Remington .38 Spcl. 158 gr. SWCHP+P

I stumbled into some of this "FBI" ammunition yesterday. Several sites have it.

I still have some of the Federal version and it performs very well from all my .38/357s. I'm hoping Remington's are as good or better.

Is the lead softer in the Remingtons? How about performance? Please compare and contrast Remington vs. Federal .38 Spcl. 158gr. LSWCHP+P based on your experience. Thanks in advance!

I know many used to carry this load years ago, and in my opinion it is still one of the better loads for a J-frame type revolver. From my recollections Remington seemed to be the most popular. Do you have any links to the sites with it? Thanks.

Recent post on this site on 158gr. SWCHP

Originally Posted by chief38
Eric1959:

CHRONOGRAPHING 38 SPECIAL SELF DEFENSE AMMO



I have just conducted some chronograph testing of my own using a S & W model 60 (2" barrel) and a bunch of different Factory Loads that are typically used for self defense purposes. The equipment I used was the Master Chrony that I have always found to be reliable, and the weather on the test date was about 55 degrees and sunny. I have to say that after seeing the results with my own eyes, I was BLOWN AWAY! The results below were an average of 10 shots out of a 2" S & W Chief Special.

ALL FACTORY AMMO:

Winchester 158 Gr. SWCHP +P (FBI load) ............751 fps
Remington 158 Gr. SWCHP +P (FBI load)...............746 fps
Winchester 158 Gr. SWC Standard Non +P Load .....692 fps
Federal 158 Gr. LRN Standard Non +P Load............701 fps
Speer Gold Dot 135 Gr. JHP +P ("short bbl. load")...880 fps
Buffalo Bore 158 Gr. +P SWCHP-Gas Check...........1,025fps
Buffalo Bore 158 Gr. Std. Non +P 158 Gr. SWCHP.....835fps

What really surprised me is how dismal the FBI loadings were! I have serious doubts that they would even expand at the above velocities, and as far as the standard pressure loads go (from Federal & Winchester), I would classify them as plinking loads only. The Buffalo Bore ammo actually performed better than the company advertises. Their +P loading in my opinion is nothing sort of FANTASTIC!!! Over 1,000 feet per second from a 2" gun. Their Non +P loading actually performed better than the Winchester and Remington +P ammo. Not only were their velocities incredible, but the recoil was not bad at all. In my M60 Chief's Special (all steel with wooden grips & a Tyler "T" grip) which weighs in at 20 ounces, it was very controllable, and point of impact was the same as point of aim. The Speer Gold Dot ammo was quite good as well. Their loading averaged 880 fps which again form a 2" gun is very respectable.

What really gets me is that the big 3 ammo companies that have been in the business for many many years, have resources up the wazoo, lots of money for R & D, and they are producing self defense ammunition with sub standard performance. For the past 20 years I have carried the so-called FBI load in my Chief, but no more. I will now be carrying Buffalo Bore's +P 158 Gr. bullet, and I will probably use either the Gold Dot 135 Gr.or the Buffalo Bore standard 158Gr. in my Model 37 "Airweight".

Obviously both Buffalo Bore & Speer have done their homework as far as self defense ammo is concerned, and Win. Fed. & Rem. have either gotten very lazy, or caved into the lawyers. Just thought some of you would be interested.

Regards,
Chief38

Remington has the softest lead out of those FBI loads. I could dent it with my fingernail but I couldn't do that with the Federal version. The FBI load has a lot of history of decent performance from snubs. Just b/c Chief38 found out about the truth of its performance velocity-wise, doesn't magically make that history disappear. I use the Speer 135gr+P load b/c it's easier to load via speedloader and tests seem to confirm it performs better after passing through barriers. And I can get it for $5 less/50rnds.
I'd pick the Remington FBI load over anything from BB b/c it has a history that we know about.

I would not use it in 2" barrels as there are better loads. I believe it does better in 3-4" barrels and use it there. And yes the Remington seems to use the softest lead bullet. I would not pay the going rate for it ($30+) but I feel the case I bought at $14 a box was well worth it.

m.

There have been several threads on related subjects in the last year or so, in one I posted a picture (will try to find it again) showing how the new Remington .38 Special FBI load is longer than the earlier versions, so much so that it will not chamber in some older J frames, like my 1970 vintage Model 60. It will chamber in my newer Model 60.

Edited to add: Here's that photo, the new Remington FBI load is second from the right, far right is .357. Loads on left are other FBI loads. You can easily see the difference.

Buffalo Bore 158Gr.

BB is VERY soft (5 b/n). See Rim Rock bullets. This load requires a gas check. I goughed one up badly just to see how soft and it is.....

Following Stephen Camp's lead, I have the Remington version of the FBI load in my 637 Airweight. From Stephen's soggy-newspaper tests, it probably will expand when fired from a snubby, whereas the harder Winchester and Federal versions probably will not (from longer barrels, they probably will). The Remington bullets are really soft. If you drop them, they become range ammo the instant they touch the ground. They are also quite stout from an Airweight, but what +p ammo isn't?

Cordially, Jack

I like the Remington load...It is just incredibly overpriced, when you can find it.

When I receive the Remingtons, I'll take them, the BB 158s, both standard and heavy, and the Federal 158s to the range. I'll run them through some Ks, and my 638 (ouch) off a bag and unsupported both. Maybe I'll find a favorite.

Did ENGINE 18 get any results on all the .38's?

Hello.

38 Special LHP +P

Since the linked article above was written, I chronographed a newer batch of Remington factory loads. I cannot find a lot number, but the date "11/4/09" is on a flap. These figures were obtained within the last month and to the best of my memory, none of this ammunition is over 2 years old. ("Documentation" is not the best on the ammunition I admit, but the figures obtained were for me; just posted them here to try and help with the OP's request. Individual readers will make up their own minds whether it's for real or not or might feel it best to just ignore since it is not documented as per the scientific method; their choice entirely.)

Average velocities are based on 10 shots fired 10' from the chronograph screens.

Remington 158-gr. LHP +P:

S&W Model 642: 812 ft/sec
S&W Model 042: 828
S&W Model 638: 831
S&W Model 442: 820
S&W Model 642: 822 (This is a different Model 642.)

Average of these five S&W snubs ( 1 7/8" barrels): 823 ft/sec with this load.

Federal 158-gr. LHP +P: (Lot #K31P2)

S&W Model 642: 779 ft/sec
S&W Model 042: 786
S&W Model 638: 796
S&W Model 442: 781
S&W Model 642: 783 (This is a different Model 642.)

Average of these five S&W snubs (1 7/8" barrels): 785 ft/sec with this load.

Winchester 158-gr. LHP +P: (This ammunition was bought new about 2 years ago by a friend of mine who sold his .38's. It was not in the factory cardboard box but a plastic one so no lot number is available.)

S&W Model 642: 789 ft/sec
S&W Model 042: 810
S&W Model 638: 825
S&W Model 442: 814
S&W Model 642: 797 (This is a different Model 642.)

Average of these five S&W snubs (1 7/8" barrels): 807 ft/sec with this load.

I find the Remington the softest of the three and prefer it for use in the snubs. From a 3 or 4" barrel, I believe that any of the three will expand nicely.

I do not know the "why" of it, but have seen the Remington LHP's that appear to be "loaded out" a bit as described and pictured in a previous post and chronographed them. I found no practical differences in average 1 7/8" barrel velocities between the two, similar to expected shot-to-shot variations with the same ammunition fired from the same revolver. (The "loaded out" Remington LHP +P can be seen in some pictures via the link above.)

This is the stuff that can drive a person mad.

Best to all.

I fired three of the "FBI" loadings; BB, Federal and Remington. I used my 64-2 snub, 638, and 28-2, 4-inch, all from a sandbag rest. For me, the most accurate was the Remington.

As you might expect, the recoil was very stout w/all loads in the Airweight.

My 64 is DAO and I was able to hold 4-5 inch groups @ 10 yards, double-tap, w/the Remingtons.

The Federals and Remingtons from my 28-2, 4-inch both delivered good accuracy. I forgot to try the BBs! Hope this helps.

Rob1109, thanx for sharing your info.

Here are some photos I took of the Remington FBI load, as well as Winchester and Buffalo Bore 158-gr LSWC-HPs.









Yep, I already know about the misspelled word....

You didn't post pics of the bruises on your palm/thumb!

"What really surprised me is how dismal the FBI loadings were!"

This is very interesting. I posted some results obtained a few weeks ago in which I got a little better performance. My 96F was a good deal warmer than your 55F. Perhaps that accounts for some difference. http://smith-wessonforum.com/ammo/144598-some-38-special-chronograph-tests.html

I've noticed in the past that ammunition left in the sun can yield considerably higher velocities than the same ammunition left in the shade.

The Remington +P 158 grain ammunition seems a good choice for controllability and effectiveness unless a person intends to step up to Buffalo Bore's version.

Stephen A. Camp said:

Hello.

38 Special LHP +P

Since the linked article above was written, I chronographed a newer batch of Remington factory loads. I cannot find a lot number, but the date "11/4/09" is on a flap. These figures were obtained within the last month and to the best of my memory, none of this ammunition is over 2 years old. ("Documentation" is not the best on the ammunition I admit, but the figures obtained were for me; just posted them here to try and help with the OP's request. Individual readers will make up their own minds whether it's for real or not or might feel it best to just ignore since it is not documented as per the scientific method; their choice entirely.)

Average velocities are based on 10 shots fired 10' from the chronograph screens.

Remington 158-gr. LHP +P:

S&W Model 642: 812 ft/sec
S&W Model 042: 828
S&W Model 638: 831
S&W Model 442: 820
S&W Model 642: 822 (This is a different Model 642.)

Average of these five S&W snubs ( 1 7/8" barrels): 823 ft/sec with this load.

Federal 158-gr. LHP +P: (Lot #K31P2)

S&W Model 642: 779 ft/sec
S&W Model 042: 786
S&W Model 638: 796
S&W Model 442: 781
S&W Model 642: 783 (This is a different Model 642.)

Average of these five S&W snubs (1 7/8" barrels): 785 ft/sec with this load.

Winchester 158-gr. LHP +P: (This ammunition was bought new about 2 years ago by a friend of mine who sold his .38's. It was not in the factory cardboard box but a plastic one so no lot number is available.)

S&W Model 642: 789 ft/sec
S&W Model 042: 810
S&W Model 638: 825
S&W Model 442: 814
S&W Model 642: 797 (This is a different Model 642.)

Average of these five S&W snubs (1 7/8" barrels): 807 ft/sec with this load.

I find the Remington the softest of the three and prefer it for use in the snubs. From a 3 or 4" barrel, I believe that any of the three will expand nicely.

I do not know the "why" of it, but have seen the Remington LHP's that appear to be "loaded out" a bit as described and pictured in a previous post and chronographed them. I found no practical differences in average 1 7/8" barrel velocities between the two, similar to expected shot-to-shot variations with the same ammunition fired from the same revolver. (The "loaded out" Remington LHP +P can be seen in some pictures via the link above.)

This is the stuff that can drive a person mad.

Best to all.

Click to expand...

data above for Rem/Fed “ FBI Loads” are ballistically similar to my test results from a few months ago in a S&W 442.

The OP still hasn't posted the link for where they are available.
I personally would appreciate that link, thank you...

I'm old enough that I've seen "expansion/penetration tests" in all manner of media including soggy newspaper, blocks of duct seal, modeling clay, bars of laundry soap, 20% ballistic gelatin,10% ballistic gelatin and plain old water.

Thanks to a guy who did comparison testing with 10% ballistic gelatin under controlled conditions, water is a suitable substitute for ballistic gel for expansion. Correcting for penetration requires a wee bit of math, nothing all that difficult. [Divide water penetration by 1.55.)

With that out of the way, I've never been able to capture an "FBI load" bullet to determine either expansion or penetration. They all sailed right through the equivalent of 24 in of ballistic gel and kept on going. It does help to recall that such testing is not predictive of real world results. However, I've chosen other loads for my own use. UMMV.