high and 8" wide. Very slight signs of tipping. Back bullets (9 hits): group centered about 12" inches above point of aim, about 7" high and 15" wide.

As a sort of "control," I fired 10 shots with a single projectile load from the same gun. This load was a Lee 358-200 RF bullet over the same 7.5 grains of 2400. This load fired a group centered about 9" above the point of aim, about 5" wide and 7" high. Although not a target load by any stretch, this group would have fit in the black had it been properly centered. By contrast, the two-projectile load might have fit on the paper had they be properly centered.

[rking22]

How do you know which of the pair went where? Interesting data, glad you did the control. Looks that the “2ball” gives roughly twice the dispersion of a single projectile. Not impressive, but not useless either! I will definately be playing with these, thanks for the updates.

[pettypace]

How do you know which of the pair went where? .

The back bullet is either a real wadcutter or a round flat nose bullet loaded base forward. Either way, the back bullet cuts a full caliber hole while the front cuts a much smaller hole. Here's a front and a back -- same bullet, front flying as intended, back flying base-forward. Unfortunately, those two weren't from the same shot.

240409

[Duster340]

Hey Pettypace,

I've been following and enjoying your thread. So much so that I'm going play with some duplex 44 special loads in my 2.5" Bulldog. Have an old Lee 116 gr WC mold that has been gathering dust!
Thanks and keep on trucking.

[Rattlesnake Charlie]

pettypace

Over a decade I was considering multi-projectile loads for .38/.357. I bought a few molds but never pursued it much further. Life got in the way, and now I'm getting old and moving on to other projects. I do have the following molds I'd sell at cost:
1 cavity Lyman 358101, 75 gn WC - $45
6 cavity Lee TL358-86-WC, a Cast Boolit GB, 86 gr WC - $100
4 cavity 360-75/100, a Cast Boolit GB, all full WC, 2 are 75 gr and 2 are 100 gr - $100

[Ozark mike]

Ozark Mike: The multi-ball load in your 45/70 BFR sounds like a serious self-defense load. Here's what the Schwartz penetration calculation says about a .457" lead round ball at 800 ft/s:

800^0.745 * 145 / 7000 / (0.457/2)^2 / 3.14

Just copy that line of calculations and paste it into a google search. Google should return an answer of about 18" of penetration in ballistic gel. You can change the 800 to match your load.

For HD, I would think three soft lead .45 round balls at, maybe, 800 ft/s would discourage the BG.

Ya it caught me by surprise when I developed that load. The 15 gr of Unique I had pressure problems with didn't have near as much recoil as this load. I need to Chrono it for more so I know the exact ballistics
PS if you try that load it's not a published load from a book it's a homemade load that is compressed slightly
Do so @ your own risk

[pettypace]

Over a decade I was considering multi-projectile loads for .38/.357. I bought a few molds but never pursued it much further. Life got in the way, and now I'm getting old and moving on to other projects. I do have the following molds I'd sell at cost:
1 cavity Lyman 358101, 75 gn WC - $45
6 cavity Lee TL358-86-WC, a Cast Boolit GB, 86 gr WC - $100
4 cavity 360-75/100, a Cast Boolit GB, all full WC, 2 are 75 gr and 2 are 100 gr - $100

Thanks, Charlie.

If I didn't already have a 105 grain WC, I'd be all over one or more of these. I hope someone grabs them so I don't have to ponder it too much.

[pettypace]

How do you know which of the pair went where? Interesting data, glad you did the control. Looks that the “2ball” gives roughly twice the dispersion of a single projectile. Not impressive, but not useless either! I will definately be playing with these, thanks for the updates.

A roll of B27 silhouette targets arrived yesterday. So, more or less centering the "patterns," I transferred the hits from the two bullseye targets fired at 25 yards (see post #100) to the back of a B27. The bigger "holes" are from the back WC bullets, the smaller from the front RF bullet. The point of aim was close to the lower "9".

240424

[pettypace]

Here are the results of a penetration test of a load I've dubbed the "Super-Duper Police" load -- a 105 grain WC loaded under a 95 grain RF at about 700 ft/s. So, it's a total of 200 grains (like the .38 Super Police) -- but a duplex load (hence, the "Duper").

I fired a total of six rounds of the duplex load. The first shot never separated. It made a single, small entrance hole, a single, small exit hole, and a narrow, dead straight track in between. Without tumbling, the predicted penetration of a 200 grain .38 at 700 ft/s is over 30". So , it's no surprise that this shot was not stopped by the two ammo can sized blocks of gel totaling 22".

The next five shots of the duplex load all separated before entering the gel with the back WC making a noticeably bigger entrance hole. As shown in the picture below, the five wadcutters all stopped in the gel at about 15". Surprisingly, the five front bullets all penetrated the full 22" of gel.

CAUTION! One of those front bullets hit a 2"x10" about 5 yards behind the gel, made a dent about 1/4" deep into the wood and bounced straight back hitting in the ankle one of my shooting buddies standing behind me.

I also fired the same two "calibration" rounds that I've been using to convince myself that the Clear Ballistic gel has not gone soft with re-casting. As before, the 95 grain Silvertip penetrated about 10" and the 90 grain Hornady Critical Defense about 9". So the gel still shows those two premium JHPs to be marginal at best.

240426

[pettypace]

In an early post in this thread, the idea of a two-projectile self-defense load was proclaimed to be "...a loser on every level". Although I've never been much impressed by such proclamations, I did figure that the level of penetration was likely to be a problem. What I never figured was that the problem might be over-penetration. But in the last gel test, the front projectiles penetrated 22" of gel and at least one of them exited with enough velocity to put a good dent in a 2"x10" and bounce back with enough steam to get the attention of a fellow shooter. Whether that level of penetration is good, bad, or indifferent might be a matter for debate. But it certainly meets the FBI's definition of over-penetration.

But it's also over-penetration in the sense that it's over the predicted penetration.

For the load tested, the Schwartz equation predicts the front 95 grain RF bullet should penetrate about 16.5". So, the actual penetration is beating that by over 33%. I suppose the equation could be wrong or my gel could be soft. But both the equation and my gel "calibration" test agree closely with the Lucky Gunner results for the Hornady 90 grain Critical Defense load. Not definitive, certainly. But indicative.

It's not hard to believe that some sort of "drafting" goes on when two projectiles traverse the gel in close proximity in both time and space. But it's a little hard to see how the front bullets should gain more than the back bullets (which only beat the prediction by about 15%).

[35remington]

Still curious about the potential of two 80ish grain wadcutters loaded together at 850 fps for hitting to the sights rather than high, staying within SAAMI spec while doing so, and having both make it past 12 inches. Having more or less full caliber frontal on both projectiles may be a plus.

I need to get such a wadcutter for my own testing, or just shut up and stick to my double ball loads.

[pettypace]

Still curious about the potential of two 80ish grain wadcutters loaded together at 850 fps for hitting to the sights rather than high, staying within SAAMI spec while doing so, and having both make it past 12 inches. Having more or less full caliber frontal on both projectiles may be a plus.


35remington,

I think you're right about getting 80 grainers to penetrate beyond 12". For an 80 grain WC @ 850 ft/s, the Schwartz equation predicts just under 12". But I'm convinced now that there's some sort of "drafting" going on when the two projectiles are close together in both time and space.

I shot some more gel today with two 105 grain wadcutters loaded base-to-base at about 625 ft/s.

A cylinder full gave the following penetrations: 14.5"(tumbled), 16"(exited), 16"(exited), 17", 17.5", 17.5", 18", 18.5", 19"(exited), and 19.5". These all penetrated considerably more than the equation predicted.

NOTE: At the time of this test I thought there was an inch-to-inch correspondence between penetration in Clear Ballistic gel and in validated 10% ordnance gel. I've since learned that this is not true. Roughly speaking, bullet penetration will be less in 10% ordnance gel than in C-B gel. Recent testing has shown that penetration in real gel would likely be only about 80% of what I measured above. Making that correction would give the front bullets above an average penetration of about 14.5" in 10% ordnance gel.




You're also right that the full caliber meplat of two wadcutters is a plus. Here's MacPherson's chart for mass (in grams) of crushed tissue for various calibers and bullets. Except for the JHPs, the calculations are done for only the first 14" of a deeply penetrating (18"+) bullet. That's to hedge against the bullet running out of gas at the end of the wound cavity.

240165

Of note is the big difference between "JHP maximum" and everything else and also between the "Cylinder" (a sharp edged WC) and "All Others."

Who knows what goes on in terms of crushed tissue when two projectiles hit close together and almost simultaneously. I'm not prepared to claim that the projectiles I shot today would each crush 24 grams of tissue for a total of 48 grams per shot. But I'm pretty sure that each pair of projectiles must be crushing more than 24 grams -- and perhaps considerably more. I can't see any reason why a pair of sharp edged wadcutters with the combined cross-sectional area of a .50 caliber bullet shouldn't crush at least as much tissue as a JHP that expands to .50 caliber and isn't likely to penetrate 17". But how you prove that, I don't know.

[Lloyd Smale]

guess I look at it like this. If a bear was coming at me and I had my choice between a 25acp that I could shoot the bear with 3 times or a 44 mag I could only shoot once there isn't a day in the next century where I would pick the 25.
I think your post just shows that there is a bunch o common misconception out there.
If you read into McPherson's work and all of the other contributors to the IWBA articles. Energy doesn't kill. Look at the guys on here shooting whitetail with a 44 special pistol loaded to standard pressure and dropping them in their tracks.

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

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

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

Reminds me of the thread on the hunting forum here where the guy posted on multiple forums that he shot a deer with a 9mm and gave the same bullet and velocity spec and listed it on other forums as a 357 used to kill the deer. He had 90% approval for the 357 mag kill and 90% disapproval rate on the forums where the load was listed as a 9mm
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?371969-Killed-a-deer-with-a-9mm

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

lots of reading here.
https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/0B_PmkwLd1hmbd3pWYVVJeGlGaFE

[Michael J. Spangler]

guess I look at it like this. If a bear was coming at me and I had my choice between a 25acp that I could shoot the bear with 3 times or a 44 mag I could only shoot once there isn't a day in the next century where I would pick the 25.

I agree. Because that's pushing the 25 wayyyyyyyy past it's capabilities. one round of 44 vs 6 rounds of 38 might be a better comparison.

The dual wadcutters as shown above are doing a pretty good job on gel in relation to human incapacitation.

We could easily toss out all kinds of cartridge combinations and I would say that I would rather have 6 rounds of dual 100 grain wadcutters that 1 round of 500 S&W during a 2 legged attack and play to the hit probability end of things.

[pettypace]

Here are some details from yesterday's gel test:

I think this is the 4th re-melt of the Clear Ballistic gel. I cut the original 6"x6"x16" block in half and re-cast in standard GI ammo cans to get two blocks about 5"x5.5"x11". Placed end-to-end this gives a smaller "target" area but allows for a full 22" of penetration.

To determine if re-melting is somehow "softening" the gel, I've been firing two different premium JHP rounds as a sort pseudo calibration test. Those two rounds are visible low in the left hand gel block. The 95 grain +P Silvertip penetrated about 9.25" and a 90 grain Hornady Critical Defense stopped at 10.5". This is consistent with previous testing. If either of these two rounds ever makes it out of the first ammo can, it's probably time for some new gel.

Against my better judgement, I let a buddy fire one round of some old four-projectile loads he had gathering dust in his loading room. I figured these would never make it out of the first block to confuse the picture of the duplex test rounds in the second block. I figured wrong. One of these four projectiles is visible high in the left block and the other three followed a downward sloping path into the second block, stopping as a group of three between 14" and 15" inches. I'll have some more info on these after I cut them out of the gel.

240947

The duplex load being tested consisted of two 105 grain wadcutters loaded base-to-base over a modest charge of Hercules 2400 to about 625 ft/s. I fired five shots from the 2" snubby. Of the ten projectiles, three exited the block of gel after 16", 16", and 19" of penetration. It's worth noting that all ten projectiles followed straight line trajectories and the three that exited the gel were simply fired too close to the edge of the blocks.

Of the seven projectiles that stayed in the gel, one "tumbled" and stopped sideways at about 14.5" just below the knot of three from the quad load. The other six projectiles penetrated to 17", 17.5", 17.5", 18", 18.5", and 19".


NOTE: At the time of this test I thought there was an inch-to-inch correspondence between penetration in Clear Ballistic gel and in validated 10% ordnance gel. I've since learned that this is not true. Roughly speaking, bullet penetration will be less in 10% ordnance gel than in C-B gel. Recent testing has shown that penetration in real gel would likely be only about 80% of what I measured above. Making that correction would give the front bullets above an average penetration of about 14" in 10% ordnance gel.

[pettypace]

guess I look at it like this. If a bear was coming at me and I had my choice between a 25acp that I could shoot the bear with 3 times or a 44 mag I could only shoot once there isn't a day in the next century where I would pick the 25.

That's an obvious choice!

Another obvious choice (from the gel test above) is whether I'd prefer the 95 grain +P Silvertip that expanded perfectly and penetrated only about 9", or two 105 grain wadcutters that didn't have to expand and penetrated over 17". For a charging bear that choice probably wouldn't make much difference. But for a likely civilian self-defense scenario (which is, after all, the subject of this thread) it could make all the difference in the world.

But I find less obvious choices more entertaining to think about. Nobody has to buy 90 grain Hornady Critical Defense Lite ammo (that can't break down the front door of the FBI penetration wheelhouse) when they could buy 135 grain Gold Dots that might expand to .50 caliber and might penetrate to 14". Leaving the charging bear in the woods where it belongs, now the choice is more difficult. Just how does a single 135 grain Gold Dot that expands to (maybe) .50 caliber and penetrates to (maybe) 14" compare to two 105 grain wadcutters that start out totaling .50 caliber and penetrate to 17"? To me, that choice is worth serious consideration.

[str8wal]

Just how does a single 135 grain Gold Dot that expands to (maybe) .50 caliber and penetrates to (maybe) 14" compare to two 105 grain wadcutters that start out totaling .50 caliber and penetrate to 17"? To me, that choice is worth serious consideration.

Well, you can probably put the 135 Gold Dot in the black of a bullseye target @ 10 yards. How about those two 105 grain WC's?

[pettypace]

Well, you can probably put the 135 Gold Dot in the black of a bullseye target @ 10 yards. How about those two 105 grain WC's?

I haven't fired the two 105 grain WC load for accuracy, yet. And I don't know which bullseye target you have in mind. But I'll give that load a go at 10 yards next time I get to the range and post the results.

[str8wal]

I haven't fired the two 105 grain WC load for accuracy, yet. And I don't know which bullseye target you have in mind. But I'll give that load a go at 10 yards next time I get to the range and post the results.

The standard 3" bullseye target.

[pettypace]

Well, you can probably put the 135 Gold Dot in the black of a bullseye target @ 10 yards. How about those two 105 grain WC's?

...

The standard 3" bullseye target.

241027241028241029

Three consecutive 10 shot groups @ 10 yards. Fired DA from a S&W 38/44 Outdoorsman, two-hand hold, deliberate slow fire. 30 shots, 60 hits, most well within a 3" circle.

[onelight]

241027241028241029

Three consecutive 10 shot groups @ 10 yards. Fired DA from a S&W 38/44 Outdoorsman, two-hand hold, deliberate slow fire. 30 shots, 60 hits, most well within a 3" circle.
I am impressed! You have that grouping better than I would have ever expected.

[pettypace]

I am impressed! You have that grouping better than I would have ever expected.

Better than I expected, too. Apparently that load shoots pretty well. Of course, a heavy revolver with a 6" barrel helps considerably. Probably should have stuck with the snubby, but I wanted every advantage for srt8wal's "Gold Dot Challenge."

[pettypace]

There didn't seem to be as much vertical dispersion as I expected. With both bullets cutting identical holes, maybe it's just harder to see. In retrospect, I wish I fired one of those targets at 25 yards. Other loads, wadcutter/truncated cone combos, had about 12" of vertical dispersion between front and back bullets at 25 yards. The two wadcutter load might be better.

[Michael J. Spangler]

241027241028241029

Three consecutive 10 shot groups @ 10 yards. Fired DA from a S&W 38/44 Outdoorsman, two-hand hold, deliberate slow fire. 30 shots, 60 hits, most well within a 3" circle.

This is exactly what I was seeing for grouping from my 642 although my loads were lighter. 2 each 75 grain WC with a light loads of clays
my 1873 was putting a little tighter group at that distance. I need to machine down my H&G 50 so I can start making more of those little wadcutters.

[str8wal]

241027241028241029

Three consecutive 10 shot groups @ 10 yards. Fired DA from a S&W 38/44 Outdoorsman, two-hand hold, deliberate slow fire. 30 shots, 60 hits, most well within a 3" circle.

Is that to point of aim? If so, I think you may have something. Now stretch it out to 25 ;-)

[pettypace]

Is that to point of aim?

Must be close to POI. Tired old eyes and a fifteen year old prescription on my googles make the sights pretty blurry. But I was trying to maintain a 6 o'clock hold on the 10 ring. Also, haven't fired the 38/44 for decades. No telling where that was last sighted to -- but probably for a 6 o'clock hold on a 25 yard timed and rapid fire target.

[Bill*B]

Some while back I made .38 Special double loads by the simple expedient of hacksawing a double ended wadcutter in two. A simple wooden jig to hold the bullet and position the saw made this easy, and a couple of swipes of the cut surface across a 180 grit sanding block smoothed things up. "Wads" cut from typing paper with a sharpened cartridge case were placed between the two, which I then ran through the lube sizer and loaded up. At 30 feet my J frame printed them in about an 8" pattern, with the majority clustered within half of that. Never persisted in this, as I was just scratching an itch, and would much rather rely on the superior accuracy and deeper penetration of an unaltered single projectile.

[pettypace]

Some while back I made .38 Special double loads by the simple expedient of hacksawing a double ended wadcutter in two. A simple wooden jig to hold the bullet and position the saw made this easy, and a couple of swipes of the cut surface across a 180 grit sanding block smoothed things up. "Wads" cut from typing paper with a sharpened cartridge case were placed between the two, which I then ran through the lube sizer and loaded up. At 30 feet my J frame printed them in about an 8" pattern, with the majority clustered within half of that. Never persisted in this, as I was just scratching an itch, and would much rather rely on the superior accuracy and deeper penetration of an unaltered single projectile.

I love it! where there is a will, there is a way. And all that.

So, you must have ended up with wadcutters just over 70 grains. Did you ever actually measure penetration? After several rounds of gel tests, I'm thinking that under-penetration is not a problem within any range where the two projectiles hit close enough together. I'm not sure, yet, just how close is "close enough."

[pettypace]

At Wednesday's Snubbyfest, a shooting buddy set up his cell phone on a tripod next to the ballistic gel. The plan was to get a video as I emptied a cylinder of two projectile loads into the gel about as fast as I could and be more or less sure of a solid hit. Here are some still shots from the video:

241388

The picture above shows the gel the instant before the first shot hits. Note the faint, almost horizontal line extending from the left side of the front bumper of the gray pickup. That's the streak of the two projectiles heading for the gel.

241389

The picture above is the first frame showing the two projectiles of the first shot in the gel. Even with the poor picture quality from an old cell phone, it's clear that the two projectiles have created a single temporary cavity from which they separate after about 12" of penetration.

I don't know if anyone has quantified just how much of a handgun bullet's kinetic energy is "wasted" in creating the temporary cavity. My guess is that it's a significant amount of the original muzzle energy. So, it's not hard to imagine that two projectiles "sharing" the same temporary cavity would waste less energy than if they each had to create their own temporary cavity. Of course, that would leave more energy available for deeper penetration than the Schwartz "expedient equation" predicts for the single projectile.

241390

The picture above shows one of the projectiles from the first shot just as it exits the gel. Look closely just below the rear tire of the tractor in the background. There's a faint white horizontal streak that appears to be about 2" long. That streak is one of the 105 grain wadcutters exiting the gel after 22" of penetration.

241392

Here's a frame of the first shot after the temporary cavity has collapsed. It's clear that the two projectiles began to separate before entering the second 11" block of gel. I haven't dissected the gel block yet. But I might be able to tell if it was a front or back bullet that exited the gel.

[35remington]

I would wonder if any significant energy is “wasted” making a temporary cavity in a human target. Due to the more resistive action of the tissue having a connective component which gelatin does not. Depending upon what is struck of course.

The swelling one sees in gelatin from handgun bullet passage appears to have no effect on actual animal tissue, if it even occurs at all. I have double lunged several deer with 45 ACP 185 JHP at 1200 fps from a 625-3 revolver and the hole through lung tissue would admit maybe two man sized fingers side by side. The relatively fragile lung tissue had no damage outside that.

A 452423 traveling 950 fps left a similar to slightly smaller hole. For deer hunting I am not keen on leaving a hole of any significantly smaller size, as in my opinion the time for the deer to expire would be inhumanely lengthened.

That is not exactly rationale relevant to shooting a bad guy we just want to go away but it provides some context.

[Bill*B]

pettypace, very interesting studies! No, I never measured the penetration of my crude "double" loads.

[pettypace]

I would wonder if any significant energy is “wasted” making a temporary cavity in a human target. Due to the more resistive action of the tissue having a connective component which gelatin does not. Depending upon what is struck of course.

The swelling one sees in gelatin from handgun bullet passage appears to have no effect on actual animal tissue, if it even occurs at all. I have double lunged several deer with 45 ACP 185 JHP at 1200 fps from a 625-3 revolver and the hole through lung tissue would admit maybe two man sized fingers side by side. The relatively fragile lung tissue had no damage outside that.


I don't doubt that handgun wounds produce temporary cavitation in animate tissue much as they do in organic ballistic gelatin. How much permanent damage that temporary cavitation does in animate tissue depends on the tissue's ability to stretch without exceeding its elastic limits. This Fackler quote suggests that lung tissue is not as "fragile" as it appears:

Cavitation is nothing more than a transient displacement of tissue, a stretch, a localized "blunt trauma." It is not surprising that elastic tissues such as bowel wall, lung, and muscle are relatively resistant to being damaged by this stretch, while solid organs such as liver are not. (from "WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE WOUND BALLISTICS LITERATURE, AND WHY" by M.L. Fackler, M.D., Letterman Army Institute of Research, Division of Military Trauma Research, Presidio of San Francisco, California 94219, Institute Report No. 239, July 1987.)

There's a youtube clip of a guy shooting himself in the leg with .45 hardball. In the slow motion section of the clip, I believe you can almost see the temporary cavitation through the pant leg.

At any rate, what I meant by "wasted energy" in my previous post was something like "energy expended that in no way contributes to bullet penetration." I was just throwing out an idea as a possible explanation for the fact that the two-projectile loads I've tested in Clear Ballistic gel seem to consistently exceed the penetration predicted by both Schwartz and MacPherson.

[pettypace]

pettypace, very interesting studies! No, I never measured the penetration of my crude "double" loads.

Bill*B -- when I first started on this two-projectile kick, I was impressed with Hatcher's energy-based formula for pine board penetration. So, I figured I needed light weight wadcutters at high velocity for any hope of achieving adequate penetration. I've since learned that heavier bullets at lower velocity give more reliable penetration. If I had had your ingenuity, I might have saved myself the price of a NOE 70 grain WC mould.

[35remington]

Lung tissue damage is very markedly different when going from pistol caliber velocities to rifle caliber velocities. A centered lung strike with a 270, 308 or even something like a 30-30 or 35 Remington leaves little intact lung left. All that is found is chunks floating in blood purée. Under these conditions the lungs are fragile, more so than an organ consisting of solid muscle like the heart.

Not that a heart hit by a bullet is done any good.

Lung tissue, we could therefore agree, is very fragile when hit by a rifle bullet, but evidences much less damage when hit by a pistol bullet. In terms of density it is very light, certainly. The “temporary cavitation effect” at pistol velocities on lung tissue appears to be pretty much zero or at best very attenuated. There is a relatively small permanent channel and no damage adjacent to the area of missing tissue. With rifles there is simply a lot of missing tissue.

Since lungs are a primary target on “upper body mass” shots due to their size, and humans are more likely to be “single lunged” by a bullet strike, the need to shoot again when firing a pistol is understood by most to be very likely if incapacitation is desired in a reasonable time.

The double lunged deer went anywhere from 40 to 80 yards after being hit. Sort of a reality check.

[pettypace]

35remington -- here are a couple of Fackler's "wound profiles" that clearly illustrate the point you've made about the difference between the temporary cavities from a handgun vs a rifle:

241489

241490

BTW: I figure a two-projectile load helps satisfy that "need to shoot again when firing a pistol" that you mentioned.

[35remington]

Hopefully it produces a wider damage cavity of some kind.

[pettypace]

Hopefully it produces a wider damage cavity of some kind.

Wider than what?

It's hard to see how two sharp-edged wadcutters crushing two separate full-caliber wound channels with the combined cross-sectional area of a .50 caliber and penetrating well beyond the FBI minimum standard isn't about all you can squeeze out of a .38 snubby. Or am I overlooking something?

[35remington]

Wider rather than narrower. I get the intent. Always have.

[pettypace]

Wider rather than narrower. I get the intent. Always have.

Do you mean wider like this?

241523

[35remington]

Wider however you can produce it to effective depth with two projectiles. That is the topic I believe.

I am a bit leery of trying it in stubby autoloading or revolver cases.

[Bill*B]

I'm impressed by the penetration that you are getting, even with these light weights, and as slow as 625 fps. If I recall correctly, muzzle loading folk have noted that round balls penetrate further at lower velocities - that is, at short range they penetrate less than at long range, after they have slowed down. Gel tests with black powder pistols show that a short barrel Sheriff's model generating 750 fps will actually penetrate deeper than a long barreled Army at over 1,000 fps. Dead soft round balls do flatten somewhat, so maybe comparing them to hard cast wadcutters is "apples and oranges" - but it would be interesting to know the penetration of identical wadcutters at various velocities. Nice work, thanks for sharing.

[pettypace]

I'm impressed by the penetration that you are getting, even with these light weights, and as slow as 625 fps. If I recall correctly, muzzle loading folk have noted that round balls penetrate further at lower velocities - that is, at short range they penetrate less than at long range, after they have slowed down. Gel tests with black powder pistols show that a short barrel Sheriff's model generating 750 fps will actually penetrate deeper than a long barreled Army at over 1,000 fps. Dead soft round balls do flatten somewhat, so maybe comparing them to hard cast wadcutters is "apples and oranges" - but it would be interesting to know the penetration of identical wadcutters at various velocities. Nice work, thanks for sharing.

Yes. In the Lucky Gunner testing of HP .38 ammo, they test the same ammo from 2" and 4" revolvers. It's not at all uncommon to get more penetration at a lower velocity from the 2" barrel. The explanation there is that the bullets are expanding less at lower velocities and so they penetrate deeper -- very like the flattening of the higher velocity soft lead round balls in the black powder example you cited.

In the case of the two projectile loads, I suspect that the explanation for deeper penetration than predicted is some sort of "drafting" effect.

Some time ago, 35remington suggested gel testing a single light wadcutter at the same velocity as the two projectile loads to see if the equations actually work for a single projectile. That's a good idea. I've just been too lazy to work up single projectile loads that match the velocity of the two projectile loads.

My current "hypothesis" for the extra penetration of the light projectiles in the two projectile loads is that even though they punch two separate wound channels through the gel, for much of their paths, they only create a single temporary cavity. I have no idea how much bullet energy goes into creating the temporary cavity. But the gel is surprisingly tough stuff and there has to be some work involved in creating that cavity. So if two bullets can share that work between them, they'll have more energy left for the productive work of punching a deeper permanent cavity. It makes sense to me. But I don't know how to quantify it or "prove" it.

At any rate, I just realized that I didn't post the temporary cavity pics (such as they are) for all five shots from the last gel test.

[pettypace]

Shot #1:

241682

Shot #2:

241683

Shot #3:

241684

Shot #4:

241685

Shot #5:

241686

Shot #6: :wink:

241687

Sorry. That last one wasn't actually a snubby!

[pettypace]

At last Wednesday's Snubbyfest I fired five rounds of my version of the .38 Special Super Police load, rapid fire, into ballistic gel. To my surprise, only one of the five "tumbled" to a stop in the 22" of gel. The other four went through and through. The resulting Super Police video was far less dramatic than the two-projectile video of the previous week and that got me wondering about the likely effectiveness of the two different loads.

It's hard to think about the "stopping power" of handgun ammunition without paying homage to General Hatcher. The good news is that Hatcher has already done the calculation for the Super Police load (Textbook of Revolvers and Pistols, page 435). In fact, he did it twice -- once for the .38 Special Super Police (SP = 36.3) and once for the .38 S&W Super Police (SP = 29.2) -- with the difference being just a question of lower velocity from the .38 S&W. Given that I was shooting a snubby, let's just say that SP=30 for the .38 Super Police load.

Hatcher's stopping power numbers have no absolute meaning -- they are only estimates of relative stopping power. So, how does that SP=30 for an old fashion .38 Super Police load compare to other loads? According to Hatcher, it's about the same as a .38 Super FMJ (SP=31.8), or a 9mm Luger FMJ (SP=29.4), or a standard .38 Special LRN (30.8). Or it's about twice the stopping power of a .380 ACP FMJ (SP=16.2) or about half the stopping power of .45 ACP hardball (SP=60.0).

So, that puts the .38 Super Police load into perspective. But what would Hatcher say about a two-projectile load -- say the two 105 grain wadcutter loads I most recently gel tested? That load has a total mass and velocity about the same as the .38 S&W Super Police load. If the two projectiles didn't separate, I would expect the Hatcher stopping power to be about the same as for the Super Police load, say SP=30 (ignoring a boost for the wadcutter shape). But how would the Hatcher calculation go when the two projectiles do separate?

The problem here is that there are two different ways to think about this and they give much different results: One approach is just to treat each projectile separately. Each projectile has the same velocity and the same cross-sectional area, but only half the mass as the Super Police load. In that case, each projectile would have only half the stopping power and the combined stopping power would just equal the sum of the two. So, we're right back to the Super Police load with SP=30.

But another way to think about it is that the two-projectile load has the same total mass at the same velocity and, so, the same momentum as the Super Police load. But when the projectiles separate, that same momentum now has twice the cross-sectional area. So, we should simply double the cross-sectional area in the Hatcher formula, keeping the mass and velocity the same. So, SP=60 -- the same as GI hardball. And if we factor in Hatcher's 25% boost for the wadcutter shape, we're up to SP=75, or about the same as a 770 ft/s .45 Colt load.

Now, I can already hear some squeals of protest: That there's no free lunch! That there's no way a .38 snubby round has the stopping power of .45 hardball, let alone a .45 Colt. And that it's just mathematical sleight of hand to argue that when two bullets separate and suddenly double their cross-sectional area that they can also maintain their original momentum.

But how would we apply the Hatcher stopping power formula to a JHP that doubles its cross-sectional area by expansion? I doubt many would argue that when the bullet expands, each half of the expanded bullet only gets half the momentum. So the doubling of the area and halving of the momentum cancel out and the stopping power remains the same as it is for the unexpanded bullet.

[35remington]

If I recall correctly Hatcher only applied the formula to a bullet that did not change its shape, because at the time there were no projectiles that reliably did so or at least he did not account for the very few that actually may have existed.

I believe the “manstopper” British bullet of HP shape only got tested in the Thompson-LaGuarde tests of shooting livestock but Hatcher did not follow up with a modification of his formula to account for a bullet that changed its shape after impact.

[pettypace]

OK. But do you see any reason, in principle, that the Hatcher formula shouldn't apply to a two-projectile load? And if not, then how should it apply?

Does each projectile get one-half the stopping power so that the total stopping power is the same as a single projectile load? Or does the total momentum of the load get twice the cross-sectional area so that the stopping power of the load is doubled?

I don't believe Hatcher's formula is the best way to analyze "stopping power." But for those who like the Hatcher formula, this seems like a question worth considering.

[Bill*B]

Keith in his book "Sixguns" reported that old civil war vets, who were in the thick of heavy fighting, had only praise for the effect of their revolver-fired round lead balls. Our current formulas would consider these to be pretty anemic - so there must be more to it than we know.

Here's a theory - now, I most freely admit that I do not know - but let your mind float free (a stiff shot of whiskey might assist) and follow these thoughts:
1. No handgun with less power than a full house .357 Magnum delivers any significant "shock effect" - that is: when a bullet impacts with less than 600 ft/lbs of energy, it does its work by penetration alone.
2. For anti-personnel use, any loads less than 600 ft/lbs that penetrate at least 12" are equal - that is, bullet weight does not matter. A light bullet penetrating 12" punches the same diameter hole as a heavy one that can go 36". Both go all the way through - the superior energy and penetration of the heavy bullet is wasted (we aren't taking heavy game).
3. A .45 ACP slug has a frontal area of 0.16 square inches, while a .38 slug has a frontal area of 0.10 square inches. Therefore, two .38 slugs (that total 0.20 square inches of area) are slightly superior.
4. Your J frame, firing the old Remington dual ball load, outguns the grand old Army 1911 loaded with hardball.

Let the flames begin! Seriously, has anyone actually shot anything with a dual ball load? Field experience always trumps theory. I don't have any, but I would like to hear yours.

[35remington]

I suppose in this theoretical exercise it might be relevant to account for the divergent paths of the projectiles. To what extent do they diverge, and how does that change with distance? If both go nearly through the same hole, does that invalidate the effect of the second bullet’s shape if the first bullet creates a cavity that allows free flight for the second without enlarging the hole?

One would expect that the attenuation of velocity upon impact would slow the first bullet significantly. The second bullet would catch up so to speak and they would tend to penetrate together, possibly accounting for the associative effect that lets them penetrate more than the predictions say they will.

And yeah, Hatcher’s outdated formula is still just that, but I don’t see why it wouldn’t apply. The thing to figure is how much of it applies via how much flesh is exposed to the bullets as they penetrate. What do the wound tracks in the gel show as far as divergence?

[pettypace]

Here's a theory - now, I most freely admit that I do not know - but let your mind float free (a stiff shot of whiskey might assist) and follow these thoughts:
1. No handgun with less power than a full house .357 Magnum delivers any significant "shock effect" - that is: when a bullet impacts with less than 600 ft/lbs of energy, it does its work by penetration alone.

Here are a couple Fackler wound profiles that may help illustrate this point. The temporary cavity from the .357 is about 4" in diameter -- maybe big enough to start doing some permanent tissue damage beyond what the bullet actually hits.

241919

By contrast, much of the .45 hardball permanent cavity is likely to be through thin air.

241920

[pettypace]

What do the wound tracks in the gel show as far as divergence?

35remington: Here are a couple still shots from the video of the two 105 grain WC gel test. The gel blocks are ammo can size -- 11" long.

In the picture below, the gel is just starting to settle down after the first shot. Both bullets made separate entrance holes, about 3/8" apart, and separate, nearly parallel paths through the gel until they started to diverge at 7" to 8". For this shot, the top bullet went TNT (through and through).

241921

In the frame below the gel has just settled down after the second shot. Here, too, there were separate entrance holes and two nearly parallel paths. But in this case the paths diverged after only about 5" and total penetration for both projectiles was less than for the first shot.

241926

After the second shot, the gel got pretty busy and it's hard to find a frame that shows the bullet paths. But the frame below shows the fifth shot before the temporary cavity collapsed. Looks like the paths began to diverge at about 7".

241932

[ofitg]

Keith in his book "Sixguns" reported that old civil war vets, who were in the thick of heavy fighting, had only praise for the effect of their revolver-fired round lead balls. Our current formulas would consider these to be pretty anemic - so there must be more to it than we know.


The performance of those Civil War revolver loads was comparable to some modern cartridges - in the comparison below, it's interesting to note that the .357 generated more than twice the energy of the old cap & ball revolver -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From HANDGUNS magazine, Ed Sanow, Feb 1998 -

.44 lead ball (percussion revolver), 141 grains, velocity 840 fps

Gelatin penetration 20.5 inches
Recovered diameter 0.48 inches
Stretch cavity 35.2 cubic inches

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From STREET STOPPERS, Marshall & Sanow, 1996 -

.357 Mag, Remington 158 gr SJHP, velocity 1235 fps

Gelatin penetration 19.0 inches
Recovered diameter 0.50 inches
Stretch cavity 35.2 cubic inches

[35remington]

I now suppose it would be a good time to compare to a single bullet of identical weight as the double load uses to account for what amounts to impact cavity overlap.

The question to try to answer is whether the double load creates double the wound volume of a single bullet, or somewhat less than that due to their proximity as they penetrate. If the double load penetrates further than a single bullet of the same weight that would seem to indicate something along that line of thought. Just what it is indicating is the debatable part.

For instance, more penetration may offset the amount of wound cavity overlap that occurs, and damage may approach 2x that of a single equivalent weight equivalent velocity individual bullet.

But then we are actually comparing a double load to an equivalent velocity or perhaps higher velocity load using a single bullet of equal or maybe lesser total weight. That stickies the wicket a bit in terms of defining outcomes versus alternatives.

[Michael J. Spangler]

The performance of those Civil War revolver loads was comparable to some modern cartridges - in the comparison below, it's interesting to note that the .357 generated more than twice the energy of the old cap & ball revolver -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From HANDGUNS magazine, Ed Sanow, Feb 1998 -

.44 lead ball (percussion revolver), 141 grains, velocity 840 fps

Gelatin penetration 20.5 inches
Recovered diameter 0.48 inches
Stretch cavity 35.2 cubic inches

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From STREET STOPPERS, Marshall & Sanow, 1996 -

.357 Mag, Remington 158 gr SJHP, velocity 1235 fps

Gelatin penetration 19.0 inches
Recovered diameter 0.50 inches
Stretch cavity 35.2 cubic inches

Aren’t Marshal and Sanow kind of a bunch of hype backed by assumptions?

[ofitg]

Aren’t Marshal and Sanow kind of a bunch of hype backed by assumptions?

I would say that their "Stopping Power" evaluations were dubious..... but they were pretty good at conducting gelatin tests.

[Bill*B]

I admit that I have trouble visualizing that a couple of dinky little 358" round balls could create more havoc than a heavy 160 grain flat point does. On the other hand, (again, apples and oranges, but for the benefit of discussion) the original Viet Nam conflict 5.56mm rifle round was designed to yaw 90 degrees on impact, break in half, and send two projectiles in divergent directions. By all reports, it was devastating in its terminal effect. Years before, British ordinance engineered their MK VII .303 bullet to do exactly the same thing - immediately yaw, and break in half. Only when that was perfected did they give up their infamous "Dum Dum" hollow points. Maybe we should look at a multi projectile load as the near equivalent of a single projectile that immediately breaks in half on impact.

[Michael J. Spangler]

I admit that I have trouble visualizing that a couple of dinky little 358" round balls could create more havoc than a heavy 160 grain flat point does. On the other hand, (again, apples and oranges, but for the benefit of discussion) the original Viet Nam conflict 5.56mm rifle round was designed to yaw 90 degrees on impact, break in half, and send two projectiles in divergent directions. By all reports, it was devastating in its terminal effect. Years before, British ordinance engineered their MK VII .303 bullet to do exactly the same thing - immediately yaw, and break in half. Only when that was perfected did they give up their infamous "Dum Dum" hollow points. Maybe we should look at a multi projectile load as the near equivalent of a single projectile that immediately breaks in half on impact.


That’s a very good way to look at it.

[Bill*B]

This thread started out as "two projectile loads for self defense". It is such fun to roll theoretical concepts around in our brains that we often suppress some inconvenient truths. If an attacker is just interested in plunder, the mere show of any firearm - even a .22 short - will likely break off an attack. On the other hand, if you are facing a charging nut case at close range who really, really, really, wants you dead - then only a CNS hit can provide any hope of salvation. Again, even a .22 short will suffice. Please don't take this as criticism. I got wrapped up in this enough to load up a couple of cylinder full of double ball loads, and plan to test them at the range tomorrow. BUT - should the **** - what I have in the little pistol doesn't matter so much as DO I HAVE THE PISTOL.

[3leggedturtle]

FWIW, out of my LCR a ..375 round ball swaged down to .359 and loaded on top of 3grs Bullseye went thru a treated 2x8, 3/4's of the way. A 158gr FP also loaded with 3grs Bullseye went thru the 1st board and 3/4's the way through the 2nd board. Neither deformed at all. Both were cast with 50-50 WW and pure lead.

[Bill*B]

Pettypace piqued my interest (darn it!), so I located an old Ideal .358" round ball mold, and cast a couple of dozen balls. These were loaded over 3.0 grains of Bullseye: a deep seated ball, then a wax "wad" (of dental baseplate wax pressed into the case mouth by my thumb - hopefully just to provide some lubrication) followed by a second ball which was seated firmly against the first, and held into position by a stout roll crimp. These hard cast - about BHN 15 - balls weighted 66 grains each. Run through a .358" sizer, they were too loose to suit me, so I seated them as cast, which gave a very snug fit into the case. All firing was at 10 yards. A couple of individual shots showed the balls impacting 1 3/4" apart. I then ran a cylinder full through my airweight J frame for a 6 3/4" wide by 4" high pattern. The print of ten balls clustered together was impressive! A composite target including the first two shots measured 6 3/4" wide by 5" high, centered but 3 1/2" below point of aim. Putting this into easily visualized context, if I had a 8 1/2 by 11" sheet of typing paper in my sights at 30 feet, 13 of the 14 balls would have struck it, all in the bottom half, with the outlier 1/2" low. **** for target shooting, but quite interesting in a defensive context. There may be something to these multi-projectile loads, after all.

[pettypace]

Pettypace piqued my interest (darn it!), so I located an old Ideal .358" round ball mold, and cast a couple of dozen balls. These were loaded over 3.0 grains of Bullseye: a deep seated ball, then a wax "wad" (of dental baseplate wax pressed into the case mouth by my thumb - hopefully just to provide some lubrication) followed by a second ball which was seated firmly against the first, and held into position by a stout roll crimp. These hard cast - about BHN 15 - balls weighted 66 grains each. Run through a .358" sizer, they were too loose to suit me, so I seated them as cast, which gave a very snug fit into the case. All firing was at 10 yards. A couple of individual shots showed the balls impacting 1 3/4" apart. I then ran a cylinder full through my airweight J frame for a 6 3/4" wide by 4" high pattern. The print of ten balls clustered together was impressive! A composite target including the first two shots measured 6 3/4" wide by 5" high, centered but 3 1/2" below point of aim. Putting this into easily visualized context, if I had a 8 1/2 by 11" sheet of typing paper in my sights at 30 feet, 13 of the 14 balls would have struck it, all in the bottom half, with the outlier 1/2" low. **** for target shooting, but quite interesting in a defensive context. There may be something to these multi-projectile loads, after all.

What about penetration? Maybe you were getting close to 700 ft/s from the snubby? Here's the Schwartz calculation for a 66 grain, .36 caliber round ball at 700 ft/s:

700^0.745*66/7000/(0.36/2)^2/3.14

Copy and paste that mess into a google search and you should get an answer just over the FBI 12" minimum.

[Bill*B]

I'm shooting on a public range, and have no way to measure penetration. I expect that your velocity estimate and penetration calculation are both about right. The grouping would likely have been tighter if I were a better shot. With single bullets I average around 4 or 5 inches with the little J frame at that distance.

[pettypace]

At today's Snubbyfest", I finally managed a two-projectile penetration test that eliminated the possibility of drafting.

With the gel set at about 20 yards from the muzzle I hoped for enough vertical dispersion to get one projectile into the gel and the other over the top. Unfortunately, I only had five rounds of the two 105 grain wadcutter loads with me. For the first three shots, everything went over the top of the gel. So, I only got two projectiles into the gel -- the lower striking projectile of shots 4 and 5. The picture below shows the two wadcutters in the right hand block after about 16" of penetration. The two "calibration" rounds are in the left hand block after about 8" and 10" of penetration.

242246

I don't consider two rounds to be much of a test. But we did measure the velocity (653 ft/s and 686 ft/s) and the two shots gave almost identical penetrations of just over 16". Admittedly, the gel has not been calibrated since leaving Clear Ballistics and it has been re-cast at least four or five times. But the two JHP "pseudo-calibration" rounds (a 95 grain +P Silvertip and a 90 grain Hornady Critical Defense) still haven't penetrated past the first 11" block of gel.

At any rate, I'm certain that there was no "drafting" involved here because the two wadcutters in the gel are from two different shots. Although it appears in the picture as though they followed a single path in the first block, a view from the top shows the two paths are actually separated by about an inch horizontally.

[Michael J. Spangler]

I thought that the gel was good to go and didn't need to be calibrated? They send it with a calibration sheet showing its original consistency and I believe it's good to go from there on out.

Either way I remembered to bring my dial 75 grain wadcutter loads last night.
With a light charge (I believe 2.5 grain of clays) The projectiles penetrated about 12-13 inches. This was firing 5 or 6 into a block that was a little shot up already. So a couple went further. Most of them having landed in the 12-13 inch range though. A single made its way further along (probably followed an existing wound track) and one load acted like a 148 grain wadcutter because the two bullets did not separate at all so that went through the 16" block and into the second block about 4"

I'm a little too excited with the new gel to slow down and focus on one bullet. I think I shot almost all of my SD ammo to get some cool bullet art this past week. So I MIGHT slow down and get some proper tests done next week.

Oh and the double .360" round ball loads zipped through the 16" of gel and went off into the sunset. Backed up by a second block the balls were stopped about 4" in. so 20" total

The triple .460" round ball loads in the 45/70 ( Don't recall the velocity but I'm going to say maybe it was 850ish) Zipped through 2 blocks of gel and off into the sunset. I did manage to catch one ball in the rear block of gel
I was very surprised to get that much penetration.

[pettypace]

I thought that the gel was good to go and didn't need to be calibrated? They send it with a calibration sheet showing its original consistency and I believe it's good to go from there on out.


Yes. The Clear Ballistic gel comes with a calibration certificate. But I just wondered whether re-melting changes it. As far I can tell, there's been no change after about five re-melts. But I still enjoy seeing those "pseudo-calibration" light weight JHPs fail to meet the minimum FBI standard while the two-projectile loads sail right past them.


The triple .460" round ball loads in the 45/70 ( Don't recall the velocity but I'm going to say maybe it was 850ish) Zipped through 2 blocks of gel and off into the sunset. I did manage to catch one ball in the rear block of gel
I was very surprised to get that much penetration.

What's your load for three round balls in the 45-70, Mike?

[Michael J. Spangler]

Good point. It’s always good to keep a constant while testing.

I would have to check but I believe it’s 8 grains of unique with 3 balls.

[pettypace]

At yesterday's Snubbyfest there was lots of interest in gel testing tumbling bullets. But I did get a chance to fire a cylinder full of the "Two Aspirins" load -- two 70 grain wadcutters loaded base-to-base over a stiff load of 4756 to about 950 ft/s. This was one of the first loads I tried before I had any ballistic gelatin and still believed (mistakenly) that energy was the key to penetration. As things developed, I never got around to testing this load in the gel until yesterday.

Of the five rounds fired, eight bullets remained in the gel with these penetrations: 11", 12", 12", 12.5", 12.5", 13", 13.5", and 14".

Both MacPherson and Schwartz predict about 11" of penetration for a 70 grain wadcutter at 950 ft/s. So, once again, the wadcutters out-performed predictions. Whether this level of penetration is really adequate for civilian self-defense is open to debate. It was clear, however, that the load has plenty of horsepower. One shot stood the first block of gel on it's end and another shot knocked the first block of gel off the table and onto the ground. So, there's some serious momentum transfer when two full .36 caliber metplats at 950 ft/s hit the gel simultaneously. But personally, I'd rather see a load straining to get out the back door of the FBI 12" - 18" penetration standard than one straining to get into the front door.

[luvtn]

Back in the 1980’s I read of an deputy sheriff that carried a triple ball load in his BUG (.38 spcl snub). A criminal in a courtroom grabbed his duty weapon, and was subsequently shot in the chest with the triple ball load. Instant stop! I had a friend who reloaded, make some up for me, using the Speer plastic capsules, three #1 buckshot, with an unknown to me powder. I couldn’t load up a cylinder full due to the plastic breaking from the recoil. It rained buckshot ;(
luvtn
Three #1 (.30) x3=.90. Why do you consistently say that two .35 projectiles equal .50? Instead of .70?

[Michael J. Spangler]

Back in the 1980’s I read of an deputy sheriff that carried a triple ball load in his BUG (.38 spcl snub). A criminal in a courtroom grabbed his duty weapon, and was subsequently shot in the chest with the triple ball load. Instant stop! I had a friend who reloaded, make some up for me, using the Speer plastic capsules, three #1 buckshot, with an unknown to me powder. I couldn’t load up a cylinder full due to the plastic breaking from the recoil. It rained buckshot ;(
luvtn
Three #1 (.30) x3=.90. Why do you consistently say that two .35 projectiles equal .50? Instead of .70?

Area is different that diameter.

I sell food for a living and run into it with menu pricing all the time. a 10" pizza is half the area of a 14" pizza.
78 square inches vs 158 square inches.
I had an account price his 20" pizza double the price of a 10" personal pizza.
the 20" pizza is 314 square inches.over 4 times the amount toppings.

If you scroll back there was some math done on this.

[35remington]

Areas of a circle is Pi radius squared.

[luvtn]

You all must be using NEW math. Why are you using Pi R2 for an simple addition problem? This isn’t about toppings on a pizza. .30+.30+.30=.90; if I put 3 balls in a row and mic them it won’t be .50. In other words: three separate holes of .30=.90 collectively. I don’t understand why you are using area? Instead of diameter?
luvtn

[35remington]

Because diameter as you are using it is not relevant when comparing .30 to .50 as he did before. He is comparing frontal area correctly.

Three balls of .30” diameter do not have .90” of frontal area that impacts the target medium. Frontal area is measured in square inches.

Frontal area of a combined number of bullets is not found by addition of the diameter of the bullets.

Visualize this: four circles of .3” diameter fit inside a .6” circle. The .6” circle has about four times the area of a .3” circle. This is not new math, just correct math.

[35remington]

The frontal area of a .3” ball is not .3” as that lacks the correct unit of measure. It is around 0.0707 square inch. Three of them would have a combined frontal area of about 0.212 square inches, not “0.90” as you imply.

Doing the math, a 0.60” ball would have a frontal area of about 0.283 square inches. There is slight rounding error in the above but it makes my point handily.

The volume of a hole displaced by a bullet assuming the bullet maintains its diameter after impact increases disproportionately with increases in diameter. Keeping the math out of it, simple visualization of circles of various diameter will make this very evident.

Similarly, if you want to increase the displacement of an engine, more is gained by boring it an additional inch than stroking it an additional inch. The square of the radius explains why a small to moderate increase in the diameter of a circle increases its area significantly.

[luvtn]

So why do we use caliber, and not “frontal area” to describe the bullet? Seems like you all bait and switch, forget we are talking about apples? To me. When someone gets shot
No one says he was shot with a .283 frontal area bullet!
gramps

[Michael J. Spangler]

So why do we use caliber, and not “frontal area” to describe the bullet? Seems like you all bait and switch, forget we are talking about apples? To me. When someone gets shot
No one says he was shot with a .283 frontal area bullet!
gramps


Because most people don't know all the details or care to understand them. This is what separates the men from the boys in terminal ballistic discussions.

That's why we're doing all the math to figure out what diameter and shape does more damage. As pettypace noted a few posts back there is some math showing the crush of a bullet based off of shape and caliber.
Smaller diameter full wadcutter bullets can cause way more crush than a round nose of a larger diameter.
All good information and awesome learning on this thread for noobs and veterans alike

[luvtn]

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

[str8wal]

Dead is dead, whether by round ball, LSWC, WFN, or LFN. Carry on.
luvtn

Some bullet profiles cause more internal damage than others, as well as penetration and course of direction after impact. Dead is dead, but some critters require more "killing" than others ;-)

[owejia]

Pettypace have you positioned a breast bone type material in front of the gelatin before trying the dual load projectile loads? Have not had a chance to do any more testing with the double ball loads in my Chiefs special. Have you tried a triple projectile load in the 38 snubby?

[pettypace]

Pettypace have you positioned a breast bone type material in front of the gelatin before trying the dual load projectile loads? Have not had a chance to do any more testing with the double ball loads in my Chiefs special. Have you tried a triple projectile load in the 38 snubby?

Haven't done any breast bone testing. But I think it's a good idea. Any suggestions on what might make a good breast bone simulant?

Three projectiles? Maybe not such a good idea. There's barely enough room in a .38 Special case for two -- unless they were those little coolie hat shaped things mentioned above somewhere. (See post #114).

[onelight]

I would try raw pork ribs but brassfetcher has some type of material to simulate bone.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/Bone%20Simulant/9mm%20Luger%20Bone%20Test.html
But a 38 snub in my opinion is in the marginal range of bullet performance (reliable expansion + penetration) to me that is what makes this multi bullet thread interesting if you can get both bullets on target with adequate penetration you have doubled the damage compared to one bullet that probably is not going to expand anyway . But I have no idea how larger bones like spine , legs and arms affect performance of any load from a snub 38 and different bullet weights. It kinda boils down to are two simultaneous hits from a 380 better than 1 hit from heavier 38.

[Michael J. Spangler]

I would try raw pork ribs but brassfetcher has some type of material to simulate bone.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/Bone%20Simulant/9mm%20Luger%20Bone%20Test.html
But a 38 snub in my opinion is in the marginal range of bullet performance (reliable expansion + penetration) to me that is what makes this multi bullet thread interesting if you can get both bullets on target with adequate penetration you have doubled the damage compared to one bullet that probably is not going to expand anyway . But I have no idea how larger bones like spine , legs and arms affect performance of any load from a snub 38 and different bullet weights. It kinda boils down to are two simultaneous hits from a 380 better than 1 hit from heavier 38.


I have to disagree with reliable expansion for this discussion. I think we have plenty of good bullets available today but more so because pettypace is relying on a non expanding full cylinder profiles for the highest crush without relying on expansions.
Also as far as penetration I shot a wadcutter target load from a 7 1/2” blackhawk into gel last night. The bullet cleared the gel and went off into the sunset.
158 SWC HP loads from a snubby we’re averaging 13” of penetration and quite a bit of expansion. These were old factory Remington swayed loads.
I’ll try to show some pics last night.
The dual ball load from the blackhawk cleared the 16” gel block

[onelight]

I have to disagree with reliable expansion for this discussion. I think we have plenty of good bullets available today but more so because pettypace is relying on a non expanding full cylinder profiles for the highest crush without relying on expansions.
Also as far as penetration I shot a wadcutter target load from a 7 1/2” blackhawk into gel last night. The bullet cleared the gel and went off into the sunset.
158 SWC HP loads from a snubby we’re averaging 13” of penetration and quite a bit of expansion. These were old factory Remington swayed loads.
I’ll try to show some pics last night.
The dual ball load from the blackhawk cleared the 16” gel block
Gel and water are very good at comparing bullet expansion in those mediums I don’t know if there is anything better to test bullet expansion. But they are not the same as clothing flesh and bone.
Brassfecher has his bone substitute in tests for a few calibers and the are only 2 or three type bullets that expand after passing through it. I think it would be hard to predict bullet expansion penetration from expanding bullets in the 650 to 850 FPS you normally get from 2” or less barrels in clothing flesh and bone but that is just 1 guys opinion we all get to have one. That is why I like wadcutters Or large flat point bullets , or possibly multiple projectiles.
Short barrels compromise power and performance.

[Michael J. Spangler]

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

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

[onelight]

I agree that there are more variables to look at and better choices. Luckily ammo companies re making lots of short barrel ammo now.
As far as bone tests you have a great point. That might negate the idea of this multi load all together. I’m hoping to get some denim to test with next week. I just hate the idea of imbedding bone into my nice gel.
I’ll have to look up alternatives.
I don’t blame you I would not want to mess up the gel either. [smilie=b:
I don’t think the bone would negate the multi ball load , you have provided great information that is a viable option for handloaders that might be a good choice .
All pistols commonly carried for defense are a compromise compared to long guns the smaller the gun the more compromises in power , controllability and accuracy I see your work up as trying to make the most of a platform 2” snub , which I think is a great pocket gun my wife’s are an lcr and Smith 649 I am just not a big fan of pocket guns. I am fortunate in that I can CC a 4.2” 357 or 3 to 4” 9s 40s or 45s iwb or owb but every ones circumstances are different. Some times I have a 380 in my pocket . your 38 2 bullet loads seem that they would be about twice as good as a 380 , you have shown they have the penetration and accuracy , the rest is hard to test to many variables. But nice to have another choice.

[Low Budget Shooter]

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

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

[Hickory]

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

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

[owejia]

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

[pettypace]

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

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

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

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

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

[Bill*B]

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

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

[pettypace]

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

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

[ofitg]

Do you mean wider like this?

241523


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

[onelight]

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

[pettypace]

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

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

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

[owejia]

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

[pettypace]

For what it's worth...

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

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

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

[GhostHawk]

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

[35remington]

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

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

[pettypace]

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

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

The short answer is that the .45s tumbled.

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

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

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

[35remington]

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

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

[pettypace]

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

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

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

[Groo]

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

[Piedmont]

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


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

[Michael J. Spangler]

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



Agreed. Stopping is about hitting the off switch. The CNS which works. Pain doesn’t stop. If that were the case a 12 gauge shell full of #9s peppering the whole body would do the trick every time.
CNS is the only way to drop someone quickly.

[Good Cheer]

Reminds me of Adam discussing a sword duel with Hoss.
How wide is that pig sticker? Oh, 'bout 3/4 inch.
How wide are the bullets in your revolver? A little less than 1/2 inch.

Increasing damage matters.
Quadcutters in a dedicated Security Six rebored to take trimmed back 30-30 brass would just be the cat's meow.

[Bill*B]

Gunsmith Roy Dunlap served in the Ordnance Corps during WWII. He though the little Italian M 1934 in .380 was a pretty good piece, stating in print that "the point nearly every pistol argument misses is that a hit with any bullet above a .22 rim fire will slow a man down enough from whatever he is doing - running away, running toward you, or shooting at you - to give you time enough to put in a fatal hit or hits. And I do not think anyone will argue that the smaller calibers are not easier for the unpracticed man to handle."

[pettypace]

Here's a chart from MacPherson's Bullet Penetration book:

245774

The numbers are what MacPherson calls "wound trauma incapacitation mass." I call it the hamburger factor. Generally speaking, it's supposed to be the grams of crushed tissue in the permanent wound cavity. But MacPherson puts a little spin on the numbers and that requires some explanation:

For the JHP numbers, the calculation is only done for penetration up to about 14". That's the "JHP maximum" in the chart. The "JHP 12 inch" number is a little lower than expected because MacPherson figures an average penetration of 12" would mean about half the shots would penetrate less than the FBI minimum. The "JHP 10 inch" number is considerably lower than a simple calculation because MacPherson figures that with an average penetration of 10", very few shots would meet the FBI minimum penetration of 12".

The bottom two lines of the chart are for non-expanding, non-tumbling bullets. MacPherson spins these numbers, too: First, he figures there are really only two choices -- sharp-edged cylinders and everything else. There are slight differences among all the other bullet shapes but the wadcutters (NOT semi-wadcutters) are 50% better than all the rest at crushing tissue. And second, MacPherson assumes that any non-expanding, non-tumbling bullet from a worthy cartridge will penetrate at least 18" and his calculations are done only for the first 14" of penetration.

Given all that explanation, MacPherson concludes "Table 11-6 shows that properly designed JHP bullets have a maximum wound trauma rating (in the absence of barriers) that is substantially higher than can be achieved with non-expanding bullets."

So, here's the kicker for a two-projectile .38 Special load: My last few gel tests with the 105WC/105WC combination have consistently shown the average penetration of both projectiles to be more than 18". Then, according to MacPherson's chart, each projectile should have a "wound trauma incapacitation mass" of 24. That would give the two-projectile load a total hamburger factor of 48 grams of crushed tissue per shot.

I don't expect folks to rush to the LGS to trade in their Glock 21 for a S&W 442. After all, 14 times 55 is way more than 5 times 48. But still, 48 is more than 34 and ten chances at the Fitz Luck Target is better than five chances.

[pettypace]

At last week's Snubbyfest we tried some .44 Special duplex loads I cooked up for a shooting buddy's recently acquired Charter Arms Bulldog. Preliminary results are very encouraging!

Here's a picture of the gel test:

249944

This is the second of two ammo can size gel blocks. So the bullets had already penetrated 11" of gel before entering this block from the left. I fired five shots -- ten projectiles. One escaped. The remaining nine are more or less visible in the picture. The actual penetrations were 14", 14", 14.25", 14.5", 15", 15", 15", 15", and 16". (AVG: 14.75")

NOTE: At the time of this test I thought there was an inch-to-inch correspondence between penetration in Clear Ballistic gel and in validated 10% ordnance gel. I've since learned that this is not true. Roughly speaking, bullet penetration will be less in 10% ordnance gel than in C-B gel. Recent testing has shown that penetration in real gel would likely be only about 80% of what I measured above -- say, 11.8" average. So, what looks to be ideal penetration above, is more likely just shy of FBI minimum penetration.


I had my chronograph set up and the close clustering in the gel block was undoubtedly the result of surprisingly consistent velocities for the five shots: 565 ft/s, 566 ft/s, 567 ft/s, 568 ft/s, and 570 ft/s. (AVG: 567 f/s)

I fired the last ten rounds at a target -- 5 shots at 10 yards and 5 at 20 yards.

249945

At five yards with normal ammo, the Bulldog had been shooting low and left. So I was holding at 3 o'clock on the black. All the white shots came from the five rounds at 20 yards.

[pettypace]

While I was mightily impressed with the duplex loads in the Charter Arms Bulldog, the real crowd-pleaser at last week's Snubbyfest was an Auto Ordnance Thompson which everyone was excited to shoot. The owner of the Thompson provided an ample supply of hot JHP .45's with a big warning label on the box: "For Thompson Only!"

My turn with the Thompson included a shot at the gello. To the delight of the onlookers, that hot JHP .45 slug lifted the two blocks of gel a couple of feet into the air and onto the ground. Once the debris had been cleared off the gel, we saw that the expanded .45 slug had penetrated about 20" in a perfectly straight line. Later, when I dissected the gel, I found perfectly symmetric expansion to an average of 0.550" and no fragmentation. Pretty impressive.

But then I began to wonder just how the permanent wound mass from the hot .45 JHP out of the Thompson compared to that of the .44 duplex loads from the Charter Arms Bulldog. Here are the calculations which are just the volume of the permanent wound cavity "cylinder" times a bullet shape factor (0.82 for an expanded JHP and 1.00 for a WC) times the density of tissue (about 16 grams/cubic inch):

For the Thompson: 3.14*(0.55/2)^2*20*0.82*16 ==> 62 grams.

This agrees pretty closely with the 55 grams listed in MacPherson's chart (see post #204 above) for the "JHP Maximum" for a .45 ACP.

For the Charter Arms duplex load: 3.14*(0.43/2)^2*14.75*1.00*16 ==> 34 grams.

Although MacPherson's chart doesn't include a .44 caliber column, it's easy enough to estimate: The .44 has about 50% more cross-sectional area than a .38. So the 24 grams MacPherson lists for a 9mm WC would scale up to 36 grams for a .44 WC. So the calculated 34 grams is close to MacPherson's estimates.

But wait... I forgot one minor detail. The Charter Arms Bulldog was firing two of the those projectiles -- each crushing 34 grams of tissue for a total of 68 grams.

So, at least in terms of permanent wound mass, it looks like the little Charter Arms Bulldog with some pretty docile duplex loads is in the same league as the Thompson firing some pretty fierce .45 JHP loads.

[pettypace]

The previous Bulldog gel test had an average velocity of 567 f/s (for 5 shots) and an average penetration of about 15" (for the 9 projectiles remaining in the gel). After consultation with the owner of the Charter Arms Bulldog, we agreed to try to ease the velocity up to 600 f/s and hopefully push the penetration a little closer to the FBI recommended maximum of 18". Here are the results.

250372

Velocity: 610, 626, 632, 636, 637 ==> AVG: 628 f/s
Penetration: 16.25, 16.75, 17, 18, 18.5, 18.5, 19.5, 20.25, 21.5 ==> AVG: 18.5"

NOTE: At the time of this test I thought there was an inch-to-inch correspondence between penetration in Clear Ballistic gel and in validated 10% ordnance gel. I've since learned that this is not true. Roughly speaking, bullet penetration will be less in 10% ordnance gel than in C-B gel. Recent testing has shown that penetration in real gel would likely be only about 80% of what I measured above. So, the 18.5" average penetration reported above, would likely correspond to about 15" in validated 10% ordnance gelatin.


This is the velocity and penetration that we hoped to achieve. But the first gel block shows a problem that I may have overlooked in the previous gel test. Here's a picture of the entrance holes from this test:

250369

Note that only four of the five shots show even the slightest separation of the duplex pairs and the shot at the upper right shows no separation at all. I doubt anyone knows exactly what bullet separation would optimize the incapacitation. But I'm pretty sure that ten distinct entrance holes and ten distinct bullet paths beats five and five. For what it's worth, there were eight distinct bullet paths by the time the bullets exited the first gel block.

For these first two tests, I had loaded the two wadcutters base-to-base with the front bullet flying with the button nose forward and back with button nose aft. For the next round of testing, I loaded the two wadcutters nose-to-base. Some are loaded with button noses facing forward and some with the buttons facing to the rear. I'm expecting to see better entrance separation and wouldn't be surprised to see the base-forward bullets cutting bigger entrance holes.

[rking22]

Quick question, at what distance were the bulldog loads fired into the gel? Sorry if I missed it.

[pettypace]

Quick question, at what distance were the bulldog loads fired into the gel? Sorry if I missed it.

I'm afraid I'd make a sorry scientist. Didn't even measure the distance, let alone record it. But I had a chronograph between the muzzle and the target. And the chronograph balks when I get too close. So, I'd guess about 3 to 4 yards.

[rking22]

Thank you. I would be interested in the results at ,maybe, 15 yards to compare to the “near contact” distance. I would think the spread could get problematic at 25+, but that is an assumption.. I am not one who considers a 2 inch snubby only useful at “get offa me” distance. They can be unexpectedly accurate when the one behind the trigger knows how!

[pettypace]

I would be interested in the results at ,maybe, 15 yards to compare to the “near contact” distance. I would think the spread could get problematic at 25+, but that is an assumption.. I am not one who considers a 2 inch snubby only useful at “get offa me” distance. They can be unexpectedly accurate when the one behind the trigger knows how!

I didn't take pictures of the 20 yard targets we fired with the current Bulldog load. But they were about the same as the target in post #205 above which was fired with a slightly lighter load.

I agree that the snubby can be surprisingly accurate. And even with the two-projectile loads, accuracy is more than adequate for any likely civilian self-defense need.

In the Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers (pp 174-5) Hatcher describes the "receiver and forearm rest" they used at Springfield Armory to sort out 1911's for the National Matches. Maybe tomorrow I'll make a receiver and forearm rest for the Middleboro Matches. At 25 yards from rest, I wouldn't be surprised to see my 442 or my buddy's Bulldog keep a cylinder full of duplex loads in the black of a 50 yard slow fire target.

[justashooter]

still have a bag of 60 grain .358 wadcutters that stack 3 in a 38 special case over 5 grains of unique from time to time and print into 2" or so at 25 yards. lotsa' fun on a target range with retentive shooters on the next bench.

[pettypace]

Here's a picture of today's get test with two projectile loads in the Charter Arms .44 Bulldog. I've been loading the two 150 grain NOE wadcutters base-to-base, but for today's test, they were loaded with both bullets heading base forward. As usual, this is the second of two ammo can size gel blocks. So the projectiles entered this block from left to right after already penetrating 11" of gel in the first block.

250484

Five shots. Velocity: 586, 609, 612, 615, 632 ==> AVG: 611 f/s

Ten hits. Penetration: 15.25, 16, 16.25, 16.5, 16.5, 16.75, 17.25, 18, 19.75, 19.75: AVG: ==>17.2"

NOTE: At the time of this test I thought there was an inch-to-inch correspondence between penetration in Clear Ballistic gel and in validated 10% ordnance gel. I've since learned that this is not true. Roughly speaking, bullet penetration will be less in 10% ordnance gel than in C-B gel. Recent testing has shown that penetration in real gel would likely be only about 80% of what I measured above. So, the 17.2" average penetration reported above, would likely correspond to about 14" in validated 10% ordnance gelatin.



I also fired the same two .38 Special +P "calibration" rounds I've used in previous testing. These never made it out of the first gel block. The 90 grain Hornady Critical Defense Lite at 944 f/s penetrated 8.5" and the 95 grain Winchester Silvertip at 921 f/s penetrated 10.5".

Accuracy at 25 yards from a rest was disappointing. But I was encouraged when a relatively new shooter fired this target from 7 yards. He fired deliberate double action with a two hand hold -- 10 shots, 20 hits on the paper. At this range, the pairing of the bullets is obvious.

250487250489

[35remington]

Not reviving unnecessarily.

By any measure the second projectile in this biprojectile load should not penetrate as well as it does being a disk with horrible section density. Wide and light. Yet they did 16 inches.

Drafting effect, certainly.

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

[pettypace]

By any measure the second projectile in this biprojectile load should not penetrate as well as it does being a disk with horrible section density. Wide and light. Yet they did 16 inches.

Drafting effect, certainly.

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

Once the disk turns sideways it's gonna have more sectional density and a better gel-piercing shape. Maybe that's enough to account for 16" - 18" of penetration.

But that video makes me wonder what STB would say about two 150 grain .44 caliber wadcutters penetrating to 16".

[35remington]

Could be, but I would have thought they would have veered worse than they did if so since they are so wide and comparatively thin. Maybe not what I presumed. Would be interesting what would have happened if the disk 45s were fired singly without a preceding bullet anyway. How much of the travel is through a draft cavity? Perhaps a very slo mo video while also determining how far the disk strayed from the first bullet’s path could answer that.

I would suppose he hasn’t gotten around to testing any 44 Special ammo yet, let alone the speciality or boutique types.

[35remington]

The Reader’s Digest version is it would have a better gel piercing shape.

The drafting bit still ought to be run down if possible. What is worth pondering is whether it occurs to the same degree in an actual body with the connective tissues and other structures present. I suspect it may not.

[pettypace]

If I may respectfully suggest something...

Actually, the sectional density (having units in ppsi or pounds per inch2) of a wadcutter (right cylinder) will always decrease in its lateral striking orientation.

For example, if we compute the respective "lateral attitude" (striking a target sideways) and "nose-forward attitude" (striking a target normally) sectional density (whose units are expressed in pounds/inch2) of the 150-grain wadcutter presently under discussion (diameter = 0.429"), even if we increase the wadcutter's mass by several times, the lateral attitude sectional density of wadcutters is always going to be less than that of a wadcutter that is oriented in a nose-forward 'normal' striking attitude:

—a 150-grain wadcutter having a length of 0.362" and a diameter of 0.429" would have a "lateral" SD of 0.137915314 ppsi
—a 150-grain wadcutter having a length of 0.362" and a diameter of 0.429" would have a "nose-forward" SD of 0.148247969 ppsi

—a 300-grain wadcutter having a length of 0.724" and a diameter of 0.429" would have a "lateral" SD of 0.137915314 ppsi
—a 300-grain wadcutter having a length of 0.724" and a diameter of 0.429" would have a "nose-forward" SD of 0.296495939 ppsi

—a 450-grain wadcutter having a length of 1.086" and a diameter of 0.429" would have a "lateral" SD of 0.137915314 ppsi
—a 450-grain wadcutter having a length of 1.086" and a diameter of 0.429" would have a "nose-forward" SD of 0.444743908 ppsi

As can be seen by the computed values, even as wadcutter mass and length increases, the lateral SD remains constant while the nose forward SD increases linearly.

If anything, the reason for increased penetration (not related to drafting within a temporary cavity) of a wadcutter hitting gelatin sideways would be a function of diminished CD (drag coefficient) which is CD = 0.833333 for nose-forward penetration of right cylinders having a L/D ratio ≥ 1.5 and CD ≈ 0.30 — 0.35 for right cylinders striking a target laterally (that is, sideways) where Re is > 105 — 106.

Hope this helps. ;)

But what if we do the same calculations for a 75 grain .44 caliber "wadcutter"?

—a 75-grain wadcutter having a length of 0.181" and a diameter of 0.429" would have a "lateral" SD of 0.137915314 ppsi
—a 75-grain wadcutter having a length of 0.181" and a diameter of 0.429" would have a "nose-forward" SD of 0.0741 ppsi

Now we have a "wadcutter" which will increase its SD when in the lateral orientation. And that's closer to the 70 grain .45 caliber disk in the "Shooting the Bull" video under discussion.

[pettypace]

The drafting bit still ought to be run down if possible. What is worth pondering is whether it occurs to the same degree in an actual body with the connective tissues and other structures present. I suspect it may not.

Yes, indeed!

So, here are some pondering points:

1) In the recent .44 Bulldog tests, I've been focused (maybe fixated is closer to the truth) on the second ammo can of gel and pretty much ignored what happened in the first gel block. That's a mistake. I'm guessing that the closer the two-projectile entrance holes, the more "drafting" we'll see.

2) Here, the term "drafting" is actually just a synonym for "penetration-more-than-predicted-by-the-Schwartz-expedient-equation." Unfortunately, "drafting" sounds like an explanation that we don't really have. But "penetration-more-than-predicted-by-the-Schwartz-expedient-equation" can actually be measured. Maybe that measurement will lead to a better handle on your second point about the likely real world physiological effect of a two projectile load.

3) Maybe a partial clue to the likely real world physiological effect can be found in the notion of "effective diameter" that I used in the tumbling bullet thread. For example, from the last three tests with the Bulldog:

From post #205 an average velocity of 567 f/s should penetrate 11.3" but actually penetrates 14.75" giving an effective diameter of 0.37"
From post #207 an average velocity of 628 f/s should penetrate 12.2" but actually penetrates 18.50" giving an effective diameter of 0.35"
From post #213 an average velocity of 611 f/s should penetrate 12.0" but actually penetrates 17.20" giving an effective diameter of 0.36"

So, maybe to some extent the two-projectile .44 load would have a real world physiological effect of two .38 caliber projectiles. For example...

4) It might make more sense to calculate something like permanent wound mass for a two-projectile load using the effective diameter instead of the actual diameter. That might avoid eating the free lunch that P&P warned didn't exist way back in post #7.

5) On the other hand, I don't see how we can discount the depth of the observed penetration. If some vital target requires, say, 14" of penetration, it's hard to imagine one of those .44 slugs that penetrated 16" not reaching that target.

6) Also, I wouldn't expect any mysterious diminution of the effect on bone as a result of two projectiles running in close proximity at virtually the same time. That's not to say that I would expect two 150 grain .44 WC running side-by-side to have the same effect on bone as a single 300 grainer.

7) Surprisingly, discussion of the most obvious characteristic of a two-projectile load -- namely the increased probability of hitting a vital target with a well-placed shot -- has been all but ignored throughout this thread.

[pettypace]

Thanks for all that, Chuck. As usual, the deeper you get into something, the more questions arise. I'm gonna let some of those questions congeal while I take a poke at how two-projectile loads increase the probability of a "vital hit."

Here's a target fired by a relatively new shooter at Snubbyfest a few weeks ago. I'm using it here just to illustrate a point.

251014

For the sake of discussion, let's assume that the X ring represents a "vital" target area and that any hit touching that area would quickly incapacitate the bad guy -- a "vital hit." And with that assumption we might ask what percent of trigger pulls produced a "vital hit"?

If the target had been fired with regular ammo, the answer would be simple: 10 trigger pulls produced 3 X's, so 30%.

But it the target had been fired with two-projectile loads (as it actually was) it's not quite so simple. We don't know for certain whether the 3 X's came from two trigger pulls or three. If two trigger pulls produced the 3 X's, then 40% of the trigger pulls produced a "vital hit." But it's possible that the 3 X's came from three trigger pulls --in which case 60% of the trigger pulls resulted in a "vital hit."

Obviously, this is a simple example of a past event which may or may not provide much insight into future events. But with the usual caveat of other things being equal (which, of course, never are) it's clear that two shots per trigger pull beats one.

[pettypace]

Have you considered running an actual Monte Carlo simulation using anatomically super-imposed targets and marking/tracking the history of each "pair" or "triple" after they are fired?


It might be a bit of a stretch to call it "an actual Monte Carlo simulation," but before getting sidetracked by my buddy's .44 Bulldog, I was planning some tests to see if the two-projectile .38 snubby loads would produce a lower shots-to-vital-wounds ratio than an "equivalent" single-projectile control load. The planned tests would go something like this:

1) Following MacPherson's lead (Vital Wound Analysis, page 268 of Bullet Penetration) define a "vital wound" as any shot hitting a 2" x 20" white paper strip stapled vertically over a B27 target with the bottom of the strip level with the bottom of the B27 10 ring.

251066

2) The two-projectile "test" loads would consist of two 105 grain wadcutters loaded to about 625 f/s in .38 Special cases.

3) The single-projectile "control" loads would consist of a 200 grain Lee RFN bullet also loaded to about 625 f/s in .38 Special cases. Some fiddling with the control load might be needed to ensure that they were at least as accurate as the two-projectile loads and that both loads shot as close as possible to the same point of impact and had more or less the same recoil.

4) Before shooting the test target, shooters could "sight-in" by taking a few sighting shots on a bullseye target set at the same range as the test target.

5) Shots on the test target would be fired in groups of four, with two of the two-projectile "test" cartridges and two of the single-projectile "control" cartridges loaded "randomly" into the cylinder. Shooters, of course, would try to maximize hits on the "vital wound" strip aiming where they thought best based on their results on the sighting target.

6) Because all the test loads would be WC bullets and all the control loads would be RFN bullets, which loads made which hits would be obvious on the paper.

7) Only hits on or cutting the 2" x 20" paper strip would be counted, except that very close shots with the RFN control bullets would be "plugged" with a .45 caliber plug to at least partly compensate for the expansion of JHP bullets. Any control load shot that plugged "in" with the .45 plug would be marked on the paper strip and scored as a "vital wound."

8) After each four-shot test, the 2" x 20" paper strip would be removed and saved as a hard copy of the test. Info such as shooter's name, distance, maybe the time to fire the four shots, etc., could be recorded on the strip for posterity.

This seems simple enough that it might actually get done and maybe even "prove" something. My guess is that at close ranges, say 2 to 10 yards, the two-projectile load would produce a significantly lower shots-to-vital-wounds ratios for both novice and experienced shooters. Beyond 10 yards, I wouldn't be surprised to see good shooters do better with a single-projectile load. But who know?

[pettypace]

Bleeping cold and windy at Snubbyfest today. But I did get a chance to follow up on the suggestion 35remington made long ago that I test the light for caliber wadcutters loaded singly to the same velocities as they have in the two-projectile loads.

So, today I fired nine of the NOE 150 grain WCs into the gel with an average velocity of 608 f/s and average penetration of 14". Two weeks ago, a two-projectile load with an average velocity of 611 f/s left nine WCs in the gel at an average penetration of 17.2".

By now, the once unexpected extra penetration of the duplex loads has become commonplace and no longer so mysterious. Given what we've all seen of slow motion temporary cavities, it seems obvious that two projectiles going through at the same time would have an easier go of it. But it can't be all gravy. If the two projectiles have an easier go of it, it may well be that they are not crushing the same amount of tissue as if the same two projectiles were traveling singly. For that reason, I expect that I have over-estimated the permanent wound mass (or hamburger factor) in some of my posts above. Sorry about that.

[35remington]

That somewhat to substantially addresses my concerns about the adequacy of such a load. Could a double helping of the same be considered controllable in the Bulldog?

[pettypace]

That somewhat to substantially addresses my concerns about the adequacy of such a load. Could a double helping of the same be considered controllable in the Bulldog?

By "double helping of the same" do you mean a quick "burst" of two shots, each with a single 150 grain wadcutter payload? Or do you mean a two-projectile load with two 150 grain wadcutters in the case?

Either way, I would consider it controllable in the Bulldog -- especially with the big rubber grips on the current versions. Of course, the 300 grain payload is a considerably bigger handful. But no where near as nasty as a full-blast .357 from a snubby.

[35remington]

Since this thread is about two projectile loads that is what I meant.

[pettypace]

Since this thread is about two projectile loads that is what I meant.

This target is a good indication of how controllable the Bulldog is with the two 150 grain .44 wadcutters at just over 600 f/s.

250487250489

The target was fired double action at 7 yards by a guy who just started shooting a couple months ago. Although he's fired a variety of handguns at Snubbyfest, I'm sure he doesn't have more than a couple hundred rounds under his belt. And most of that has been with relatively light loads.

[superior]

Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury... The defendant wasn’t satisfied with ammunition that was capable of killing a horse.... no... he had to go down in his basement and manufacture his own special brand of KILLER BULLETS !!!

[35remington]

Not relevant in any known case.

Back to topic, please.

[pettypace]

The source of the discrepancy between the predicted/mTHOR-computed penetration depths versus actual penetration depths reported in CBG arises from the fact that the expedient equation (that is, the modified THOR armor penetration power law) power law variable, α , was fitted to the only two valid test mediums extant (that is, water and 10% ordnance gelatin) that have markedly differing densities and yield strengths than that of the CBG product. The CBG product, an elastomer plasticized by Paralux 701 paraffinic process oil, has also experienced differences in its formulation over time meaning that test results in one iteration of the CBG formula are unlikely to produce test data that is comparable in other iterations of the CBG formula.

Finally, according to the Bernoulli pressure equation, P = ½ρV² , the density of CBG, which is about ρ = 865 kg/m³, results in less pressure to drive expansion of the projectile (when it does occur) meaning that expanded diameter is less than that seen in water or 10% nominal concentration ordnance gelatin. Lower density also means less resistance to projectile momentum and correspondingly lower decelerative force acting upon the projectile. Lower decelerative forces acting upon the projectile means that penetration depth is greater in the CBG product than that observed in either water or 10% nominal concentration ordnance gelatin. The only way in which to properly modify the m-THOR power law would be to fit the variable, α , to the CBG product by shooting several hundred of each projectile configuration into CBG and fitting the α variable to the CBG test data. Given the historical fluctuation of the CBG formulation, I am not sure that this would be a worthwhile pursuit.

Thanks for that clarification. I may have seen the Brassfetcher video you linked to earlier in your post. But if I did, I'm afraid I ignored the obvious conclusion in (mis)using the m-THOR equation to (over)estimate the permanent wound mass of some of these two-projectile loads. I should review the thread and edit the offending posts to highlight those over-estimates.

Despite its failings, the allure of the Clear Ballistic product remains its low cost and ease of preparation and storage, all relative to real 10% ordnance gelatin. While it may not be "good enough for government work," it serves my purposes -- all the more so if I keep your cautionary notes in mind.

[walnut1704]

The most interesting multiple projectile project I ever saw was detailed in some decades old gun magazine. The writer took a Colt Lawman MK III (a common gun in those days) and bored the chambers all the way through....he reamed out the throats. He then used .357 Maximum brass to load his multiple projectile ammo. I wish I could find that article.

These days most of us would be reluctant to do that to a gun...but there's always an extra cylinder.

[PHyrbird]

I see there's a lot of math & stats here, impressive. Also impressive is the result of 6 410 shells from a Governor. Three perhaps four holes at 7-10 yards in a dinner plate for every hammer drop. Lots of terminal energy, not for long range.

[pettypace]

Truly, sir. It is worth noting that the Clear Ballistics synthetic gel product is not used by any reputable ammunition manufacturers, military, LE or other governmental enforcement agencies to T&E their ammunition that I am aware of. When those entities want to do that, they go with the "real McCoy"— validated 10% ordnance gelatin. For "entertainment value" I s'pose that the Clear Ballistics gel product appeals for its clarity and knowing its limitations as you do, heck.....why not? 8-)

Maybe there's a relatively simple workaround by which penetration depths in CB gel can be translated into results in the "real McCoy". I'll use some testing already done above to illustrate what I have in mind:

In post #225 I reported the following:


So, today I fired nine of the NOE 150 grain WCs into the gel with an average velocity of 608 f/s and average penetration of 14". Two weeks ago, a two-projectile load with an average velocity of 611 f/s left nine WCs in the gel at an average penetration of 17.2".

The problem is that both penetration depths, the 14" for the single projectiles and the 17" for the two-projectile loads, were measured in Clear Ballistic gel and have no scientifically established connection with the FBI 12" - 18" requirement. The tests give strong indication that there's some kind of "drafting" going on with the two-projectile load penetrating deeper than the same projectile fired singly at the same velocity. But neither the 14" nor the 17" (or even the 3" difference between them) can be directly related to the FBI 12" - 18" requirement. For all we know, the same tests fired into validated 10% gel might have given only, say, 9" for the single projectiles and 11" for the two-projectile loads, rendering the two-projectile load useless for self-defense.

But we do have the mathematical models of Messrs. MacPherson & Schwartz. Using, for example, the mTHOR model from Quantitative Ammunition Selection by the Schwartz I can easily calculate that the predicted penetration of a .44 caliber, 150 grain wadcutter at 600 ft/s in validated 10% ordnance gel is about 11.8". A quick interpolation using the "Cylinder Bullet Penetration Depth" graph from MacPherson's Bulet Penetration confirms that estimate.

In other words, a single .44 caliber, 150 grain wadcutter at 600 ft/s does not quite meet the well-established FBI 12" - 18" penetration requirement and should be considered barely (or not quite) adequate for self-defense. The fact that it penetrates 14" in Clear Ballistic gel is irrelevant. But we have now learned that for this bullet at this velocity, 14" in the CB gel equates to just shy of 12" in the 10% ordnance gelatin. That's good to know.

Of course, the two-projectile load penetrated deeper than 14" in the CB gel and undoubtedly would penetrate deeper than 12" had they been fired into validated 10% ordnance gel. But how much deeper we don't really know because the extra 3" of penetration measured in CB gel does not directly translate into 3" in validated 10% gel. We can't just add on an extra 3". But we could assume the ratio of 12" to 14" for the single projectile will hold for the same bullet at the same speed in a two-projectile load.

The math would be this: P = 17 * 12 / 14 = 14.6

So, for this bullet at this velocity, a two-projectile load that penetrates to 17" in CB gel would likely penetrate to about 14.5" had the test been made in validated 10% ordnance gel.

Another approach might be to load up a box of "calibration" rounds of single projectiles loaded to successively higher known velocities. The known velocities translate through the models to known penetration distances in validated 10% ordnance gel. Then if I really want to know how 17" penetration in CB gel translates into validated 10% ordnance gel, I just find which of the calibration rounds penetrates to 17" in the CB gel.

[Rattlesnake Charlie]

Blue Press just ran an article on multiple projectiles in a single case. See attached.
254361

[pettypace]

Blue Press just ran an article on multiple projectiles in a single case. See attached.
254361

Thanks for the link. I had heard about the article, but hadn't seen it.

Must be something in the water!

[pettypace]

Bad weather, a bad cold, and Wednesday holidays have kept me from Snubbyfest for over a month. But yesterday's Snubbyfest was worth the wait. Here's why:

From the very first post in this thread, I have been referring to penetration results measured in Clear Ballistic gel. I assumed all along that bullet penetration in Clear Ballistic gel could be directly compared with the FBI 12-18" penetration requirement. Recently, the Schwartz joined this thread and carefully explained the technical reasons why my assumption was wrong.

Prompted by that warning, I went to yesterday's Snubbyfest prepared to test an idea for calibrating Clear Ballistic gel to validated 10% ordnance gel. Let me say up front the calibration method described below is only intended for non-expanding and non-tumbling projectiles.

Yesterday's testing focused on the 110 grain .36 caliber wadcutter bullet. Previous testing had shown that two of these loaded base-to-base to 600 ft/s would penetrate about 15" in C-B gel. But the "Expedient Equation" -- one of the mathematical models from Quantitative Ammunition Selection -- indicated that the same bullet, fired singly into 10% ordnance gel would penetrate to about 12.4". Based on my (mistaken) assumption, I thought the extra 3" of penetration was evidence of some sort of "drafting" effect -- maybe it was just easier for two projectiles to traverse the gel simultaneously than separately.

So, I loaded a bunch of "calibration rounds" with 110 grain wadcutter, loaded singly, with an average velocity of about 812 ft/s. According to the magic equation, these calibration rounds should penetrate about 15.2" in 10% gel. But a few fired into my C-B gel yesterday penetrated to an average of 18.75". The extra 3" of penetration seen here could not possibly be explained by "drafting" because the calibration rounds are single projectile loads. So, the extra penetration just shows the difference between the two gels that the Schwartz had warned about.

The next step is to calculate a "conversion factor" to convert measured results in C-B gel to predicted results in 10% gel. That's easy. It's just 15.2 / 18.75 = 0.81. So, if you simply multiply a measured penetration in C-B gel by 0.81, you'll get the predicted penetration in 10% gel.

Next, I fired four rounds of the duplex, two-wadcutter load into the same block of gel. The average penetration of the eight recovered projectiles was 15.25". Multiplying by the 0.81 conversion factor: 15.25 * 0.81 = 12.35"

To me, this is really good news for two reasons. First, it demonstrates a simple way to calibrate C-B gel penetration measurements to 10% ordnance gel (again, only for non-expanding, non-tumbling projectiles). And second, it shows that the mathematical models can probably give pretty good predictions for duplex loads without worrying about some bogus "drafting" confusing the results.

Finally, I tried using that same 0.81 conversion factor with some .44 Bulldog duplex rounds fired into C-B gel yesterday. Here are the results:

Average penetration of eight projectiles (4 rounds) fired: (18+16.75+15.25+15+13.25+14.25+15.25+14)/8 ==> 15.2"

Average calibrated penetration: 15.2 * 0.81 ==> 12.3"

Predicted penetration from mTHOR model: ==> 12.1"

This seems to indicate that the calibration technique outlined above is probably not overly sensitive to the diameter of the calibration rounds.

[Michael J. Spangler]

pettypace, this is a little off topic for a 2 projectile thread but I just picked up a Lyman 358627 if you want to try out something on the other end of the spectrum. I'm guessing this thing with a light charge of bullseye in a 38 snubby would tumble like mad.
Let me know if you want to try some and I'll send them your way.

[Oyeboten]

pettypace, this is a little off topic for a 2 projectile thread but I just picked up a Lyman 358627 if you want to try out something on the other end of the spectrum. I'm guessing this thing with a light charge of bullseye in a 38 snubby would tumble like mad.
Let me know if you want to try some and I'll send them your way.

What does this Boolit look like?

[Michael J. Spangler]

256546

[a danl]

I've been experimenting recently with two-projectile loads in a snubby for self-defense. I'm wondering who else has given this serious thought.

Here are some combinations I've tried:

238451

(1) Lee 356-95 RF base-to-base with 105 grain H&G #50 = 200 grains
(2) Lyman 356402 base-to-base with NOE 70 grain WC = 195 grains
(3) Two Lee 356-95 RF base-to-base = 190 grains
(4) Two Lyman 356404 base-to-base = 190 grains
(5) Lee 356-95 RF base-to-base with NOE 70 grain WC = 165 grains
(6) Two NOE 70 grain WC base-to-base = 140 grains
(7) One 000 buckshot over NOE 70 grain WC = 140 grains

I've been using 2400 powder for the 190 - 200 grain loads with velocities about 750 ft/s with easy extraction and no serious flattening of primers. I've flirted with 4756 for the 140 grain loads with velocities approaching 1000 ft/s but I don't like it. I won't list any specific loads and caution anyone first trying something like this that the bullets are probably going to be seated deeper than a single bullet of the same weight, so even published loads might give excessive pressure.

With everything I've tried, accuracy at 7 to 10 yards has proven more than adequate for the purpose. So my bigger concern has been penetration. Early on, i was relying on Hatcher's energy-based formula for penetration through 7/8" pine boards. That's what (mis)led me to the 140 grain combinations at high velocities and I won't admit how much time I wasted trying to determine a useful R (for resistance) value for ballistic gel. Then I finally broke down and bought the kindle version of MacPherson's Bullet Penetration book. From MacPherson I learned (what I should have already known) that penetration depends more on sectional density than energy.

Both MacPherson's graphs and the "expedient equation" from Schwartz's Quantitative Ammunition Selection show that the 190 to 200 grain combinations at, say, 750 ft/s, should exceed the 12" FBI minimum penetration standards in bare gel. So far, my actual penetration testing has been limited to a few shots into some homemade (uncalibrated) gelatin and a couple shots into a fresh brick of Clear Ballistic gel. With the homemade gelatin, three shots of the #3 combination -- two Lee 356-95 RF bullets loaded back-to-back at about 750 ft/s -- coasted through a 14" brick of uncalibrated gel proving absolutely nothing.

To date, I've only fired two shots (#1 combination -- Lee 356-95 over 105 grain H&G #50 WC at about 750 ft/s) into a 16" brick of calibrated Clear Ballistic gel. The results were at least thought-provoking. Both MacPherson and Schwartz predict the front bullets should penetrate over 16" and the back WCs about 13-14". Surprisingly, all four bullets penetrated the full 16". More testing awaits the construction of a mould to re-melt the gel.

Now, I suppose the obvious question is "Why bother?" One answer is that I accept the "Shot placement is King and penetration is Queen" mantra. But to that I would add "Lady Luck is the Court Jester." Given good shot placement and adequate penetration, whether any given bullet hits a vital target and immediately ends the threat is very much a matter of luck. And if I'm shooting at the Fitz Luck Target, I figure I have a much better chance of a winning score with two shots rather than one.

But another answer to "Why bother?" has to do with what I call the "Hamburger Factor." There seems to be some consensus that the mass of tissue crushed in the permanent cavity is a reasonable measure of wound trauma. Given full penetration of a non-expanding and non-tumbling bullet, MacPherson sets this wound mass for a .38 at 24 grams for a wadcutter and 16 grams for any other bullet nose shape. The corresponding numbers for a .45 would be 39 grams and 26 grams.

So, if both bullets from combination #1 really will reliably penetrate more that 16" of ballistic gel. That would indicate a wound mass of about 40 grams per shot and put a cylinder full from a 2" snubby on a par with a magazine full of GI hardball from a 1911.

Now, I understand that there's a lot of hand-waving involved in this with graphs and equations and theories. But 200 grains of lead at 750 ft/s is nothing to scoff at and two .36 caliber holes are bigger than one .45 caliber hole and two shots at the Fitz Luck Target will usually out-score one shot. So, if I can convince myself that the back wadcutter will reliably penetrate 16" of gel, I think I'll become a believer.

i have loaded 2 round balls into my lyman lube sizer and pushed lube between the balls and you must be careful handling them while loading as a single projectile because it's only the sticky lube holding them together at that point, 38 special at about 15 ft a figure 8 hole pattern.

[pettypace]

pettypace, this is a little off topic for a 2 projectile thread but I just picked up a Lyman 358627 if you want to try out something on the other end of the spectrum. I'm guessing this thing with a light charge of bullseye in a 38 snubby would tumble like mad.
Let me know if you want to try some and I'll send them your way.

Sorry, Mike. I've been asleep at the switch. PM coming your way.

[owejia]

Pettypace , are you still experimenting with the snubbie fest? Have you tried a 9mm snubbie in any of your experiments? Picked up a 9mm Luger Pit Bull and am just starting to work up some loads for it. Not much information out there for 9mm in a snubbie.

[pettypace]

By now, my Clear Ballistic gel has been melted and re-melted so many times that its color pretty well matches the OD of the ammo cans I'm using for brick moulds. At this point it's not worth trying to take photos (although a video of a blast from a buddy's .401 Winchester Self-Loader might have been entertaining.) But even though the gello is pretty nasty, it still stops bullets and there's still something to be learned.

NOTE: Penetration in Clear Ballistic gel does not compare inch-for-inch with penetration in 10% ordnance gel. What "looks good" in C-B gel will not look nearly as good in the real gelatin.

At Wednesday's Snubbyfest, the first shot into the gel was from the aforementioned .401 WSL. The ammo was a 200 grain soft point out of a green Remingon box. The chrono read 2380 ft/s (IIRC). Although the bullet lifted both gel blocks high in the air and onto the ground, it only penetrated about 13" and broke into lots of pieces with only about 150 grains making it to the final resting point. Plenty of energy and a poor bullet.

Next up was a Speer Short Barrel Gold Dot .38 Special +P fired from a S&W 640 snubby. This guy landed at 13" right next to the rubble from the .401 WSL. The bullet expanded to about 0.55". Unfortunately, the chrono balked on this one and no velocity was recorded. From other testing I've seen online, it was likely about 850 ft/s.

Finally, I fired 5 rounds of a .38 Special two-projectile load from the same S&W 640. The load was two 110 grain hard-cast WCs stacked base-to-base over an ample charge of 2400. Average chronographed velocity: 735 ft/s. (NOTE: This is certainly a +P load and should be reduced.) Forgetting that the heavy payload shoots high, the back bullet of my first shot escaped out the top of the first gel block. The other nine projectiles were captured in the gel at 13.5, 16, 16, 17, 17.5, 18, 18.5, 19, and 19 inches. Average: 17.6". Assuming the previously determined calibration factor of 0.81 is still valid, that would give an average penetration in 10% gel of approximately 17.6 * 0.81 = 14.3".

[pettypace]

Pettypace , are you still experimenting with the snubbie fest? Have you tried a 9mm snubbie in any of your experiments? Picked up a 9mm Luger Pit Bull and am just starting to work up some loads for it. Not much information out there for 9mm in a snubbie.

No. The only 9mm that has shown up at Snubbyfest was a pristine Lahti. And the owner only had hardball. Not enough gello to stop that.

I'm jealous! Wish I could have a 9mm Pit Bull. But they're not "Mass Compliant."

Finding a defense load for a 9mm snubby sounds like an interesting problem. I don't see how you could beat a good 147 grain JHP. But that assumes reliable expansion at whatever velocity you get from the Pit Bull. If you have a place for testing, you could shoot through a half-gallon milk carton of water and catch the bullet in a trash bag full of pillow stuffing. That should give you the expanded diameter. Then the "expedient equation" from Quantitative Ammunition Selection will give you predicted penetration and wound mass. Once you find a reliable JHP to carry, just match a cast boolit load to it for practice -- maybe something like NOE's 358-155 TC. And I'd put a DAO hammer on the Pit Bull if it were mine.

[pettypace]

Here's a novel idea, maybe best illustrated with a "thought experiment:"

Suppose you want to turn your .38 snubby into a classic "manstopper" for civilian self-defense. Your first try might be your granddad's .38 Special Super Police load. According to Hatcher in 1935, that load could launch a 200 grain round-nose bullet at 623 f/s from a 2" barrel. But is it a manstopper? Well, if the bullet goes in a straight line, terminal ballistics should look like this:

270006

What's of interest here? Well, the load is probably within standard SAAMI pressure limits and won't blow up your snubby. But with a power factor of 125, it will be handful from an alloy J-frame. On the other hand, Keith once said of heavy loads from a snubby that "any man would rather have a sore hand than a hole in his belly." But is the Super Police load a "manstopper?" Well, it certainly has enough penetration to reach vital structures and with fortuitous shot placement, that should be enough. But you could say the same for a .380 FMJ round. And if no vital structure is hit, the 16 grams of wound mass from the Super Police load is no more than we'd expect from a .380 FMJ.

Let's put aside for now the fact that the Super Police load very likely "tumbles" and is probably more effective than I'm giving it credit for. There's another way to improve the Super Police load. Suppose we just change the 200 grain round nose bullet for a 200 grain wadcutter. Here's how that looks:

270007

That's better. We still have more penetration than the law (or, at least, the FBI) allows. But simply by changing the nose shape of the bullet, we increased wound mass by over 50%. That's a significant increase. But a standard .38 Special target wadcutter produces as much wound mass with significantly less recoil. Many folks consider the target wadcutter the best load for a light weight snubby. To improve on that, we need either to go over to the dark side or to try something radical...

So, what if we cut that 200 grain wadcutter in half to make two stubby little 100 grain wadcutters. We load both little wadcutters into the case, carefully adjusting the powder charge to maintain the same 623 f/s. Here's the terminal ballistics for just one of those projectiles:

270008

Note that each of the 100 grain wadcutters crushes the same 16 grams as the original 200 grain Super Police load. In fact, the total of 32 grams for the two wadcutters is just shy of the 34 grams MacPherson cites for the maximum wound mass from a 9mm/.38 cal JHP. More importantly, each of those little wadcutters cuts it's own separate path through the tissue, increasing the probability that a vital structure will be hit by one or the other. Of course, that assumes the short wadcutters have adequate penetration to reach the vital structures. According to the graphs (based on MacPherson's penetration model ) the little wadcutters should penetrate about 12" in 10% ordnance gel. The FBI considers 12" adequate. But if the little wadcutters average 12" of penetration, about half of them will penetrate less than 12". Maybe the increased probability of hitting a vital structure will be outweighed by the decreased probability of penetrating deep enough to reach a vital structure. So, what's to be done?

Well, here's the novel idea: Suppose we just change the nose shape of the stubby little wadcutters to match the shape of an expanded JHP -- into something I'm calling an "As-Cast Mushroom" or ACM for short. Here's the terminal ballistics info for just one of those two 100 grain .35 caliber ACM at 623 f/s:

270009

Now, we have two separate projectiles, each penetrating to 17" along separate wound paths with a greatly increased probability of hitting a vital structure and a total combined wound mass of 38 grams. We'd be hard-pressed to find a .38 Special load with more right to be called a "manstopper."

Of course, it seems a little far-fetched that we can magically gain 5" of penetration and 3 grams of wound mass by somehow changing a wadcutter into the shape of an expanded JHP. But that's what the penetration models of both MacPherson (in Bullet Penetration) and Schwartz (in Quantitative Ammunition Selection) suggest and my initial testing seems to verify that suggestion. More on that later.

[megasupermagnum]

Here's a novel idea, maybe best illustrated with a "thought experiment:"

Suppose you want to turn your .38 snubby into a classic "manstopper" for civilian self-defense. Your first try might be your granddad's .38 Special Super Police load. According to Hatcher in 1935, that load could launch a 200 grain round-nose bullet at 623 f/s from a 2" barrel. But is it a manstopper? Well, if the bullet goes in a straight line, terminal ballistics should look like this:

270006

What's of interest here? Well, the load is probably within standard SAAMI pressure limits and won't blow up your snubby. But with a power factor of 125, it will be handful from an alloy J-frame. On the other hand, Keith once said of heavy loads from a snubby that "any man would rather have a sore hand than a hole in his belly." But is the Super Police load a "manstopper?" Well, it certainly has enough penetration to reach vital structures and with fortuitous shot placement, that should be enough. But you could say the same for a .380 FMJ round. And if no vital structure is hit, the 16 grams of wound mass from the Super Police load is no more than we'd expect from a .380 FMJ.

Let's put aside for now the fact that the Super Police load very likely "tumbles" and is probably more effective than I'm giving it credit for. There's another way to improve the Super Police load. Suppose we just change the 200 grain round nose bullet for a 200 grain wadcutter. Here's how that looks:

270007

That's better. We still have more penetration than the law (or, at least, the FBI) allows. But simply by changing the nose shape of the bullet, we increased wound mass by over 50%. That's a significant increase. But a standard .38 Special target wadcutter produces as much wound mass with significantly less recoil. Many folks consider the target wadcutter the best load for a light weight snubby. To improve on that, we need either to go over to the dark side or to try something radical...

So, what if we cut that 200 grain wadcutter in half to make two stubby little 100 grain wadcutters. We load both little wadcutters into the case, carefully adjusting the powder charge to maintain the same 623 f/s. Here's the terminal ballistics for just one of those projectiles:

270008

Note that each of the 100 grain wadcutters crushes the same 16 grams as the original 200 grain Super Police load. In fact, the total of 32 grams for the two wadcutters is just shy of the 34 grams MacPherson cites for the maximum wound mass from a 9mm/.38 cal JHP. More importantly, each of those little wadcutters cuts it's own separate path through the tissue, increasing the probability that a vital structure will be hit by one or the other. Of course, that assumes the short wadcutters have adequate penetration to reach the vital structures. According to the graphs (based on MacPherson's penetration model ) the little wadcutters should penetrate about 12" in 10% ordnance gel. The FBI considers 12" adequate. But if the little wadcutters average 12" of penetration, about half of them will penetrate less than 12". Maybe the increased probability of hitting a vital structure will be outweighed by the decreased probability of penetrating deep enough to reach a vital structure. So, what's to be done?

Well, here's the novel idea: Suppose we just change the nose shape of the stubby little wadcutters to match the shape of an expanded JHP -- into something I'm calling an "As-Cast Mushroom" or ACM for short. Here's the terminal ballistics info for just one of those two 100 grain .35 caliber ACM at 623 f/s:

270009

Now, we have two separate projectiles, each penetrating to 17" along separate wound paths with a greatly increased probability of hitting a vital structure and a total combined wound mass of 38 grams. We'd be hard-pressed to find a .38 Special load with more right to be called a "manstopper."

Of course, it seems a little far-fetched that we can magically gain 5" of penetration and 3 grams of wound mass by somehow changing a wadcutter into the shape of an expanded JHP. But that's what the penetration models of both MacPherson (in Bullet Penetration) and Schwartz (in Quantitative Ammunition Selection) suggest and my initial testing seems to verify that suggestion. More on that later.

The only problem I see with this plan, is either the bullets would have to be concave base, or the bottom one would likely leave the barrel as a wadcutter anyway.

[pettypace]

The only problem I see with this plan, is either the bullets would have to be concave base, or the bottom one would likely leave the barrel as a wadcutter anyway.

You're right! The back bullets do get squashed a bit. But they're still "rounder" and penetrate significantly deeper than a real, flat-nose, sharp-shouldered wadcutter. I haven't paid enough attention to learn if there's any significant difference in penetration between the front and back bullets. But there certainly is a difference in penetration between the as-cast mushrooms and a wadcutter.

Here's a picture of a couple 80 grainers -- back bullet on the left and front on the right.

270049

The extra penetration of the as-cast mushroom opens the possibility of lighter loads, say two 80 grainers, that will still give adequate penetration but have less recoil and less difference between POA and POI.

[Kosh75287]

If I've brought this up before, please forgive my failing memory. There used to be a gimmick round called a "Quadcutter", which was 4 77 (ish) gr. wadcutters, redolent of the Lyman #358101 75 gr. "Flying Tuna Can", stuffed into a .357 mag case. I think patterning, low penetration and it not being offered in .38 Special (not to mention Weirdness) led to its eventual disappearance.
Your two-projectile concept makes more sense to me, but I'd still be apprehensive about accuracy. In the stressful conditions of a gunfight, it's easy enough for me to hit the wrong things, if my sidearm launches only one projectile per trigger squeeze. Doubling my odds of that seems like inviting trouble.

[pettypace]

If I've brought this up before, please forgive my failing memory. There used to be a gimmick round called a "Quadcutter", which was 4 77 (ish) gr. wadcutters, redolent of the Lyman #358101 75 gr. "Flying Tuna Can", stuffed into a .357 mag case. I think patterning, low penetration and it not being offered in .38 Special (not to mention Weirdness) led to its eventual disappearance.
Your two-projectile concept makes more sense to me, but I'd still be apprehensive about accuracy. In the stressful conditions of a gunfight, it's easy enough for me to hit the wrong things, if my sidearm launches only one projectile per trigger squeeze. Doubling my odds of that seems like inviting trouble.

Of course, accuracy is a consideration. But despite the mantra that "Shot placement is king and penetration is queen," I decided from the beginning to focus on penetration instead of accuracy. That's partly because the accuracy I was getting without any effort seemed adequate for the purpose of civilian self defense, and partly because I didn't see much sense in trying to improve accuracy of a round that wouldn't penetrate adequately.

Although at this point I'm convinced that "as-cast mushrooms" solve the penetration problem, I'm afraid that work on the project proceeds at, well, a petty pace. I'm anxiously awaiting a 4-barrel mould (two .38s and two .44s) from Tom at Accurate Molds. When the mould arrives and if the weather, my health, covid, and the primer supply all cooperate, I might get around to concentrating more on accuracy.

In the meantime, it's worth seriously considering just what are the accuracy requirements for civilian self defense.

[pettypace]

Here's a picture of a .35 caliber, 105 grain as-cast mushroom next to a 105 grain wadcutter from a shortened H&G #50 mould.

270046

And the ACM mould:

270047

The test consisted of (A) 5 shots with the HG50 loaded backwards (for calibration), (B) 5 shots with the HG50 loaded forward, and (C) 5 shots with the ACM loaded forward. All bullets were seated flush with the mouth of case over the same 2.8 grains of "vintage" Bullseye. All shots were fired in rotation (A,B,C,A,B,C, etc.) into the same two ammo can size bricks of well-used Clear Ballistics gel. All shots were fired over a chronograph, although some didn't register.

Here are the results:

(A) 105 grain HG50 loaded backwards:
Velocity: (671+624+674)/3 = 656 f/s
Penetration is C-B gel: (16.75+17+17.5+18+17)/5 = 17.25"
Predicted penetration in 10% ordnance gel: 14"
Calibration factor: 0.81 (Note substantial agreement with previous calibration earlier in this thread.)

(B) 105 grain HG50 loaded forward:
Velocity: (655+625+646+656)/4 = 645.5 f/s
Penetration in C-B gel: (16.75+17+21+18.5+19.75)/5 = 18.6"
Penetration calibrated to 10% ordnance gel: 18.6 * 0.81 = 15" (using calibration factor from (A) above)
Predicted penetration in 10% ordnance gel: 14" (So, maybe the button nose gains an inch of penetration?)

(C) 105 grain ACM:
Velocity: (686+675+648+612+676)/5 = 659 f/s
Penetration in C-B gel: 22"+ (One recovered with nose poking out of 2nd gel brick (22"). Others went through and through.)
Predicted penetration in 10% ordnance gel: 19" (Modeled as expanded JHP.) (Translates to over 23" in C-B gel.)

[RC46]

On topic: found this in an old Dean Grennell book.