38 Special Expansion/Penetration Testing

Status
Not open for further replies.

KBintheSLC

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
3,207
Location
Stalingrad, USA
Hi Folks,

I did a bit of informal testing on some recently acquired ammo to see how it does out of my snubbie. I thought I would share the results with you. The test medium were highly coveted wet phone books, and the test gun was a S&W 637. The temperature was about 78 F, and I was shooting at about 5,400 ft. The range was 5 yards. Sorry... no chrono available.

The wet phone books each appear translate to roughly 8"-9" of calibrated ordinance gelatin (when compared to "real" gel tests with the same ammo). Each book was soaked for about 24 hours prior to testing to ensure thorough saturation.

The Ammo (all factory loaded):

Top Left: Buffalo Bore 150g Hard Cast Wadcutter (Standard Pressure). No expansion/deformation. Penetrated 2 phone books and were recovered in the back of the 3rd book. ~21"-24" of gel. This would make a great load for hiking in the woods if all you have is a 38.

Top Right: Sellier & Bellot 158g Semi-Jacketed Soft Point (Standard Pressure). I wanted to test these to see if the paltry .38 has what it takes to deform a soft point... it didn't. The tips got squished a little, but nothing to write home about. They all penetrated to about the middle of the 3rd book.

Middle Left (and Bottom Center): Remington 125g Golden Saber JHP +P. These all expanded nicely, but the ones on the bottom had the misfortune of striking other bullets in the book. So, the 4 in the center left are the only clean shots. They were all found throughout the mid-2nd book. ~11"-14" of ordinance gel estimated. This will be my regular carry load... for good reason. They worked as they should.

Middle Right Buffalo Bore 158g Soft Lead Semi-Wadcutter Hallow Point (Standard Pressure) LSWCHC. These also performed nicely. Penetrated mid-to-rear 2nd book, and expanded well. This too will make a good carry load.

All rounds were accurate and reliable in my Smith & Wesson 637. Despite being standard pressure loads, the B.B. stuff was quite warm... as was the S&B. I would certainly recommend any of these loads depending on your intended use.

Have fun out there.

PICT0001.gif
PICT0007.gif
PICT0006.gif
PICT0004.gif
PICT0005.gif
 
Good post! I have liked the Buffalo Bore stuff and have been looking at some for my 642. My wet packs stuff seems to mirror yours in regards to .38 softpoints: No matter what speed (in .38) and barrel length or bullet weight, I could never get .38 special softpoints to do anything other than laugh at me and NOT expand!

BTW: Where is 'dis Ootah anyways? :D Awesome!
 
When I was a teenager we did a "test" with the .38spl. --- I had 2",4",6",and a 8" revolvers , either S&Ws or Colts. The ammo used in all them was 158gr. FMJ Army surplus and the "test" was to see what each brl. length would do to a 1965 Rambler auto.

I set up about 15 paces from the drivers door and went to my knees so as to be "square" to the car door. I fired 5 rounds from each revolver and from what I remember, the results were ;
8" Colt Python ---- the drivers door AND the passenger door were BOTH penetrated at least 4 out of 5 rounds.

6" S&W 10 --- drivers door penetrated all 5 shots and the passenger door penetrated maybe 2 or 3 rounds.

4" Colt Police Pos. -- drivers door penetrated all 5 shots -- passenger door stopped all 5 rounds.

2" Colt Detective ---- NONE of the rounds penetrated the drivers door AT ALL --- all left a "gouge" in the outside of the door !!!

BTW --- almost got hit by two rounds bounceing back at us from the 2" --- we hung "tough" and still fired all 5 rounds --- we were "stupid kids" !!!!
 
Dear KB,

Thanks for posting your test results. There are lots of us packing short-barreled .38 specials. What you saw seems to confirm other test results.

LBS
 
That does it...I'm getting a 10 inch Barrel for my J Frame...


Might take longer to draw though...but worth it..!
 
Wow, the BB and S&B could almost be reloaded and shot again!

Good comparison test, with excellent photographs. Thanks!
 
Thanks for the post. I too have the GS 125 grains in my 442.

If you can find any I would really like to see the FBI load results too.

I was intending to carry that in the 442 but there is none to be found.
 
Thanks for the info...

BTW, the whole reason for using a full wadcutter is because they are already at full caliber width. They aren't expected to expand in that application, the full caliber meplat is supposed to do all the work.
 
BTW, the whole reason for using a full wadcutter is because they are already at full caliber width. They aren't expected to expand in that application, the full caliber meplat is supposed to do all the work.

Back in the "day" -- even before SuperVel --- people would use the Hollow Base Wadecutters and load them backwards in the case -- they were the First Flying Ashtrays for self-defense !!!
 
Back in the 80's there was bullet company named Taurus(not related to firearm company) It was bought out by Alberts. Their product was a lead hydra shock bullet. It appeared to be a hollow base wadcutter but with a metal post in the center and thick base. It was designed for snub nose revolvers and was to be loaded at standard velocity.The mushroom was excellent. I never tested for penetration. They are in my 642.
I have a few left and hold onto them. My guess is Federal bought them out as the concept is the same except Federal uses jacketed bullets. Byron
 
What is the average weight of the recovered BB wadcutters? Thanks.

Pete,
I didn't have a chance to weigh those, but I bet they weight the same as they originally did... about 150g.

If you can find any I would really like to see the FBI load results too.

I was intending to carry that in the 442 but there is none to be found.

I think the Buffalo Bore 158g LSWCHP +P is pretty close to the FBI load. The 158g I tested was a bit more mild, but it still seemed to expand nicely.

BTW, the whole reason for using a full wadcutter is because they are already at full caliber width.
Very true... and these particular 150g B.B. bullets are hard cast... very hard actually for lead. They made an amazing entry hole in the wet paper mass. They created sort of ripples in the surrounding area too. Even with no expansion, they would make a mean defensive load.
 
KBintheSLC: The reason I asked my question about the weight of the recovered LWC bullets is because, if they are cast of hard alloy, they probably weigh substantially less than the nominal weight. Brassfetcher (who posts on this forum as JE223), in his test of this load, weighed two of the recovered bullets; the average weight of the two was 138.5 grains.

Pete
 
Last edited:
In .38 Special, given it's usual range of velocities, is there really ever any point of having other than pure Lead Bullets?

If long Barreled, and anticipating having to perforate both sides of a Car, then, I suppose a full Copper Jacket would apply...but...otherwise...

Seems like pure Lead would behave better in terminal Ballistics, whatever the original shape.
 
Pure Lead?? I don't think there are any pure lead projectiles available form commercial casters. I think pure lead has a hardness of only ~4, way too soft for most applications.
 
Agreed... pure lead would probably stretch too much in the cylinder... by the time you reached the last round in the cylinder, it would likely cause binding. The softest lead bullets seem best suited for single shot guns.

I think that "softer" lead is the best option for a heavy bullet (158g) in a snub .38. However, modern bullet designs show promising performance in some lighter/faster JHP's.

I can't really say which is best... slow/heavy or fast/light... and so continues the timeless argument.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top