Well, from my reading and in my posts on threads with Marshall, there have been times the folks there omit bare gelatin testing and go right to the clothing penetration testing. He stated to me on at least one occasion they don't put much weight or concern themselves so much with bare gelatin testing, and they're more interested in the DENIM AND barrier testing.

quote:

Originally posted by ifilef:
You refer to the Rem R38S12 as "LSWCHP" but there is no such designation on the box or in the Rem literature.

The box states "LHP".

So I was wondering whether there is a distinction between LSWCHP and LHP as far as the Rem round is concerned?

IOW, is the Rem R38S12 truly a LSWCHP or is it simply a LHP?

Regardless of what Remington writes on the box, the bullet they load R38S12 with is a lead semi wadcutter hollow point.

You can take that to the bank.

quote:

Originally posted by Photoman44:
The FBI protocol is what started the "four layer denim" test in the first place. Maybe they've changed their policy?

Regarding Marshall, he's made it well known (from reading his posts on his forum) that he doesn't think the four layer denim test is realistic. It's just that all the testing out there revolves around shooting through four layers of denim so that's what they do too.

FYI: Marshall ~highly~ recommends the 110 DPX load in .38 Special snubs for its ability to reliably open up after penetrating barriers. My experience with DPX has been less than satisfactory as lot to lot consistency has been very poor.

Someone mentioned the Speer 135gr Gold Dot data package...

Speed Gold Dot Data Package

Sir, I can only vouch for the DPX I tested. I was impressed. It opened up quite nicely after four layers of denim. The Speer +P SB was iffy. Speer SB .357 was fine, even with denim. That's what I carry.

quote:

Originally posted by Wyatt Earp:

quote:

Originally posted by ifilef:
You refer to the Rem R38S12 as "LSWCHP" but there is no such designation on the box or in the Rem literature.

The box states "LHP".

So I was wondering whether there is a distinction between LSWCHP and LHP as far as the Rem round is concerned?

IOW, is the Rem R38S12 truly a LSWCHP or is it simply a LHP?

Regardless of what Remington writes on the box, the bullet they load R38S12 with is a lead semi wadcutter hollow point.

You can take that to the bank.

Thanks, Earp. So why don't they call it that? Any idea?

quote:

What's so special about .38 Special Gold Dots?

Perhaps nothing.

In wet phone books and firing from a distance of eight feet with a 637 with a 1-7/8 inch barrel, Gold Dots penetrated 6.7 inches and expanded perfectly to .44 inches.

Remington 125 grain 38 Special Golden Sabers penetrated 6 inches with picture-perfect expansion to .625 inches and no jacket separation.

The Remingtons exhibited noticeably more recoil than the Gold Dots. Control/recovery were better with the latter.

We know Gold Dots will penetrate 11 inches in bare gelatin and heavy clothing, and 13 inches in 4-layer denim.

Also from the above data, the Remingtons penetrated 83.3% of the distance the Gold Dots did in the wet medium.

By extrapolation, that's 9.2 inches of penetration with 42% wider expansion than the Gold Dots.

If you really go out on a limb, that might equate be 10.8 inches of penetration for the Golden Sabers in 4-layer denim over gel.

Maybe I got an overloaded/overpressurized box of Golden Sabers. But this batch of GS 38 Specials sure debunked the myth, at least for me, of an underpowered, soft shooting round with poor expansion characteristics. Given the above figures, which round will better to stop an attacker is probably a medical question over my head. But I now have no qualms about carrying the Golden Sabers. Those things are bad to the bone.

Sorry, but I can't take your data seriously, due to the test medium.

I also believe the concensus is that Golden Sabers simply do not expand as consistently as GD. And it seems the cops carry GD, which are probably more expensive for their departments than the older, tried and true Golden Sabers.

I'm not clear on the actual data, but I'd highly believe that expansion in phone books, water jugs, etc. is of dubious scientific value.

Notwithstanding, I do have Golden Sabers in my .357 under the bed (my secondary defense weapon) and in .40 cal. for my CZ-75B. I'm too lazy and do not want to spend the money in trying out the various brands for those guns, so relied on the Marshall data as posted on handloads.com. I do like shooting the Sabers.

But my 9mm +P 124 gr and .38 special +P carry firearms contain the Speer GDHP. (actually I have a mix of Speer 135gr and the Rem 158gr LSWCHP in a ratio of 3:2 in my 442).

quote:

I can't take your data seriously, due to the test medium

You had to be there. Anybody shot with either round will be taking it very seriously. Besides, no one wanted to be shot in name of science. So wet telephone books is all I had. Figured they were better than newsprint.

ifilef,
Remington calls their bullet a LHP because it is a Lead Hollow Point bullet but being more specific, it's a Lead Semi-Wadcutter Hollow Point bullet. I have no idea why Remington has chosen to leave out the SWC part of the description.

In any case, I prefer the Remington .38 Special +P FBI round (Part #R38S12) over the Winchester round because the lead used by Remington is a little softer and expands more reliable in a snub nose revolver than the Winchester round does. Both are quality rounds and both are very accurate. I wouldn't hesitate to use the Winchester FBI Load (Part #X38SPD) in a 4" barrel revolver.