Federal’s latest FBI Load for Airweights

[38SPL HV]

I recently purchased a couple of boxes of Federal’s LE 38 Special +P 158 gr LSWCHP (“38G”). There are many out there nowadays at good prices (less than round nose std velocity…checkout Recoil Gunworks for instance).

The Federal crimp is not too pronounced as Remington’s current FBI version…but the Federal bullet moves slightly from its crimp similar to how Remington’s version does when shooting out of a S&W 442 Airweight (checking every fifth unfired round…ten cycles (50 rd box) but never subjecting the fifth round in the cylinder more than the four shots proceeding it. I shot each fifth round separately). No chance of enough bullet jump to jam the cylinder…giving me confidence.

The Federal version from over four years ago would come awfully close to jamming things with significant bullet jump. If you look at the outside of the cases of Federal’s latest version they have what appears to be compression marks adjacent to where the bullets sits within …can they be compressing the cases to provide more neck tension for the bullets? The crimp is not much different from those I tested four + yrs ago…they must be doing something to keep the bullets from moving as much as they had previously. Federal load has no jump in a 4 inch revolver…probably designed for these larger revolvers instead of Airweight versions. It’s my standard load in 4 inch revolvers.

I’m long winded here but I would recommend Federal’s latest “FBI” round for snub noses. I guess you could put your own roll crimp into it as I did with my older versions but not really necessary unless you don’t want any movement whatsoever in the Airweight.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

WW2 .45ACP ball ammo utilized a black asphalt cement to secure the bullet in the case in order to prevent bullets being pushed deeper during the feeding cycle in automatic weapons. Not quite the same thing as bullets jumping forward under recoil, but an interesting thought that might be worthwhile for this issue (in reverse).

Of course, another step in the manufacturing and loading process that would drive production costs upward.

Thread drift here, sometimes my mind works that way.

Good review. Thanks.

 

[alwslate]

+P 158 gr LSWCHPs are a poor choice for a S&W Airweight 442 to begin with in my opinion. Low velocity from the 1.87" barrel means little to no expansion with very snappy recoil. Penetration is likely to be shallow when compared to the standard pressure 158 gr RN. There are better choices for SD than the almighty "FBI" load.

 

[38SPL HV]

+P 158 gr LSWCHPs are a poor choice for a S&W Airweight 442 to begin with in my opinion. Low velocity from the 1.87" barrel means little to no expansion with very snappy recoil. Penetration is likely to be shallow when compared to the standard pressure 158 gr RN. There are better choices for SD than the almighty "FBI" load.

Prefer them in 4” barrels K frames. If I can find some Speer 38 Spl +P 135 gr Golds Dots that would be the way to go. Most of the time I have my generic range load…148 gr DEWC over 3.3 grs W231…693 fps in the 442

 

[SGT ROCK 11B]

There are better choices for SD than the almighty "FBI" load.

It was so easy when the Police Department just issued us ammunition for our two, four or six inch revolvers.

 

[Doug M.]

Understanding that most command officers are qualified to make a decent ammo choice in the same manner I am to do cardiac surgery.

 

[jimmyj]

In my .38 spl airweights revolvers I carry factory 148 grain wadcutters

 

[SquarePizza]

I fired the 158 federal LSWHP standard velocity through a 2 inch model 10. I think velocity was only 775fps or something like that. It was certainly under 800fps.

I shot a pork loin for a stop the bleed training and the wound channel was so tight that I ended up having to cut the channel wider with a knife so that the team could practice wound packing. I was not able to recover the bullet but I would put money on it that it did not expand in the 8 inches or so of meat.

I really want to carry a LSWHP load but I haven't found one that I believe will expand in a snubby.

 

[Matt_X]

38 SPL - Thank you for a straight forward review.


SquarePizza
Thankyou for sharing your experience.

Underwood's coated and gas checked 158 gr LSWCHP is supposed to be made with soft lead, and ought to have a better chance of expanding than those harder alloys. The non-plus is on sale right now at some on-line vendors.


Not sure if that (Underwood version) will help out of a 2" barrel. IMO with 2", and especially lighter framed guns, if expansion is a priority then a lighter bullet at higher velocity like the 110 gr FTX at even standard pressures will generally do that. That seems consistant whether its Lucky Gunner, or Paul Harrell doing the comparison.

I fired the 158 federal LSWHP standard velocity through a 2 inch model 10. I think velocity was only 775fps or something like that. It was certainly under 800fps.

I shot a pork loin for a stop the bleed training and the wound channel was so tight that I ended up having to cut the channel wider with a knife so that the team could practice wound packing. I was not able to recover the bullet but I would put money on it that it did not expand in the 8 inches or so of meat.

I really want to carry a LSWHP load but I haven't found one that I believe will expand in a snubby.

 

[Doug M.]

Expansion is a bonus, but often should not be expected. This is really true in a short .38. I tend to .38 SWC in my M66 as I can shoot it faster with better placement, and that is what really matters. I have been considering what to carry when we have our RV and start using it. I am inclined to 3-4 SWC and the rest .357 Silvertips.

 

[M29since14]

Expansion is a bonus, but often should not be expected. This is really true in a short .38…

Good point. I’ve read a lot of praise over the years for the 158 LSWCHP +P load-of-a-million-names. I have tried them from all three major brands and have found them all to be slow and inaccurate in any revolver I tried them in.

I no longer use a Chief’s Special but when I did I preferred a cast H&G 051 LSWC and a charge of HS6 (that I won’t mention here). My handloaded ammo was far more accurate, more powerful, and always reliable. Of course there was no expansion. I always thought the idea of expansion AND reasonable penetration in any sane load fired from a 2-inch barrel .38 Special revolver was pretty fanciful. I was more interested in accuracy and penetration. (This was before the era when folks started to live in fear over using handloaded ammo in their self-defense guns - or at least before I was aware of that.)

 

[BrBa]

Just about any 158 gr "FBI load" is going to be too slow to expand reliably from a 2" revolver. Perhaps the only one that will expand is made by Buffalo Bore, but shooting those from an airweight is like slamming your hand in a car door.

Buffalo Bore also loads the Barnes 110 gr TAC-XP to around 1100 fps from a 2" revolver. Those expand every time and get adequate penetration. I get the same velocity as those using 7.7 gr HS-6 with a magnum primer. That's still below Hodgon's published max. (7.8 gr) and also below Barnes' published max. (8.2 gr) for that bullet. It also has less recoil than the Speer Gold Dot 135 gr Short Barrel factory load.

I like this guy's videos. He uses actual ballistic gel, not the synthetic stuff:
https://youtu.be/q_qQfS2yTCE?si=PnnWgcznw_S_NMxG

 

[rockquarry]

Good point. I’ve read a lot of praise over the years for the 158 LSWCHP +P load-of-a-million-names. I have tried them from all three major brands and have found them all to be slow and inaccurate in any revolver I tried them in.

I no longer use a Chief’s Special but when I did I preferred a cast H&G 051 LSWC and a charge of HS6 (that I won’t mention here). My handloaded ammo was far more accurate, more powerful, and always reliable. Of course there was no expansion. I always thought the idea of expansion AND reasonable penetration in any sane load fired from a 2-inch barrel .38 Special revolver was pretty fanciful. I was more interested in accuracy and penetration. (This was before the era when folks started to live in fear over using handloaded ammo in their self-defense guns - or at least before I was aware of that.)

The H&G #51 is a good one and with a little load development is quite accurate, too. It's the original .357 Magnum bullet but works just as well in .38 Special. I shoot Bullseye style single-action with everything, usually at 25 yards, seldom closer.

I don't obsess over concealed carry, expansion, etc. You likely won't get expansion anyway out of a snubnose with most bullets, but lately I've been working with soft bullets. My standard pressure loads with the #51 only get about 750 fps muzzle velocity. For those interested, I suspect a very soft 6 or 7 BHN bullet might expand at such a velocity or just a little more in a snubnose, but I haven't tried bullets that soft yet. However, I'm close.

I tried the Federal load mentioned here earlier this year. Just as you experienced, accuracy wasn't very good for me either. Nowadays, accuracy isn't important to many shooters.

 

[Kanewpadle]

I would think an expanding WC or SWC would be counterproductive.

 

[rockquarry]

Just an FYI regarding the Federal 158 LSWC HP +P mentioned several times previously in this thread...I had forgotten that I had chronographed this load about six months ago.

My notes show an average muzzle velocity of 972 fps in a 6" Model 14. In a 4" Model 15 that number was 935 fps.

 

[M29since14]

Good to know. I'm surprised. In the past, I had not seen anything close to that.

 

[rockquarry]

Good to know. I'm surprised. In the past, I had not seen anything close to that.

I seldom buy or shoot any factory ammo, but I suspect this stuff will vary from batch-to-batch in both velocity and accuracy, like everything else. This ammo's accuracy was poor in my Model 14, better in my Model 15.

My cast SWC and Bullseye or 231 loads are much more accurate but MV is about 100 fps less than the Federal load.

 

[38SPL HV]

I contacted Federal and spoke with one of their Engineers in MN facility (where they produce 38G). He advised that they do not use an adhesive inside the case to help secure the lead bullet. He also advised that putting a 1/2 turn crimp on the cartridges with a Lee Carbide Factory Crimp should be just fine. Bottom line, roll crimps should be used.

 

[rockquarry]

I contacted Federal and spoke with one of their Engineers in MN facility (where they produce 38G). He advised that they do not use an adhesive inside the case to help secure the lead bullet. He also advised that putting a 1/2 turn crimp on the cartridges with a Lee Carbide Factory Crimp should be just fine. Bottom line, roll crimps should be used.

I've taper crimped all .38 Special loads for years without problem. I only use cast bullets. I've yet to have a bullet jump crimp even in alloy-framed revolvers.

Most handloaders probably crimp more than necessary which can distort a bullet enough to affect accuracy. I'm not trying to dissuade those who prefer a roll crimp, but whichever method of crimp is used, it might be worth the effort to experiment with the degree of crimp to determine the effect on accuracy. Sometimes, it makes no difference.

I've taper crimped many .357 Magnum loads as well without incident, but prefer a roll crimp on this one, simply for peace of mind. However, I can't say for certain that a roll crimp is a stronger crimp so my reasoning here may be flawed.

The old conventional wisdom adage to "roll crimp all revolver cartridges and taper crimp semi-auto cartridges" has some truth to it but is much too general to be valid across- the- board.

 

[.455_Hunter]

The H&G #51 is a good one and with a little load development is quite accurate, too. It's the original .357 Magnum bullet but works just as well in .38 Special.

Wasn't all pre-war commercial .357 loaded with swagged projectiles?