Some questions for those that use .38 Spl/.38 Spl +P for personal protection.

[Water-Man]

You don't like it because it's 110gr.

You like the Gold Dot Short Barrel because it's 135gr.

How about 120gr. or 130gr.? What's the cut off for you?

People have expansion and or penetration problems with some heavier loads. What's your solution for that?

The DPX load works but you don't like it because it's too light.

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

The DPX load is pretty sweet. I carried it for a long time in the 442 but the 135 Gold Dot beat it out for accuracy - in my particular firearm with me as the shooter.

I really think Barnes has done a great service to bullet technology with their TAC-XP and XPB bullets, which the DPX brand of corbon uses.

Buffalo Bore makes a .38+P short barrel low flash powder round that is a replica of the DPX loading for that bullet. Might be worth a shot if you run out or have troubling finding DPX.

Exhibit A: 38 SPL BUFFALO-BARNES LEAD-FREE STANDARD PRESSURE - 110 GR. BARNES TAC-XP @ 1,000 FPS
Test Barrel: 2.5" (950 - 989 ft/s out of 2")

Exhibit B: CORBON

Caliber: 38 Special Plus P
Bullet Wt.: 110gr DPX
Velocity: 1050fps
Energy: 269ftlbs
Test Barrel Length: 4.0 Inches

Exhibit C: 38 SPL +P BUFFALO-BARNES LEAD-FREE - 110 GR. BARNES TAC-XP @ 1,125 FPS
Test Barrel: 2.5" (1000 - 1119 ft/s out of a 2" barrel)

These all use the exact same bullet.

Note that Corbon is publishing 1050 ft/s out of a 4" barrel. In previous versions of the bullet (non + P) some noted that it tended to keyhole in short barrels. This should no longer be a problem but would be worth watching for on the lower end of the velocity spectrum for the DPX + P.

In the BB barrels they are losing velocity fast, but perform well out of the 2". They are compelling loads. I'd hazard that the short barrel version is exceeding the DPX version out of a snub but we'd have to test it to find out.

FYI http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Corbon 38 Special Ammo.htm

And this http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/38 Snub Ammo Test.htm


Update: Mike Shovel @Corbon says the 4" barrel test on the website is in error, and that they did shoot it out of the snub for the 1050 ft/s velocity reading. Would be interested to see if anyone has tested it.

 

[MCMXI]

Bench racing for guns, LOL.

I spend less time worrying about what the "magic bullet" is and more time practicing putting the "might-not-be-magic-bullet" where it should go. A miss with the magic bullet is still a miss.

So let me get this straight. If you bother to figure out terminal performance for ammunition used in your firearm, there's no way you could also be competent with a firearm. Is that your point?

 

[556by45guy]

So let me get this straight. If you bother to figure out terminal performance for ammunition used in your firearm, there's no way you could also be competent with a firearm. Is that your point?

Nope, that's not what I said now is it? There's nothing wrong with looking at tests or doing tests but the arguing in this thread is arguing minutia and filled with opinion and the theoretical and akin to bench racing. Get any one of the modern factory loads from your favorite self defense cartridge testing list and then practice shooting it. Or do your own testing, choose one, two or three and practice with it. What part of that is confusing?

If you think your shooting ability doesn't require practice to maintain proficiency then you're better than everyone else on the planet.

You're welcome to disagree, I expect the same of you.

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

I have to agree that accuracy is the most important consideration.

However, for bullets with comparable accuracy some have distinct characteristics that would be more suitable for selection depending on context.

Example: no other round that I have seen tested excels at barrier penetration better than the Barnes bullets - but they can be light for caliber, and have no street record.

No other round has the history of the LSWCHP - but they need to be checked for crimp jump in lightweight revolvers, and will dust your pockets or purse with lead.

No other round is trusted by LE departments across the U.S. than the gold dot - but they clog with denim and they fall short of the FBI minimum for penetration at snubby speeds by 1".

 

[MCMXI]

If you think your shooting ability doesn't require practice to maintain proficiency then you're better than everyone else on the planet.

When did I say that shooting doesn't require practice. I shoot USPSA matches, F-Class, take classes and shoot regularly as part of my job developing ammunition. What do you do except makes posts in thread to say that testing terminal performance is a waste of time.

 

[MCMXI]

I have to agree that accuracy is the most important consideration.

And I don't agree with this either. The vast majority of commercial ammunition is more than accurate enough for the vast majority of personal defense situations. If you shoot IDPA, USPSA or similar you'll see that alpha hits don't require firearms or ammunition capable of 2" at 50 yards. I'll take a well designed bullet capable of 4" at 50 yards over a poorly designed bullet (terminally) capable of 1" at 50 yards.

 

[556by45guy]

When did I say that shooting doesn't require practice. I shoot USPSA matches, F-Class, take classes and shoot regularly as part of my job developing ammunition. What do you do except makes posts in thread to say that testing terminal performance is waste of time.

I'm not going to get into an internet argument <deleted>. I will conclude with; I did not say testing anything was a "waste of time". I did say practice is a better use of ones time. If you read into it any more than that then you invented it in your mind because that's what you wanted it to say. And if you disagree with that I'm OK with it.

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

Accuracy is more important for your everyday shooter. It's probably more a function of my ability than it is the firearm, but keeping good groups with a J frame revolver is a challenge. I can put them all in the red of a bulls-eye from 5 yards with a two handed grip and a weaver stance with the 135 grain gold dot. With the DPX, BB's HC Wadcutter, LSWCHP's, and other self defense ammo I get a buckshot pattern. Add in the stress in a self-defense situation and a one handed grip from a SHTF stance and those groups will get considerably worse. Now, with all due respect to the poster here who develops his Wadcutters at 650 ft/s, I don't really consider it an appropriate load for my own purposes. But when you are comparing ammo that has been tested and engineered to perform within strict parameters then choose the one you hit best with - no doubt about it.

In a different firearm with a different shooter, one of the other loads may be appropriate. Lord knows I tested enough rounds to find out which was best for me in the 442. Now I've just got to stick with it and practice more.

 

[BlindJustice]

1. Double Tap
2. +P
3. 125 gr Gold Dot JHP
4. S&W Model 60-15 .357 Mag
5. 3" BBl Len.
6. 1,100 FPS with a 1.875" Bbl. len.
7. ? Average penetration, expansion and weight retention in bare gel
8. : Average penetration, expansion and weight retention in heavy clothing gel

Double Tap has since switched to Montana Gold JHPs "Bonded"

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

Nice, Blind Justice. Have you tested those over a chronograph?

 

[fastbolt]

Comparing the listed factory specs of the Golden Sabre HPJ BJHP .38 Spl 125gr +P and the Ultimate Defense BJHP .38 Spl 125gr +P, it sort of looks like the Ultimate Defense is their 125gr +P HPJ BJHP packaged in a 20-rd glitzy box instead of the 25-rd standard style box. It also lists for about $5 less, which makes sense since you're getting 5 less cartridges.

That said, the 125gr +P GS HPJ BJHP has been one of the defensive loads I occasionally use in my assorted J-frames rated for a steady diet of +P loads.

I remember when the Speer 135gr +P GDHP was first released. One of the guys who came to a manufacturer's gel event brought some with him. We tried a couple of shots in Bare Gel and then a gel block through 4 layers of denim, fired out of a S&W 360PD, as I recall. The results, as logged in the workshop info handed out, were:
Bare gel - 828fps/11"/.545"
Denim - 840fps/11"/.551"

The Rem 125gr HPJ +P was also among some other rounds tried that day, since one of the guys was carrying it in his 360PD. He wanted to try it in one of the gel blocks against the Speer 135gr +P (and the gel blocks were now a bit warmed after sitting out in the sun, granted), and the Rem HPJ BJHP didn't do badly ... even though the rounds were badly tarnished and discolored from having been carried in the owner's 360PD for a while.
Rem 125gr GS +P: Bare Gel - 803fps/10.5"/.55"; Denim - 838fps/12"/.548
Win 130gr SXT: BG - 826fps/9.5"/.573"; Denim - 798fps/13"/.43"
Win 110gr STHP: BG - 812fps/10.25"/.516"; Denim - 840fps/10.5"/.476"


Another new .38 Spl +P load that seems interesting is the Winchester RA38B, using a bonded 130gr bullet in a +P load, packaged in the standard tan Ranger 50-rd box, but also sold as the PDX1/S38PDB in the glitzy 20-rd commercial box. The Winchester distributor checked at my request and confirmed the RA38B & the PDX1/S38PDB 130gr +P are the same loads, just packaged in different boxes (and quantities) for commercial & LE/Gov sales.

Some time in 2011, at a gel event hosted at our range, the new RA38B (PDX1) 130gr +P load was tried in a short J-frame. I'll compare the .38 RA38B results against the RA9TA 127gr +P+ & RA9T 147gr T-Series results.
Cloth test:
.38 - 886fps/13 1/4" pen/.53" exp
127gr +P+ - 1203fps/12"/.63"
147gr - 927fps/14"/.58"

Drywall:
.38 - 891fps/10 3/4"/.53"
127gr +P+ - 1199fps/11 1/4"/.59"
147gr - 925fps/13"/.52"

Laminated Auto Glass:
.38 - No vel reading/7 3/4"/.52"
127gr +P+ - 1196fps/7 1/4"/.51"
147gr - 939fps/9"/.47"

It will interesting to see what further non-factory testing reveals about its consistency of performance, of course. I'm not talking about "backyard" testing, or "plastic bottle" tests, but consistently, carefully controlled Gel testing, or even some water testing (Fackler box) using thin plastic bags.

I have/carry the Rem 125gr +P GS HPJ, Win RA38B 130gr +P and the Speer 135gr GDHP +P, depending on whichever box is closest at hand whenever I'm loading a snub, speedloaders or speedstrips. They've demonstrated they shoot accurately in my J's, in my hands.

I still have some Rem & Win 158gr LHP +P's put back (of which I prefer the Rem bullet because of its softer swaged lead), and I still have a good supply of the standard 125gr GDHP +P. I don't use the 158gr all-lead lead bullets as often, and while I'll load & carry the 125gr GDHP +P at one time or another, if I have the time to go get a box of the 135gr +P load from the cabinet, I prefer the 135gr GDHP bullet for carry roles. The 135gr GDHP bullet was designed to better expand when fired from the 2" barrels. I usually save the 125gr +P GDHP load for range practice.

Bottom line, though? The diminutive 5-shot snub's require some skill and experience in order to be controllably, accurately & effectively used. I'm more concerned about maintaining my skillset with them than I am about whichever particular bullet/load I might be using at any particular time.

Practice, practice, practice. Properly. I'd place a bit more emphasis on being able to get fast, consistently accurate hits on the intended threat target, which isn't as easy to do with a hard-recoiling 5-shot snub as it may be with a larger & heavier pistol. Especially one of the Airweights or Airlites.

Just my thoughts.

 

[dawei]

If you use .38 Spl or .38 Spl +P for personal protection can you answer these questions.

1. Manufacturer and product
2. P or +P
3. Bullet weight and type
4. Firearm
5. Barrel length
6. Advertised and actual average muzzle velocity
7. Average penetration, expansion and weight retention in bare gel
8. Average penetration, expansion and weight retention in heavy clothing gel

I'm going to start by answering my own questions.

1. Remington Golden Saber Ultimate Defense for Compact Handguns
2. +P
3. 125gr BJHP
4. Ruger LCR
5. 1.875"
6. 975 fps (advertised) and 894 fps (actual, avg of six rounds)
7. 14.2", 1.6X, 100% (avg of six rounds)
8. 14.4", 1.6X, 100% (avg of five rounds)

Bottom line, I think this load is AWESOME out of a Ruger LCR/KLCR.

1. Buffalo Bore®
2. Standard Pressure
3. 158gr LSWCHCGC
4. Taurus® Mdl 85SS2UL
5. 2"
6. 850fps (Advertised); 861fps (Average of five rounds)
7. 14.7" penetration, expansion to .613", 100% weight retention
8. 14.1" penetration, expansion to .607", 100% weight retention

 

[MCMXI]

1. Buffalo Bore®
2. Standard Pressure
3. 158gr LSWCHCGC
4. Taurus® Mdl 85SS2UL
5. 2"
6. 850fps (Advertised); 861fps (Average of five rounds)
7. 14.7" penetration, expansion to .613", 100% weight retention
8. 14.1" penetration, expansion to .607", 100% weight retention

Did you shoot these tests yourself? It'd be great to see photos of the expanded bullets.

 

[MCMXI]

Comparing the listed factory specs of the Golden Sabre HPJ BJHP .38 Spl 125gr +P and the Ultimate Defense BJHP .38 Spl 125gr +P, it sort of looks like the Ultimate Defense is their 125gr +P HPJ BJHP packaged in a 20-rd glitzy box instead of the 25-rd standard style box.

There's Ultimate Defense and Ultimate Defense for Compact Handguns which is a new product (shown in first post) and not simply a repackage deal. The bullets and loads (powder/primer) have been improved to give better terminal performance at lower velocities, less muzzle flash and less unburned powder.

 

[fastbolt]

There's Ultimate Defense and Ultimate Defense for Compact Handguns which is a new product (shown in first post) and not simply a repackage deal. The bullets and loads (powder/primer) have been improved to give better terminal performance at lower velocities, less muzzle flash and less unburned powder.

Remington still doesn't have the info for the "compact" line where I can find it on their website.

Is the "standard" Ultimate Defense a repackaging of their earlier Ultimate Home Defense product from about '09?

I'm still waiting to get better info on their new BJHP "Black Belt" LE ammo, myself.

 

[MCMXI]

Remington still doesn't have the info for the "compact" line where I can find it on their website.

Is the "standard" Ultimate Defense a repackaging of their earlier Ultimate Home Defense product from about '09?

I'm still waiting to get better info on their new BJHP "Black Belt" LE ammo, myself.

The new Ultimate Defense for Compact Handguns ammunition will start showing up at the end of the year.

http://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/2013/07/25/remington-compact-handgun-defense-ammo/

Yes, to answer your second question.

The "Black Belt" line is looking really good at the moment. Who wouldn't want performance equal or superior to bonded but at a lower cost?

 

[DeMilled]

Here is a little something new for this thread

I have the Speer Gold Dot Shot Barrel 135 grain 38spl+P in a
S&W Model 64 with a 4 inch barrel.

I shot six rounds over a chronograph and it was averaging 1001fps.


Not too shabby for the ol' 38spl in the ol' Model 64...

 

[dawei]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawei
1. Buffalo Bore®
2. Standard Pressure
3. 158gr LSWCHCGC
4. Taurus® Mdl 85SS2UL
5. 2"
6. 850fps (Advertised); 861fps (Average of five rounds)
7. 14.7" penetration, expansion to .613", 100% weight retention
8. 14.1" penetration, expansion to .607", 100% weight retention
Did you shoot these tests yourself? It'd be great to see photos of the expanded bullets.

Yes, but no photos.

 

[fastbolt]

The new Ultimate Defense for Compact Handguns ammunition will start showing up at the end of the year.

http://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/2013/07/25/remington-compact-handgun-defense-ammo/

Yes, to answer your second question.

The "Black Belt" line is looking really good at the moment. Who wouldn't want performance equal or superior to bonded but at a lower cost?

Yeah, I came across that linked article, too, but it wasn't exactly specific.

... are likely designed to open more slowly than those loaded in the other lines to give the bullets greater ability to penetrate more deeply...

Likely designed? Yes, no or maybe?

Then, the description of the expansion properties aren't compared to the regular HPJ BJHP, but to other lines? Whose lines? The bit about being designed to open more slowly is the same description they commonly use to describe how their BJ opens more slowly than copper jacketed bullets used in other lines. Do you suppose they'd really make a "compact" variation of the BJHP that opens even more slowly than the regular BJHP? Doesn't seem to make sense if they're intending it for non-LE application in defensive situations.

Then again, over the years I've learned that getting specifics from even LE sales reps and distributors can take a few tries before some detailed info is forthcoming.

Since the pending Black Belt line of LE ammo includes a 125gr .38 S&W Spl +P loading, I'll be interested to see if & when it might ship for LE orders.

In the meantime, the Speer 135gr GDHP +P & Winchester 130gr Bonded RA38B/PDX1 +P is - for now - easy enough for me to find. I've also had access to the current Rem 125gr +P HPJ BJHP in recent months, so I can afford to be patient.

I'm curious how Rem may have tweaked their existing BJHP, if they did, for the UD Compact Pistol line. The way the ammo companies sometimes don't bother to market their "civilian" loads to their LE/Gov customers, though, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn the new UD loads online before from a LE distributor.

BTW, one of the things that interests me about the new BB LE loads is that it looks like they've found a mechanical way to merge the performance characteristics of their Non-bonded & Bonded BJHP's. If what I've read is accurate (and specific enough in the details), the new BB BJHP doesn't need the hot-bonding (flux) inside the brass jacket as is used in the Bonded version. It would be handy to achieve the same expansion characteristics of the current non-bonded bullet, as well as the penetration and jacket retention of the bonded bullet, in one bullet design.

Guess we'll see about all of this stuff in the next several months. Hopefully, anyway.

 

[MCMXI]

Yes, but no photos

Why do you think there was less penetration with the heavy clothing test than with bare gel? Particularly since the bullet expanded less in heavy clothing as one would expect with a hollow point bullet.

 

[Riomouse911]

I am rotating out my old +P Hydra-shoks to +P Critical Defense loads in all of my 2" and 4" .38 defense guns.

 

[dawei]

Yes, but no photos

Why do you think there was less penetration with the heavy clothing test than with bare gel? Particularly since the bullet expanded less in heavy clothing as one would expect with a hollow point bullet.

I have no clue.

 

[just for fun]

Although this reply may not be a lot of help if you don't reload, when it's MY butt, I prefer to roll my own. Hornady 158 gr. LSWCHP and a +P helping of 231. I believe in this load and carry it when I'm out and about.

 

[ZVP]

I prefer to use either a Horniday 125 gr Self Defense load in myodel 36 and a full velocity 158 gr lead round like the factory Remington in my Model10, 4".
I go for accuracy rather than try to depend on some super hot, light loathe Horniday is the exception as it fragments
BPDave