I don't know if these FBI Protocol ammo tests results by Lucky Gunner have been shown here yet for .38spl and .357mag, but I found some of the results surprising. In particular, none of the much vaunted FBI 158 grain SWCHP .38spl loads did well. Opinions?

Link provided

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

Larry

I noticed that too.

I carry the Buffalo Bore version of those loads in my Model 49.

Figured if it doesn't expand, it's still a 158 gr SWC which is a good load too.

Frankly, I wasn't that impressed with most of the 38 Special loads from 2" snubs.

I wish they would do their test protocol on the new 130 grain 38 Special +P HST load -- the one that seats down in the case like a wadcutter.

Speaking of wadcutters, those did pretty well in terms of consistent penetration.

Maybe I need to find a new carry load.

It bears repeating: shot placement remains King.

I feel very adequately armed with my Model 66 ND snub loaded with Remington 158 grain .38 Special LSWHP +Ps because I know that I can put 5 out of 6 shots into a 3-1/2 inch circle at distances out to 25 yards.

And I practice!

__________________
Five screws and 3-1/2 inches.

I don't know if we're looking at the same test results but the Remington FBI loads actually did quite well, with the Winchester loads seemingly a close second. The Federal loads did seem to have some excessive penetration.

The Federal and Winchester 38spl 158grain SWCHP showed no expansion out of a 2 inch barrel, the Remington version, minimal expansion from .358 to .400. They all performed better in 4 inch barrels, but I mentioned this particular loading as it is so popular with the J frame snub crowd.

I agree with Blue Ridge Boy that shot placement is king, and having confidence in one's carry load is important. But, all else being equal, (reliability, accuracy, and penetration) I would rather have a bullet that expands consistently.

Larry

This test isn't definitive but I shot 9mm 158 gr SWCHP at 927 fps through wet pulp and expansion was poor. It sort of shook my faith in the old SWCHP is the best theory. But it DID make a big hole.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Expansion is good, but not something I count on. I'm more concerned with penetration.

Of course, this is aside from the fact that the FBI load has established a solid track record in actual shootings, which I value much more than gel results.

Those test are pretty neat. It was interesting to see that Remington .357 125 grain SJHP had lower penetration compared to some newer loads, yet the Federal/Remington/Winchester 125 grain at 1400FPS is still considered to be the ace defense load. I would like to see them test some Silvertips and XTPs.

Concerning XTP'S. Specifically their 158 hp. I took my deer last fall ( small, 125 lbs ) with a handload going only about 1200 fps. Behind the shoulder, bullet did not exit, both lungs destroyed. It collapsed about 2 seconds after being hit. I feel confident using this for self defense.

I do my own testing, with synthetic ballistic gelatin. The price is reasonable and it's reusable, a couple of times.

Ignoring these test results, consider the record of these loads in use. Their bullets work reasonably effectively - especially when placed on "target" where nearly all bullets are reasonably effective. So if the loads work reasonably well, and have for decades, we revert to my lead sentence: Ignoring these test results, consider the record of these loads' use.

Agreed. These tests reflect the expansion and penetration of different bullets in ballistic gel. No more, no less. Its up to the user to make his own assumptions as to effectiveness. Actual SD shooting results with todays super bullets is lacking compared to years of data compiled with the "old standards" Time will tell. Already police / civilian results are showing a marked improvement in one shot stops with some of todays high tech. bullets like the Gold Dot and HST, compared to traditional jacketed hollow points from the 1980's.


QUOTE "Those test are pretty neat. It was interesting to see that Remington .357 125 grain SJHP had lower penetration compared to some newer loads, yet the Federal/Remington/Winchester 125 grain at 1400FPS is still considered to be the ace defense load. I would like to see them test some Silvertips and XTPs." END QUOTE


That brings up another factor gel testing lacks, and that is how much difference velocity effects stopping power in a handgun. Will say, a 125 grain bullet that hits at 800fps, expands to .60, and penetrates to 14 inches have the same stopping power as another bullet that weighs the same, expands and penetrates the same, yet hits at 1400fps?

Personally, I believe the higher velocity round will be a better stopper for a variety of reasons (Increased tissue / fluid disruption) even though gel testing may reflect otherwise identical ballistic results. Helps, in my mind anyway, to explain why those hot, 1400fps Remington 125grn mags have such a good street reputation, even though gel testing shows nothing special. Back when I carried them on duty, they had the street reputation as being "the load" all others were compared to.

Larry

I tend to think that it is a pointless argument. All bullet manufacturers put a lot of effort into making sure that their products work as well as possible and they all do a pretty good job. A J frame has more stopping power for a small woman than a full size 1911 because a 1911 is a lot more likely to be left at home. And a Model 29 in the hands of someone that has never fired a gun before is not very likely to stop a bad guy either. Having a gun that is comfortable to carry and that you can shoot well is what matters. Pretty silly to make a fuss about whether Hornady or Federal made the ammo.

Back in the old days, the 158 +P LHP was the top 38 special SD load.
There were a lot of LE that were not to happy with it and they kept their
148 WC ammo in their weapon, on the way home from the range, don't you know.

If I can scar the bullet tip with my finger nail, I will use that loading.
However I think the bullets are getting harder, than the original soft bullets.

I have half a box of Remington and when they are gone I will go to the
135 GD for my 38 snub nose for SD work.

IMHO Ballistic Gel Testing has many flaws. It contains no bones, no arteries or veins, no muscle, does not wear belt buckles, carry wallets, keys, cell phones or anything else human beings normally have on their person that a bullet can strike. It is shot at straight on and usually has text book hits. If you get my point, it is ONLY a method to compare different cartridges in a somewhat consistent test media. IMO it is only an indicator of what is more consistent and not gospel. I'd also wager that everyone who posts testing data online uses testing Gel of a slightly different make up and at different temperatures.

I am not badmouthing this type of testing - YES we do need some way of knowing what is better than others and a way of comparison, but I would not take Gel testing over actual reported shootings. Unfortunately there is limited data on new cartridges, new designs and small batch ammo and so we are forced to look at this type of testing data.

I would very much like to see more realistic testing Gel Blocks that do contain muscle, Arteries & Veins, Vital Organs and Bones. Last I checked there is certainly no shortage of Cows here in the USA and there are plenty of these available after the Cows are slaughtered for use if someone wanted to incorporate them. While not Human parts, they are better than 100% Gel IMO and would tend to show what happens when bullets strike things inside a body. Just saying.........

I would also like to state that different situations call for different loadings. Warm weather climates need more expanding and less penetration where as in the Arctic they would be interested in a deeper penetrator. State Troopers and Highway Patrolmen might be interested in a round that could crack an Engine Block but LEO's working in a dense City might not have that priority. People who live in "Dangerous Game Zones" would need different loadings than people who don't. If a Bullet will not penetrate a huge Bear, it does not mater of it expands well or not.

So when you look at these charts these are all things you might want to keep in mind.

I think the lower penetration is interesting. I suspect it's because the bullet is travelling fast enough that the bullet expands very rapidly and expends its energy very quickly. From the research I've seen, penetration and shot placement are the critical elements of a one stop shot, but you have to wonder if a bullet generating ~450 ft.lbs slamming into a bad guy and dumping every ounce of energy isn't going to slow him down a good bit even if the shot placement isn't perfect.

here's a different test on the 158gr 38 spl loads. All fired from snub nosed.

__________________
Peace was my Profession

I have seen what a 148 grain 750fps .38 special LHBWC does to Mr. Badguy when fired from a two inch barrel. I consider it to be an effective stopper.

So long as the additional recoil is manageable a (BB) 900 fps LFBWC cannot possibly do worse.

Personally I would not use a .38 +p LSWC-HP in less than a four inch barrel, prefering a full wadcutter or LSWC out of two or three inches, just based on what I have seen.

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

There’s no magic bullet and I always carried whatever my agency issued us. For the .38 it was the FBI +P 158 grain HP and I had to use it twice in deadly force encounters. It works and dropped the suspect like a rock. My first deadly force encounter was in ‘68 w/the lead round nose standard pressure load, no +P then, and it worked likely due to shot placement. I use the Buffalo Bore standard pressure 158 grain HP in my 340PD. I try and get to the range monthly w/my EDC, to include my .380, and qualify annually for LEOSA.

__________________
Old Cop
LEO (Ret.)

Ballistic gel testing is a first-rate means of assessing bullet
performance in ballistic gel.

My three personal load choices are:

1) Buffalo Bore +P 158 grain LSCWHP-GC which out of my 2" M60-7 has consistently chronographed @ 1025 fps. Not only is it the best I know of (IMO of course) but it has always been super accurate and consistent - and I've NEVER had a failure of any type!

2) Speer 135 grain Short Barrel GDHP which does about 835 through my chronograph out of my M60-7. Not quite as powerful and has a lot less ME but has a great reputation, consistent expansion and does not kick as hard which allows for faster follow up shots.

3) Buffalo Bore 158 grain Standard Velocity LSWCHP. Does a consistent 850 out of the 2" M60-7. While it does have more ME than the Speer GDHP I find they do not expand as reliably - still a very very viable load.

So there are my top 3 picks in that order. I have not carried Remington or Winchester due to some FTF, very low velocities (despite what they state on the packaging) and lack luster performances from my own testing out of my M60-7 2" bbl. Federal ammo has been much more reliable than Win & Rem however their stated velocities fall very sort as well.

Buffalo Bore's stated performance is the ONLY Company that is 100% honest, accurate reliable out of the guns we actually carry. They do not use test barrels and state exactly what gun they are posting results from. Once I purchased a Chronograph 20 some odd years ago my eyes were widely opened up!

The consistancy of thier product is very high, as measured by grouping and by SD over a Chrony.

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

No matter.

I'm still loading the "sacred cows" into my .38 Special revolvers' cylinders for serious social purposes. I can't really believe in jello tests.

IMHO anyone who is serious about carrying a 2" .38 Special owes it to themselves to either buy or borrow a Chronograph. They say a "picture" is worth a thousand words and it really is!

Well, so far nobody has commented about Luckygunners tests being clear gel, which is NOT accepted by any agencies or formal testing facilities, its in the realm of hobby use, because it doesnt correlate well to organic gel tests. Luckygunner uses it because its cheaper, and easier to use, but its not the same material as organic gel.

True ballistic gel isnt exactly like living tissue, but, over the years, it has been shown to react very similarly to actual shooting results with the same loads, so it does serve a valid purpose. water jugs, wet newspaper, and clear gel, not so much. interesting and fun, but not in the same class as organic gel. So, while interesting and perhaps entertaining, I wouldnt make any judgements on loads based on clear gel results compared to organic gel tests.

For sure there is no magic handgun bullet when it comes to personal defense. But I cannot help but wonder if the combination of a 180-200 grain bullet moving at 1000-1200 fps might just be the best combination.

Back in the day, the .38-40 was a popular sixgun round. In the 1960s, the .41 Magnum was introduced as an ideal police round. In the 1980s, the 10mm was loaded light for the FBI. In 1990, the light loaded 10mm was made into the .40 S&W - a most popular police cartridge. The one thing all of these rounds have in common is a load that is 180-200 grains or so moving at about 1000-1200 fps or so. Even the best .45 ACP hollow points are often the 185 or 200 grain loads moving at 1000 fps.

I am starting to think that the best defensive cartridge lies somewhere in those parameters.

Maybe if the jello contained some whipped cream or grapes or strawberries or pineapple chunks it would better simulate real world conditions.

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

I guess we should worry if we are attacked by jello but in the real world the CHI Load has a proven track record so I will continue to carry it in my Chief's Special and M10. They are also very accurate in both guns.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

Winchester's 38 offerings confuse me. They have PDX1 Defender, Ranger Bonded, and Train and Defend, all in 130 grains. Other than some velocity difference are these really that different from each other. ?

Just curious. I like Speer 135 grain Short Barrel but have a few boxes of Winchester PDX1 around which I get when I can't find Speer.

Probably the major problem with the FBI tests-like many other testing protocols-is that most folks never read the whole thing. They just turn to the results.

Right up front, the FBI notes that all the tests may not be relevant to your particular need. When they started the program over 50% of their encounters involved adversaries in cars, so metal & glass penetration was a big deal. (When I got told that by an agent, I remarked that was a clue that they shouldn't be relying on handguns. He agreed.). You are supposed to look at the testing that applied to your situation and choose accordingly.

Now about the FBI load: I noticed the penetration/lack of expansion of certain "FBI" .38 loads some years back. I ran into some sources that noted that hitting the sternum was a good way to help out expansion. Of course that may not be an issue. There's no doubt the load has been effective over the decades, but it was due to shot placement and penetration, not expansion. If over penetration may be a concern, it probably isn't your best choice.

So using this protocol a .38 S&W Special .357 diameter 148 grain LHBWC that penetrates 17" but does not expand is somehow inferior to a 40 grain .223 diameter bullet that expands to .375" and penetrates 13". Really, in what universe.

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

Well... maybe...

Consider a few things, and let's discuss .38 special ammo.

The Luckygunner tests showed the non +P Winchester Train and Defend expanded very well, and were some of the best rounds for reaching FBI protocol depth. AND they were lower recoil.

Great, right?

Then you look at Paul Harrell's video, and we see a completely different story in his "meat target" at the end. None of them expanded.


Isn't that interesting?

I go for bullets that do consistently well across multiple tests. The one round I have found does well in virtually every test is the Remington Golden Saber 125gr. .38 +P

By the way... too bad LuckyGunner did not test .38 round nose. Much of the expensive hollowpoint ammo, from various brands, never opened up, and basically reached within FBI threshold for depth. If they had expanded, they would not have made it.

I was fairly impressed with the wadcutters, myself.

I would also like to point-out some statistically glaring inconsistencies with the LuckyGunner tests.

Take this case:

Look at the 9mm Federal HST 147 grain, and compare that to the Federal 147 grain Hydrashock. Notice the bullet speeds, average expansion, and distance traveled. The HST's opened-up fully, yet only traveled an average of around 2 inches less in the gel -- compared to the unopened (then essentially round-nosed) Hydrashock. Those Hydrashocks should have traveled a lot further, given their speed (or the HST's a lot less).

Some of these numbers just don't computer, for me. That tells me there may have been some real inconsistencies in the gels.

I believe that the inconsistent results are part of the reason clear gel isnt used or results recognized by serious testers.

Higher velocity doesnt always mean deeper penetration. Higher velocity generally means more rapid and violent expansion, which can reduce penetration.

Clear gel usually shows deeper penetration than organic gel, but not by a consistent amount from what I understand. Its all interesting, but difficult to compare clear to organic because of the differing results and inconsistencies. So to say "FBI load does X in gel... and this other bullet does Y in (clear 'gel'(as if all gel was the same)" is pretty meaningless when trying to compare to another load in a different type of test medium.

Organic gel is a pain in the behind to make and use, it needs to be made a certain amount of time before testing, refrigerated, kept at a consistent temp until the test, calibrated before testing (a bb fired at a certain velocity and its penetration depth recorded, and that should be included in test info, exactly what the calibration was or that it was properly calibrated). All this is why clear gel is popular, its just not the same results, so hard to compare straight across to organic gel test results.

Too bad we can't get more bad guys lining up to volunteer as media for penetration and expansion tests.

Until that happens I guess we'll just have to rely on ballistics gelatin tests to compare relative performance. While recognizing the limitations of the media of course

I believe in in "Placement Under Pressure." You can get killed by a 22 bouncing around or survive a 44 mag. Ballistic gel makes pretty flower bullets. That and a crystal ball will tell you how it will react in a real world shooting scenario. Practice, practice, practice. Location, location, location. That is the key to survival. 5 or 6 38's in the nose are sure that one is going to hit something important.

BUT, having said all that, it still might not matter. Just do your best that if you are going to be on a slab in the coroner's office that you make sure the bad guy is there with you.

We have a fairly good supply of actual shootings to compare information with of various loads to ballistics gel tests, and we know the bullets/loads tested in organic gel perform pretty similarly to actual shooting results, even with bones and the variety of things bodies consist of. This is an ongoing field of research and study, not something seldom done ages ago, dusted off periodically to try to justify its existence. The ongoing study is why we have continually improving bullet designs, and bullet designs that dont clog up with clothing, can shoot through windshields, car doors, etc and still expand and penetrate well afterwards.

You will die of a well placed .22 CB cap. And survive a miss from a .458 Winchester Magnum.

__________________
Expect the unexpected

I remember when I was given some gel test results from factory testing by Winchester, done, if I recall correctly, sometime in 2002. (I probably have that paper somewhere in the bins of materials I collected, but then packed away after I retired.)

I thought I recalled that the "average" expansion in their own testing was something like .36" (meaning little deformation).

I also remember being told that the Remington version (R38S12?) of those earlier years had yielded some better expansion in some state testing, likely (supposedly) because of the softer swaged lead used in their LHP bullet.

I'd not be at all surprised if encountering a heavy bony structure (like the sternum) might result in more deformation and expansion ... but ... arguably, the "effectiveness" of any particular "hit" is still more likely to depend on placement, and damaging critical tissues, structures and organs, than the degree of expansion.

At least having a hollow nose cavity might offer some potential for deformation and mushrooming effect, and perhaps even some "cookie cutter" effect, but remember that the long 158gr SWC-profile bullets may easily yaw right after impact, and the length of the bullet might actually present a "wider" surface that might come into contact with more anatomical tissues than a nicely rounded, mushroomed front meplat.

Placement, placement, placement.

Speed of getting that first (or maybe only) 1 or 2 hits, of course, but with good placement.

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

Or, you could go out and look at documented shootings of actual humans, in "real life" events, where
the round and it's effects were captured, then sift through thousands of shootings, and tabulate the relative effects of different calibers, types and brands of bullets, etc.

Oh, wait...Sanow & Marshall already did that...

Well, they claim to have, but,...when asked about details, places, sources, they never produced anything showing they had actual data. Their statistics are also faulty, to the point of being statistically impossible in the updated version. When they could have cleared up some things, instead went the other way with worse statistics, and no source info. Many that actually do study such things have called it a work of fiction.

So, maybe they did, maybe they didnt, but if they did, they handled it all so poorly that it leaves their conclusions in question. Thats the best credit i can give them, after formerly believing their stuff.

I stopped believing the formulas and studies quite a while ago. A blunt or flat nosed bullet with enough velocity to ensure complete penetration is enough for me.

... but it seems that even a .38 load will vastly overpentrate if it doesn't expand.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

I really like the way Chris and the boys at Lucky Gunner organize their material.

That said, denim covered gel only gives only part of the picture.

The "FBI Load" has become attenuated over the years. Back in the 70s I clocked them at around 880 to 900 fps from a 4" but lately they run around 800 (federal is in the upper 700s) - oddly enough from the same gun I used back then.

That said, even if they don't expand they still penetrate.

I like expansion but I have to have penetration.

Riposte

__________________
"Adventure is the result of poor preparation"

We did some backyard tests when our block of jell showed up last fall.

Speer 158gr LSWCHP 38spl +P loads per Ramshot's data book actually worked as well as if not better than the Remington FBI load. That said, we had some bizarre bullet turns, but were fine from our 642s. When we shot 145gr silvertips, my model 66-3 with 2.5" barrel got perfect mushrooms, but, my brother's Ruger 3" GP100 fared far worse. His cylinder gap is 0.008" and mine is near-factory 0.005".

Summary, each gun and cylinder/barrel gap makes a huge difference to to the ammunition performance. As does barrel type and length.

I carry either Speer 135gr or Winchester 145gr silvertips now in my 66 short barrel and still prefer the Rem 158gr LSWCHP in my 642. I practice with Speer 158gr pills that match the specs for the Rem.

My Rossi 92 (357) really likes 180gr Federal JHP loads.

BTW the reason the Ol' Remington "FBI Load" got its reputation is because back in the day it was actually loaded up hotter than it is today - DESPITE what the modern package verbiage states. Actual testing I have done proves that point. If they STILL loaded it to what they use to, it would still be a viable load. The Buffalo Bore offerings took over where Remington, Winchester and Federal dropped the ball.

I like that the Luckygunner tests used the heavy clothing standard, because how often are you going to have a naked assailant?


Thanks for mentioning which way the clear tended to go, that makes the lesser-penetrating rounds seem even more pathetic.

One thing I've noticed, and I don't know how it came about, is that most posters on some other forums place an extreme importance on expansion at the cost of penetration, while here it seems that most would rather have the penetration. I'm one who's much more worried about under-penetration than over-penetration. The first thing I did while looking at the Luckygunner charts is sort the results by deepest penetration, then I started looking at other factors.

One thing that I see consistently misrepresented is the oft-quoted "FBI ideal 12 - 18" of penetration". This makes a lot of people think that anything over 18" in gel is too much. What the FBI said was that the minimum desired penetration was between 12 - 18", and the deeper the better. 18" is the end of the nominal range for minimum.

__________________
TEAM DNF

I do like the all copper Barnes bullets for self defense. I carry Cor Bon DPX in my 357, 7 shot magnum. They do like them a lot(expensive).

Anyone interested in UNDERWOOD AMMO response to information on 38 Special 158gr SWCHP regular and +P posted for a 17/8” bbl yesterday, go to: Revolvers 1980 to present. Go down to post “J frame shoots low” by Execpro comment #37.