Picked up a fresh box of Remington R38S12 today...
- Thread starter CoMF
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
ArchAngelCD
Moderator, SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
I've bought a few boxes over the past year or so and all have been of high quality. So were the older boxes I had on hand too.
carbofan21
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 193
- Reaction score
- 12
I picked up a box of these about a year and a half to two years ago, and they were a real mess. The brass rim was so thick I couldn't load them in anything but my 686+. They all fired, but also had a bunch of them keyholing. Never had a problem with keyholing before or since in that revolver.
Glad to hear they are producing a good product again. I might pick up another box. I really like the performance of these rounds from a 4 inch barrel.
Glad to hear they are producing a good product again. I might pick up another box. I really like the performance of these rounds from a 4 inch barrel.
ArchAngelCD
Moderator, SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
Actually, the R38S12's claim to fame is the lead is soft enough to reliably expand at the lower velocities associated with a 2" barrel.
I like the Winchester, then Federal and then Remington FBI Load in 4" barrels and longer but I use the opposite order in 2" barrels.
carbofan21
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 193
- Reaction score
- 12
I'm not fully sold on the 158gr lead hollowpoints expanding from a 2" barrel, especially if they have to defeat anything but light clothing first. I prefer the 135gr +p Gold Dots in my snub nose revolvers. Actually I currently use the 135gr Gold Dots in all my 2", 3" and 4" revolvers.
I figure the extra velocity from the 4" barrel would be more than enough to make the Remington load go splat and penetrate deep.
ArchAngelCD
Moderator, SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
Stick your finger nail in the lead of the bullet and you will see what I mean. The Remington load is the only FBI Load I would shoot in a 2" barrel.
BUT, my current carry is a M442 and it just loves those 135gr short barrel Speer Gold Dot rounds. They are scary accurate in that revolver so that's what I feed it... My night stand S&W M&P get's the FBI Load always. They are very accurate in the old 1948 M&P...
BUT, my current carry is a M442 and it just loves those 135gr short barrel Speer Gold Dot rounds. They are scary accurate in that revolver so that's what I feed it... My night stand S&W M&P get's the FBI Load always. They are very accurate in the old 1948 M&P...
carbofan21
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 193
- Reaction score
- 12
The Rem load is nice and soft (BHN @ 11, I think). My only issue with the old school FBI load is possible plugging. At slower speeds it might expand if plugged, but it might not. I also have an M&P 4" Model 10 that especially loves 158gr loads. That's one of my HD guns.
The Gold Dots can be a bit snappy, but they expand even if plugged, and it's also bonded so it will stay together through windshield glass. It really is tough to beat for a carry round. Plus they hit point-of-aim in my 642.
The Gold Dots can be a bit snappy, but they expand even if plugged, and it's also bonded so it will stay together through windshield glass. It really is tough to beat for a carry round. Plus they hit point-of-aim in my 642.
Well, not exactly...
Don't get me wrong. The GDHP is a great round, and Speer really knew what they were doing when they engineered it. If it shoots accurately in your particular revolver, stick with it. Just keep in mind that there are no "magic bullets," and TANSTAAFL when using a snub-nosed revolver.
My subjective opinion: I really don't notice any difference in felt recoil between it and R38S12. It also shoots about a couple inches low in my M36 compared to the 158 gr. LHP which shoots dead-on for POA.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 19,770
- Reaction score
- 31,526
IMHO the two best self defense rounds in .38 Special are the Buffalo Bore (HEAVY) 158 grain +P SWCHP-GC soft lead bullet which out of a 2" snub will reliably and consistently do 1040 fps (and I have verified those results with my Chronograph many times) and deliver 379 ft. lbs of energy. Out of a 2" snub that's approaching .357 Mag. ballistics. From a 4" gun the velocity will be close to 11 ft/sec and the energy goes up as well.
S&W mod. 60, 2 inch- 1040 fps (379 ft. lbs.)
S&W mod. 66, 2.5 inch- 1059 fps (393 ft. lbs.)
Ruger SP101, 3 inch- 1143 fps (458 ft. lbs.)
S&W Mt. Gun, 4 inch- 1162 fps (474 ft. lbs.)
My second Choice (although I usually like heavy bullets) is the Speer Gold Dot 135 grain +P. Out of a Snub the performance is second to the Buffalo Bore, but still much better than the old FBI load IMHO.
The FBI load would be much better if stepped up more towards the BB performance, but I truly believe that the Big Three ammo Companies are more afraid that someone will use their ammo in an old antique and hurt themselves than they are interested in improving their loads to more modern performances.
Chief38
S&W mod. 60, 2 inch- 1040 fps (379 ft. lbs.)
S&W mod. 66, 2.5 inch- 1059 fps (393 ft. lbs.)
Ruger SP101, 3 inch- 1143 fps (458 ft. lbs.)
S&W Mt. Gun, 4 inch- 1162 fps (474 ft. lbs.)
My second Choice (although I usually like heavy bullets) is the Speer Gold Dot 135 grain +P. Out of a Snub the performance is second to the Buffalo Bore, but still much better than the old FBI load IMHO.
The FBI load would be much better if stepped up more towards the BB performance, but I truly believe that the Big Three ammo Companies are more afraid that someone will use their ammo in an old antique and hurt themselves than they are interested in improving their loads to more modern performances.
Chief38
carbofan21
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 193
- Reaction score
- 12
The buffalo bore 158 grain +p lead hollowpoint is probably the last load i would ever trust for a self defense load, personally. Carry what you trust and feel comfortable with.
The rimrock bullet that buffalo bore uses has a BHN of 5, compared to something around a BHN of 11/12/13 for the remington, winchester and federal loads. BHN of 5 is practically as soft as pure lead. I would want to see a lot of test results fired through various media and hard barriers, not to mention penetration/expansion in animal tissue.
Just because one bullet travels faster than something else does not automatically make it perform better.
The rimrock bullet that buffalo bore uses has a BHN of 5, compared to something around a BHN of 11/12/13 for the remington, winchester and federal loads. BHN of 5 is practically as soft as pure lead. I would want to see a lot of test results fired through various media and hard barriers, not to mention penetration/expansion in animal tissue.
Just because one bullet travels faster than something else does not automatically make it perform better.
Chief,
With all due respect to you and Tim Sundles, I'll pass and just stick with my tried and true Remingtons. I don't think Buffalo Bore's gosh-gee-whiz "boutique" loading offers enough to warrant a "price of admission" at over $1.25 per round.
With all due respect to you and Tim Sundles, I'll pass and just stick with my tried and true Remingtons. I don't think Buffalo Bore's gosh-gee-whiz "boutique" loading offers enough to warrant a "price of admission" at over $1.25 per round.
carbofan21
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 193
- Reaction score
- 12
Any engineered product can be designed for optimal performance under one set of conditions, but when a product must perform adequately or better under a wide range of conditions, the end result will always be a
compromise. Let's say you set your design protocols for a cartridge that must meet or exceed a base level of performance from barrel lengths ranging from 2 to 6 inches, and the bullet must also have the capacity to perform through a wide range of barriers, ranging from zero clothing/barriers, to heavy clothing and at least one intermediate barrier like sheet metal or auto glass. That is an extremely tall order. It is especially more complicated to design a hollowpoint bullet for these conditions, because the bullet will experience differential stresses as the bullet expands. This is not a job for Bubba the reloader who lives in the van down by the river. Engineering design is an iterative process. It takes many revisions and refinements, testing and re-testing under various conditions, and plotting and examining the data to achieve a desired result. There has never been, and likely never will be a "perfect" engineered product that will achieve optimal performance throughout an entire range of conditions. Keep that in mind the next time some boutique ammo company tries to convince you through various marketing efforts of the following: [more velocity and/or more ft*lbs energy automatically = better], because it is just a bit more complicated than that.
Fortunately, for the overwhelming majority of the gun/ammo buying public, the choice of self defense ammo amounts to little more than an exercise in mental masturbation, but since none of us knows whether or not we will ever need to use these products to defend ourselves, the least we should do is make an informed decision. Unfortunately, most shooters have little or no practical knowledge or understanding of the engineering design process, or the science (physics, materials) and mathematics that is behind it. The big ammo companies also don't make any effort to market their products to the private citizen, so we are mostly left to guess/hope/assume that this stuff will actually work if and when we need it. The big ammo companies are after the big LE agency contracts, thus all of their marketing, research and development, and testing dollars are geared toward satisfying that market.
As an example, take the 158 grain lead hollowpoint FBI loads from Remington, Winchester, and Federal. Each company had to compete directly with the others to try to win the big LE contracts. They certainly did not share their ideas, experiences, failures, and hard-earned successes with the competition. Each company spent A LOT of money on the engineering design and testing of their product to make sure it would perform adequately under a given range of conditions, otherwise they would not be able to offer a competetive product, and would have no chance at the big LE agency contracts. Each company did their own testing, came up with their own formulas for the lead alloy, bullet shape, BHN hardness, and velocity range that their product would perform under. Each company engineered the bullet from the ground up, and kept the component manufacturing and assembly in-house in order to maintain at least some level of quality control. It should come as no surprise that each company came up with a different, although similar result. This result was based on science, and verified through rigorous testing and data analysis. The velocity ranges are comparable, and BHN hardness is in a fairly restricted range of between 10/11 to 13/14. You can argue the merits or deficiencies of any particular offering, but each has been verified in the field that they generally performed as expected.
The assumption that any of these companies would purposely "water down" their product, and thus reduce any possible competitive advantage over the competition, or to try and avoid potential civil liabilities from people firing these cartridges in old or unsafe revolvers simply holds no merit. I will leave it at that.
As for the Buffalo Bore FBI load, they use the Rimrock bullet which has a published BHN hardness of 5 (much softer than the big 3 loads), and Buffalo Bore pushes this bullet at a significantly faster velocity than the big 3. This should immediately stand out as a red flag. Buffalo Bore certainly did not engineer this bullet, and I strongly suspect they did not do any of the rigorous (i.e. EXPENSIVE) testing that the big 3 companies did to verify their product would perform under a wide range of conditions. If Buffalo Bore did this testing, great. Why not publish the results? I for one would love to read it. I also suspect no private citizen is going to invest in 5000 to 10000 rounds (minimum) of their ammo (at the ridiculous sum of more than $1 per cartridge) to do the same type of testing that the big 3 ammo companies have already done for you.
Personally, I'll stick with a product that was engineered from the ground up, tested, and verified to work in the field, and which costs approximately half as much as the fancy boutique stuff in the blue and yellow box.
compromise. Let's say you set your design protocols for a cartridge that must meet or exceed a base level of performance from barrel lengths ranging from 2 to 6 inches, and the bullet must also have the capacity to perform through a wide range of barriers, ranging from zero clothing/barriers, to heavy clothing and at least one intermediate barrier like sheet metal or auto glass. That is an extremely tall order. It is especially more complicated to design a hollowpoint bullet for these conditions, because the bullet will experience differential stresses as the bullet expands. This is not a job for Bubba the reloader who lives in the van down by the river. Engineering design is an iterative process. It takes many revisions and refinements, testing and re-testing under various conditions, and plotting and examining the data to achieve a desired result. There has never been, and likely never will be a "perfect" engineered product that will achieve optimal performance throughout an entire range of conditions. Keep that in mind the next time some boutique ammo company tries to convince you through various marketing efforts of the following: [more velocity and/or more ft*lbs energy automatically = better], because it is just a bit more complicated than that.
Fortunately, for the overwhelming majority of the gun/ammo buying public, the choice of self defense ammo amounts to little more than an exercise in mental masturbation, but since none of us knows whether or not we will ever need to use these products to defend ourselves, the least we should do is make an informed decision. Unfortunately, most shooters have little or no practical knowledge or understanding of the engineering design process, or the science (physics, materials) and mathematics that is behind it. The big ammo companies also don't make any effort to market their products to the private citizen, so we are mostly left to guess/hope/assume that this stuff will actually work if and when we need it. The big ammo companies are after the big LE agency contracts, thus all of their marketing, research and development, and testing dollars are geared toward satisfying that market.
As an example, take the 158 grain lead hollowpoint FBI loads from Remington, Winchester, and Federal. Each company had to compete directly with the others to try to win the big LE contracts. They certainly did not share their ideas, experiences, failures, and hard-earned successes with the competition. Each company spent A LOT of money on the engineering design and testing of their product to make sure it would perform adequately under a given range of conditions, otherwise they would not be able to offer a competetive product, and would have no chance at the big LE agency contracts. Each company did their own testing, came up with their own formulas for the lead alloy, bullet shape, BHN hardness, and velocity range that their product would perform under. Each company engineered the bullet from the ground up, and kept the component manufacturing and assembly in-house in order to maintain at least some level of quality control. It should come as no surprise that each company came up with a different, although similar result. This result was based on science, and verified through rigorous testing and data analysis. The velocity ranges are comparable, and BHN hardness is in a fairly restricted range of between 10/11 to 13/14. You can argue the merits or deficiencies of any particular offering, but each has been verified in the field that they generally performed as expected.
The assumption that any of these companies would purposely "water down" their product, and thus reduce any possible competitive advantage over the competition, or to try and avoid potential civil liabilities from people firing these cartridges in old or unsafe revolvers simply holds no merit. I will leave it at that.
As for the Buffalo Bore FBI load, they use the Rimrock bullet which has a published BHN hardness of 5 (much softer than the big 3 loads), and Buffalo Bore pushes this bullet at a significantly faster velocity than the big 3. This should immediately stand out as a red flag. Buffalo Bore certainly did not engineer this bullet, and I strongly suspect they did not do any of the rigorous (i.e. EXPENSIVE) testing that the big 3 companies did to verify their product would perform under a wide range of conditions. If Buffalo Bore did this testing, great. Why not publish the results? I for one would love to read it. I also suspect no private citizen is going to invest in 5000 to 10000 rounds (minimum) of their ammo (at the ridiculous sum of more than $1 per cartridge) to do the same type of testing that the big 3 ammo companies have already done for you.
Personally, I'll stick with a product that was engineered from the ground up, tested, and verified to work in the field, and which costs approximately half as much as the fancy boutique stuff in the blue and yellow box.
Remington makes nice ammunition. The Remington made UMC ammo is very good. Been shooting it for at least 30 years. Particularly like the pedal pointed Rem. 125 gr. JHP's in .357 S&W Magnum. The plain Jane soft lead 158 gr. SWC .38 Special load is hard to beat out of just about any barrel length. I've seen that plain Jane load used on wounded deer up close in the brush and I've seen it used on run of the mill regular sized hogs caught with dogs. It works. Loaded even faster on the order of some of the old .38/.44 loads, it's even more effective. About the only factory loads of that type available are from Buffalo Bore, etc. Expensive? Yes. But then they aren't for target practice. If you anticipate shooting through M-1 Abrams tanks or concrete walls, etc., you might want to up caliber. Otherwise, the .38 Special w/ soft LSWCHP loaded to full velocity will work very well on just about whatever needs shooting. And... loaded hot as the hinges of the theological place of eternal torment ala Buffalo Bore, etc., that same bullet will work better.
Cerberus62
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2012
- Messages
- 140
- Reaction score
- 55
Do you have any of this left and would you be willing to conduct a little research?
1) Run some over the chrono for velocity
2) Pull a bullet or two and weigh the powder charge
3) Let us know what you find
You were helpful supplying some very good load data for your FBI load clone, so I guess you know where I'm going with this...
ArchAngelCD
Moderator, SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
Not a bad idea... I'll take a look in my SD bullet chest and see if I can gather those FBI loads form different years and send a few over the chrono. It probably won't be soon but i will try to get to it as soon as possible.Do you have any of this left and would you be willing to conduct a little research?
1) Run some over the chrono for velocity
2) Pull a bullet or two and weigh the powder charge
3) Let us know what you find
You were helpful supplying some very good load data for your FBI load clone, so I guess you know where I'm going with this...
Cerberus62
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2012
- Messages
- 140
- Reaction score
- 55
Thanks! Whenever you get to it is fine.
I'd get a box and do it myself but I can't find that ammo here.
Cerberus62
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2012
- Messages
- 140
- Reaction score
- 55
I don't recall ever seeing the Remington LHP offered as a component.
When I load a factory bullet I use the Speer 4628 LSWC-HP. I have used the Hornady and it's a good bullet but the Speer opens up better, it seems much softer. I do use the Hornady swaged HP's in .44 caliber because there is no other choice.
The Speer will expand as low as 750 fps and holds together at well over 1100. I have shot it that fast without leading, although I do give them an extra coat of Rooster Jacket or run them through my lubrisizer for .357 loads.
I cast the Lyman 358156 HP, 429241 HP, 429244 HP, 429640 and 452374 HP for most of my hollowpoint needs. For practice loads I have solid versions of all the molds other than 358156. For that I use Lyman 357446 because it is a near duplicate to the Speer and 358156 for shape and weight.
Also, you will do well if you can handload this round. I was in Gander Mountain yesterday and they had plenty of the R38S12. I suspect they will have it for a while, it was $49.99 a box, 50 rounds. Remington .357 125 JHP's were $54.99 for 50, Remington .38 +P 125 JHP was $79.99 per 100.
Yikes!
Last edited:
Buckey08
Member
I best be beaten feet to Gander for those deals! Hate to miss a deal?
I'll say. I'm fortunate enough to buy my ammo at a LGS who has always treated me fair and square. They'll special order it for me at no extra charge and sell it for $32 a box.
Similar threads
- Locked
