Did I get duped? A lot of the internet photos and vids show the Federal brand FBI Load with a clear "(+P)" on the box. According to the website from where I ordered a couple of boxes, what I ordered was rated at 890 fps, same as the Remington LSWCHP (+P). The boxes of Federal I got is white with black letters but does not say "(+P)" anywhere on it, nor does it state the rated velocity on the package. And the Federal website doesn't even show that they carry such a product.

Did they change the packaging, or is it like a Buffalo Bore deal- with +P velocities but standard rating?

Do the cases have the +P marking?

__________________
A Snider squibbed n the Jungle

post a picture of what you got

Federal "38G" is/was Federal's version of that load. The "commercial" offerings in the blue/grey box were marked "+P" as were the cases.

What us the past # on the box?

Like said above, #38G is the +P load.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

Check the crimp. I read on the Net that some 38G got out that wasn't crimped and the bullets work their way forward under recoil.

I think you need to call Federal and describe just what you have.

Properly made 38G has been very accurate in my guns over the years.

I couldn't find any Plus P lead HP locally, and my son brought me some Remington ammo of this type. I'm a little suspicious of all Remington products now, but it looks okay.
Haven't fired any yet.

Federal's packaging is sometimes inconsistent. My department issued Federal for training and carry in multiple calibers. I carried .45 ACP. The duty load the last few years was the 230 grain Tactical Bonded Plus-P, their catalog number LE45T1. Most of the time, the box's end label was printed with (+P) with a velocity, energy and trajectory graph on the back but sometimes there was no +P marking on the end label but a white, stick-on label on the back, one batch had neither. Yet always the same catalog number. The headstamp always had +P marked.

I think with the increase in demand and production over the last few years, their packaging providers haven't been able to keep up

Federal 38 Special Ammo 158 Grain Lead Semi-Wadcutter


I think this is what I got...my own fault. Same velocity rating as the +P, but less muzzle energy, but these are OBVIOUSLY not HPs now that I am taking the time to look closely at it...I know that is the price I paid, though. The +Ps are out of stock and $2 more. Oh well, they'll still go bang.

I bought some of that 38G a couple of years ago at a reduced price. It had no crimp. I set my seating die up to make a nice firm roll crimp, and ran them all through it. I put them back in the trays and boxes and have a case of good +P ammo in reserve............

__________________
dd884
JMHO-YMMV

I just confirmed that I have the 38C- standard pressure LSWC with no hollow point. Still should be good target ammo.

Yes that 38C is very good ammo, just standard pressure like 158gr rnl, only with a much better shaped bullet.

__________________
dd884
JMHO-YMMV

LSWC is a much better shaped bullet than RNL?

"Better" in that the flat face and sharp shoulder of a SWC bullet cuts a very nice and clean round hole in a paper target compared to the jagged hole the RNL makes, and that it seems to be a better stopper of live targets, for hunting and/or self defense.

RNL bullets are "better" than SWC in that they slip into the cylinders more smoothly without sharp edges to catch on the chamber edges, especially with a speedloader.

My guess is that, for 98% of the handgun rounds most of us shoot, it doesn't make any difference what the bullet shape is, as it is only going to poke holes in paper targets and cardboard target backers.

The shoulder on a LSWC tends to hand up on the chambers when you're reloading in a hurry with a speed loader.

Now...that varies a bit with different LSWCs as some have much more pronounced shoulders than others, but RN, RNFP, RNSP, and hollow points with RNFP profiles are all faster and easier to align with the chambered when it comes to a reload with a speed loader.

^^^^what he said. I purchased 14 boxes several years ago from a dealer unloading unsold inventory. I had crimp jump in my aluminum frame Js, but not in steel Js or Ks. It's mostly gone now, but I would not use it for CC.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

Ideal for small game, too.

The poster who doesn't realize why we have SWC bullets badly needs to read Elmer Keith's, "Sixguns." Get the revised 1961 ed.

That is the basis for all persons wanting to know about handguns, and one is seriously impaired if he hasn't studied it. The other basic book I recommend is Geoffrey Boothroyd's "The Handgun." You can find it for a lot less than the Keith book, and its scope is much wider. But the Keith book has more on ammo, bullet shapes, etc. and on shooting techniques. Don't drop the latter book on a bare toe. You'll feel it! It's big and heavy. And very, very useful!

Both are dated, but are the basis, and that doesn't change. You can read more on modern auto pistols, current ammo, etc. elsewhere.

But a man who doesn't even know why a SWC bullet is better than a RN for most purposes is just... well, handicapped is the polite way to put it.

If the ammo box in question here is the one pictured, I don't understand why it was hard to tell what's in it. The endflap is pretty clear about that, especially if you look up what 38C means. It's a very good field load for small animals and better for defense than a RN bullet. Lead bullets do create a possible additional need to clean the barrel often. Don't let lead deposits build up. Reloaders avoid this to a large extent by using harder cast bullets. Factory lead bullets tend to be softer swaged ones. But this is in, "Sixguns." Go read it if you haven't!

Actually RNL makes a slightly larger permanent cavity but penetrates slightly less than LSWC (assuming same weight and velocity of course, soft tissue or ordnance gel).

I don't think you got duped.
To say you were "duped" suggests some sort of trickery by the seller.

The velocity was disclosed at time of sale.

+P .38 special should do better than 890 fps - which is what you bought.

There was no trickery by the seller here.
You may have bought - by your own poorly-informed choice - a product different that what you really wanted.

__________________
WWSSD?
What would Skeeter do?

Because the website advertises 890 FPS- the same as Remington's FBI Load (and NOW, I see Federal's), so I assumed it was one and the same, not to mention the black and white box looks similar to the +P variant. Look at some Buffalo Bore- higher velocities but still rated standard pressure. I thought that maybe Federal might have done the same thing here. And, if I didn't know that much, how would I possibly know what 38C means?

As noted, Federal's site is terrible, and I found no indication that either was still in production.

Well, it doesn't. Not Remington's and not Federal's. Check those out, if you don't believe me.

Your point here is well made, but 890 FPS is the standard for that type of Plus P lead HP ammo, with 158 grain bullet. Plus P velocity varies by the ammo brand and type.

I'd be fascinated to see you explain how a RN bullet creates a larger permanent crush cavity than a SWC bullet does. (Stated in your prior post.) That is the exact opposite of what I'd expect , based on the writing of all others who have published in that area. This would seem to be borne out by the greater lethality of SWC on small animals. Everyone who's published about that says the bullet shape makes a decided difference in quick killing power. I'm willing to learn something new, but want to see you prove this. You 're essentially telling us that water isn't wet. Everyone thinks it is. So tell us why you think it isn't wet.

If you wish to get a rocket scientist's proof (theoretical and experimental) that RNL does create a slightly larger permanent cavity than a LSWC, see D. MacPherson's "Bullet Penetration..." book. Having seen the proof and having familiarity with integral calculus and the scientific method, I accept the proof. YMMV, of course.

Given faster reloading and slightly superior terminal performance of RNL vs. LSWC -- it would hardly be prudent for anyone to handicap himself by choosing a LSWC over RNL for self-defense with a revolver.

This discussion is getting interesting! As to the above quoted comment, bullet designs such as the SWC, SWC-HP, JHP were developed BECAUSE RNL bullets were failing to stop armed felons. I remember the 1960s, when all this came about. Police officers carried RNL in their service revolvers and because they rarely had to use them in actual shootings, the limitations of RNL were not apparent. Incidents requiring multiple hits with RNL and failing to stop felons were becoming more frequent when the crime rate went up and LEOs used their sidearms more often.

Agencies tried different remedies. (1) Some adopted the .357 for increased stopping power. (2) A new caliber, the .41 Magnum, was developed to give officers a more powerful sidearm. (3) For the 1st time, semi-auto pistols such as the Model 39 were adopted by some agencies.

The most cost-effective and training-friendly method was switching .38 RNL ammo to a more effective bullet design that would stop BGs and not over-penetrate as RNL often did. Thus, the appearance of the above bullet designs in higher velocity .38 rounds, eventually called +P.

Any older cops out there will confirm the above. It was all clearly delineated in the book, "The Search For An Effective Police Handgun," published by Charles C. Thomas. It was a compendium of articles describing the above.

Yes, RNL reloads more easily in round speedloaders. That is perhaps it's sole advantage. LEOs in general of that era did not know about crush cavities, etc. The DID know when a BG was stopped after one hit, rather than continuing criminal activity after 6, 12 or even more RNL hits. It's not opinion. It's history.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

There is not much difference between permanent cavities caused by RNL vs. LSWC, and either PC is, of course, significantly smaller than a PC caused by a WC or LSWCHP that expands. To discern a statistically significant difference between RNL and LSWC "on the street" would probably take many thousands of well-documented shootings. Anecdotally, with a limited sample, a .380 ACP has been shown to have a better one-shot stop success than a .44 mag; such anecdotal tales obviously don't mean much.