The Poor Man's Hollow Point

[pettypace]

For the purpose of civilian self-defense with a handgun, let's say with a snub-nose revolver, does anyone see any practical difference between a bullet that expands and a bullet that "tumbles" -- assuming that both bullets penetrate into the FBI 12" - 18" standard?

To help focus the discussion, let's take a specific example. Here's a link to the Lucky Gunner web site and a ballistic gelatin test of Winchester Super-X 38 Special +P 158 Grain Lead Semi-Wadcutter HP ammunition :

https://www.luckygunner.com/38-special-p-158-grain-lead-semi-wadcutter-hp-winchester-super-x-50-rounds#geltest

The ammunition was tested twice -- once from a 2-inch barrel revolver and once from a 4-inch barrel. There's a menu choice at the top of the page to pick which results you want to view.

If you look at results from the 4-inch barrel, you'll see that all five bullets expanded to about 0.50 caliber and all five bullets penetrated between 13" and 16" of ballistic gelatin.

Results from the 2-inch barrel show that none of the bullets expanded -- a total HP failure! Yet four of the five bullets flipped ends (tumbled, if you like) and penetrated the same 13" to 16" in the gel. The fifth bullet didn't expand or tumble and "over-penetrated" to 27" in the gel. We can disregard that "streaker" as having nothing to do with the question.

I'm guessing that there isn't any practical difference in self defense effectiveness between the bullets that expanded and those that tumbled. What do you think?

[35remington]

The early rate of deceleration may be higher for the expanded bullet. Overall wound volume would be similar but perhaps of different shape.

[osteodoc08]

From personal experience in the ER, I've seen plenty of through and through GSW with FMJ and if there is nothing vital hit (leg, arm, etc) they get an Rx for ABX and home. A good HP has always done more damage. Had a patient not too long ago that shot himself in the head with a 9mm FMJ. Through and through. Still talking........wouldn't of happened with a good HP.

[RED BEAR]

I agree that hollow points generally do more damage but at the velocity you get from a 2 inch barrel a lot do not expand so tumbling is better than nothing.

[OS OK]

Hit the target fast and don't be missing...let the Coroner worry about the fine points.

[stubshaft]

Like the Doc said "no vitals were hit"! Doesn't really make a difference if you don't hit your target properly.

[Froogal]

I just came in from shooting some .38+P 125 grain XTPs. Ruger SP101 2" barrel. At 10 yards and under I could hit the 12" steel target nearly every shot. Mild success out to about 15 yards. Beyond that was pure luck. I will be the first to admit that my hands are not as steady as they used to be. I guess if 5 rounds don't get the job done, I'll just throw the gun at the bad guy.

[FergusonTO35]

From personal experience in the ER, I've seen plenty of through and through GSW with FMJ and if there is nothing vital hit (leg, arm, etc) they get an Rx for ABX and home. A good HP has always done more damage. Had a patient not too long ago that shot himself in the head with a 9mm FMJ. Through and through. Still talking........wouldn't of happened with a good HP.

Out of curiosity, in how many of those cases can you say for sure what caliber and what type of bullet it was? Not trying to argue, just honestly wondering.

[pettypace]

The early rate of deceleration may be higher for the expanded bullet. Overall wound volume would be similar but perhaps of different shape.

Interesting point. That link has high speed video of the first shot from each test that confirms the earlier deceleration idea. Stepping slowly through those two videos, it seems clear that the expanding bullet causes lingering commotion in the gel in the 3 - 8" range while commotion from the tumbler is in the 5 - 11" range. So the wound volume is not only a different shape, but likely also in a different location.

[trapper9260]

May I ask had anyone fill the hollow point with silicone and dose it help it to expand faster and better.

[Outpost75]

I would like to know what the barrel-cylinder gap was on their 2-inch test gun, because their reported velocities are a full 100 fps less than I have measured with Winchester X38SPD 158-grain LHP +P FBI loads from my 2-inch S&W Model 10-5, which was set up by the Quantico gun vault with 0.003" pass/0.004" hold. My ammo is from the late 1980s and was issued to me. Perhaps they used commercial grade ammo which didn't meet LE specs.

[Outpost75]

I would like to know what the barrel-cylinder gap was on their 2-inch test gun. Their reported velocities are a full 100 fps less than I have measured with my lot of Winchester X38SPD 158-grain LHP +P FBI loads from my 2-inch S&W Model 10-5, which was set up by S&W factory trained gunsmiths to 0.003" pass/0.004" hold. My ammo is from the late 1980s.

[FergusonTO35]

Could simply be a matter of different barrel-cylinder gap, atmospheric temperature, powder lot, hardness of different batches of lead, etc. Published velocity, whether for factory ammo or load data, seldom matches up in real life. A lot of folks say that the FBI load has gotten more watered down over the years.

[curioushooter]

I've done some informal testing of snubbies in 38. Never had a problem getting expansion...but my velocities are running nearly at 9mm speeds.

I get the Speer 135 grain GDHP to 950 FPS out of my S&W 442 and my wife's 638. 6.7 grains of PowerPistol listed in the Hornady manual for 140 grainers. The Speer actually weighs closer to 131. I cut the load back to 6.5 grains since I learned that Alliant is 6.4 for the GDHP. Anyway...that gaping hole expands over 900 FPS in water and mud. Speer tested it in Real gel, not the clear gel LG uses, back in the 90s. I have a Gold Dot poster showing that bullet doing about as well as any 9mm through the barriers and clothing. The key I think is getting the needed velocity. It's probably the reason why most of the new 38 defense loads use flyweight bullets. I think the Speer is the best all around bullet made for snubbies right now. I'd certainly take it over any wadcutter, even if they tumbled.

For factory ammo that Federal HST with 130 grain bullet that is seated flush is very impressive on gel, but I find it hard to load into the chambers with speed strips or speed losders.

[jdfoxinc]

I wound up doing open chest heart massage on a GSW victim. Through and through the abdominal cavity rear to front entrance and exit wounds the same. When opened up found the inferior venecava utterly destroyed and a 2"+ tear in the aorta.

[Earlwb]

When I read "Poor man's hollow point" I thought you were reversing hollow base wadcutter bullets and loading them into the cases. Those work pretty well even at low velocities. Anyway that was a popular way to get hollow points for 38 specials in the past. Since the bullets are reversed you can load the cartridges a little more hot than for target shooting too.

[sniper]

My experiments with reversed hollow-based wadcutters resulted in most of them tumbling, leaving funny-lookin' holes in the targets at 25 yards.:shock: I much prefer 148-150 gr. full wadcutters, loaded to 7-850 fps. The full-caliber meplat of the wadcutters is very effective, and recoil is lessened, with 150-160 gr.semi-wadcutters and RNFP boolits my next favorites, loaded to 850-900 fps. YMMV.;)

[NyFirefighter357]

My experiments with reversed hollow-based wadcutters resulted in most of them tumbling, leaving funny-lookin' holes in the targets at 25 yards.:shock: I much prefer 148-150 gr. full wadcutters, loaded to 7-850 fps. The full-caliber meplat of the wadcutters is very effective, and recoil is lessened, with 150-160 gr.semi-wadcutters and RNFP boolits my next favorites, loaded to 850-900 fps. YMMV.;)

As I have learned in this forum slow heavy bullets kill and soft wide metplat bullets expand 160gr 10bhn-12bhn wad cutters.

[osteodoc08]

Out of curiosity, in how many of those cases can you say for sure what caliber and what type of bullet it was? Not trying to argue, just honestly wondering.

Many self inflicted or police find gun/casings at the scene and XR will clearly show profile of a FMJ if still in body.

[nicholst55]

May I ask had anyone fill the hollow point with silicone and dose it help it to expand faster and better.

Typically, a clogged hollow point cavity results in the bullet failing to expand.

[osteodoc08]

I wound up doing open chest heart massage on a GSW victim. Through and through the abdominal cavity rear to front entrance and exit wounds the same. When opened up found the inferior venecava utterly destroyed and a 2"+ tear in the aorta.


Traumatic arrests never live. Well 99+% don’t. Cardiac massage while heroic and great for movies, has never worked in my experience. That’s limited however as I don’t work in a Level 1 regional trauma center.

[pettypace]

I would like to know what the barrel-cylinder gap was on their 2-inch test gun, because their reported velocities are a full 100 fps less than I have measured with Winchester X38SPD 158-grain LHP +P FBI loads from my 2-inch S&W Model 10-5, which was set up by the Quantico gun vault with 0.003" pass/0.004" hold. My ammo is from the late 1980s and was issued to me. Perhaps they used commercial grade ammo which didn't meet LE specs.

I don't see any info on Lucky Gunner about the barrel/cylinder gap of their 2" test gun -- a Kimber K6s. But here's a link with some velocity data from guns they considered using: https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/revolver-velocity-vs-barrel-length/

I'm pretty sure you're right that they used commercial grade ammo -- probably the same stuff they sell.

For what it's worth, they also tested the Federal LSWCHP. That didn't expand even from the 4" barrel at 900 ft/s.

[cwlongshot]

WXACTLY WHAT I THOUGHT TOO!!!
When I read "Poor man's hollow point" I thought you were reversing hollow base wadcutter bullets and loading them into the cases. Those work pretty well even at low velocities. Anyway that was a popular way to get hollow points for 38 specials in the past. Since the bullets are reversed you can load the cartridges a little more hot than for target shooting too.

Tumbling bullets make horriffic wound channels. Its the unspoken preferance, in all methods, to cause maximum trauma.

CW

[JSnover]

WXACTLY WHAT I THOUGHT TOO!!!

Tumbling bullets make horriffic wound channels. Its the unspoken preferance, in all methods, to cause maximum trauma.

CW

That surprises me. A friend of mine gave me an old box of .32 fmj that had all of the noses nipped/mutilated, like someone had taken a wire cutter to them. He didn't know anything about them, I assumed someone else was trying out the Poor Man's HP theory. This would have been in the 60s or 70s, I have no idea if they would have worked.
Wouldn't a non-expanding bullet be less predictable (and therefore less reliable) if it tumbled? The wound would be worse than normal SWC or FMJ but it seems like a non- tumbling expanded bullet would be more effective than either.

[Outpost75]

That surprises me. A friend of mine gave me an old box of .32 fmj that had all of the noses nipped/mutilated, like someone had taken a wire cutter to them. He didn't know anything about them, I assumed someone else was trying out the Poor Man's HP theory. This would have been in the 60s or 70s, I have no idea if they would have worked.
Wouldn't a non-expanding bullet be less predictable (and therefore less reliable) if it tumbled? The wound would be worse than normal SWC or FMJ but it seems like a non- tumbling expanded bullet would be more effective than either.

I have several file-trim dies which were intended to chop the noses off LRN service rounds in the .32 S&W Long, .38 S&W and .38 Special, which date pre-WW2. Apparently this was a common practice if "unofficial". The flat-nosed rounds penetrate straight through, without tumbling, and are more effective on small game and varmints than LRN. I have used these mostly to modify .38 Special 158 LRN loads, which results in reducing bullet weight to 146 grains with a 1/4 inch meplat. From a 2-inch snubby at about 700 fps they penetrate four 1-gallon water jugs and do not "flip."

I expect they would be a better manstopper too.

239318239319239320239321239322239327

[RED BEAR]

I have always liked very soft lead at reasonable velocity. Not sure why soft lead is recommended for bp only i don't get any leading at 700 to 800 fps. The walker pushed soft lead balls or bullets to 1300 fps .

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

From personal experience in the ER, I've seen plenty of through and through GSW with FMJ and if there is nothing vital hit (leg, arm, etc) they get an Rx for ABX and home. A good HP has always done more damage. Had a patient not too long ago that shot himself in the head with a 9mm FMJ. Through and through. Still talking........wouldn't of happened with a good HP.

but there are 3 possible outcomes that we are discussing. 1) bullet hits & expands. 2) bullet hits, doesn't expand, but tumbles. or 3) bullet hits and neither expands nor tumbles.

So in your observations are you comparing outcome 1 to outcome 3? I believe the OP is trying to compare 1 & 2.

If 2 produces an equal amount of tissue damage then the question is how to get it to do so reliably.

In my own experience I shot several .35 whelen loads and .357 mag. into wet newspaper. All mushroomed. A single .38 spl bullet passed through and put a hole in my plastic tub. Unfortunately I can't say whether it tumbled or not since I never recovered it.

[35remington]

When I said the shape of the wound channel would vary, I did indeed mean the depth at which the greater amount of damage was produced would vary. The gelatin showed that the full broad side attitude (BSA) of the tumbling bullet was reached further into the gelatin. This has the area of maximum tissue crush or gelatin effect.

Conversely, the expanding bullet will show that area of maximum damage closer to the entrance side.

What is arguable is whether tumbling can be reliably depended on, or whether it is reliable in actual human shootings as opposed to gelatin. I am not aware of reports wherein 158 SWCHP frequently overpenetrates, so whatever is going on it appears to work as intended in effectiveness and adequate penetration.

To get a reliably tumbling bullet probably requires some specific engineering of the bullet and velocity to make it more likely to occur, and even then there is no guarantee. It is also affected by the distance the bullet travels before it strikes. I was able to get a SAECO 475 grain bullet at 1200 fps to consistently tumble at close range in stacks of wet phone books (dense bear muscle stimulant, maybe) at what was bad breath bear shooting distance, but at 100 yards the same bullet would penetrate the whole three and a half foot stack, which is about a bazillion inches of gelatin equivalent.

With some exceptions due to the tissue travel stability of the bullet in question the gelatin/wet phone book ratio approximates 2:1. That is, I mean to say that a bullet that does 16 inches in gelatin does about half that in phone books. Phone books tend to overstate gelatin penetration somewhat when using that ratio if the bullet has impact stability issues....32 Smith and Wesson and 32 Long RN bullets, for instance.

I find their chronographed velocities for the load in question to be low as well. From my J frames I usually range from the low 800s to rarely near 850 fps depending upon manufacturer. I can exceed their chronographed factory Plus P velocities using standard pressure handloads using equivalent weight cast bullets.

For instances, 4.7 grains Unique, top end standard pressure, gets around 810 fps from my snobbies with a cast 158, at least when the powder is rearward or fairly near the primer end of the case.

[Walkingwolf]

I wish I had some experience with hunting ballistic gel animals, but I have rarely found one in the wild. OTH I have seen an example of through, and through with a broadhead, the burglar did not survive. If you put all your faith in hollow points into saving your bacon be prepared to get fried. IIRC the FBI agents in the Miami shootout were using hollow points.

[wv109323]

I followed a thread by a pathologist assistant that worked in Georgia's forenisic lab. They did an average of 8-9 autopsies a day. He had worked there for 15-20 years.
His observations were:
Ballistic gel is not a good representative for a bullets performance in a human body due to bones and different tissue.
Not all hollow points are created equal. If a hollow point fragmented it usually need to penetrate far enough to reach the vitals especially if it hit a bone. He favored a bullet to retain its weight to penetrate deeper.
Pistol bullets did not do hydra-shock damage.
He liked the heavier bullet weight for anything under .357 caliber.
Bullets had to reach the vital organs to stop an assault.
.38 specials were not a common caliber seen for autopsies. Most gang bangers used 9mm or .380. Most .38 were elderly suicides.
My opinion would be a 158 swc lead in a short barrel .38 special.
His quote was "it doesn't matter what you got, it depends where the bullet ends up at."
So bullet placement is everything.

[rfd]

... His quote was "it doesn't matter what you got, it depends where the bullet ends up at."
So bullet placement is everything.

particularly important for the marginal cartridges and the mental state of the threat(s).

[tbx-4]

For proper bullet testing you need a meat target...

https://youtu.be/l8u2EoWTw3U?list=PLU3K98y0SVS8c2o5FI3mp7LTAtUaRgS_ 1

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

actually if you want consistently reliable terminal ballistics at close range, go roundball. They are kind of like the fixed-blade broadhead of the firearm world. If a roundball doesn't flatten out at all, it will still hit pretty hard because the very same quality that makes them horrible for long range makes them pretty good terminal performers. That is, they decelerate rapidly. They decelerate through the atmosphere, and they decelerate through tissue.

[pettypace]

What is arguable is whether tumbling can be reliably depended on, or whether it is reliable in actual human shootings as opposed to gelatin. I am not aware of reports wherein 158 SWCHP frequently overpenetrates, so whatever is going on it appears to work as intended in effectiveness and adequate penetration.


Here's another example of failure to expand, no over-penetration, and tumbling: Federal 9mm 147 grain Hydra-Shok: https://www.luckygunner.com/9-mm-147-gr-jhp-hydra-shok-federal-20-rounds#geltest

In this test, four of the five bullets failed to expand at all. Without expanding, these bullets should have penetrated over 30". But four of the five penetrated just less than 18", and at least two of those clearly swapped ends -- tumbled.

How much gel testing to you figure Federal did in developing the 147 grain Hydra-Shok ammo? It's hard to believe that Lucky Gunner's tests were the first to show a failure to expand. Is it possible that tumbling is a known failsafe mechanism preventing over-penetration in the event of failure to expand?

[pettypace]

actually if you want consistently reliable terminal ballistics at close range, go roundball. They are kind of like the fixed-blade broadhead of the firearm world. If a roundball doesn't flatten out at all, it will still hit pretty hard because the very same quality that makes them horrible for long range makes them pretty good terminal performers. That is, they decelerate rapidly. They decelerate through the atmosphere, and they decelerate through tissue.

If you're gonna go roundball, why stop at one? The .38 snubby can do two 000 bucks at about 1000 ft/sec. See: http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?379046-Two-Projectile-Loads-in-Snubby-for-Self-Defense

[cat-mechanic]

I thought this thread would be about the Forster hollow point drill kits that are available.
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1012693841/forster-universal-hollow-pointer-1-8

For hollow points and self defense ammo, I have always stuck with loaded self defense ammo.

But I have been picking up some different HP bullets to try loading with. We will see how those go.

[trapper9260]

Typically, a clogged hollow point cavity results in the bullet failing to expand.

Ok thank you . Because I was that with some jacket rounds that they have the hollow point fill in and also read that at times when a hollow point enter that like denim that will clog the hole

[35remington]

I would not recommend two roundball in a 38 snubby at 1000 fps unless you are determined to exceed Plus P pressures. In a 357 chambered gun that is okay. In a 38 Special chambered gun best to slow down to a less gun straining speed.

Most bullets of pointed shape have a heavier end and a lighter end and will eventually flip in gelatin or tissue. This is most true of unexpanded hollowpoints and RN types. The question is whether the tumbling occurs soon enough and reliably enough that it can influence the wounding effect of the bullet. Some bullets penetrate a lot before tumbling, others not so much.

Many of the higher quality HP ammo types are not plugged by a reasonable amount of clothing and do well in testing.

[Bigslug]

I started a thread over on the muzzleloaders section asking some questions about various cap & ball revolvers. Someone was kind enough to post this little tidbit about gelatin testing with the mid-1800's options:

239456

I think it worth noting that the .36 Navies and .44 Armies were penetrating to the top end of the 12"-18" the FBI currently considers the desirable depth range, and they were finishing out with pretty minimal expansion from initial diameter. These were both regarded as totally adequate for their time. Much of current conventional wisdom seems to hinge on the fact that depth of wound channel adds to wound volume, AND it contributes more toward intersecting something vital than width without penetration does.

Also worth noting that a tumbling pistol bullet is NOT a tumbling, fragmenting, travelling well in excess of 2000fps 5.56 round. The tissue will leisurely stretch and snap back and essentially leave a Wile E. Coyote shaped outline no bigger than the bullet itself.

Given that penetration is what the FBI is currently putting at the top of the priority list, and that penetration is what suffers with snubbies, I would be inclined toward either a toasty load behind a solid wadcutter, or a 158 grain JSP with a large flat meplat. - it'll penetrate plenty, but if it happens to mushroom, I'll take it. If it happens to tumble, I'll not expect much from it.

[GhostHawk]

Seems to me the clear answer is to carry the 4" with HP's.

Or be good enough with the short barrel to shoot em in the eye and not worry about expansion.

It is only a theory, but it is my theory that somebody shot in the eye is going to stop doing what he/she was doing and have new issues to deal with. That is if they are able to do anything at all.

Hopefully that theory never gets put to the test, by me at least.

[pettypace]

I would not recommend two roundball in a 38 snubby at 1000 fps unless you are determined to exceed Plus P pressures. In a 357 chambered gun that is okay. In a 38 Special chambered gun best to slow down to a less gun straining speed.


Good point! I agree. And it was a mistake for me to suggest that 1000 ft/s is easy or desirable. I should have just pointed to this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfCiKmYtKg4

I doubt fortunecookie45lc did any pressure testing. But I suspect he worked up carefully to the load. And the same load, 6.4 grains of Longshot, shows up on the Hodgdon reloading site as a maximum .38 +P load under a Hornady 140 grain XTP bullet. There the velocity is listed at 1126 ft/s from a 7.7" barrel with a pressure of 17,700 psi. Undoubtedly the seating depth of two round balls will be more than a single 140 grain JHP. But then, the bearing surface will be less.

Whether 1000 ft/s is safe may be debatable. Whether it's necessary is less debatable. MacPherson predicts a .36 caliber round ball will penetrate 16" of calibrated gel at 800 ft/s and 18" at 900 ft/s. So, 35remington is exactly right: "In a 38 Special chambered gun best to slow down to a less gun straining speed."

[35remington]

Well, certainly all that is relevant and well stated, but the pressure increasing caution I was concerned about is the seating depth of the two balls. Minimum seating depth sees that the top ball is seated just past the middle of the ball and crimped on the curved surface to hold it, while the second ball is well in the case. They really cannot be seated any shallower than that and not allow the top ball to just fall out. Due to the air space between the two balls even when touching, the bottom ball is notably below the seating depth of an equivalent 140 grain bullet with some sort of HP, SWC, TC or roundnosed shape. Seating depth is the most relevant pressure increasing factor discussed here, and a double round ball load should be notably slower than an equivalent weight regular bullet to attain the same pressure.

And we are talking about a short barrel here as well. Velocities are and should be way below that of a much longer test barrel.

Since it was not specified, some may also be tempted to seat the two balls even deeper yet since it is possible, and the deeper the bullets are seated for a given weight, the slower they must go to be within pressure spec of Plus P.

I haven’t seen any Plus P data that actually attains 1000 fps from snubbies with 140 odd grain bullets. For whatever that is worth.....so the safety aspect of two round balls at 1000 fps in terms of pressure limits is something I view as “best not to go there.”

Just explaining how I came to make that recommendation, FWIW.

[35remington]

I did view his video, and I will note that velocity he recorded is way faster than I would care to shoot any 140 grain bullet through a four inch, let alone a double ball load of the same weight that occupies more case space. He is exceeding the Hodgdon plus P load in a shorter barrel with two balls seated to a deeper depth than a 140 grain bullet all of which suggest something is not being prudently pursued in terms of correct loading, at least if one cares about being within pressure specs.

I will stick to my suggestion that this not be attempted in a 38 Special chambered revolver.

[pettypace]

Just explaining how I came to make that recommendation, FWIW.



It's worth a lot to me. Thanks!

[Petrol & Powder]

When dealing with the terminal ballistics of handgun ammunition, the first factor is always penetration. The projectile MUST first reach deep enough into the target to damage something critical enough to quickly stop the fight.

Expansion is just the icing on the cake. When you get good penetration coupled with good expansion, you'll get the best possible performance BUT.... without the required penetration - expansion does nothing for you.

Too much early expansion that limits penetration is detrimental to good performance and a bullet that loses mass will also fail to penetrate. Obviously a FMJ projectile will excel at penetrating but it's a notoriously poor performer unless it happens to strike something critical. A beautifully mushroomed bullet that stops short may fail as well.

So - it is a two prong goal:
The bullet needs to penetrate far enough to get the job done
AND
It would be nice if it expanded without limiting that penetration before it got the job done.

If you have to give up one of those two traits; you always want to err on the side of ensuring enough penetration.

It easy to get caught up with beautifully mushroomed bullets but the reality is the appearance of the spent bullet matters not as long as it stopped the fight in time.

The "FBI Load"; a +P 38 Special 158 grain, lead, semi-wadcutter hollow point, [which is what the OP wrote about], is one of the few loads that consistently performs well out of a snubnosed 38 Special.
The FBI Load performs better out of a 4" barrel but it still consistently performs OK even when fired from 2" barreled revolvers. It may not make that pretty symmetrical mushroom every time but it has stopped a LOT of fights in time.

[pettypace]

The "FBI Load"; a +P 38 Special 158 grain, lead, semi-wadcutter hollow point, [which is what the OP wrote about], is one of the few loads that consistently performs well out of a snubnosed 38 Special.
The FBI Load performs better out of a 4" barrel but it still consistently performs OK even when fired from 2" barreled revolvers. It may not make that pretty symmetrical mushroom every time but it has stopped a LOT of fights in time.

This point supports the idea that tumbling bullets may be just as effective as expanding bullets. Lucky Gunner shows data for "FBI loads" from Federal, Remington, and Winchester. Of the 15 bullets fired from 2" guns, only one showed any real expansion. Even so, there was almost no over-penetration. So, at least in the LG tests, the FBI load from a 2" barrel is a tumbler, not an expander. Yet, as Petrol & Powder notes, it has a good reputation as an effective self-defense load.

[Petrol & Powder]

It has more than just a good reputation, it has actual established results.

Year after year, people criticize that load as "old", "out dated", "eclipsed" or a "has been" because it's old technology. They say, " there MUST be something new and improved" that is better. The fact is, despite its age, it still performs very well from 2" barreled guns.

Some people just will not accept that something old .........WORKS !

Don't get caught up in the quest for a beautiful mushroom. The only thing that matters is that the bullet STOPS THE FIGHT.

[rfd]

what P&P makes best sense with regards to snubby guns and 38spl loads. a 158 grain lswc with a hefty meplat at +P velocity.

with regards to snubby guns, i see two kinds - lightweight and those that are heavier than lightweight. a titanium/scandium 11oz airweight and that 158 +P load sounds like not fun for both recoil and accuracy for the average shooter. i haven't tried it yet in my 15oz 642c snubby, but i'm apprehensive about what the recoil will be like. in a 24oz snubby it'll probably only be snappy and not all that bad for single weak hand shooting.

however, lightweight snubby recoil will be a factor for me, at my age and strength, and i don't doubt that'd be an issue for other types of folks as well. is there a alternative to the FBI load that would work best for these really light pocket guns?

[Michael J. Spangler]

This point supports the idea that tumbling bullets may be just as effective as expanding bullets. Lucky Gunner shows data for "FBI loads" from Federal, Remington, and Winchester. Of the 15 bullets fired from 2" guns, only one showed any real expansion. Even so, there was almost no over-penetration. So, at least in the LG tests, the FBI load from a 2" barrel is a tumbler, not an expander. Yet, as Petrol & Powder notes, it has a good reputation as an effective self-defense load.


It would be nice to see a 158 SWC and a 158 SWCHP FBI load side by side in gel.
What causes the tumbling? Longer bullet due to same weight but in HP version?
Lack of velocity to stabilize the 158 in either style?

Pettypace your formula for penetration? What does it estimate for penetration on a 158 SWC? I’m wondering if it would overpenetrate if it stayed nose forward the whole time.
Tumbling being a advantage and not a drawback.
We have enough data from luckgunner to see what actual penetration is but what would it be traveling nose forward is what I want to know.

[Michael J. Spangler]

Ok so I ran the numbers with a 775 FPS 158 bullet with the .735 number for the bullet shape. Unless I should be using a different number for the bullet shape?
It shows 29” penetration.

[pettypace]

is there a alternative to the FBI load that would work best for these really light pocket guns?

For something you could buy? If you could find them, I would think target wadcutters would be a good bet. The recoil might be a little more than, say, a 100 grain JHP. But wadcutters would give guaranteed adequate penetration, which is more than I'd expect from a light weight JHP. And a wadcutter that penetrates 16" will crush more tissue than an expanded JHP that only penetrates 10".

[Michael J. Spangler]

What about the new Federal HST Micro?
Basically a hollow point wadcutter. 130 grains I believe. Very moderate recoil and good results in gel. Of course if they’re too slow to expand they will perform as a wadcutter and crush plenty of tissue and penetrate well anyway!

[pettypace]

Ok so I ran the numbers with a 775 FPS 158 bullet with the .735 number for the bullet shape. Unless I should be using a different number for the bullet shape?
It shows 29” penetration.

Yes. So, the tumbling prevents over-penetration.

And I think you're right that the hollow point is key to the tumbling. The hollow point takes weight out of the nose of the bullet, moving the center of gravity toward the base and making the bullet tail heavy and less stable. If the hollow point expands and the bullet mushrooms, the center of gravity moves forward making the bullet more stable. But if it fails to expand, the hollow point bullet is more likely to tumble than a solid of the same weight.

BTW: I wish I could take credit for that penetration formula. But I think we should refer to it as the Schwartz Expedient Equation and encourage folks to buy his book.

[Outpost75]

Bullet which I have had great results in standard pressure .38 Special is Accurate 36-159H

239753

[Michael J. Spangler]

Yes. So, the tumbling prevents over-penetration.

And I think you're right that the hollow point is key to the tumbling. The hollow point takes weight out of the nose of the bullet, moving the center of gravity toward the base and making the bullet tail heavy and less stable. If the hollow point expands and the bullet mushrooms, the center of gravity moves forward making the bullet more stable. But if it fails to expand, the hollow point bullet is more likely to tumble than a solid of the same weight.

BTW: I wish I could take credit for that penetration formula. But I think we should refer to it as the Schwartz Expedient Equation and encourage folks to buy his book.


That makes sense. The opposite of a shuttlecock.
So either way it performs very well.
Yes good point. I have that book in my amazon cart to be ordered soon.

[Petrol & Powder]

It is easy to overthink this stuff.

At snubnose velocities from a 38 Special there's no "magic bullet". You need a consistent minimum penetration of 12" and more would be better. Expansion (or maybe tumbling) would be a good secondary benefit as long as it doesn't limit the needed penetration.

Light for caliber bullets go faster but give up too much penetration.
Heavy for caliber bullets sacrifice too much velocity/energy and are hard on the gun & shooter.

Out of a 2" barrel the 38 Special really needs to be a 158 grain soft lead, semi-wadcutter and having a hollow point doesn't hurt.

[Petrol & Powder]

what P&P makes best sense with regards to snubby guns and 38spl loads. a 158 grain lswc with a hefty meplat at +P velocity.

with regards to snubby guns, i see two kinds - lightweight and those that are heavier than lightweight. a titanium/scandium 11oz airweight and that 158 +P load sounds like not fun for both recoil and accuracy for the average shooter. i haven't tried it yet in my 15oz 642c snubby, but i'm apprehensive about what the recoil will be like. in a 24oz snubby it'll probably only be snappy and not all that bad for single weak hand shooting.

however, lightweight snubby recoil will be a factor for me, at my age and strength, and i don't doubt that'd be an issue for other types of folks as well. is there a alternative to the FBI load that would work best for these really light pocket guns?

The 135 grain Speer Gold Dot "Short Barrel" load is a proven alternative to the FBI load in a short barreled revolver. That load was issue by the NYPD for a while near the end of the revolver days and was approved for use in both 4" duty guns and 2" off duty / back up guns. NYPD generated a fair amount of data from actual shootings with that load. They never amassed that amount of data generated from the FBI load (used by countless agencies across America for more than 20 years) but the 135 gr. Speer Gold Dot load showed good results at the end of the LE revolver era.

239755

Just on track record alone I would still opt for the "FBI Load" but the Speer Gold Dot has some actual record to prove its value.

[tazman]

It is easy to overthink this stuff.

At snubnose velocities from a 38 Special there's no "magic bullet". You need a consistent minimum penetration of 12" and more would be better. Expansion (or maybe tumbling) would be a good secondary benefit as long as it doesn't limit the needed penetration.

Light for caliber bullets go faster but give up too much penetration.
Heavy for caliber bullets sacrifice too much velocity/energy and are hard on the gun & shooter.

Out of a 2" barrel the 38 Special really needs to be a 158 grain soft lead, semi-wadcutter and having a hollow point doesn't hurt.

I agree.
I would add that the Lyman or NOE version of the 358432 wadcutter would work a treat in that setup. I use it in my Model 60 3 inch with excellent accuracy. Being a 160 grain wadcutter, it has a full meplat to work with. NOE even makes it in a hollow point if you wish.

[pettypace]

It is easy to overthink this stuff.

At snubnose velocities from a 38 Special there's no "magic bullet". You need a consistent minimum penetration of 12" and more would be better. Expansion (or maybe tumbling) would be a good secondary benefit as long as it doesn't limit the needed penetration.

Light for caliber bullets go faster but give up too much penetration.
Heavy for caliber bullets sacrifice too much velocity/energy and are hard on the gun & shooter.

Out of a 2" barrel the 38 Special really needs to be a 158 grain soft lead, semi-wadcutter and having a hollow point doesn't hurt.

We agree that penetration is the most important consideration.

But given that, why do you think the "magic bullet" for a .38 snubby bullet "really needs to be a 158 grain soft lead, semi-wadcutter"? At snubby velocities, say 800 ft/s, a 148 grain, hard-cast, full wadcutter will give more than adequate penetration and on its way it will crush 50% more tissue than a solid SWC.

And why do you think "Heavy for caliber bullets sacrifice too much velocity/energy and are hard on the gun & shooter"? A 200 grain wadcutter at, say, 500 ft/s would have considerably less recoil than a 158 grain bullet at 750 ft/s, but still have more than adequate penetration and crush more tissue than the solid SWC. If the penetration is more than adequate and the recoil is less, why worry about velocity and energy?

I suppose it is easy to over think this stuff. But it's even easier to under think it.

[pettypace]

Here's Dr. Fackler's wound profile and comments on the original "FBI Load":

239759

If the Lucky Gunner data showed performance like that from a snubby, I doubt we'd be discussing the FBI load in this thread.

But the original question remains:

"For the purpose of civilian self-defense with a handgun, let's say with a snub-nose revolver, does anyone see any practical difference between a bullet that expands and a bullet that "tumbles" -- assuming that both bullets penetrate into the FBI 12" - 18" standard?"

[Petrol & Powder]

We agree that penetration is the most important consideration.


If we agree on this point we could probably stop right here. :wink: I will put your words in blue font for clarity and answer you questions one at a time.

But given that, why do you think the "magic bullet" for a .38 snubby bullet "really needs to be a 158 grain soft lead, semi-wadcutter"?
I didn't say that the 158 gr is THE magic bullet, I said "There is NO magic bullet". Go back and read the second line of my post # 57.

At snubby velocities, say 800 ft/s, a 148 grain, hard-cast, full wadcutter will give more than adequate penetration and on its way it will crush 50% more tissue than a solid SWC.


True, and we agree here but we are also getting back into the fact that penetration is the most important factor. A full WC gives up some penetration in exchange for that large meplat. A SWC retains some of that flat nose but its shape allows for a little more penetration, all else being equal.

And why do you think "Heavy for caliber bullets sacrifice too much velocity/energy and are hard on the gun & shooter"? A 200 grain wadcutter at, say, 500 ft/s would have considerably less recoil than a 158 grain bullet at 750 ft/s, but still have more than adequate penetration and crush more tissue than the solid SWC. If the penetration is more than adequate and the recoil is less, why worry about velocity and energy?


The quick answer is because weight & velocity is a compromise. You can't continue to increase the weight of the projectile and maintain adequate speed given the restrictions of pressure. Working within the acceptable pressure limits the velocities drop off as the projectile gets heavier. Somewhere between the lightest/fastest projectile and the heaviest/slowest projectile there's an optimum point where we get the best we're going to get. It may not be ideal but there's a sweet spot somewhere in there. Or if you will, "as good as it gets".
For the 38 Special that compromise has been found to be in the 150-160 grain range.

It's tempting to think there is some "magic" undiscovered bullet lurking out there but the truth is that it's all been tried before. After over 100 years with the 38 Special and over 45 years of better self defense loads in the 38 Special category, it's all been discovered.


I suppose it is easy to over think this stuff. But it's even easier to under think it.

With all due respect, looking for perfect results in a block of gelatin may be an entertaining pursuit but perfect mushrooms and nice cavities in gelatin are just tools to compare one load against another. In the end, the actual results in the real world are what matters.

[rfd]

i'm going to load for both the snub gun and me as my first priority. it may or may not be a 158 +P lightweight snubby load, but it will be the best load, with an appropriate wide meplat bullet, that i can handle well for EDC and ECQ (extreme close quarters). the final and most important result is having immediate access to a gun at pretty much all times, every day. a gun that i shoot/train with at least once a week, every week. i figure that those 5 chances at living during an aggressive encounter are gonna hafta be good enuf.

[izzyjoe]

For EDC I use the buffalo bore 158gr swchp, that is non +p they are stated to have velocity of 854fps from a 2" barrel. I have done a very limited testing using pine boards for penetration testing, and my findings are the 125-158 xtp's will not expand, but they do penetrate well. The standard wadcutter does expand some with average penetration, but would be a good defense load.

[Petrol & Powder]

rfd, what are the laws in NJ concerning hollowpoints for self defense?

[pettypace]

With all due respect, looking for perfect results in a block of gelatin may be an entertaining pursuit but perfect mushrooms and nice cavities in gelatin are just tools to compare one load against another. In the end, the actual results in the real world are what matters.

P&P: I'm sure we agree on much of this. But taking the points of disagreement one by one:

1) True enough. You did write that there was no "magic bullet." But then you went on to proclaim that 'Out of a 2" barrel the 38 Special really needs to be a 158 grain soft lead, semi-wadcutter...' That "really needs to be" sounded like a pretty specific reference to a "magic bullet." I was only trying to point out the contradiction.

2) I don't agree that "a full WC gives up some penetration in exchange for that large meplat." What the full charge WC really gives up is overpenetration. A 148 grain full WC at 800 ft/s will likely penetrate more than 20" in 10% ballistic gel. A 158 grain SWC at the same speed might do 28". The WC doesn't give up any useful penetration -- at least not for any reasonable civilian self-defense scenario. It gives up overpenetration in exchange for 50% more tissue crush. The way I see it, it's win-win for the WC.

3) Is the 150 - 160 grain weight range really "as good as it gets" for .38 Special? Elmer Keith preferred more weight and the vast majority of premium .38 Special JHP ammo from reputable manufacturers is lighter. There's certainly no consensus for 150 - 160 grains.

4) You won't find me picking "perfect mushrooms" or admiring "nice cavities" in the gelatin as an "entertaining pursuit." My interest in gelatin testing has been to determine bullet penetration. If I knew a way to measure volume of the permanent cavity, I'd be interested in that, too. Is gelatin testing "just tools to compare one load against another"? Of course. That's exactly the point of it. If there are better tools, show me. I'm interested.

5) You argue consistently that "actual results in the real world are what matters." Who can disagree with that? But which actual results? The one shot stops or the 5, 10, or 20 shot affairs that make lurid anti-cop headlines every now and then? The trouble with real world results is that there are so many of them pointing in so many different directions. Can you show me any real world results that will help answer my question about the effectiveness of tumbling bullets? If so, then please do.

[Petrol & Powder]

I think we're bound to keep circling the barn in this discussion.

Gelatin is a standard that allows comparison of one load verse another. It is a tool that allows some degree of measuring apples to apples and it is probably about as good as we're going to get in an effort to have some type of common yardstick.

However, this quote (and I don't know who it's attributed to) sums it up the best for me:

“Ballistic gelatin tests tell you exactly what a particular bullet will do when fired into…ballistic gelatin!”.

[Outpost75]

With all due respect, looking for perfect results in a block of gelatin may be an entertaining pursuit but perfect mushrooms and nice cavities in gelatin are just tools to compare one load against another. In the end, the actual results in the real world are what matters.

Bill Allard of the NYPD summed up the whole question eloquently when when he asked one of the experts at the FBI's Wound Ballistic Workshop, "When did Jello Man make it onto the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List?"

[35remington]

A somewhat relevant way of figuring permanent cavity is expanded diameter times penetration, roughly speaking. If a bullet changes its shape it does it within about one inch of point of impact. There are caveats to so doing but it gets one in the ballpark.

In terms of point of impact of fixed sighted guns deviating from standard weight may produce unacceptable point of impact differences.

A tumbling bullet is a somewhat variable event. It may be relevant to see if such behavior is representative before counting on it to occur. The human body is variable enough that counting on a bullet to behave consistently is chancy at best.

Just lately I have been carrying 130 HST in my 638, but admittedly there are things I would change about its performance if I could. I want it to penetrate somewhat more and expand somewhat less. A bullet that expanded to 40~45 caliber and did 16 inches would be my preference.

[pettypace]

OK... Here's a weird one:

Suppose we really want that .38 snubby bullet that 35remington mentioned above -- a bullet that expands to 40 - 45 caliber and penetrates to about 16" in ballistic gel. A quick look at the Lucky Gunner data shows the Federal 129 grain Hydra-Shok penetrating to an average of 16.7" from a 2" barrel. That's a premium JHP from a reputable manufacturer. Hydra-Shoks have been around for a while, and according to Marshall and Sanow, they've earned some street creds. A quick google search even showed that very same bullet listed as one of "The Top Five .38 Special Self-Defense Rounds" by gunsamerica.com.

Here's a little strip of a screenshot from the Lucky Gunner site that shows the data for that 129 grain Hydra-Shok from a snubby:

239908

Everything looks good until you look over to the right and see a bunch of unexpanded bullets with an average diameter of 0.35" . That probably should be 0.36", but still a long way from the 40 - 45 caliber expansion we were hoping for.

But how can a non-expanding, 129 grain, .38 caliber bullet at a velocity of 800 ft/s only penetrate about 17"? I would have expected much more. Here's a calculation based on the Schwartz "expedient equation."

800^0.725*129/7000/(.36/2)^2/3.14

If you copy and paste that mess into a google search, google will return a predicted 23" of penetration. Why did those bullets have much less penetration than predicted? Well, the answer should be obvious to anyone following this thread -- they tumbled.

One problem with tumbling bullets is that you can't necessarily count on them. As 35remington noted above, "The human body is variable enough that counting on a bullet to behave consistently is chancy at best." That's true enough. But remember, these 129 grain Hydra-Shoks aren't supposed to tumble. They're supposed to expand. It's the expansion that failed in this Lucky Gunner test. And tumbling saved the bullets from over-penetrating. Sure, tumbling may be chancy. But so, too, is hollow point expansion.

But OK... What about the desired 40 - 45 caliber expansion? All we have with the 129 grain Hydra-Shoks is the original .36 caliber bullet. What good is the penetration without the expansion?

In another thread about Webley revolvers I proposed the idea of "effective diameter" as a possible way to measure the performance of tumbling bullets. If a non-expanding bullet tumbles to a stop in the gel at the same distance as an equivalent expanding bullet, then maybe it makes sense to say that the "effective diameter" of the tumbling bullet is the same as the actual diameter of the expanded bullet.

A simple, if crude, way to get the "effective diameter" for the tumbling 129 grain Hydra-Shoks is just to try different values for the bullet diameter in the calculation above until the google calculator returns a predicted penetration of about 17".

That was easy... On my second try I entered 0.42 and google returned a predicted 16.9" of penetration. In other words, the non-expanding 129 grain Hydra-Shoks are tumbling to a stop in the gelatin at the same depth as if they had actually expanded to 42 caliber.

So, there we go... a premium JHP bullet from a reputable manufacturer with about 16" of penetration and an "effective" diameter of 40 - 45 caliber. What more could we ask for?

I know... We could ask for an actual expanded diameter. None of this "effective diameter" tumbling nonsense.

After all, it's the actual expanded diameter that determines the cross-sectional area of the bullet. And that cross-sectional area can then be multiplied by the penetration depth and some bullet shape parameter to determine the volume of the permanent wound cavity. That's the way both MacPherson and Schwartz do it. And from that they calculate "permanent wound mass" or something like that. And all those calculations depend on the actual expanded diameter of the bullet -- not some fictitious "effective diameter" for tumbling bullets.

But what if it turned out that permanent wound cavity and permanent wound mass had nothing to do with bullet diameter -- actual or "effective"?

OK... I'm ducking for cover. But bear with me.

It's not that the calculations are wrong. It's just that the calculations show that diameter has nothing to do with it. When we multiply the penetration depth times the cross-sectional area of the bullet to get the volume of the wound cavity "cylinder", the cross-sectional areas cancel out. That's because the penetration depth is inversely proportional to the cross-sectional area of the bullet and that area in the penetration denominator cancels out the same area in the volume numerator. As counter-intuitive as it might seem, bullet diameter doesn't really enter into the calculation of wound cavity and wound mass.

And, of course, if bullet diameter doesn't enter into the calculation, what difference does it make if it's an actual expanded diameter or an "effective" tumbling diameter?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that the wounding effect of an expanded JHP is pretty much the same as that of an equivalent tumbling bullet of the same "effective diameter," and that the only difference between the wounding effects is related to differences in bullet shape and may in fact be quite small.

[Michael J. Spangler]

OK... Here's a weird one:

Suppose we really want that .38 snubby bullet that 35remington mentioned above -- a bullet that expands to 40 - 45 caliber and penetrates to about 16" in ballistic gel. A quick look at the Lucky Gunner data shows the Federal 129 grain Hydra-Shok penetrating to an average of 16.7" from a 2" barrel. That's a premium JHP from a reputable manufacturer. Hydra-Shoks have been around for a while, and according to Marshall and Sanow, they've earned some street creds. A quick google search even showed that very same bullet listed as one of "The Top Five .38 Special Self-Defense Rounds" by gunsamerica.com.

Here's a little strip of a screenshot from the Lucky Gunner site that shows the data for that 129 grain Hydra-Shok from a snubby:

239908

Everything looks good until you look over to the right and see a bunch of unexpanded bullets with an average diameter of 0.35" . That probably should be 0.36", but still a long way from the 40 - 45 caliber expansion we were hoping for.

But how can a non-expanding, 129 grain, .38 caliber bullet at a velocity of 800 ft/s only penetrate about 17"? I would have expected much more. Here's a calculation based on the Schwartz "expedient equation."

800^0.725*129/7000/(.36/2)^2/3.14

If you copy and paste that mess into a google search, google will return a predicted 23" of penetration. Why did those bullets have much less penetration than predicted? Well, the answer should be obvious to anyone following this thread -- they tumbled.

One problem with tumbling bullets is that you can't necessarily count on them. As 35remington noted above, "The human body is variable enough that counting on a bullet to behave consistently is chancy at best." That's true enough. But remember, these 129 grain Hydra-Shoks aren't supposed to tumble. They're supposed to expand. It's the expansion that failed in this Lucky Gunner test. And tumbling saved the bullets from over-penetrating. Sure, tumbling may be chancy. But so, too, is hollow point expansion.

But OK... What about the desired 40 - 45 caliber expansion? All we have with the 129 grain Hydra-Shoks is the original .36 caliber bullet. What good is the penetration without the expansion?

In another thread about Webley revolvers I proposed the idea of "effective diameter" as a possible way to measure the performance of tumbling bullets. If a non-expanding bullet tumbles to a stop in the gel at the same distance as an equivalent expanding bullet, then maybe it makes sense to say that the "effective diameter" of the tumbling bullet is the same as the actual diameter of the expanded bullet.

A simple, if crude, way to get the "effective diameter" for the tumbling 129 grain Hydra-Shoks is just to try different values for the bullet diameter in the calculation above until the google calculator returns a predicted penetration of about 17".

That was easy... On my second try I entered 0.42 and google returned a predicted 16.9" of penetration. In other words, the non-expanding 129 grain Hydra-Shoks are tumbling to a stop in the gelatin at the same depth as if they had actually expanded to 42 caliber.

So, there we go... a premium JHP bullet from a reputable manufacturer with about 16" of penetration and an "effective" diameter of 40 - 45 caliber. What more could we ask for?

I know... We could ask for an actual expanded diameter. None of this "effective diameter" tumbling nonsense.

After all, it's the actual expanded diameter that determines the cross-sectional area of the bullet. And that cross-sectional area can then be multiplied by the penetration depth and some bullet shape parameter to determine the volume of the permanent wound cavity. That's the way both MacPherson and Schwartz do it. And from that they calculate "permanent wound mass" or something like that. And all those calculations depend on the actual expanded diameter of the bullet -- not some fictitious "effective diameter" for tumbling bullets.

But what if it turned out that permanent wound cavity and permanent wound mass had nothing to do with bullet diameter -- actual or "effective"?

OK... I'm ducking for cover. But bear with me.

It's not that the calculations are wrong. It's just that the calculations show that diameter has nothing to do with it. When we multiply the penetration depth times the cross-sectional area of the bullet to get the volume of the wound cavity "cylinder", the cross-sectional areas cancel out. That's because the penetration depth is inversely proportional to the cross-sectional area of the bullet and that area in the penetration denominator cancels out the same area in the volume numerator. As counter-intuitive as it might seem, bullet diameter doesn't really enter into the calculation of wound cavity and wound mass.

And, of course, if bullet diameter doesn't enter into the calculation, what difference does it make if it's an actual expanded diameter or an "effective" tumbling diameter?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that the wounding effect of an expanded JHP is pretty much the same as that of an equivalent tumbling bullet of the same "effective diameter," and that the only difference between the wounding effects is related to differences in bullet shape and may in fact be quite small.

I was following you till the last point. You lost me there. Maybe it’s too late. Maybe I’m the type guy that needs pictures.

I do like your idea of effective diameter though. Seems pretty legit. I’m sure there are tons of little variable going on while the bullet tumbles and how it penetrates inevery given position.
Though we know that a give bullet design penetrates day 28” unexpanded and 14” expanded and can predict penetration depending on how large a diameter that bullet expanded. So why not work it backwards for the effective diameter. Makes sense.

[35remington]

I am not sure that things “cancel out” when it is kept in mind that this is in conjunction with a desired 12-18.” A bullet penetrating well past that mark does not get to take advantage of diameter times depth past that point.

Shallow turnip shaped cavities well less than 12 inches are rejected, so that narrows the field as well. Underpenetrating rounds don’t get to cancel either.

The “wound track” visible in gel at handgun velocities has been condemned as misleading because there is no fibrous or connective tissue holding it together, so the disturbed gelatin left after the shot is known to considerably overstate wound volume at handgun velocities.

Diameter times depth may in some ways be a more realistic representation....the pessimist’s view, if you will. This is of course more relevant for bullets that did not tumble.

Yes, there are flaws with multiplying frontal area times depth, as it does not account for differences in velocity along the wound track. Of course higher velocity has more potential to damage some tissue like bone, and a fat expanded bullet at the end of its travel may lodge against a bone instead of breaking it.

But it is no worse than and in some cases may be better than being overly bemused by the track through the gelatin left by a handgun bullet.

Since tumbling is unreliable some, including some posters here, prefer frontal area as the thing to have whether by a wide flat point or crossing their fingers and hoping the bullet works as intended. In terms of consistency if good choices are made in bullet selection something more reliable than a tumbling bullet may be had in terms of producing wound volume.

For that matter a more consistently tumbling bullet could be engineered as well, but there seems to be little enthusiasm for that given the potential of other bullet designs.

[35remington]

A small increase in bullet diameter of a hollowpoint tending toward a blunted shape like a puckered front end or resembling a wadcutter rather than classically expanded SWCHP still attenuates penetration at 38 snubby velocities but not so much as to be underpenetrative.

Given a choice between a HP that penetrates 17 inches and blunts the front end versus another that expands widely and does 11 inches I tend to prefer the former.

[35remington]

And if penetration is the only thing we can measure accurately, and it kinda is, all the rest of the information is less useful in making our choice by some degree.

I think we all know that but we like to debate about what we don’t know for sure. Because it is arguable rather than reliable, but we try to interpret if it means something anyway.

The human creature will find a way to while away their free time.

[tazman]

Back in my younger days, I used to spend quite a bit of time in gun shops talking to police officers, both active and retired. This was about 1975 through about 1985. The semi -auto conversion hadn't really taken over yet.
Lots of opinions were presented about what ammunition they preferred to use in their duty guns. Many of the departments required the officers to carry round nose bullets. Some let them carry and use what they wanted.
Nearly all(80% plus) wanted to carry either SWC or a full wadcutter. They claimed it was more effective and caused more blood loss and shock because it tended to cut through tissue rather than bruising it's way through.
This was long before the new developments in hollow point ammunition. Things have changed but those old boolit designs are still effective and will do the job when put in the right spot.
I have to think that a tumbling bullet or even a nice mushroom will probably do more of a bruising/crushing of the tissue rather than cutting it's way through.
Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, I have no experience on which to base this except the opinions of old time officers.

[35remington]

The effects of a blunt flat nose or expanding bullet that expands at pistol velocities sure seems noticeable versus a stable round nosed shape, at least on the shots of opportunity and the hunting of game I have done with the various types.

I have been too doubtful of the expected results to give roundnose bullets a legitimate try on anything but small game but have noticed some lack of effect of roundnosed bullets as the small game got larger. The blunt and expanding types do better there.

On deer with handguns I have used only hollowpoints or in cast only flatpoints or generous meplat SWC’s. Hopefully that type of shooting with pistols is the only flesh and blood type testing I will ever do.

[pettypace]

I was following you till the last point. You lost me there. Maybe it’s too late. Maybe I’m the type guy that needs pictures.


Mike: By "last point" I assume you mean the idea that permanent wound cavity and permanent wound mass do not really depend on bullet diameter.

I know I didn't do a very good job of explaining that. And it's so counter-intuitive that it really needs a better explanation. The explanation is based on simple algebra. But this text editor is not designed for displaying mathematical symbols or manipulating equations. So I'm gonna try first to upload some images of the hand-written equations and then come back to "edit" in some explanation.

OK. The image upload worked better than I expected. Now to add some explanation below each equation:

239944

The equation above is the Schwartz "expedient equation" for penetration. We've seen and used it before as a calculation that can be pasted into a google search. This is the same thing."P" is the inches of predicted penetration in gelatin. "V" is bullet velocity. "W" is bullet weight. "A" is the bullet cross-sectional area. And the "alpha" exponent over the "V" is a number that depends on the shape of the bullet.

239945

The equation above is the Schwartz "expedient equation" for wound mass. "M" is the wound mass. "P" is the penetration calculated from the first equation. "A" is the bullet cross-sectional area. The funny little "p" thingy, rho, is the density of human tissue. And the "I" with the circle, phi, is another bullet shape parameter.

This is more or less the form of the equation found in Quantitative Ammunition Selection. For some reason, Schwartz never made the simplification shown in the two equations below. Even in his solution of example problems, he laboriously carries out unnecessary calculations which could have been much simpler if only he had taken the next two steps.

239946

In the equation above, I've simply substituted the value of "P" from the first equation (the stuff in parentheses) for the symbol "P" in the second equation. This should make it clear that there's an "A" on the bottom that can cancel with the "A" on the top. I've drawn a blue line through those two "A"s to show that they should cancel out.

239947

This last equation is the Schwartz "expedient equation" for wound mass in its simplest form. And the important thing to note is that because the bullet cross-sectional area canceled, there's nothing left in the equation related to bullet diameter. In other words, you can calculate the predicted wound mass if you know the velocity and weight of the bullet, a couple of bullet shape parameters that are determined empirically, and the density of the target tissue.

[Michael J. Spangler]

That’s pretty interesting.
I haven’t done any serious math in about 20 years (no need in my line of work) I’m sure you’ve tested all the numbers in the long for of the equation vs the simplified.
It does seem very counter intuitive to not use bullet diameter to find wound mass.
I’ll have to run the formulas later to make my brain understand.
Heck of a job chasing this info down and working it out. I wish the IWBA were still around so you could send in some articles and questions.

[Good Cheer]

Best combo I've found is real soft boolits with big hollows, gas checks and heavy enough to make two holes.
If shooting a bangety-bang-bang gun be sure and use a nose configuration that feeds reliably with your load.

[pettypace]

It does seem very counter intuitive to not use bullet diameter to find wound mass.


Yes, it certainly is counter-intuitive. When I first noticed the "cancelling" I had trouble believing it wasn't just some quirk of the way Schwartz was calculating predicted penetration. But it's beginning to make sense to me now.

Of course, I can't be the first person to notice that permanent wound cavity does not depend on bullet diameter. But many far more experienced and knowledgeable than I seem to have missed it. For example, I was just reading a blurb by DOCGKR on lightfighter.net. Here's a quote:


A penetrating projectile physically crushes and destroys tissue as it cuts its path through the body. The space occupied by this pulped and disintegrated tissue is referred to as the permanent cavity. The permanent cavity, or wound track, is quite simply the hole bored by the projectile's passage. Obviously, bullets of greater diameter crush more tissue, forming a larger permanent cavity. The formation of this permanent cavity is consistent and reliable.

I've highlighted the mistaken belief. It's obvious but untrue. I suppose that's not a bad definition of "counter-intuitive."

What if DOCGKR had written "All other things being equal..." instead of "Obviously..." That wouldn't have made the statement any more true, but it might have pointed to the problem. In the case of permanent wound cavity, you can't increase the bullet diameter and keep "all other things" -- velocity AND bullet weight AND penetration -- equal. And if you manage to keep any two of those three equal, the third will have to change. And it will be that change, as much as the change in bullet diameter, that effects the permanent wound cavity.

Here's a simple example: Suppose we shoot a 200 grain .36 caliber wadcutter at, say, 500 ft/s into a long brick of ballistic gel. We'd expect that long-for-caliber bullet to punch a long, straight hole into the gel.

Now, change just the bullet diameter: Imagine shooting a .45 caliber, 200 grain wadcutter at the same 500 ft/s. We certainly wouldn't expect that stubby little short-for-caliber bullet to penetrate as far as the .36 caliber bullet.

As far as wound cavity goes, the extra depth of the .36 cavity will exactly compensate for the extra diameter of the .45. So, weight and velocity determined the volume of the permanent cavity and the change in diameter had no effect.

[Michael J. Spangler]

Great write up.
That makes so much sense written out that way. I never sat back down with the formulas but I’m guessing I did what everyone else did and assumed the greater diameter bullet would also have a heavier weight.
As you stated above that won’t get you anywhere. We all know that a larger diameter will slow down quicker. You don’t see it written up much in self defense ammo but with hunting bullets the term sectional densitity it used a lot.
This goes to show that the sectional densitity is inportant even with subtle changes in diameter. Give that all other variables are the same.
The 200 grain 38 expanded to full diameter will roughy penetrate what a 200 grain 45 wadcutter will. It’s just pre expanded.
Wow I love this thread.
Paul Harrel on YouTube does some great comparisons of different cartridges and he always runs as close a bullet weight as possible from one to the other to make it as fair as possible.
His test though some people may not think they’re as scientific as gel are always consistent and give a good baseline for comparison. His results show exactly what you stated above. A 200 grain 40 and a 200 grain 45 will behave very close to each other. Same goes for 9mm vs 380 and 9mm vs 38 etc.
the benefit of the larger caliber comes from its ability to run a heavier bullet. Give that it’s offproper construction and velocity to meet the criteria for penetration

Great thread. Seriously. Happy to be part of the discussion.

[35remington]

Do reply to the following comment:

If the extra depth of the small diameter bullet penetrates beyond what is desired and the larger diameter bullet does not, how does one compensate for the other? Remember we are dealing with a maximum desired penetration figure....”a do not exceed.”

[onelight]

[QUOTE

As far as wound cavity goes, the extra depth of the .36 cavity will exactly compensate for the extra diameter of the .45. So, weight and velocity determined the volume of the permanent cavity and the change in diameter had no effect.[/QUOTE]

This would only be true in a target with enough mass to contain both bullets.

[Michael J. Spangler]

I think what everyone is missing is pettypace is stating that if the only variable was bullet diameter then all else is a wash.

Same weight. Same velocity. Remember that

[35remington]

But in actual practice penetration depth is a variable. He alluded to that in his example of a smaller diameter deeper penetrating bullet. Thus my reference to a do not exceed depth.

[Michael J. Spangler]

Penetrations is a result of the change of the inputs of weight, velocity and shape.
The formula he is using show penetration as a result and if you changed the diameter of the bullet and nothing else that the resulting penetration is a wash.
The fatter bullet penetrating less.
.5” diameter 14” deep has the same volume as a 1” diameter 7” deep.

I think I get what you’re saying
That being said no we can’t rely on a 25 caliber penetrating 28” deep also that we can’t rely on a 2” diameter penetrating 3.5” deep.
Give that we are dealing with a human torso as the intended target.
The 25 caliber has over penetration and the 2” bore has some serious tissue crush and could possibly lead to incapacitation due to blood loss eventually but without hitting the actual off switch CNS then it’s no good for what we want to do.

[Michael J. Spangler]

Need to check your math.

.5” diameter 15” deep has the same volume as a 1” diameter 7” deep.


Yeah typing too fast. You get the point.
Ramp the variables to the extreme and you can see that even though the volume is a wash it I can run us into an undesirable result.

[Good Cheer]

It's easy.

240091

[pettypace]

I am not sure that things “cancel out” when it is kept in mind that this is in conjunction with a desired 12-18.” A bullet penetrating well past that mark does not get to take advantage of diameter times depth past that point.


For the discussion of permanent cavity volume or or wound mass, the only things that "cancel out" are terms in an equation. More specifically, when the Schwartz "expedient equation" for penetration is substituted into the Schwartz "expedient equation" for wound mass, the cross-sectional area of the bullet cancels out. This leaves us with the result that wound mass (or permanent cavity volume) can be calculated knowing only the bullet velocity, bullet weight, and a couple bullet shape parameters determined empirically. The counter-intuitive part is that bullet diameter need not enter into the calculation.

But these equations are just mathematical models -- tools to help us better understand certain problems. The tool itself doesn't know anything about our desired 12-18" of penetration. It's up to the user of the tool to worry about that.

Personally, I'm not convinced that the whole idea of permanent wound cavity, wound mass, and "wound trauma incapacitation" is of much practical value. But that's a discussion probably better left to another thread.

[onelight]

For the discussion of permanent cavity volume or or wound mass, the only things that "cancel out" are terms in an equation. More specifically, when the Schwartz "expedient equation" for penetration is substituted into the Schwartz "expedient equation" for for wound mass, the cross-sectional area of the bullet cancels out. This leaves us with the result that wound mass (or permanent cavity volume) can be calculated knowing only the bullet velocity, bullet weight, and a couple bullet shape parameters determined empirically. The counter-intuitive part is that bullet diameter need not enter into the calculation.

But these equations are just mathematical models -- tools to help us better understand certain problems. The tool itself doesn't know anything about our desired 12-18" of penetration. It's up to the user of the tool to worry about that.

Personally, I'm not convinced that the whole idea of permanent wound cavity, wound mass, and "wound trauma incapacitation" is of much practical value. But that's a discussion probably better left to another thread.
I was trying to see a practical application for this in a combat handgun which is difficult because of the limitations of the target. If I was trying to decide if should hunt elephants with my 45-70 with a 300 grain bullet at 2500 FPS or use my 375 H&H 300 grain at 2500 same energy but the extra feet of penetration from the 375 would be good on an elephant.

[pettypace]

Do reply to the following comment:

If the extra depth of the small diameter bullet penetrates beyond what is desired and the larger diameter bullet does not, how does one compensate for the other? Remember we are dealing with a maximum desired penetration figure....”a do not exceed.”

OK. But there's the other side of that coin. What if the bigger diameter bullet under-penetrates and never reaches the "do not fail to exceed" depth?

Given the choice, I'd take the smaller diameter, over-penetrating bullet (with some wound cavity on the far side of the FBI wheelhouse) over the larger diameter under-penetrating bullet (with all its wound cavity short of the wheelhouse).

[Boogieman]

[QUOTE=44MAG#1;4628174]Need to check your math.

.5” diameter 15” deep has the same volume as a 1” diameter 7” deep.??
.V= r x r x 3.1428 x depth

.5" diameter 15" deep=2.94 cu.in. 1" diameter 7" deep = 5.49 cu. in.

[Michael J. Spangler]

[QUOTE=44MAG#1;4628174]Need to check your math.

.5” diameter 15” deep has the same volume as a 1” diameter 7” deep.??
.V= r x r x 3.1428 x depth

.5" diameter 15" deep=2.94 cu.in. 1" diameter 7" deep = 5.49 cu. in.


Yeah I went back to re type that.
I understand doubling the diameter of a circle increases the area by more than double so of course the volume would be more.
I was just trying to use simple numbers to make a point.
Increasing diameter decreases penetration. So it’s a wash as stated by the formula pettypace showed before.
I wasn’t about to do the math out to find exact diameters to match up.

[35remington]

The thing to remember is that most of the effort spent in trying to make handgun projectiles more effective for defensive use has revolved around changing their diameter to something larger after they strike their flesh and blood target. There are other ways to increase the drag on a projectile, including using lighter weight nondeforming bullets of non conventional shape, but making their diameter bigger is where most of the effort has been expanded. So diameter counts for something.

Doubling the diameter of a circle increases its area close to four times. If you need to put the brakes on a bullet to prevent it from going in too deeply increasing the diameter through expansion surely works, but we learned long ago that can be carried too far.

[pettypace]

Here's a chart from MacPherson's Bullet Penetration book. The numbers represent "Wound Trauma Incapacitation Mass" which is just another way of saying "grams of crushed tissue."

MacPherson handles the penetration problem that we've been bouncing back and forth by doing the calculation for a fixed depth of penetration -- 14" if I remember right. In the chart, the only exception is for the underpenetrating JHPs where the calculation is done at 12" and 10".

240165

The chart clearly shows the point that 35remington has been making -- that for a fixed depth of penetration the bigger diameter bullet crushes more tissue.

[Michael J. Spangler]

The thing to remember is that most of the effort spent in trying to make handgun projectiles more effective for defensive use has revolved around changing their diameter to something larger after they strike their flesh and blood target. There are other ways to increase the drag on a projectile, including using lighter weight nondeforming bullets of non conventional shape, but making their diameter bigger is where most of the effort has been expanded. So diameter counts for something.

Doubling the diameter of a circle increases its area close to four times. If you need to put the brakes on a bullet to prevent it from going in too deeply increasing the diameter through expansion surely works, but we learned long ago that can be carried too far.
Agreed.


Here's a chart from MacPherson's Bullet Penetration book. The numbers represent "Wound Trauma Incapacitation Mass" which is just another way of saying "grams of crushed tissue."

MacPherson handles the penetration problem that we've been bouncing back and forth by doing the calculation for a fixed depth of penetration -- 14" if I remember right. In the chart, the only exception is for the underpenetrating JHPs where the calculation is done at 12" and 10".

240165

The chart clearly shows the point that 35remington has been making -- that for a fixed depth of penetration the bigger diameter bullet crushes more tissue.


So if you had 2 of the 100 grain wadcutters that went full depth you would have some serious volume of crush.
That being said holy **** would 2-45 cal wadcutters stacked in a 45 colt do some damage.
I think I still have some .460” wadcutters around 240 grains hanging around in the bench.
I need to load 2 of those in a 45/70 case for giggles.

[pettypace]

240165

So if you had 2 of the 100 grain wadcutters that went full depth you would have some serious volume of crush.
That being said holy **** would 2-45 cal wadcutters stacked in a 45 colt do some damage.
I think I still have some .460” wadcutters around 240 grains hanging around in the bench.
I need to load 2 of those in a 45/70 case for giggles.

Looks like the "tumblers" thread has morphed into the "two-projectile" thread: http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?379046-Two-Projectile-Loads-in-Snubby-for-Self-Defense/page5

But, yes! Two .36 caliber, 100 grain wadcutters at 800 ft/s should penetrate about 14" in bare gel, be in the same league as the big bore JHPs for tissue crush, and (the real bonus) have a much better chance on the Fitz Luck Target.

I'm anxious to see how the accuracy of the two WCs in the 45/70 holds up at, say, 50 and 100 yards.

[Rodfac]

Outpost75, how does that 36-159H bullet (Accurate mold right?) perform in 357 brass? Powder? Alloy? Lube? What kind of accuracy are you getting at 25 to 50 yds?

I like the look and have been interested in finding something other than a 358156 without the GC for low to medium velocity .38 Spl and .357 loadings. I'm primarily working with a pair of M19 Smiths and a M66, tho if the loads are not to high, a M60 Smith with a 3" bbl. Thanx in advance, Rod

[Outpost75]

Outpost75, how does that 36-159H bullet (Accurate mold right?) perform in 357 brass? Powder? Rod

Yes, Accurate mold in the online catalog. My design for S&W Model 10 and Colt Official Police. With its .385" head length ctg. OAL is 1.675" in .357 brass and 1.540" in .38 Special brass, when crimped in the crimp groove. So will not fit in a short-cylinder S&W Model 27 or 28, but will in modern L-frames and Rugers having longer cylinders. Feeds fine in Marlin 1894. I load 14.5 grains of Alliant #2400 or 16 grs. of IMR4227 in .357 brass, 3.5 grains of Bullseye, 4 grains of 452AA or WST, or 5 grains of Unique or AutoComp in the .38 Special.

[9.3X62AL]

Late to this party--sorry about that.

I no longer carry a 38 Special for felon repellent. If I did, I would select one of the factory 158 grain LSWC/HP +P loads and call it "Good". These are easily duplicated by reloaders to create practice ammo for, which is a BIG factor in my ammo selection equation. If I'm carrying it, I shoot it A LOT. I can't afford to water my houseplants with Dom Perignon, so I can't afford factory ammo to practice with at the rates I go through it.

I am not a scientist, and really have no idea how or why bullets work or don't work. I CAN observe results, and remain objective about those results.

1) I have yet to see a bullet strike improve anyone's or anything's overall health or welfare.

2) IME, the larger-diameter, heavier, and faster-moving bullets do a progressively better job of interrupting armed nonsense as those three listed factors are increased, and a progressively less effective job as they recede. Even illiterate fur trappers with Hawken front-loaders knew this, and the Thompson-LaGarde tests gave some data to quantify that belief that Gen. Hatcher was able to distill into his Index of Relative Stopping Power. I like IRSP as a predictive tool, because A) its results closely parallel those seen in The Real World, and 2) all of the formulae used to predict wounding outcomes use one of the three bullet values (weight, velocity, or diameter) and "square it". IRSP uses "mass" in place of "weight", which is a far more accurate rendering of the physics at play in this venue--and the factor that gets squared (diameter) is squared in the real world as it expands or recedes.

I want as much of all three factors as I can get in my carry sidearm's ammo. My carry calibers are 357 Magnum, 40 S&W, 10mm, and 45 ACP.

[Rodfac]

THX Outpost, just what I needed. I'll order up one of those molds (have been impressed with their quality in the past).

Good post 9.3, I share your thoughts on Hatcher's index. I've spent many a pleasant winter evening, my Lab warming my feet by the fire, re-reading his "Notebook". A cpl years ago, I got the chance to see and handle for a brief minute, his 03 Springfield chambered in .45 ACP up at the Armory...beautiful rifle, and lays to rest any questions about the .45's inherent accuracy...Nixon closed the doors on that repository of American small arms expertise after the '72 elections (Mass was the only state to go to McGovern)...closing the Armory was an unforgivable act in my estimation.

Best regards, Rod

[pettypace]

I agree that there's much to be learned from Hatcher and I've had his Textbook, usually open, on my workbench for the past six months.

But if I restate the question from my original post in this thread...


For the purpose of civilian self-defense with a handgun, let's say with a snub-nose revolver, does anyone see any practical difference between a bullet that expands and a bullet that "tumbles" -- assuming that both bullets penetrate into the FBI 12" - 18" standard?


...I'd guess that Hatcher would caution against basing an answer on his relative stopping power formula: "This method is not fully applicable to rifle bullets because their stopping power often depends largely on "yaw" and the consequent tipping or upsetting of the bullet on impact." (TP&R, p 434.)

[RJM52]

Want a snubbie load that will both expand and penetrate...here is the bullet...the original Hydra-Shok Corp. Scorpion bullet....

Pushed to 900 fps the HP expands very rapidly, sluffs off and the base keeps going... I tested these back in the 1980s and the bullet would blow up the first two 1 quart paper oil cans and then penetrate four more... Unfortunately when Federal bought HS they dropped this bullet from the lineup....

241393

241394

241395

HS also had an all lead and a jacked 158 HPs for .38s and .357s...they would do the same thing...

241396


As to the 158 +P FBI load...I have no faith in it from seeing what it has done in real gun fights...not Jello testing. One friend shot a guy in the neck with a Model 60 2" and the bullet stuck there...that is not the kind of penetration that one sees in Jello... And after being shot the guy ran off and and had a knock down drag out fight with the officer until being shot again this time with a .45 Colt...that ended the fight...

Bob

[35remington]

Are you saying the “FBI load” when fired from a snubby did not pierce a guy’s neck?

If so, I will have to express my skepticism.

[Outpost75]

I would call ** on that too judging from my experience using the load for neck shots on deer.

[RJM52]

Happened... Dallas PD...

Francisco Riverra...right about 1981/2... He was in Traffic and just happened to be near a burglar alarm call in the NW Division where he had worked in Patrol....

In the first fight he lost his 6" 25-5 to the BG and as he turned and ran the BG shot at him. Francisco turned and fired with the BUG and hit the guy in the neck just as he was about to touch off round II. Guy dropped then gun and ran. Francisco grabbed his gun, reholstered it as he ran and caught up to the guy again...guy again tried to take the 25-5 but this time Francisco gave him the muzzle end first... Took out the guys spleen and a hole through the kidney which knocked the fight out of him...and recovered enough to fight the para-medics on the way to the hospital...

City issue 158 +P was found in the guys neck...

[Michael J. Spangler]

Want a snubbie load that will both expand and penetrate...here is the bullet...the original Hydra-Shok Corp. Scorpion bullet....

Pushed to 900 fps the HP expands very rapidly, sluffs off and the base keeps going... I tested these back in the 1980s and the bullet would blow up the first two 1 quart paper oil cans and then penetrate four more... Unfortunately when Federal bought HS they dropped this bullet from the lineup....

241393

241394

241395

HS also had an all lead and a jacked 158 HPs for .38s and .357s...they would do the same thing...

241396


As to the 158 +P FBI load...I have no faith in it from seeing what it has done in real gun fights...not Jello testing. One friend shot a guy in the neck with a Model 60 2" and the bullet stuck there...that is not the kind of penetration that one sees in Jello... And after being shot the guy ran off and and had a knock down drag out fight with the officer until being shot again this time with a .45 Colt...that ended the fight...

Bob



I like the all lead hollow point. Do you have more pics of that? Super cool looking. I have a few of the old factory wadcutter hydra shocks.

[35remington]

Through substantial use in many shootings when fired through short barrels, the FBI load has been documented to effectively penetarate on human recipients.

That is why it lasted until it was supplanted by autoloaders. That is persuasive, more so than anything else that possibly could be said. When claims are made contrary to that they stand out and rightly draw scrutiny. Something appears to be missing here that does not add up. A heavy for caliber 38 bullet penetrates decently. The load’s qualifications in that regard are extremely well established.

In my own use I have found no indication it is underpenetrative and it does better than many alternatives in that regard. I use it with confidence in its capability.

If any bullet was found likely it was on the far side of the neck. I would not believe a claim it was on the near side. That is a placement problem not a penetration problem.

[35remington]

From a snubby I find the load mentioned rumples the nose a bit but retains good length enabling it to penetrate well. Outpost mentions neck shooting deer with it and I would guess he would state it severs the neck vertebrae very effectively.

[Outpost75]

From a snubby I find the load mentioned rumples the nose a bit but retains good length enabling it to penetrate well. Outpost mentions neck shooting deer with it and I would guess he would state it severs the neck vertebrae very effectively.

Correct. I used the Winchester loading X38SPD.

Remington R38S12 is of more fragile construction, maybe better for snubs, but might fail on a neck shot.

Federal 38G used harder lead, expansion often failed in short barrels, but penetration good.

241477
241479

[35remington]

I most commonly find and use the Winchester brand myself as that is what is most commonly locally available, found at GU in Omaha Nebraska. Not cheap anymore, but can be had.

[Wayne Dobbs]

Dallas PD shot and killed DOZENS of crooks with the Winchester and Remington 158 LHP loads and unless there was a glass or steel barrier, adequate penetration was not an issue. There were at least two officers in that era, "Red" Barber and M. D. "Mad Dog" Cosby that had over six fatal OIS's each with the issued 4" Model 64 (Cosby) or Model 10 (Barber) using this load. I'd say it worked well (and still does).

[35remington]

The price tag locally is a bit shocking, over 40 bucks for a fifty round box, but this is actually less per round than the boutique ammo with lurid sounding names packed twenty to the box.

I need to source a cheaper supplier and lay in some for the future.

[35remington]

Well, we have the Federal here for much less

https://www.luckygunner.com/38-special-p-158-gr-lswchp-federal-le-50-rounds

The Winchester for somewhat better than what I was paying:

https://www.luckygunner.com/38-special-p-158-grain-lead-semi-wadcutter-hp-winchester-super-x-50-rounds

I suppose the shipping costs will kill any savings obtained.

[Jtarm]

My experiments with reversed hollow-based wadcutters resulted in most of them tumbling, leaving funny-lookin' holes in the targets at 25 yards.:shock: I much prefer 148-150 gr. full wadcutters, loaded to 7-850 fps. The full-caliber meplat of the wadcutters is very effective, and recoil is lessened, with 150-160 gr.semi-wadcutters and RNFP boolits my next favorites, loaded to 850-900 fps. YMMV.;)

+1 on the full wadcutter.

They not only cut a consistent full caliber hole, they penetrate deeply (but not over) in a consistent, straight line. What’s more is they usually shoot to point of aim in FS revolvers.

I attended the Revolver Roundup with Hardwired Tactical last fall which included a live gelatin test from snubs.

The only .38 HPs that expanded were both Buffalo Bore. One was the Barnes 110 lead free +P (below) and the 158 LSWCHP +P. Both penetrated over 16” after passing through 4 layers of denim. Both expanded to about the same diameter.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190515/37d3f9eb451f1b654d43001fa2384014.jpg

The Speer GDHP plugged, but did a 180 yaw and penetrated 18”.

[Michael J. Spangler]

241775

MP 148 hollow base wadcutter cast of some relatively rich alloy at a buddy’s house.
Loaded backwards of course over a small charge of Clays.

Shot into clear ballistics gel from a S&W 642 pro series.

Promising.
Sorry for the thread drift.

[RJM52]

I like the all lead hollow point. Do you have more pics of that? Super cool looking. I have a few of the old factory wadcutter hydra shocks.

Not right now but will see what I can do...Bob

[Michael J. Spangler]

Awesome thank you

[pettypace]

After seeing those pictures of hollow point bullets, I thought we should have at least one picture of a "Poor Man's Hollow Point." How about this guy?

242057

I know it doesn't look like much. But at last week's Snubbyfest a buddy shot this from his snubby into some re-fried Clear Ballistic gel. The bullet penetrated to 13", came to rest pointing south in a northbound lane, and left behind a torn up region in the gel about the size and shape of a small sunfish.

242059

Unfortunately, when I asked my buddy to shoot a few more for effect, he said, "No can do." It seems that bullet was the one oddball in a store bought box of 500 truncated cone Luger bullets. So I don't know if the gymnastics this guy performed would be reliably repeated by others like it or not.

About all I do know is that the bullet weighs about 143 grains and that it was loaded over 4.5 grains of Unique. So, I would guess that the velocity from a 2" barrel might be close to 700 ft/s. From that, the Schwartz equation predicts just over 22" of penetration. If the concept of "effective diameter" for a tumbling bullet makes any sense, then this bullet had an effective diameter of about .48 caliber.

My guess is that if a 143 grain bullet fired from a .38 snubby at about 700 ft/s comes to rest after penetrating 13" of soft tissue, it doesn't matter a whit if it was slowed to a stop by hollow point expansion or by "tumbling."

Of course, I can't prove that guess. But the first step in trying would be to find some reliable tumblers. Of course, I don't mean bullets that tumble on their way to the target and hit sideways -- if at all. What I'd like to find is a good, accurate bullet, preferably with some weight behind it, that would begin to yaw soon after entering the gel, tumble to a stop after maybe 15" to 17", and leave the gel looking like a mouse had chewed its way through it.

[35remington]

4.7 of Unique with a 158 cast gets about 810 fps in a Smith 638, at least when the powder is rearward in the case. I would guess around 770-780 for the combo above with powder rearward.

[pettypace]

It's been awhile... But I haven't stopped looking for a reliable "tumbler" for close quarters civilian self-defense. An interesting candidate showed up at last week's Snubbyfest. It was a 130 grain .40 caliber projectile of unknown velocity but surprisingly mild recoil that did a 180 degree flip while penetrating 14.5" of Clear Ballistic gel. Here's a picture of the recovered bullet:

248995

Unfortunately, we didn't get to test more than one shot in the gelatin as the owner of the firearm, an original Remington double derringer in .41 rimfire, only brought eight rounds with him and it took me three shots at very close range, just to get one into the 5" x 5" face of the gel block.

OK, maybe a double derringer in .41 rimfire isn't the ultimate self defense gun. But my two JHP "calibration" rounds -- a 90 grain Hornady Critical Defense Lite and a 110 grain Silvertip fired from a S&W snubby -- only penetrated 10" and 8" in the same gel. By comparison they made the old Remington derringer look pretty formidable.

[Rich/WIS]

After WWI the Brits switched from the 455 to the 38 S&W with a 200 grain bullet at about 700fps. They decided that it was as effective as the 455 and its use during WWII proved them right. The bullet at that weight and velocity was unstable and tumbled. Believe I read this in one of Barnes' Cartridges of the World. Only serious handgun I own is SA 1911A1 Range Officer and all I shoot is 190 grain SWC at about 725-750 fps, and in an emergency guess it will have to make do.

[tazman]

I can't think that a properly placed 190 grain slug moving at 750fps would fail to do the job.

[rintinglen]

After WWI the Brits switched from the 455 to the 38 S&W with a 200 grain bullet at about 700fps. They decided that it was as effective as the 455 and its use during WWII proved them right. The bullet at that weight and velocity was unstable and tumbled. Believe I read this in one of Barnes' Cartridges of the World. Only serious handgun I own is SA 1911A1 Range Officer and all I shoot is 190 grain SWC at about 725-750 fps, and in an emergency guess it will have to make do.

This one of the myths that keeps getting recycled and ought to be put to rest. The British may have believed that a 200 grain bullet at 700 fps might be the same, but the reality was that first, the heavy bullet 38 ran closer to 600 fps than 700, and it did not work particularly well. I formerly had the acquaintance of an expatriate South African Police officer who had nothing but contempt for the 38 Revolver, Mk I. He recounted an adventure wherein a heavy leather coat sufficed to prevent death or serious injury to the malefactor, while in another encounter, a burglar shot five times out ran the two police officers trying to capture him.

[Piedmont]

The 200 gr. .38 S&W load wasn't even standard issue by the time WWII rolled around. Britain had gone to a 178 gr. pointier round nose jacketed round. Whether it was effective I would sure like to know but haven't found anything I consider reliable saying it was.

[35remington]

Louisiana Man, a member here, went to some lengths proving that heavy clothing was not at all an impediment to a 200 grain 38 moving at 600 fps. Its level of effectiveness may be debatable compared to alternatives but penetration on heavily clothed people was not an issue.

Suggest doing a search.

[35remington]

Here ya go.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?75914-38-S-amp-W-penetration-test-200g-bullets

[Old School Big Bore]

I guess I've spent too much time on Farce-Bukk because every time I read a post by Outpost75 or 9.3X62AL, I catch myself looking for a 'like' button...
Sorry for the divergence from the OP but in reference to two-boolit loads: In my own tandem-boolit loading, mostly 44s, after being influenced by Grennell and Nonte, I used some Speer swaged .433 balls run through a .429 sizer with a WC top punch, which gave them a fairly wide 'belt' around their middles and slightly flattened tops & bottoms. I put a little disc of lube between them. Then I found a Lee single cavity 44-120-WC mould and stacked two of those.
That idea won me a lot of bets until the other guys caught on. The jerks who were the Department 'range guys' were in the habit of suckering new officers into betting a case of beer on their qual scores and although they didn't manage to sting me, I despised the way they took advantage of most of the rookies and decided they needed a comeuppance. One of them had a compact Beretta 92, and all his magazines were 10-rounders. I bet him five cases of beer that my M29 could put a total of 12 holes in two edge-to-edge B27s at ten yards before his 92. He jumped on it. We set up 4 B27s and had his buddy call the fire. When I was getting set up, I put six empties in an HKS speedloader in a pouch. When we got the whistle, I put three of my doubles in the left silhouette, lowered the 29 for two seconds, put the other three in the right silhouette, and ejected my empties and the six extras at my feet. I expected to hear, hey you only shot six times, but the 9mm firing disguised my shots. I was ready to claim each shot was a double tap. The hotshot was loading his second magazine when I reholstered and raised my hands. They came and looked at my pile of brass and empty speedloader on the ground, shrugged and the next day I had five cases of beer. I gave it all to several of the rookies they had suckered.
That double 120 at about 1200 was in my estimation the equivalent of a double-tap of pre-expanded 9mm 120 grain boolits. I still have the mould and 100 of its boolits lubed and ready to load, and two boxes loaded, single boolits over 4.0/red dot in .44 SPL brass. I think I'll see how the new-to-me 624 likes 'em.

[pettypace]

Here's one that seems to be a pretty reliable tumbler:

249246

This block of gelatin was actually the second of two ammo can size blocks. So these five slugs had already penetrated 11" of gel before entering this block from the left. The actual penetrations were something like 12", 13", 14", 14", and 16". All five bullets tumbled. That is, they did a 180 degree flip ending up base forward.

The bullets are about 207 grains, hard cast from a SAECO mould, seated just deep enough to clear the barrel, over an adequate charge of Herco, and fired from a 4" .38 S&W Regulation Police revolver. I didn't have a chronograph at the time, but I would guess the velocity was close to 600 ft/s -- about the same as the Webley 38/200 or the original .38 S&W Super Police load.

It's worth considering what, if anything, the "tumbling" might actually contribute to the bullet's effectiveness for civilian self defense. First, even at a lazy 600 ft/s, a 207 grain .36 caliber projectile that flies point on would likely penetrate close to 30" of 10% ballistic gel. In that case, it would probably be just about as effective as any other over-penetrating .36 caliber projectile, say 9mm hardball. But apparently the tumbling takes a lot of the steam out of a bullet and transfers it to the target.

That makes sense. It takes some time and distance in the gel for that long bullet to do its 180 degree flip. And during that time and over that distance, the bullet presents a much bigger cross-sectional area to the gel. It's as though the bullet actually had a bigger "effective diameter" than .36 caliber. But how much bigger? We can use the "expedient equation" (from Quantitative Ammunition Selection by Charles Schwartz) to estimate this "effective diameter."

Here's the Schwartz calculation for the penetration of a 207 grain .36 caliber truncated cone at 600 ft/s:

600^0.72*207/7000/(0.36/2)^2/3.14

If you cut and paste that mess of numbers and symbols into a google search, google will return an answer of just over 29 inches of penetration. (As near as I can interpolate, this agrees almost exactly with the graph for truncated cone penetration in Duncan MacPherson's book Bullet Penetration.)

But the bullets that tumbled in the gel block above only penetrated an average of about 14". Suppose now, with that calculation still sitting in the google search box, we just change the 0.36 bullet diameter to something bigger -- say 0.50 -- and let google search for that answer.

So, google says that a 207 grain .50 caliber truncated cone bullet at 600 ft/s would penetrate about 15". And if I try again with a diameter of .52 caliber, I get pretty close to the average of 14" of penetration.

My guess is that the tumbling bullets in the picture above would be just about as effective as any .38 caliber jacketed hollow point bullet that expanded to about 0.52" and penetrated to about 14" in 10% ballistic gel. If so, that's not bad for the little .38 Short & Weak.

[pettypace]

A question, if you don't mind...

Are the 207-grain bullets that you are modeling better described as having a round nose profile or are they more of a flat nosed/truncated cone profile? Their shape is somewhat obscured by the clouded gelatin material. They look more like round nosed bullets to these old eyes....



Hard to tell from the photo, but those are flat nosed bullets out of a SAECO #351 mould. As for the exponent, I agree -- 0.735 is probably closer. So that would give an effective diameter of 0.54" with an average penetration of 14".

Of course, all that assumes it makes sense to talk about an "effective diameter" for a bullet that does a 180 degree flip in the target.

[pettypace]

...

Modeling variable attitude lateral flow past cylinders (CFD) is extremely complex. For example, at Re = 1,000, the attached boundary layer on the cylinder is laminar. The boundary layer separates at approximately 82° and the wake is turbulent. Using a turbulence model makes the boundary layer separation point move to the down-flow (rear) side (>90°) of the cylinder. So, this means that it is not correct to employ a turbulence model like K-epsilon to compute the flow. Doing so results in a modeled wake that is much narrower than it is in actuality, which means that the drag is also less than it is in actuality. In testing, the separation point does not move to the rear side of the cylinder until much higher Reynolds numbers (about Re = 250,000) prevail. At Re > 250,000 , "drag crisis" sets in; boundary layer transitions occur and the boundary layer becomes turbulent.


Although I can see that mathematical modeling of a tumbling bullet is complex, I'm afraid your explanation is well above my pay grade. But what are we trying to model anyway? In this case, there's no need to model for the penetration -- we can just measure that. But the question remains, "How useful might these tumbling bullets be for close quarters civilian self defense?" The idea of "effective diameter" can be fairly criticized as simplistic or justly praised for simplicity. Either way, if it promotes discussion it will have served its purpose.

[35remington]

One would have to presume that if penetration was attenuated to this degree the wound track showed early tumbling. The only thing to resolve would be whether the same profile would reliably develop when used for real.

Might take a while to find enough reluctant volunteers.

[Michael J. Spangler]

In a nutshell, fluid flow-fields around tumbling bullets are extremely complex to model and, as velocity increases turbulence (chaotic, stochastic flow) does so too. Trying to do it by hand (say, on a Texas Instruments calculator) would be impractical and time-consuming at best. For a task like that, CFD (computational fluid dynamics) software like ANSYS CFX would be needed to process the differential equations needed to model flows like that.



Besides penetration depth, there are other physical parameters that merit examination and quantification. I'd respectfully offer that permanent wound cavity volume, pulverized tissue mass, and instantaneous/exit velocity are among them.



I agree. With physical gelatin models that are the dynamic equivalent of soft tissue, measurement of maximum penetration depth is easy enough and one of the attributes that makes those mediums (namely, 10% ordnance gelatin) so attractive. It is widely accepted that tumbling increases effectiveness, but putting a "hard" number in that is impossible. At the risk of opening the proverbial "can of worms", the Bio-Physics Division of the US Army Ballistic Research Laboratory at Aberdeen Proving Grounds (BRL) produced a mathematically-based predictive personnel incapacitation equation based upon 7,898 wound data accumulated by the WDMET (Wound Data Munitions Effectiveness Team) during the Vietnam War. The US Army personnel incapacitation equation relies upon an incremental kinetic energy expenditure parameter (ΔE15) of a random munition strike to the center of mass (COM) of a combatant’s or assailant’s body over a penetration depth of 1 – 15 centimeters to predict a projectile’s probability of incapacitation, represented symbolically as P[I/H]. Greater values of ΔE15 equate to greater strain energy storage within surrounding tissues produced by the bullet’s passage through them. Increased strain energy storage increases the likelihood of proximate tissue damage and with that damage, an increased probability of incapacitation. Of course, there are a few individuals in the terminal ballistics research community who dispute the model's validity, but the US Army relies on these P[I/H] models even to this day in their ORCA (Operational Requirement-based Casualty Assessment) computer code which still contains the BRL P[I/H] model as its ballistic insult subroutine MUVES-S2 (Multiple UNIX-based Vulnerability Estimation Suite). MUVES-S2 is embedded in ORCA and is used to evaluate the vulnerability/lethality of munitions in terms of injury to personnel within target geometry. The ORCA and MUVES-S2 vulnerabity code has been reviewed by peers in the medical and biological fields and by the U.S. Army and Navy and found to be adequate in producing injury, impairment, and operational casualty assessments. For that reason, I prefer to use the BRL P[I/H] model as a measure of lethality within its documented limitations. I am not insisting that anyone here accept the BRL P[I/H] model without doing research of their own; that responsibility is up to each one of us.

Your use of "effective diameter" to address the phenomena of tumbling, while admitted "simplistic", is probably the best "guess" that we can make without bringing expensive multi-physics software suites to the table. Given the magnitude of uncertainty and variation that is seen with yawing/tumbling bullets, it is probably as accurate of a representation as we'll ever see of the phenomena without getting lost in the minutæ that would inevitably be required.

In the end, "how useful" tumbling bullets might be for close-quarters civilian self-defense is going to be a "one-for-one" proposition. Given the nearly infinite variability of the human body, every single event will be a law unto itself.


You stole the words right out of my mouth ;)

[pettypace]

The US Army personnel incapacitation equation relies upon an incremental kinetic energy expenditure parameter (ΔE15) of a random munition strike to the center of mass (COM) of a combatant’s or assailant’s body over a penetration depth of 1 – 15 centimeters to predict a projectile’s probability of incapacitation, represented symbolically as P[I/H]. Greater values of ΔE15 equate to greater strain energy storage within surrounding tissues produced by the bullet’s passage through them. Increased strain energy storage increases the likelihood of proximate tissue damage and with that damage, an increased probability of incapacitation.

I'm sure there's a lot more in that can of worms, but focusing on the first 15 cm (6") of penetration sounds like a dangerously bad idea to me.

Here's Fackler's wound profile for the .357 Magnum Glasser Safety Slug:

249560

The KE dump in the first 15 cm for the Glasser is about 566 ft-lbs -- about twice the ΔE15 of the fully expanding 230 grain JHP .45 ACP used as an example of the BRL model in Quantitative Ammunition Selection. Yet, despite having twice the ΔE15 of the .45 JHP, as Fackler notes, "Most of the human body's vital organs lie at a penetration distance deeper than the Glasser can reach."

[Outpost75]

Schwartz,

By any chance did you work in CSTA at APG in the early 1980s?

I worked on some projects brought in by Det "O" with Dr. Robt. L. McCoy at BRL on the AK-74 and 5.45mm ammo evals about that time and we may have crossed paths?

[Michael J. Spangler]

Funniest post of the thread!
I can't keep up with the technical stuff at this rate so I figured I would add in some comic relief

[Michael J. Spangler]

Well, Mike, you did just fine. Thanks for the humor. It was the "bright spot" to an otherwise tough day.

I'm happy to hear it. Sometimes it's the little things that can lift the weight after a long week.

Thanks for joining in on the conversation. I really fell in love the the IWBA articles and the knowledge in this thread is a breath of fresh air compared to the local gun forum I'm on.