.38 S&W penetration test, 200g bullets

[LouisianaMan]

Update, 15 FEB 10, for heavy bullet fans.

TARGET: 6 water-filled jugs, backed by 2x12.

RANGE: approx 10 feet

GUNS: S&W Mod. 32-1 (2") and S&W 33-1 (4"). Chronography done from 4" bbl. approx 3" from muzzle.

LOAD:
a. BULLET: Lee GB mold 358430, LRN, 197-98g with 50-50 WW-Pb + 4 oz. tin per 20 lbs. alloy. Estimated BHN = 7-9. COL: 1.270"

b. POWDER: Win 231. Charge: 2.7g. My charge IS IN EXCESS OF RECOMMENDED LOAD FROM LYMAN 49th. USE A RELOADING MANUAL, CHRONO, etc. TO WORK UP YOUR OWN LOAD. In previous tests, I have noted that my lot of Win231 appears to be slower than average, which lot variation has been noted by Ed Harris as characteristic of this powder. Therefore, I start with recommended data and then work it up over the chronograph to vels similar to published velocities. Ed considers 700fps max for a 200g bullet in this gun.

CHRONO RESULTS (10-shot string): LO 624.4, HI 651.9, AVG 639.0, ES 27.54, SD 8.54.

PENETRATION OUTCOMES:

1. 4" bbl. chrono'ed for this shot at 662.7fps on this shot. Bullet tracked straight thru 2 jugs, then began curving down and left. Broke extreme bottom of 5th jug and did not impact 6th jug. Bullet not recovered.

2. 2" bbl. chrono'ed for this shot at 624.2fps. Bullet tracked straight thru 2 jugs, began curving down & left. Came out extreme bottom left of jug #4 and failed to hit #5. Bullet not recovered.

I'll update tonight with photos of loaded 161g and 198g cartridges, as well as target patterning of chrono'ed strings. Also ME and free recoil calculations. Stay tuned! Times are tough for milk jugs. . .

[44man]

Update, 15 FEB 10, for heavy bullet fans.

TARGET: 6 water-filled jugs, backed by 2x12.

RANGE: approx 10 feet

GUNS: S&W Mod. 32-1 (2") and S&W 33-1 (4"). Chronography done from 4" bbl. approx 3" from muzzle.

LOAD:
a. BULLET: Lee GB mold 358430, LRN, 197-98g with 50-50 WW-Pb + 4 oz. tin per 20 lbs. alloy. Estimated BHN = 7-9. COL: 1.270"

b. POWDER: Win 231. Charge: 2.7g. My charge IS IN EXCESS OF RECOMMENDED LOAD FROM LYMAN 49th. USE A RELOADING MANUAL, CHRONO, etc. TO WORK UP YOUR OWN LOAD. In previous tests, I have noted that my lot of Win231 appears to be slower than average, which lot variation has been noted by Ed Harris as characteristic of this powder. Therefore, I start with recommended data and then work it up over the chronograph to vels similar to published velocities. Ed considers 700fps max for a 200g bullet in this gun.

CHRONO RESULTS (10-shot string): LO 624.4, HI 651.9, AVG 639.0, ES 27.54, SD 8.54.

PENETRATION OUTCOMES:

1. 4" bbl. chrono'ed for this shot at 662.7fps on this shot. Bullet tracked straight thru 2 jugs, then began curving down and left. Broke extreme bottom of 5th jug and did not impact 6th jug. Bullet not recovered.

2. 2" bbl. chrono'ed for this shot at 624.2fps. Bullet tracked straight thru 2 jugs, began curving down & left. Came out extreme bottom left of jug #4 and failed to hit #5. Bullet not recovered.

I'll update tonight with photos of loaded 161g and 198g cartridges, as well as target patterning of chrono'ed strings. Also ME and free recoil calculations. Stay tuned! Times are tough for milk jugs. . .

HEE, HEE, how about blowing through 14 jugs with one shot? How much milk or water is that ?

[dubber123]

I'm betting it's pretty tough to slip that 14 jug shooter in your hip pocket....

[Whitworth]

I'm betting it's pretty tough to slip that 14 jug shooter in your hip pocket....

Fits comfortably on my hip or in my shoulder holster.......

[dubber123]

Fits comfortably on my hip or in my shoulder holster.......

Do you get any funny looks at restaurants?...

[Whitworth]

No, because I live in an open carry state.

[dubber123]

I have no carry regulations. Just prefer a Chiefs special to a scoped .475 for everyday carry. I'm impressed that you are dedicated to carrying one of those all the time.

[Whitworth]

I have no carry regulations. Just prefer a Chiefs special to a scoped .475 for everyday carry. I'm impressed that you are dedicated to carrying one of those all the time.

I regularly cary a Model 36 and a Lew Horton Model 29 -- oh, and there is no scope on my .475. Why do I sense tension in your posts, dubber? 44man was just funnin' and I will bet ducks to dollars that had those 200 grain bullets been sporting a flat nose, they would have penetrated a whole lot straighter.

[dubber123]

I regularly cary a Model 36 and a Lew Horton Model 29 -- oh, and there is no scope on my .475. Why do I sense tension in your posts, dubber? 44man was just funnin' and I will bet ducks to dollars that had those 200 grain bullets been sporting a flat nose, they would have penetrated a whole lot straighter.

Aah, just foolin' with you a bit. I will say Jim telling us how many jugs his .475 will kill probably didn't do much to help this fella have fun with his .38 S&W. Kinda an Apples to raisins comparison. Putting a flat point on his RN boolits should be easy for him, and would make a neat test on it's own, changing nothing else.

What bbl. length on your .475?

[Whitworth]

Aah, just foolin' with you a bit. I will say Jim telling us how many jugs his .475 will kill probably didn't do much to help this fella have fun with his .38 S&W. Kinda an Apples to raisins comparison. Putting a flat point on his RN boolits should be easy for him, and would make a neat test on it's own, changing nothing else.

What bbl. length on your .475?

My .475 has a 7.5-inch barrel -- it was my .475 that we killed 14 jugs with and we still didn't recover the bullet! I am convinced that we could have killed 20 of them.

I'm not really concerned with the speed of the 200 graners he is using, but the round nose profile isn't helping at all with straight-line penetration.

[Landric]

I can't wait to see what you can do with our 200 grain SWC in .38S&W!

Shameless plug for GB here:

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=61896

[dubber123]

My .475 has a 7.5-inch barrel -- it was my .475 that we killed 14 jugs with and we still didn't recover the bullet! I am convinced that we could have killed 20 of them.

I'm not really concerned with the speed of the 200 graners he is using, but the round nose profile isn't helping at all with straight-line penetration.

Linebaughs penetration tests pretty clearly show weight matters much more than speed in penetration. Bumping a flat on his soft RN in a lubrisizer should be a piece of cake. I have been thinking of trying to build a penetration tank with slots for thin cardboard baffles to track boolit path and penetration. I'm speculating that leaving the top open might keep it from just blowing up. These HP's from a 1-7/8" .38 penetrated 24" of water.

[LouisianaMan]

Whew, I've managed to start a caliber war between a .475 and a.38 S&W???? You're kidding me, right? When's the last time that ever happened? Anyway, if my girls could handle a .40-anything, maybe I'd buy 8 and post pix of that. . . .

Anyway, I'm just contributing to the available info for those who care. I chose this caliber for my wife & girls because I could relatively easily obtain 8 practically new guns of the exact same pattern--except 2" for car or purse, 4" for HD. Also, the frame fits them beautifully, 20 oz steel a perfect size/weight, and recoil/report are nice (BIG issue for one daughter), and I've now removed all training glitches such as which way the cylinder rotates on this one, pull/push/press cylinder latch, speedloader interchangeability, etc. etc. If I could have gotten 4 ea. Chief's Spls, plus 4 ea. J-frame 4" barrel S&W's in .38 SPL, I would have. My girls have small hands & can't adequately handle a K-frame.

ME & free recoil calculations in 20 oz. gun for .38S&W:
Factory: 146g @ 685: ME 152 fpe. Recoil: 3 fpe, 12 fps.
Handload: 161g @ 709 (see yesterday's post): 180 fpe. Recoil: 4 fpe, 13 fps.
Handload: 198g @ 639fps (see yesterday's post): 180 fpe. Recoil: 4 fpe, 15 fps.

BTW, I've also done these tests already with .38SPL with LSWC-K, and posted in several places. Here's an excerpt:
" #1: Colt Detective Special .38 SPL, 2" bbl, with 200g Mt. Baldy LSWC-K, meplat .280 (I think) seated deep and crimped over front shoulder, with 3.4g Win231. (This load and gun previously chrono'ed at 718 fps, thereby trying to ensure similarity to original factory ballistics of 770 fps from 6" bbl. It is modified from "Mikey's load" of 3.8g of the same powder.)
RESULTS: penetrated all 6 jugs and struck nose-first into a 2" x 12" placed behind the last jug, knocking a hole in the board up to the bullet shoulder, then falling out onto the ground while knocking down the 15" long board. Bullet path was arrow-straight, exiting through the tape on the back side of the sixth jug at same relative location as it struck the first jug. All caps remained intact. First two jugs failed at the circular "dimple" molded in the side; all others bulged the dimple outward without causing it to fail. After impact, the row of taped-together jugs toppled over and fell off the two 2"x4" boards I'd placed them upon."

NOTE: all milk jugs are 6" wide, so my .38 S&W snubbie LRN penetrated 24" and the 4" with LRN penetrated 30". The .38 SPL 2" with LSWC-K penetrated 36" with some power to spare. So did my LSWC .38 S&W 161g bullet (see yesterday's post). Other tests with 200g LRN in .38 SPL demonstrated similar deviation in penetration path as did the .38 S&W LRN. One theory about the old Super Police 200g LRN was that this tumbling increased effectiveness vs. straight LRN penetration, which tends to poke a self-sealing hole to some degree.

I'll soon try 200g LFPs (a .35 Remington bullet) and in August will receive Landric's group buy LSWC. I'll post those too, after testing. Not sure about the LFP, but the LSWC will doubtless penetrate straight.

I'll post photos on other forums, where I can do it easier. . . .

For those who worry about my safety, my primary HD sidearm is .45LC 255g LFN @ 870fps. It backs up a 20ga w/buckshot.

[dubber123]

I think we are all behaving well. I started the jousting, and it was to try and cut off any "my gun is bigger than yours" posts, although I really doubt that was 44mans intentions. I was enjoying seeing someone having fun with an odd, obsolete caliber, and wanted you to continue. Your reasoning for selecting them is completely valid, and while more powerful guns exist, I won't volunteer to stand in front of a .38 Short & Weak any time soon.. Keep up the testing!

[Whitworth]

44man mentioned the last gallon jug test we performed which happened to be with a .475 and a 420 grain WFN. He was just playing around.

[dubber123]

44man mentioned the last gallon jug test we performed which happened to be with a .475 and a 420 grain WFN. He was just playing around.

I didn't figure he meant anything by it, but I could easily see how the OP could take it the wrong way. Like I said, I do enjoy reading about something off the beaten path, such as this .38 S&W thread. I didn't want him getting discouraged in any way.

[Whitworth]

I didn't figure he meant anything by it, but I could easily see how the OP could take it the wrong way. Like I said, I do enjoy reading about something off the beaten path, such as this .38 S&W thread. I didn't want him getting discouraged in any way.

+ 1 -- couldn't agree more

[LouisianaMan]

No harm done, in any event. I taught history at West Point for 6 years, and have been (rightfully) accused before of being interested in obsolescent stuff OK, OK, "obsolete" stuff! (gulp, it hurts to say it)

Most folks on these forums know that the .32S&W and .38S&W originated as break-top pocket gun calibers, designed to poke holes in an opponent and cause them to die three days later of peritonitis Not so sure about the origins of the .32S&W Long, which I believe was originally chambered in a solid-frame gun by S&W, and later adopted by H&R, IJ and others for break-tops.

These calibers may have persisted deep into the 20th century primarily because of inertia (read: availability). I imagine that was a significant reason, but I also think that pre-"automobile bandits" and pre-"crack/meth/PCP monsters," these calibers were adequate to defend homes against burglars and run-of-the-mill no'counts (old Southern pronunciation These days, I would never recommend LEOs carry anything like these old calibers! However, for those of us with "vanilla" lifestyles, who aren't involved with drugs, prostitution, and crime in general, and who live in calm neighborhoods in rural areas, where gangstas are unknown, the threat remains relatively the same as it was 50-100 years ago. By my reasoning, the old calibers still retain usefulness for their original purposes.

For those of us who will master stronger calibers and/or autos, etc., great. For those who won't or can't, they're better off with a .32SWL or .38S&W that they shoot well and handle accurately. My 770fps 115g LFP .32SWL also penetrated 6 milk jugs (36" water) in a relatively straight line for about 4 jugs I decided to standardize .38S&W instead of .32SWL because the former's larger caliber = greater wound channel, with similar recoil, report, etc.

For me personally, I can have it both ways: my primary HD sidearm is a caliber that first saw light in 1873, but that remains powerful enough for anything 2-footed and most 4-footers--the .45LC And if that runs dry, I can go with a 111-year-old caliber, the .38 SPL! Compares favorably to the newfangled/hi-tech 9mm, first standardized in the P-08. . .as in "1908"! Or the .45ACP. . .M1911. . . .OK, OK, history professor will shut up now!

[ddixie884]

I really enjoyed reading your test, and genuinely apreciate your sharing your info with the board. THANX

[Multigunner]

One of the best looking of .38 S&W revolvers was a mixture of top break and swing out clinder designs by S&W. It used the rear half of the Hand Ejector frame but the front and top strap was hinged top break.
You had to push in on the side mounted cylinder latch to unlock the cylinder pin from the recoil shield then open with the T latch of the top strap to break it down.

It was mainly to give a stronger and more precise mating of cylinder pin to frame than the older top break designs. No stronger than the earlier top breaks but less susceptable to wear and with more positive indexing.