Lucky Gunner Ammo Tests - Some "Sacred Cows" Take A Hit

Fishinfool

Fishinfool

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2011
Messages
4,764
Reaction score
12,039
Location
Central PA
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/revolver-ballistics-test/

Larry
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
Fishinfool said:
In particular, none of the much vaunted FBI 158 grain SWCHP .38spl loads did well. Opinions?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
Last edited:
No expansion....

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.:)
 
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.
 
CCantu357 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Fishinfool said:
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/revolver-ballistics-test/


Larry
Click to expand...
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.
 
Naphtali said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
CCantu357 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Nevada Ed said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

1
Is Lucky Gunner ballistics test slowly vanishing
Replies
4
Views
1K
REM 3200
REM 3200
F
Lucky Gunner .38 Special/.357 Magnum Ammo Test
Replies
12
Views
4K
kthom
K
BoogersXDm
Some interesting new ballistics testing for .38 special & .357 magnum
2
Replies
24
Views
4K
Arik
A
S
Ammo for 2” 38 +P / 357 wheel guns
Replies
5
Views
2K
Bill Lear
B
Ramikrav
FWIW- some ballistic data on the Barnes Tac XPD 140gr .40 from a SHORT barrel
Replies
0
Views
2K
Ramikrav
Ramikrav

Latest posts

Back
Top