.44 Special "target" WC from a snubby vs .38 Special FBI Load from service revolver

[pettypace]

Let's "follow the science" to see how a .44 caliber wadcutter "travelling in the leisurely manner of bygone days" (as Captains Fairbairn and Sykes worded it) might compare to the classic "FBI Load" from a .38 Special service revolver.

Why pick the FBI load when there are countless other more "modern" ammo choices for comparison?

Partly because the FBI load has an established reputation for effectiveness and reliability and partly because Fackler published a "wound profile" for the FBI load that shows its likely penetration and expansion in bare 10% gelatin.

The full set of Fackler wound profiles can be found online in the very last issue of Fackler's Wound Ballistics Review here: https://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/2001-Vol5No2.pdf

I don't believe it strains the principle of "fair use" to post one of those profiles here:



For the metrically-impaired (me included) that 15 mm expanded diameter converts to about 0.59 inches and the 32 cm of penetration is about 12.6 inches.

So, apparently that combination of a 60 caliber projectile capable of penetrating 12-13 inches of bare gelatin is sufficient to establish an "exemplary" reputation for "reliability and effectiveness in the human target."

But why?

It's easy enough to understand the penetration part: Long ago the FBI "followed the science" to determine that a projectile capable of penetrating 12 inches of 10% gelatin is very likely capable of penetrating deep enough to hit something "vital" in the human target from most any likely angle. The FBI load, even with full expansion, meets that minimum penetration requirement.

But is there anything special about the 0.59 inch expanded diameter? Well, sure! That has to do with the volume of the permanent cavity shown in Fackler's wound profile.

About the same time the FBI settled on the 12-18 inch penetration requirement, they also realized that the only other useful measurement of handgun ammunition effectiveness was volume of the permanent wound cavity. That idea is well explained in a short paper by Special Agent Urey Patrick entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectivess" which can be found online here: http://gundata.org/images/fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf

The whole paper is well worth reading, but here's the key paragraph on permanent cavity volume:

"The critical wounding components for handgun ammunition, in order of importance, are penetration and permanent cavity. The bullet must penetrate sufficiently to pass through vital organs and be able to do so from less than optimal angles... and the permanent cavity must be large enough to maximize tissue destruction and consequent hemorrhaging."

There's more that could be said about just how the volume of the permanent cavity should be calculated for different bullet nose shapes. But maybe it's better to stop here and see if there's enough interest to make the topic worth pursuing.

[HWooldridge]

I have been loading my S&W 38 snubby with 4.9 gr WW231 under a 158 gr SWC in W/W lead for many years and have dispatched a lot of animals with it, such as feral hogs and varmints caught in traps. This is supposed to duplicate the FBI load and in every case I can recall, the bullet went all the way through. Of course, I am quite close - almost point blank range, but the penetration is still there. I shoot hogs in the head and never through the hide shield but I'm sure it would at least go to the opposite side under the skin.

[376Steyr]

I have been loading my S&W 38 snubby with 4.9 gr WW231 under a 158 gr SWC in W/W lead for many years and have dispatched a lot of animals with it, such as feral hogs and varmints caught in traps. This is supposed to duplicate the FBI load and in every case I can recall, the bullet went all the way through. Of course, I am quite close - almost point blank range, but the penetration is still there. I shoot hogs in the head and never through the hide shield but I'm sure it would at least go to the opposite side under the skin.

While I am sure your snubby load has given you good service, the FBI load features a much softer lead hollowpoint. My sole experience using the FBI load out of a 3" barrel was at close range, into the chest of a 50 lb canine, which was facing me. Said canine instantly collapsed and the bullet did not exit. I did not dig the bullet out for examination.

[stubshaft]

I have shot a fair number of animals with the 38 and a few with the 44 special WFN. I would have no problem carrying a 44 snubbie IF someone would make a decent one and NOT that Charter Arms garbage!

[44MAG#1]

I sometimes carry a S&W M69 2.75 inch with 44 Special loads with a 250 gr wadcutter at maybe 700 to 750 FPS and surely don't feel undergunned.
Am I undergunned carrying that combo?

[pettypace]

I sometimes carry a S&W M69 2.75 inch with 44 Special loads with a 250 gr wadcutter at maybe 700 to 750 FPS and surely don't feel undergunned.
Am I undergunned carrying that combo?

Good question. (Although I expect you already know the answer.)

My guess is that load should be just as effective as the FBI load with the added benefit of not relying on expansion for its effectiveness and having maybe twice as much penetration if needed.

[ddixie884]

I sometimes carry a S&W M69 2.75 inch with 44 Special loads with a 250 gr wadcutter at maybe 700 to 750 FPS and surely don't feel undergunned.
Am I undergunned carrying that combo?

I would say you are North of a .455 Webley with a better shaped bullet and that aint a bad neighborhood..........

[shooting on a shoestring]

Ummmm?…
Where’s the part about the 44?

[pettypace]

Ummmm?…
Where’s the part about the 44?

Here's how that .44 Special "target" wadcutter load (220 grains at 625 f/s) compares to the FBI load in two screenshots of a free Android app from the Google Play store:







While the FBI load has considerably more energy (271 ft-lb vs 190 ft-lb), the app shows that the two loads produce essentially the same "Defense Wound Mass." (My guess is that much of the extra energy of the FBI load goes into producing that fairly big temporary cavity shown in the Fackler wound profile.)

Because it has more sectional density, the .44 wadcutter, even at just 625 f/s, penetrates deeper than the FBI load.

With almost the same power factors (PF=137 and PF=139) the recoil should be about the same in guns of equal weight.

So, which load is likely to be more effective?

[44MAG#1]

I am going to go ahead and say this as I know it is coming.
"It's not what you hit them with it is where you hit them".

[black mamba]

If you would get the 44 WC up to about 750 fps, its numbers would blow away the 38 Special, and still be completely controllable in rapid double-action shooting. At handgun velocities, there is just no substitute for bullet size and mass.

[pettypace]

I am going to go ahead and say this as I know it is coming.
"It's not what you hit them with it is where you hit them".

In the case of the FBI Load vs .44 "target" Wadcutter -- I'd agree.

But in this case (here's the "before")...



...(and here's the "after")...



...I think size matters.

[44MAG#1]

In the case of the FBI Load vs .44 "target" Wadcutter -- I'd agree.

But in this case (here's the "before")...



...(and here's the "after")...



...I think size matters.

Well let's say a drugged up thug is coming through your door and you center his brain with the 22LR would that more likely be more effective than a 12 Guage through the foot or hand? I know that is extreme examples but.......

[Bigslug]

Pettypace, I think you're just a smidgen off on your understanding of how the FBI has come to prioritize what is desirable:

#1 is shot placement. If you don't put your bullet through something that's going to bleed profusely or disrupt nerve signals, it's unlikely that the problem will be solved quickly.

#2 is penetration. The bullet has to make it to the Tootsieroll center of the Tootsiepop in order to cause the effects we want. 12" was arrived at as a MINIMUM desirable depth because if you have an upper arm in the way on a profile shot - as was the case with Michael Platt in Miami - you have to dig deeper to get to the goodies, and 12" can be really marginal in those kinds of event.

On the topic of #3 - expansion - the FBI is clear on it being a very distant last place in the priority list. Effectively they say "so long as items #1 and #2 are not compromised, take all the diameter you can get, but don't lay awake nights worrying about how to get more".

I've thought about your wound mass formulas a bit, and I'm not sure how good a yardstick it really is. The first and last couple inches of torso penetration are basically exterior muscle structures, so probably don't add much meaningful data. On the interior, what you hit is more important than what you hit it with. Once you get above pin holes, it probably doesn't really matter if you make a hole through the aorta that's 75% of its diameter with a 9mm hollowpoint or sever it completely with a 12 gauge slug. This is why penetration gets priority - it gives you more chance to hit more important things. This is also why the 12 gauge slug is unquestionably superior - it's penetration is not compromised by it's larger diameter. The same cannot be said in the pistol world.

In the case of your OP comparison, I'd choose the .44 Special Wadcutter over the FBI Load .38 because of the greater penetration being helpful across a greater range of possibilities. If the circumstances prevented that from factoring in, a coroner probably couldn't tell the difference between the two until they pulled out the bullet to measure. That said, I'd probably choose a non-expanding .38 WFN over either because it will penetrate as well or better than either and be available in a thinner profile revolver than the .44.

[pettypace]

Well let's say a drugged up thug is coming through your door and you center his brain with the 22LR would that more likely be more effective than a 12 Guage through the foot or hand? I know that is extreme examples but.......

Yes... There's nothing quite like the confidence of having a Hammerli free pistol in your hand when that drugged up thug comes through your door. I can picture the ads in Guns & Ammo right now!

[44MAG#1]

Yes... There's nothing quite like the confidence of having a Hammerli free pistol in your hand when that drugged up thug comes through your door. I can picture the ads in Guns & Ammo right now!

Would you rather for someone to be armed with something they can handle well or something they can't handle well?
A couple pops in the brain from a 22RF would probably ruin the shootees day. Personally I carry a 45 Auto. But sometimes carry a 9MM
Never a 22RF and I don't think Walmart would like me to carry my shotgun slung over my shoulder.

[pettypace]

I've thought about your wound mass formulas a bit, and I'm not sure how good a yardstick it really is.

You may be right, Bigslug. But consider this:

With thanks (and apologies) to Dr. Fackler, here's a composite of two butchered wound profiles. On the top is the classic .38 Special FBI load and on the the bottom is .45 ACP GI hardball. It's as though Dr. Fackler had carefully prepared a big block of ballistic gel, fired two shots, and both rounds performed exactly as intended.



So, which cartridge is likely to be more effective for self defense?

Here are some "yardsticks" to help make the decision:



If the threat is a charging grizzly, I'm going with the extra penetration of GI hardball. But for most likely scenarios of civilian self-defense, I'm not so sure. The WTI wound mass "yardstick" is pointing to something that isn't obvious in the other measurements. I know... "They all fall to hardball!" But, is it possible the FBI load is actually a significantly better "manstopper" than GI hardball? Given the history of both cartridges, you'd think there'd be plenty of real world data to help answer that question.

[44MAG#1]

How did the 45 Auto do with a 230 grain hard cast with a generous flat point? Can something be cobbled together to show that? Just because it is a FMJ or a Hard Cast doesn't mean it has to be a round nose.
I for one would like to see the comparison of the FBI 38 Special load compared to a FMJ Flat Point and a Hard Cast Flat Point that is generous like a Saeco 058 in 230 grains.

[pettypace]

How did the 45 Auto do with a 230 grain hard cast with a generous flat point? Can something be cobbled together to show that? Just because it is a FMJ or a Hard Cast doesn't mean it has to be a round nose.

I for one would like to see the comparison of the FBI 38 Special load compared to a FMJ Flat Point and a Hard Cast Flat Point that is generous like a Saeco 058 in 230 grains.

MacPherson (in Bullet Penetration) provides modeling data for wadcutters (he used cylinders with perfectly flat noses) and semi-wadcutters (he used the Saeco 068 shape), but nothing in between.

He also wrote that "Bullet configurations with a flat nose diameter near the caliber (e.g., Keith semi-wadcutter)...can be modeled as cylinders with a diameter of the flat nose face" (page 193).

That "trick" might work well enough for those long, heavy wadcutters (for example, Accurate 43-270W) with a cylindrical nose just less than caliber. But it certainly doesn't work for my old "night stand" load (Lyman 452423 @ 650 f/s) where it predicts over 3 feet of penetration and only 19 grams of "WTI" wound mass. That ain't right! And if it doesn't work for the Lyman 452423, it won't work any better for your Saeco 058 bullet.

Maybe what we need is a modern-day Dr. Mann with enough time, money, and curiosity to do some serious gelatin testing.

[44MAG#1]

MacPherson (in Bullet Penetration) provides modeling data for wadcutters (he used cylinders with perfectly flat noses) and semi-wadcutters (he used the Saeco 068 shape), but nothing in between.

He also wrote that "Bullet configurations with a flat nose diameter near the caliber (e.g., Keith semi-wadcutter)...can be modeled as cylinders with a diameter of the flat nose face" (page 193).

That "trick" might work well enough for those long, heavy wadcutters (for example, Accurate 43-270W) with a cylindrical nose just less than caliber. But it certainly doesn't work for my old "night stand" load (Lyman 452423 @ 650 f/s) where it predicts over 3 feet of penetration and only 19 grams of "WTI" wound mass. That ain't right! And if it doesn't work for the Lyman 452423, it won't work any better for your Saeco 058 bullet.

Maybe what we need is a modern-day Dr. Mann with enough time, money, and curiosity to do some serious gelatin testing.

So you are saying a Saeco 058 bullet at 900 to 925 fps is no improvement over a FMJRN or a Hardcast RN? Or a 230 FN at 850 fps isn't any better than a RN non expandable bullet?