Federal’s latest FBI Load for Airweights

[rockquarry]

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

Might have been swaged, but I don't know. Never heard of this before. It's a fact, however, that the #51 design (or what came to be catalogued as the #51) was the original .357 Magnum bullet created by Phil Sharpe. You can verify this with research.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Might have been swaged, but I don't know. Never heard of this before. It's a fact, however, that the #51 design (or what came to be catalogued as the #51) was the original .357 Magnum bullet created by Phil Sharpe. You can verify this with research.

OK- Bullets like the #51 design were used by individuals, such as Sharpe, in .357 conceptual development. When Winchester moved towards commercialization, they went with the better economics and production capabilities of swagged.

This is similar to the .38/40 180 gr JSP being the "first bullet" for the .40 S&W development process. The 180 gr JHP loading was the product actually introduced to the public.

 

[kaaskop49]

Thanks to OP for his informative post. (Something about us Nevada shooters!) I, too, have found the Federal 158gr LHP +P to "crimp jump" in modern era S&W snub lightweights. This is not acceptable! I bought 14 boxes which I had to shoot up in 4" steel guns. Such ammo should have been pulled by the mfgr IMHO. Were I in the market for 158gr LHP ammo, how could I trust it, even after testing?

Guess I'm gonna hafta break out the 1969/70 LHP/SWC W-W ammo and run it alongside the modern stuff. See if I can still control it. Wish I could chrono it. GREAT thread, BTW.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

 

[Nomadmax]

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

That shot many men graveyard dead. I can only guess it's because they didn't read the research

 

[pistolpete10]

I have handloaded Hornady swaged HPSWCs, They do jump crimp in my 642. I have some military brass that is thicker than commercial. Still gets a little jump on the 5th bullet. Shoots as accurate as I can in the 642. Accurate enough for carry. The bullet jump worries me tho. Sticking to 125 JHPs for carry.

 

[Nevada Ed]

I did a lot of test with the 135gr bullet with my M49 and 686, 6" with nine different powder, from Bullseye to 4227.
I came up with a "Fac Dup" load at 850fps with a ES of 9, that was at POA.

I also did a LOT of test on the Federal 130 HST, in my M49 revolver.
I used ten powders, from Bullseye to Alliant Steel.
My fps went from a low 573fps to a high of 998fps. (two shots only)
I tried a OAL from 1.22 to 1.18" for accuracy and speed loading.
My best two loads were 835 & 839fps with a 1.18" oal.
BE-86 powder had the lowest ES at 17 at 835fps.

These two "Factory" loads are what I choose, for my 2" J frame,
over ALL the SD ammo that I have shot in 60 years.

My 686 6" gets, stronger medicine.

Here is some data to be fair to the 158 in penetration test.
However;
A test with the 130 HST in a S&W Airlite with gun & Ammo at only 40*, out of a refrigerator, shot into a gel block ............
penetrated 10.8"

 

[Doug M.]

That shot many men graveyard dead. I can only guess it's because they didn't read the research

*
Dead later in the hospital may not be a win. Stopping the offender now is what matters. Most handguns are well below optimal.

 

[ken158]

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

True statement - when I would tell my boss we needed ammo, he would ask what the state bid price was for the cheapest and to order that. And that is how we also ended up with Glocks…

 

[Nomadmax]

*
Dead later in the hospital may not be a win. Stopping the offender now is what matters. Most handguns are well below optimal.

Nope, I mean DRT (Dead Right There) with 158gn LRN, non plus P. I've seen it more than a few times. I'm not suggesting that ammo choice doesn't matter; I'm saying it doesn't matter as much as people think.

 

[CW3RDL]

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.

After extensive non-scientific testing over the last 30 years I have found several general rules on big name LSWHPs. 1) The hardest to softest lead: Federal; Winchester; Remington. 2) Velocity for Remington and Winchester has to exceed 820 fps to get expansion to .40” in water after sweatshirt and one layer of denim. 3) NO Fed 38G has expanded at all under 880 fps even from a 4” Model 15. 4) Std Pressure Buffalo Bore SWLHP are 50-50 out of my S&W 642 and Colt Agent. Only those BBs hitting 825 fps show more than .05-.10” I keep testing but get almost exactly same results over time, looking for that “magic lot number” that gives 840 plus fps from a snubby. The only “regular” factory .38 Spl. I have tested over time that always expands is the Remington .38 Golden Saber; it always gets 875-925 fps in 2” barrels and expands to.55-.72.” Online gel testing shows 12-13” of penetration. Bottom line: chronograph and expansion test through realistic fabrics any load you’re betting your life on. Manufacturers load to legally safe pressures, not to true expansion velocities. Finding what works is on us.

 

[CW3RDL]

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.

Manufacturers load to pressure limits, not to advertised velocity. Legal liability is a bigger driver of production than meeting advertised velocity. Chronograph any cartridge you bet your life on, especially from compact/subcompact handguns. And it goes without saying, function test the load in the specific gun you carry. Murphy still roams the earth with his list of rules. Rule 1) If something can go wrong, it will go wrong….and at the worst possible moment.

 

[BrBa]

I've chronographed the 135 gr Gold Dot +P factory load on multiple occasions with different barrel lengths, using a Garmin Xero. I have confidence in it, but it does tend to have a fairly large ES & SD in every firearm I've tested it.

This was from the last session:
Marlin 1894 16": 9-shots, 1181 fps, ES 46 fps, SD 20 fps.
S&W 686-5 5": 7-shots, 970 fps, ES 40 fps, SD 16 fps.
Colt King Cobra 3": 6-shots, 940 fps, ES 30 fps, SD 15 fps.
Ruger LCR 1-7/8": 5-shots, 873 fps, ES 31 fps, SD 15 fps

I was able to gain a bit more velocity with handloads using Speer's published data:
Ruger LCR 1-7/8": 915-920 fps using 7.2 gr HS-6 (max. load) and a magnum primer.

 

[Rock185]

Some may remember when loading hollow base wadcutters backwards became a thing for carry in 2" .38 Spcl. revolvers. That is the only .38 Spcl. loading I can recall doing. I don't recall the velocity, but accuracy was terrible in my 2" revolver.

FWIW, I chronographed Underwood 125 and 158 grain .38+P in a 2" revolver. The 125 averaged 1090 FPS, the 158 - 1055 FPS. The 158 was not all that much fun to shoot in the airweight snubby revolver...

 

[rockquarry]

Some may remember when loading hollow base wadcutters backwards became a thing for carry in 2" .38 Spcl. revolvers. That is the only .38 Spcl. loading I can recall doing. I don't recall the velocity, but accuracy was terrible in my 2" revolver.

FWIW, I chronographed Underwood 125 and 158 grain .38+P in a 2" revolver. The 125 averaged 1090 FPS, the 158 - 1055 FPS. The 158 was not all that much fun to shoot in the airweight snubby revolver...

Never tried the backward seated HBWC but remember when this idea was sort of popular in the '70s. I wondered about the accuracy. Yours is the only comment I can recall regarding it.

 

[Goodtime Charlie]

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:

I like that he uses "actual ballistic gel", but I'd feel more comfortable with his results if he stated the particulars he was using with the gel, as they can affect the performance of the bullets.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1752928X15001109

While ballistic gel does give a medium for comparison, I am skeptical of how it actually relates to real world performance. I'd rather look at actual autopsy results to base my ammunition selection on. Of course, ammunition manufacturers can't do that to promote their latest whizbang ammo, but many currently available loads have been on the market long enough to have some real world results. If anyone has a source for that kind of information, please let me/us know, as it would be extremely valuable.

 

[HKSmith]

The original .357 Magnum bullet was a swaged lead SWC. This was the only load available until about the 1970's. Remington (and maybe others) still offer the swaged lead SWC load in .357 as well as many jacketed bullet choices.