.38 S&W penetration test, 200g bullets

[Thin Man]

Many years back, a local narcotics officer was sitting in his car when 3 thugs with a 12 gauge drove by and opened fire. The shotgun took the vinyl top off the narc's car just over his head. The officer returned fire with a Terrier (Chief's Special, 2 inch, caliber 38 S&W). End result was one thug dead (head shot), one thug crippled for life (upper torso hit, cannot remember the location) and one thug scared to hail and back. The officer did what he had to do, and the cartridge worked for him. After all internal affairs and outside investigations were completed, no charges were filed against the officer. This event generated a lot of local confidence in the 38 S&W. The Terrier was carrying factory lead RN loads. You just cannot argue with success. Also, the last thug was charged and convicted for attempted murder. Win-win.

[walnutred]

I've been working on loads for the 38 S&W as well, but I'm taking a different tack. My loads have been using a 126gn SWC in the 800 + fps range. Energy wise this makes the 38 S&W roughly the equivalent of the 380, which is hot on in the pocket gun market right now.

My daughter is on the small side and she claimed my 4" 31-1 as "her" handgun. She enjoys shooting it, shoots it very well and will even help me case and reload for it. IF she has to defend herself at least it will be with something she is very familiar with even if it is a little underpowered. We load up the Lee TL SWC bullet at around 900 FPS.

[ohshooter]

In my book any thing penetrating trough 2 jugs of water will punch a hole through a man, unless he's so high on drugs that he won't know if hes was dead or not.

[Groo]

Groo here
Remember the key is to not drive them too fast.....

[LouisianaMan]

I'm enjoying the feedback & vignettes! Thin Man, sounds like your local cops descend from Boone & Crockett--that's some accurate shooting with any snub-nose! And yes, I can imagine that among the locals that cartridge had a reputation as nothing to despise.

Walnutred, how does your 126g bullet penetrate? I expect it hits with some authority.

Ohshooter, I agree that anything that punches thru jugs (plural) can get the job done. I was reading something last night that stated a bullet will penetrate about twice as much water as it does tissue. Assuming that's correct, 6 jugs = 36" water = 18" tissue. Plus the numerous layers of plastic, which I can't quantify. At any rate, it sounds like it's able to get thru from any angle, which is how I personally want it!

Groo, do you mean 200g in .38S&W? If so, I hope I'm staying sane by keeping my loads to 630ish in my I/J frames. Ed Harris considers 700 max for that combo, so I figure I'll leave that power level to folks shooting Victory Models & the like. My intention is for us to shoot 200g enough to be comfortable with recoil, trajectory, etc., but practice with something lighter. I recently got a Lee 6-cavity 140g LSWC mold, so will get it casting "fat" & see how that works for us.

BTW, given the penetration of the 150g Lyman 360271 (as-cast 157-58g), as well as its very useful POA-POI relationship, I'll consider loading the 4" guns with that load. The heavyweights will be the ammo of choice with snubbies, assuming that they're far more likely to be used at extremely close range--trajectory won't be a factor, just max ability to break down a BG rapidly. If the different loads seem to detract from the value of my standardization efforts, maybe I'll keep it simpler. I'm impressed with the penetration of any of these slow, lead loads, so the most important factor will be how comfortable my family members are with the gun/ammo combos.

[walnutred]

I have not tested that bullet for penetration. Mostly I'm trying to find a load that hits near point of aim and has good velocity on the theory that the lighter bullet will be easier on older revolvers. Hate to admit it but testing for penetration didn't occur to me until reading your post. If I was betting I'd speculate that this bullet will penetrate 3 jugs and stop in the fourth.

[LouisianaMan]

Walnutred,
Your assessment of recoil probably has merit. I just ran the calculations on the Beartooth website "recoil calculator."

Assuming powder weight 3g, gun wt. 1.125 lbs (18 oz S&W mod 33-1), bullet 126g, MV 825fps, recoil energy = 3 ft lbs, recoil vel = 14fps

If you change bullet to 200g and MV to 625, recoil energy = 5 ft. lbs., recoil vel = 16fps

Your 126g slug would have to have a MV of 925fps to reach 5fpe, 16fps, by the way.

And although I hadn't run those combos of numbers previously, that's the main reason I figured to shoot mostly 140g bullets for practice, at sub-700 MV. Probably I'll have to choose a low or even lower vel with them to give me a POI as high as the 200s, to match those characteristics for my practice & service rounds. Lots to play with!

[9.3X62AL]

"Standard pressure" 38 Special results with 200 grain loadings ran about 700 FPS in 4" barrels, while 825-850 FPS was about top-end with 158 grainers in the standard-pressure loads/4" barrels. The "Keith loads" I meant were the 158 grain @ 1100+ FPS with 2400 genre, intended for the S&W N-frame 38-44 series. Such loads have no place in any D-frame Colt 38 Special.

[LouisianaMan]

In .38SPL/200, I've got a 3.8g Win231 load that gives me 725fps from 4" bbl. Since I've seen statements that factory loads gave 600, 703, 730, and/or 770fps, I figure the 725fps is pretty close The 770fps was probably tested in a 6" barrel, so I tailored a 4.0g load that gives 750fps in my 4" guns; I suspect it's either top-end standard pressure or low-end +P. I plan to use them up in my +P Mod 67, and stick with the 725fps/4" bbl loads for my Mod 15, PPS and DS. My 158g/4.3g Win231 load gives 780fps from 2"; I haven't chrono'ed from 4", but would imagine 800-820. I figure that's top-end standard pressure, or pretty close.

Those "Keith loads" are in a totally different league than anything I shoot. . .or intend to shoot!

[LouisianaMan]

Fans of 200g bullets, Brit .380/200, and of "Super Police" loads in either .38S&W or .38SPL! Please take a look at my attempt at scientific reasoning below & see what flaws you can find in my reasoning, and help rememdy them. . . .

Hypothesis:

a. Brits chose .380/200 for its deep penetration and blunt-nosed smashing effect when it hit bone, plus it "pushed right through" when it hit target. (NOTE: I was just informed Webleys were 1:15 twist, i.e. faster than S&W. Read on.)

b. American police, etc., using the Colt New Police (.38S&W/200, with flat nose), probably had the same results. Ditto for those using the Winchester factory cartidge, with its very blunt nose.

c. American police, etc., using the "pointier" Remington .38S&W/200, probably were more likely to experience tumbling, as the pointier, even longer, perhaps less stable bullet tumbled when it hit the target, as it was only marginally stabilized.

d. Tumbling may also have partially resulted from use of S&W revolvers, with their slow twist of 1:18 3/4". Possibly the faster-twist Colts stabilized the bullets more fully, reducing likelihood of tumbling with any .38S&W/200 ammo. Likewise, faster-velocity 200g loads, such as the .38 SPL "Highway Patrol" load of c. 730-770 fps, may have been more stable & therefore less likely to tumble.

e. Possibly, changing barrel lengths from longer to shorter (i.e. to snubbies) may reduce velocity and stability of one or more loads to the marginal stability point, and cause a load to tumble in a snubbie that doesn't normally tumble in a 4" or longer barrel. Additionally, it is imaginable that a gun/load/bullet combination that is stable at close range, could become unstable as its velocity decays to a critical point over longer ranges.

f. Based on (a) thru (e) above, I hypothesize that the famous "tumbling" effect was more likely with "pointy" bullets at low vels (c. 600 or lower) when fired from S&W snub-nosed revolvers, whether in caliber .38S&W or .38SPL, and at relatively longer ranges. Conversely, that blunt bullets were unlikely to tumble in general, and even less likely at close range, when fired from Colts, 4" S&W's, or in higher-vel loads such as the "Highway Patrol" loading.

PROPOSED EXPERIMENTAL METHOD: attempt to obtain an adequate supply of both "pointier" bullets and blunt designs. Develop loads of c. 600, 700, and 750 fps with both bullet styles, to approximate .38S&W, .38 Colt New Police or .380/200 British, and .38 SPL "Highway Patrol" loads. Test each load from Colt, S&W and even Enfield/Webley revolvers against water jugs and wet newspaper, to determine which factor, or combination of factors, is more likely to give a tumbling effect. Test at close (7 yds), medium (25 yds) and long (50 yds.) range.

If we can succeed in identifying any real trends, we may have some decent answers even before we get our hands on British 1920s testing results and analysis. Accordingly, a modern-day shooter can optimize loads for his gun, because he can more reliably anticipate the effects associated with any of the popular loads/vels, bullet profiles, and revolver/barrel choices. For instance, one might learn to use a pointy bullet at low vel with an S&W snubbie if he wants the "tumbling" effect, whereas someone with a Colt may determine that "tumbling" is unlikely anyway, so he should load blunt bullets at the highest attainable velocities. If someone has only blunt bullets, he may forget tumbling completely.

If we can confirm my hypotheses, then it's time for more testing. Who out there has a Colt revolver in this caliber & would like to do some testing? How about Enfield or Webley? "Pointy" Remington (or other?) bullets? An S&W .38SPL snubbie?

[Wayne Dobbs]

In .38SPL/200, I've got a 3.8g Win231 load that gives me 725fps from 4" bbl. Since I've seen statements that factory loads gave 600, 703, 730, and/or 770fps, I figure the 725fps is pretty close The 770fps was probably tested in a 6" barrel, so I tailored a 4.0g load that gives 750fps in my 4" guns; I suspect it's either top-end standard pressure or low-end +P. I plan to use them up in my +P Mod 67, and stick with the 725fps/4" bbl loads for my Mod 15, PPS and DS. My 158g/4.3g Win231 load gives 780fps from 2"; I haven't chrono'ed from 4", but would imagine 800-820. I figure that's top-end standard pressure, or pretty close.

Those "Keith loads" are in a totally different league than anything I shoot. . .or intend to shoot!

Louisiana Man,

I've used 4.0 WW231 with a 158 SWC for 35 years in .38 Special and it's been a great everyday shooting load for me. As for the 4.3 load being a top end load, I distinctly recall the WW Reloading Manual showing 4.4 grains of 231 as being their standard pressure load and for +P they took it to 5.3 grains, which is a place I have no need to go with my .38s!

I have used 4.5 grains with the 358429 Keith bullet and it shoots great from all my full sized guns.

[Dixie Slugs]

The Smith you mentioned was the last of the top-breaks...I have my grandfather's.....dropped from production in 1920 (I thiink). S&W also made a little 2" gun called the Terrier in 38 S&W.
Just for starters....The Brits dropped their big Webley 45's and went to the S&W 38 with 200 gr bullets in a smaller top break through war II.
Someone must have like the caliber as it lasted a long time when people shot each other, not just milk jugs/paper .....James

[LouisianaMan]

Wayne,
Like you, I've been amazed to see how data has changed over the years. 4.3g Win231 with 158g lead bullet is nowhere near tops in my Lyman 46th. In the past, .38 SPL loads in that bullet weight often advertised mid- to high-800s; now, 770 is shown as a standard-pressure load. (Yet I haven't heard of dozens of casualties from using the older loads, have you?) In my case, I like to know what power I can reasonably get, but I really don't want to shoot stuff that will wear out a gun prematurely, much less pose a danger. It can be tough to tell with the manual differences, sometimes.

Dixie,
Yes, the Terrier is what I've gotten for my wife & 2 daughters (ahem, +1 for yours truly to play with.) Mine were made after model numbers were introduced by S&W, thus are Mod 32-1.

I think your punch line is TERRIFIC, because it really gets to the heart of the matter. I'm not talking down stronger calibers, but there are just so many cases, even from the old Wild West, where men soaked up .45s and .44s and kept shooting, whereas others went down to lesser calibers at times. I figure that my wife & daughters probably would never triumph over a "Golem," as Mas Ayoob calls them, i.e. the bullet-proof maniacs who get shot 30 times and keep going. That is, unless they lucked into a CNS hit. Same actually goes for most of us. BTW, that's also why I'm very interested in heavy bullets in these low-vel guns, as I think that's the best way to ensure the bullet reaches CNS, if it happens to be pointed toward it when the gun goes off!

By equipping my gals with these revolvers, I am counting on the fact that most BGs really don't want to be shot at all, and a woman armed with & confident in a small-caliber gun that she shoots & handles well is more of an obstacle than most garden-variety BGs want to tackle. And if the tactical problem is a "Golem," then a deep-penetrating slug is less likely to expand & stop in his ribs and/or musculature, and is more likely to reach the boiler room.

[2shot]

And if the tactical problem is a "Golem," then a deep-penetrating slug is less likely to expand & stop in his ribs and/or musculature, and is more likely to reach the boiler room.

Lets not forget marginal hits also, it happens in real life. My thinking is that the heavier slower slug is going to break bone better that the light fast one. Before anybody can flame me for saying that let me say this. There is no doubt that a lighter slug will penetrate bone. Lets take an upper arm bone from the average adult male for example. I would be willing to bet that this upper arm bone when hit with a lighter faster slug would either have a half moon cut out or a hole neatly drilled through it from a the shot. So we get the penetration we want but in reality the bullet didn't do anything to incapacitate the person from using that arm to do further damage in an attack. Now if it's possible to have the same hit with a heavier slug going at a slower speed I believe that that heavier slug would still pass through the arm bone but would have a better chance of breaking the bone around it's circumfrance with the possibility of removing a chunk of bone which would render that arm inoperable dispite any influance of drugs or alcohol. I would say that the wound in the bone would not be neat but rather a mess of pieces with lots of parts missing. This happened in the Civil War with bullet wounds and although it was a bigger diameter bullet the belief is that it was mostly caused by the pure lead slug and the low velosity that it was fired at.

While I find it interesting to read about how many water jugs these heavy slow moving bullets will penetrate I would find it more interesting to read about some kind of test to check what would happen when bone is hit. Maybe a test involving beef or hog bones would give a realistic view of my beliefs and see if they hold true. The failures or bouncing off of windshields and car bodies cited by many people isn't of any interest to people that would like to carry these heavyweights in their snubbies for SD and I don't think that gives a real world picture of their use today.

2shot

[LouisianaMan]

2Shot,

I agree with your assessment of the effects of blunt, soft lead slugs on bone. I'm not speaking from any experience, but apparently valid documentation ranging from Fackler, to the Brit Army .38/200 tests c. 1930, and including "Pig Board II" tests of the 1990s, all agree wholeheartedly on that point. Namely, that such slugs crush bones far more severely than LRN or jacketed bullets, which tend to glance off or bore straight through. I'm not certain if that would remain true if we tested a modern SJHP with exposed lead tip, but I suppose so.

Also like you, I'm not considering 200g bullets for LEO duties such as car doors & windshields, but for close-range SD/HD, so the oft-remarked failures in those media are tangential--at best--to my concerns.

Now, is anyone out there who lives near a slaughterhouse or butcher shop where you can shoot large bones with these bullets? Especially because that point, apparently a strong point of the heavyweight bullets, can't be tested in gelatin or anything else. Amidst my other tests, I'll see what I can scare up along this line. Thanks for the suggestion! It obviously merits examination, but I hadn't even thought of it Whatever we manage to do probably won't be "scientifically repeatable," but I think we can get close enough.

[2shot]

Lman

I had posted my experiance in post #23 with the deer I had shot with the Lyman 195 grain RN. What I didn't say in that post is I used a 30-1 mix of lead and got the results that I talk about. I believe that the slug would have to be soft in order to get what we are looking for. I think an overly hard heavyweight would do the same thing as a lighter faster slug and just bore tight through in a straight line through bone, tissue and clothing. We need a soft bullet that WILL bend and rivit so that it puts maximun presure on the bone when it hits. If it conforms to the bone when striking then that would be even better. If that happened then it would take out a large piece of bone wheather it be an arm bone, leg bone or a piece of spine. Kind of hard for a BG to function with a chunk of of his spine laying 7 feet behing him or on one leg with it being 2-3 inches shorter that the other from the wound.

One thing that I never got around to doing was trying these 195 gr RN cast out of pure lead. Although leading would be a problem for sustanined shooting the few shots fired in a firefight would be no problem. I believe that this would be the route to take if one were looking into SD/HD at hand shaking distances.

Just my thoughts.

2shot

[LouisianaMan]

2Shot,
Again, we're on the same sheet of music. The same references I mentioned above emphasize that softer is better, and I think one even uses same/similar verbage about it molding to or conforming to the bone.
I don't have much pure lead, but I certainly have enough to experiment. I was thinking 1 coat of 50-50 LLA-mineral spirits; if that leads, give another coat or two. At these low vels, it may prevent any leading. If not, I'll try about 40:1, and won't go any harder unless leading is just horrible. Even if it leading remains an issue, you're right about a firefight--no time to develop leading, and less need to worry about it. So, that means "duty" or carry ammo of very soft lead, practice ammo straight WW.

Also, if I put a gas check on that .35-200 slug and "smush" it into a .275-meplat LFN, the GC should be a means to reduce or eliminate leading. After all, that's what Buffalo Bore is doing with far higher vel lead bullets, and I imagine they're doing it for the same reason: improved wounding capacity.

[2shot]

Interesting subject you talk about here Lman. I'm glad you took the time to share with everybody.

2shot.

[LouisianaMan]

2shot & all,
Here are the Internet references that I'm aware of that are most instructive about wounding, and they address the effects of soft lead. All seem to agree that the impact of soft lead on bone is devastating, and in the Thompson-LaGarde tests of 1904, it was noted that the soft lead cup-point .455 "Manstopper" was the only slug that deformed in flesh, without striking bone. It was also the only bullet that they specifically described as consisting of "soft lead," rather than merely "lead."

I welcome info on other sources, and/or better ones. I'm still looking for the British Army 1920s reports on the adoption of the .38/200.
http://unblinkingeye.com/Guns/TLGR/tlgr.html Thompson-LaGarde

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/1904trial.html Modern assessment of 1904 tests

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/pigboard.html Assessment of "Pig Board II," Law Enforcement/Military Cartridge Effectiveness Study Conducted 1995 - 1996

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/terminal.html Terminal Ballistics

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf 1989 FBI Handgun Wounding Factors

http://rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html Fackler, WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE WOUND BALLISTICS LITERATURE, AND WHY 1987

Many sources are listed at http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm

[LouisianaMan]

Several developments:
1. Ordered the Skennerton book on the Enfield No. 2 today. Will advise when/if it provides good info on the cartridge.

2. Bought the only box of factory .38 S&W I've seen in 3 months, some Remington LRN. Will use it for "control" over chrono & vs. the long-suffering milk jugs

3. Received two packets of British .380 Mk 2Z ammo from a kind donor in the Lone Star State. Will chrono, penetration test & publish.

4. Will cast pure lead 200g slugs tomorrow & test later in the week. Ditto for a new 140g LSWC Lee mold I bought--may have to "beagle" it to get it to cast .360ish.

5. Possibly on Sunday, a fellow enthusiast will bring up his 4" Police Positive, in caliber .38 Colt New Police, to provide some comparison results in penetration versus the slower-twist S&W's I'm shooting. He also scared up a 1946 NRA book on pistols & revolvers, with detailed data on this cartridge, to include published vels (and the bbl. length used in testing). I'll post that info soon with these other updates.

6. Will mail some 200g slugs tomorrow to another "researcher" in TX to shoot thru his 2" Colt and Webley, to see if differing rates of twist impact the penetration/tumbling issue.

7. Will call Remington & Winchester tomorrow and request historical information. Wish me luck!