View Single Post
 
Old 02-17-2012, 01:22 AM
Odenthor Odenthor is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Talon View Post
The claimed stats for the Speer GDHP seem virtually identical to the results you saw using the 158 LSWCHP. Why would that make you decide in favor of the LSWCHP?
Eight reasons: [1]Using the Rem .38 LSWCHP +P, I don’t need 2 types of ammo, (one for my 4” barrel and one for my 2” barrel). [2]The Rem .38 LSWCHP +P is all soft lead with no copper jacket so in a Snubby I don’t have to worry about will it or won’t it open due to velocity. [3]SPLAT! that soft lead either opens up big and wide or even if it don't open it will flatten out bigger and wider than a failed copper HP will. [4]I don’t like being lied to; Speer says “Our 38 +p 135 gr Short Barrel EXCELS THROUGH FBI PROTOCOL TESTS”. Actually 11”of penetration in bare gel is 1” LESS than the FBI minimum so no “EXCELING” there and I would hardly call 13” penetration in the IWBA Heavy Clothing [denim] “EXCELING”. I called Speer and asked them: Why did it penetrated more in the denim test than it did in the bare gel test? Their answer was “because it failed to open up in the denim”. Huh! [5]The Rem .38 LSWCHP +P has a long successful track record, it was the first hollow point. [6]That big 158gr hunk of lead gets the job done. Several lesser reasons are, [7]The Speer .38 +p 135gr Short Barrel costs 40% – 50% more than the Rem .38 LSWCHP +P. [8]Even if somebody wants some Speer .38 +p 135gr Short Barrels, there has been none available for the last 3 months. Good luck
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post: