158gr hornady XTP NON +p .38 special
- Thread starter Ramikrav
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
A non +P 38 spl load with a 158 gr jacketed bullet would no doubt
have pretty low velocity. There is a real danger of sticking a jacketed
bullet in the barrel if velocity is very low. That's one reason some
loading manual publishers like Speer don't even publish standard
pressure loads with jacketed bullets heavier than 125 grs.
have pretty low velocity. There is a real danger of sticking a jacketed
bullet in the barrel if velocity is very low. That's one reason some
loading manual publishers like Speer don't even publish standard
pressure loads with jacketed bullets heavier than 125 grs.
one eye joe
US Veteran
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I MUST CORRECT YOU, OP. THE ROUND TESTED IS NOT "NON +P" AS YOU POSTED. THE NARRATOR MAKES THE STATEMENT, UPON EXAMINING THE GELATIN,"HEY GUYS, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THAT +P CAME IN"………...
What's with the capital letters?
The OP said NON +P
read the title of the thread
also
"AND its non +P?"
One shot does not make a valid test and the bullet did not expand properly. Poor test, they guy kept saying the safe thing (wrong) over an over.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 19,382
- Reaction score
- 30,432
Joe,
Half way through he corrects himself in a pop-up and says even though he was calling it a +P (more than once), it was in fact standard velocity. 800 fps out of a 4" barrel is definitely NOT +P. Extrapolating for a 2" barrel I'd guess it was not moving any faster than 730 fps hence the less than spectacular expansion. Still, it might be viable - never tested any personally and if it were rated +P and moved a bit faster expansion would probably be better and might even have less penetration because of greater expansion resistance.
Half way through he corrects himself in a pop-up and says even though he was calling it a +P (more than once), it was in fact standard velocity. 800 fps out of a 4" barrel is definitely NOT +P. Extrapolating for a 2" barrel I'd guess it was not moving any faster than 730 fps hence the less than spectacular expansion. Still, it might be viable - never tested any personally and if it were rated +P and moved a bit faster expansion would probably be better and might even have less penetration because of greater expansion resistance.
Hornady's XTP isn't known for being a robust expander, but .526" expansion and ~18" of penetration through four layers of denim seems impressive.
My only concerns are that he didn't publish a penetration depth for the BB used to "calibrate" the gelatin, he used what looked like two seperate blocks with air between them rather than one continuous block, didn't disclose what weight denim was used, (Edit) and did not disclose any chrono data. Other than that, I'd say the video was encouraging but more testing would be necessary to see if the results are repeatable.
My only concerns are that he didn't publish a penetration depth for the BB used to "calibrate" the gelatin, he used what looked like two seperate blocks with air between them rather than one continuous block, didn't disclose what weight denim was used, (Edit) and did not disclose any chrono data. Other than that, I'd say the video was encouraging but more testing would be necessary to see if the results are repeatable.
Last edited:
V0OBWxZS16
Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2015
- Messages
- 504
- Reaction score
- 310
Ballistic gel, when the temporary cavity collapses, leaves behind "damage" that is of little significance in handgun wounding. The reviewer was misinterpreting the gel results.
The bullet failed to expand and slightly over-pentrated.
For comparison Speer's Gold Dot is 13" penetration and .554" expansion through heavy denim.
http://le.atk.com/downloads/catalogs/GoldDotPoster.pdf
The bullet failed to expand and slightly over-pentrated.
For comparison Speer's Gold Dot is 13" penetration and .554" expansion through heavy denim.
http://le.atk.com/downloads/catalogs/GoldDotPoster.pdf
Joe types in all caps in order to see the text clearly. He's not screaming, trust me.
OK, My apologies.
I understand. Sorry Joe.There is a lot wrong with that "test" no calibration only one shot. But I still would not want to be hit with one!
Last edited:
Sorry, but that conclusion is incorrect. It may not have fully expanded, but the petals at their widest points were .526" That's an almost textbook "caliber and a half" expansion diameter. Consider also that the expanded petals cut rather than crush, so had they remained intact as the bullet travelled through tissue, it is more likely than not that they would have cut a similar diameter permanent cavity.
18" is also considered an "optimal" penetration depth according to FBI protocols. 12" is considered "acceptable" or adequate, which is to say just barely.
What is of greater concern is the nature of the test that achieved these results. As I stated before, ScubaOz did not provide a penetration depth for his BB "calibration" of the block, nor did he appear to use one continuous block of gelatin. We also do not know if he used 4 layers of 16 oz. unstarched denim per IWBA protocol. As I told Ramikrav, the test results seem encouraging on the surface, but more (and proper) testing is needed to establish the consistency of said results.
Right, now take a closer look at their "official" test numbers. See where that particular round fails to meet the 12" minimum standard in bare gel testing. How can this be?!
Also, not even the GDSB expands with 100% reliability when fired through intermediate barriers like cloth.
Don't get me wrong. The Speer GDSB round represents the "best of the breed" insofar as reasonably effective loads for snub nosed revolvers go, but it is by no means "perfect," nor should we attribute any sort of magic to it.
Per post #11;
That is an older test made with a Speer Gold Dot that has seven (7) petals.
Hornady bullets also failed and the company sent a improved copper jacket design, that did past the second test.
The newer Speer 125gr has a six (6) petal design now but the copper jacket is quite thick and needs to be near or at +P speeds to expand correctly. Best in a 3" barrel or longer, if available.
Bullets can have a good and bad day.............
I have a new 125 GD out of my M49 that went through three water jugs and stopped 1/4" into a particle board.
Good as new except for the rifling marks and a white plastic tip.
Never even started to expand at ten feet.
That is an older test made with a Speer Gold Dot that has seven (7) petals.
Hornady bullets also failed and the company sent a improved copper jacket design, that did past the second test.
The newer Speer 125gr has a six (6) petal design now but the copper jacket is quite thick and needs to be near or at +P speeds to expand correctly. Best in a 3" barrel or longer, if available.
Bullets can have a good and bad day.............
I have a new 125 GD out of my M49 that went through three water jugs and stopped 1/4" into a particle board.
Good as new except for the rifling marks and a white plastic tip.
Never even started to expand at ten feet.
one eye joe
US Veteran
SORRY ABOUT THAT. I DID NOT VIEW THE VIDEO THROUGH TO THE END. I LOST INTEREST WHEN HE REFERRED TO IT AS +P IN THE EXCERPT THAT I POSTED…...
Don't sweat it, Joe.
That's the one and only Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel load, and current manufacture is still a 7-petal design.
Yes, those particular rounds were definitely having a bad day as DocGKR experienced some really wacky and inconsistent velocities with that bunch. I merely post that photo to illustrate that sometimes, even our favored loads aren't perfect and are more vulnerable to failure than we want to believe.
In any event, the very same load that I poke fun at is the one I currently carry in my revolvers, for what it's worth.
Thanks for posting the picture to let people see what can happen in the real world.
I have LOTS of picture of bullets that did not do well in test.
Some are down right ugly and some could even be reloaded if needed !!
I have a custom 270 Winchester 130 grain that lost its lead and is just a tangled mess of copper and the very last end of the bullet is left.
I just don't want to smash a shooters dream that they are shooting the "Perfect Bullet" by posting the ugly truth.
Who knows, this one test could be a one in a million fluke ? !
You take your best shot........... and go with it.
I have LOTS of picture of bullets that did not do well in test.
Some are down right ugly and some could even be reloaded if needed !!
I have a custom 270 Winchester 130 grain that lost its lead and is just a tangled mess of copper and the very last end of the bullet is left.
I just don't want to smash a shooters dream that they are shooting the "Perfect Bullet" by posting the ugly truth.
Who knows, this one test could be a one in a million fluke ? !
You take your best shot........... and go with it.
V0OBWxZS16
Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2015
- Messages
- 504
- Reaction score
- 310
You made several fair points that I cannot argue against. However, I must stand by my statement that the bullet failed to expand. If you would prefer I will amend my statement to "under-expanded".
"The recovered diameter (RD) of each bullet is calculated by averaging the largest and smallest diameters measured at the leading edge of the deformed bullet." -DocGKR
The 0.526" measurement was a maximum and not an average. Judging by the appearance of the bullet I believe the expansion, properly measured, is smaller than that and does not meet the caliber and a half statement you made.
"The recovered diameter (RD) of each bullet is calculated by averaging the largest and smallest diameters measured at the leading edge of the deformed bullet." -DocGKR
The 0.526" measurement was a maximum and not an average. Judging by the appearance of the bullet I believe the expansion, properly measured, is smaller than that and does not meet the caliber and a half statement you made.
That sounds a lot more accurate. Thank you.
I believe we can both agree that the expansion characteristics of that XTP bullet were clearly sub-optimal.
I agree that this particular XTP did not expand in true "caliber and a half" fashion, and measured according to official protocol, would likely result in a smaller number. If I may, I'd like to clarify that while it's certainly possible for the expanded petals to cut a permanent wound channel similar in diameter to the .526" measurement, this shouldn't be considered a reliable way of achieving such a result. As we've both noted, the XTP didn't expand all six of its petals.
For what it's worth, I'm skeptical that the results of ScubaOz's testing are repeatable under controlled conditions using more tightly adhered to protocols; I consider this to be a "one in a million" event rather than conclusive proof that we should start adopting the Hornady XTP for our snubs in earnest.
Nice to have you here at the S&W Forum, by the way.
I do it more to keep everyone honest than to crush dreams. Well, that's not entirely true... I admit it does feel pretty righteous to roast a sacred cow now and then.
For me, the initial discomfort that accompanys accepting the "good" with the "bad" with my chosen load is preferable to what inevitably results from overconfidence. If someone holds a similarly honest and unbiased view of their choice in defensive ammo, I find no fault with them.
Verbose rambling aside, I do enjoy our conversations regardless of how I may appear to come across at times.
OP
Ramikrav
Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2015
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 51
In posting the test, it just seemed to me that a 158 grain bullet, the standard for .38 special, performing like that, even in an imperfect test, was worth further investigation.
ESPECIALLY being that its not running +p.
I understand that there's no -perfect- bullet, except for the one that is placed well and does its job.
Please understand, I'm relatively new to the .38 special, and I'm sort of investigating its potential out loud here with you guys.
I'm loving my snubnose, the way it carries and the fact that even with my 110 +p Hornady FTX fodder and HTP Remington FBI load knock-off, its still a heck of a lot more cartridge then the little .380's I've tried before.
an added bonus is how well my snub carries AND shoots for me compared to ALL of the little micro semiautos.
Some of you have impressive qualifications and long experience, and I thank you for helping me out with my numerous threads so far.
ESPECIALLY being that its not running +p.
I understand that there's no -perfect- bullet, except for the one that is placed well and does its job.
Please understand, I'm relatively new to the .38 special, and I'm sort of investigating its potential out loud here with you guys.
I'm loving my snubnose, the way it carries and the fact that even with my 110 +p Hornady FTX fodder and HTP Remington FBI load knock-off, its still a heck of a lot more cartridge then the little .380's I've tried before.
an added bonus is how well my snub carries AND shoots for me compared to ALL of the little micro semiautos.
Some of you have impressive qualifications and long experience, and I thank you for helping me out with my numerous threads so far.
Hornady only showed a standard 158 XTP for it's ammo line.
I could not find that "Black box" of ammo but Midway did have the standard brown box 158 XTP.
It is said to do 800 fps in a 4".......
one shooter with a S&W M36 snub nose reported just 708 fps and the bullet just started to expand when shot into sand.
Looks more like it is a J frame target load, to me with these specs. I would like 800 fps out of a snub nose for SD work.
I could not find that "Black box" of ammo but Midway did have the standard brown box 158 XTP.
It is said to do 800 fps in a 4".......
one shooter with a S&W M36 snub nose reported just 708 fps and the bullet just started to expand when shot into sand.
Looks more like it is a J frame target load, to me with these specs. I would like 800 fps out of a snub nose for SD work.
