I'm surprised I didn't see this sooner. I really liked the testing Lucky Gunner did with auto calibers a while back and wondered why they didn't do one for revolver calibers. Well looks like they did that a few months ago!! Interesting information.

I'm a little surprised that the Speer Gold Dot 135 grain +P didn't do a little better. Seems most bullets didn't expand from the 2 inch barrel. Really makes me think about just carrying wadcutters for self defense...

http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/revo...llistics-test/

Fox

Back in "The Day" factory 148 grain wad cutters was what we carried in our 2 inch revolvers. low recoil with a nice clean hole in the paper or human target.

Put the most amount of rounds on target in the shortest amount of time and don't worry about the jello tests.

__________________
NEVER GIVE UP YOUR GUN

I still like a 148 grain HBWC or solid 158 grain SWC in my snubbie.

All about rounds on target.

Can't miss fast enough..........

Fox,
If you are thinking about a wadcutter for your two incher, I think you can do no better than this one. Take a look and read their actual test velocities out of actual revolvers. 868 fps from a Model 60! It's a standard pressure loading with a 150 grain hard cast wadcutter at a really decent velocity. It's also a bit expensive, but you won't have to fire many to see where your gun lands the bullets. Here is the link where you can read all about it: Standard Pressure Short Barrel Low Flash Heavy .38 Special Pistol & Handgun Ammunition

I was able shoot a tough old big jackrabbit at about 15 yards with one. It sounded like a 100 mph hardball thrown into a big catchers mitt when it hit, and the old jack went right down for the count. Damage was very obvious. A jackrabbit ain't a man by any stretch, but since I like wadcutters anyway for personal protection from snub nosed (or even 2.5", 3", or 4" revolvers), these sure fit the bill for me. I carry a cylinder full in my holstered revolver. My reloads are semi wadcutters or jacketed soft points since these rounds are easier to chamber in a hurry than the full wads. However, the full wads can be loaded pretty easily with some practice if they are carried in an HKS 10-A speedloader. My experience tells me that one of these full wadcutters at nearly 900 fps will be very likely to have a very negative affect on what ever it hits, and it should also provide more than adequate pentration to reach to and through the vitals!

We all make our best choices (or guesses) about what round to carry in our short barreled revolvers. I personally think any of them that give more than adequate penetration that strike where they need to hit to most likely disrupt some very important internal and necessary activity within a body will do the job, but my personal preference for the first five or six rounds to be fired from my personal protection revolvers are these Buffalo Bore wadcutters!

__________________
So long ... Ken

FWIW, the SB-GDHP is a very well-proven round in actual self defense shootings, which to me carries more weight than gel performance.

You may like this gel test better. The 135 grain Short Barrel load has a good street record, and this test suggests why.

It's what I use in snub and three-inch barrels

Thanks for all the replies so far.

I've looked at the Buffalo Bore wadcutter before, but haven't bought any yet. I shoot quite a few wadcutters for practice, as well as SWC, and FMJ or plated as well. I usually just go with what's cheapest for target practice...but I do like the heavier bullets.

I've been carrying the Speer Gold Dot 135's in my 642's for quite a while, based on other reviews and tests....such as the video by tnoutdoors9. I think he does great work, and I really like watching his videos. I know a lot was put into developing this round and that it has great results in actual shootings...which really does matter more than gel tests.

But as has been mentioned...expand or not, what really matters is how well you shoot a particular round in your weapon, and whether or not you can hit what you are aiming at, and that you have confidence in what you carry.

BUT...I still like reading about ammo, and watching the videos, etc. I like to see how they perform and hear people's experiences, etc. It's fun and interesting.

Fox

Not an attack on you ContinentalOP, but everyone says that.

But are there really a significant number of actual defense shootings where the bullet was recovered and checked for expansion?

Or are most of the glowing recommendations for the 135 gr 38+P gold dot made by people who just repeated what they read in other Internet posts.

I've seen too many tests showing lack of expansion of this round, so I'm starting to wonder.

The 110gr FTX did well for a light weight bullet for those that need light recoil.

Nice to see the Rem 125 GS also did well with five bullets expanding.

The Winchester 130 PDX did much better in this test and I have to
now give it a thumbs up with pen., Dia. and 5 expansions.

Some times we just have a bad day or a bad box of ammo........
the Speer 135gr had one of them, I guess?

Probably why their 125 GD at 821fps did not expand for me, also?
It is amazing what an extra 32fps will do for a bullet.

I played with wadcutters forward and backwards and cast bullets 40 years ago.

In the intervening years I've shot and necropsied enough 200lb critters to know that I'll take this 14" of penetration...



over this 21" of penetration everytime.



If it expands well and stops in the body, 100% of the energy is utilized. I don't plan on shooting through automobiles, doors, etc. like the FBI and swat teams. Over-penetration gives two holes to leave a better blood trail, but is a waste of energy.`

__________________
Carry.."hope" isn't a strategy

It's been in service with NYPD and, I believe, LAPD and Chicago PD. It's proven because it's done a good job of quickly stopping a threat. Massad Ayoob tracks performance based on reports he receives from police departments and recommends the SB-GDHP. Dr. Roberts recommends this load, too, and he uses a combination of gel tests and after-action reports from shootings. They have access to a large sample size and, to me, that gives their recommendations a high degree of validity. At the same time, I don't put a whole lot of emphasis on highly quantitative statistics (i.e., "one-shot stop percentages") because there're too many variables that can't be accounted for; which is why I rely on their more qualitative recommendations. That's what I base my choice on.

Whether it expands or not is not as important to me as street results, and that it can penetrate adequately while minimizing the risk of overpenetration. I have read about it expanding in actual shootings, but I can't say how much or how consistently that is.

Also, people often misinterpret gel results. Gel is homogeneous, people are not. Lots of variables affect the expansion and penetration characteristics of a round. Gel is used because testing protocols can be standardized and allow for comparison between rounds. The FBI standard of 12"-18" in gel means that, according to the FBI, a round that will penetrate within that range in gel should penetrate deeply enough to reach an attacker's vital organs while minimizing the risk of overpenetration. Many modern JHP have been reported as having textbook expansion when recovered from actual shootings, and many modern JHP have failed to expand in similar conditions. As I said before, what matters to me is how well the bullet performs in terms of quickly stopping a violent attacker, while minimizing overpenetration risk, not how consistently, or inconsistently, a round expands. To me, expansion is a benefit if it happens, but should not be counted on or expected.

Another use of gel results is to take advantage of it's consistency/standardization to compare the performance of proven rounds with unproven rounds. Rounds that perform similarly in gel should perform similarly in actual shootings. In theory, at least. Which is why I still prefer to choose rounds with a proven track record in actual shootings.

Having said all that, other factors are more important than terminal performance, such as shootability, reliability, etc. Being able to get good, quick hits on target is more important than how well a round performs, whether in gel or on the street. But if one can shoot a street-proven, reliable round with sufficient skill to get good hits on target, why would one choose anything else?

This is my line of thinking when it comes to choosing a self defense load. I'm not saying I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. We each have to make our own choices, and what criteria we choose to use or ignore to make our choices.

I hope that helps explain where I'm coming from.

Also, apologies for the novel.

I too like the Speer Short Barrel round for personal protection. Gel tests and others make for interesting reading and have some usefulness for comparison sake. But the only data that's really useful for me is the results from actual known shootings. It's not really about how much expansion the round may have achieved. It is the end result that matters.

As Contenental OP has rightly stated, it is whether or not the threat was quickly stopped. There is no magic bullet or loading, and there is no substitute for good bullet strikes. Even then, there are situations where good bullets with proven track records do not achieve a quick stop when a threat is present. So many things affect what happens in shootings, and every single one of them is a unique event with many, many variables present. But a bullet which has a track record of stopping threats quickly is a good one, regardless of whether or not it expanded to some arbitrary level. Better expansion may produce better results on average. But many stops have occurred with no expansion present. And I know of a few shootings where there was a lot of expansion of the projectile fired and the results were not satisfactory.

Put those rounds where they need to go as a first priority! If that happens, the desired result usually, not ever always, follows!

__________________
So long ... Ken