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

[44MAG#1]

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

Do as you wish. I know I would.

[pettypace]

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

link: http://hipowersandhandguns.com/38%20...r%20LSWCHP.htm

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



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

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

[Bigslug]

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

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

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

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

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

[pettypace]

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

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

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

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

[USSR]

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

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

Don

[35remington]

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

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

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

[pettypace]

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

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

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



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

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

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

[Char-Gar]

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

[USSR]

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

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

[35remington]

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

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

[35remington]

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

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

[35remington]

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

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

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

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

[Bigslug]

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

Don

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

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

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

[USSR]

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

Don

[35remington]

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

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

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

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

[44MAG#1]

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

[ddixie884]

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

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

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

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

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

[35remington]

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

[curioushooter]

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

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

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

[35remington]

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