Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Cor-Bon actually stopped using the Barnes X-bullet awhile back and is now manufacturing their own.
.38 snubnose: Hornady FTX -or- Remmy's "FBI" load?
- Thread starter Ramikrav
- Start date
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Cor-Bon actually stopped using the Barnes X-bullet awhile back and is now manufacturing their own.
OP
Ramikrav
Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2015
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 51
I don't know.
I do know that Barnes is loading their own defensive ammo, the Barnes TAC-XPD, featuring that projectile.
I like it mucho for my Rami, its very controllable and the tests I've seen of it so far are convincing, along with the fame of the DPX from corbon.
Last edited:
3rdRRU_PhuBai
Member
Either bullet from either load delivered into either eyeball of the threat would probably terminate the threat, although I have no first-hand experience in such matters.
TeaDub
Member
At some point, I will try to find some BB 158 grain to try. The FBI load does have a long track record.
Until then, I carry Golden Saber 125 gr +p. It seems to consistently expand out of a 2" barrel. The jacket petals also look like they would do extra cutting while passing through. A bonus is that they can be found pretty cheap. That allows me to practice more with my carry load.
Until then, I carry Golden Saber 125 gr +p. It seems to consistently expand out of a 2" barrel. The jacket petals also look like they would do extra cutting while passing through. A bonus is that they can be found pretty cheap. That allows me to practice more with my carry load.
OP
Ramikrav
Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2015
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 51
Funny you should mention that.
The way I taught my wife to use her Beretta bobcat is similar.
However, barring the ability to make contact shots, we practice both "foom foom" [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM4h4TsEDqE"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM4h4TsEDqE[/ame] targeted at high center of mass with the bigger bores, or the "zipper technique" with her little .22.
No "experience" here, none ever wanted, but I'm not going to be anyones victim either.
OP
Ramikrav
Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2015
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 51
Initially, that; the fact that a box of the remmy stuff is much more economical than many others, and what I've read and seen of tests regarding the FBI load, is why I got a few boxes to begin with.
The Hornady stuff was just so nifty in its design that I couldnt say no lol.
The Rem Golden Sabres are decent loads, I like them better than the Hornady CD and they chrono to advertised numbers or better sometimes. They don't speed load as easy as the Hornady CD/FTX, but they aren't bad either.
I used to carry Impact branded +P 158gr lswchp ammo in a speed loader, jeans pocket. Never had any issue with the lead exposure, but they do get a little chewed and deform fairly easily if you drop them or are foolish enough to put keys, change,etc in the same pocket.
I used to carry Impact branded +P 158gr lswchp ammo in a speed loader, jeans pocket. Never had any issue with the lead exposure, but they do get a little chewed and deform fairly easily if you drop them or are foolish enough to put keys, change,etc in the same pocket.
Last edited:
I'd probably go with the Hornady as it's a newer design and I like the specs. I actually carry it sometimes in my .38's. The other times I'm carrying Speer Gold Dots. I don't know if that is an option for you but it's also a very good round.
OP
Ramikrav
Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2015
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 51
I'm starting to think that going underweight in the snubnose is not the way to go.
Mostly, its because of the broad depth of information out there proving that the snubnose's ballistics are just barely marginal to make even the best designed projectiles as consistent as, say, the typical 9,.40,.45.
From every gel test done by those attempting to simulate FBI standards to those just plinkin' and posting their results, its pretty clear to me that the ammo in a .38 snubnose has a very tough job to perform- to be able to expand and penetrate properly from a low pressure gun with an abbreviated barrel.
Now, I do believe that the modern JHP's are great, they are the best we've ever had, but some things just aren't in the realm of the possibility because of the laws of physics.
Even though experts with a much more credible opinion then myself offer the opinion that there are JHP's that work and work well, I think the .38 special will do its best (or its worse lol) with heavier projectile loads.
This is because even if it fails to expand, a 158 grain bullet has the mass to utilize what the snubby can give it, to penetrate without deflection, and to not sacrifice penetration for expansion, which AFAIK, should be a sin in the defensive handgun world.
Does this mean I think the modern, lighter, JHP's are "worthless"?
Far from it.
But for me, I think that I'm going to carry the FBI load as my first volley.
Even if it fails to expand, that's still one heck of a chunk of lead, and in all the tests I've seen it FAIL to expand in, it seems to flatten and still increase in diameter making it more of a wadcutter then the FMJ profile vs jacketed lightweights that fail to perform, which tend to also lack sectional density and deflect more readily off bone and such (like 9mm and .380, for example) whether they expand and perform as advertise or fail and act like ball.
I'm thinking that alot of guys here are also right in their observation of how the FBI load might be a bit more "fumbly" in a stressful reload and possibly even easily damaged in the pocket, and certainly may be deformed under the regular practice of reloading.
So, I'm keeping the FTX on the speed strips for now, but I think I want to try the Gold Dot short barrel stuff as its also got a -real- reputation, so far as I've read, in actual shootings, and its 135gr weight isnt too bad either.
If I do buy another box or few of lightweights, it'll be the 110gr corbon solid coppers, because DocGKR's recommendations are highly regarded.
For all intents and purposes, I feel the hornady FTX line might be a good choice in .38 special for people like my wife, who have recoil issues.
And while I myself don't have those issues, I'm still not going to try any of that buffalo bore +p 158 grain FBI load in a small snubby, ESPECIALLY a charter arms revolver.
Now. Unless and until someone proves it otherwise in a thorough battery of tests, I do not feel the need to replace the Remington FBI load with the overpriced buffalo bore standard pressure load.
Its going to take alot of convincing to make me believe that Remington intentionally downloaded/reconfigured, to the point of making worthless, a cartridge that they know and the entire shooting world knows works.
And THEN they went and relabeled it from "express" to "high terminal performance"?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "express" line was never marketed solely for defensive purposes, but the name "high terminal performance" sure says just that.
Again, I just don't see Remington doing something as shady as relabeling something as such and THEN -intentionally- making it LESS effective at the very job the cartridge is now labeled to do, let alone is historically known to be useful for.
That just doesn't add up to my way of thinking.
I trust Remington to stand by its product as a well established American arms and ammo manufacturer.
As far as I'm concerned- the Remmy FBI load is now my go-to load, for snubnose .38 special.
Thank you all for your suggestions and for helping me make up my mind on this and especially to Brian for his direct help.
Mostly, its because of the broad depth of information out there proving that the snubnose's ballistics are just barely marginal to make even the best designed projectiles as consistent as, say, the typical 9,.40,.45.
From every gel test done by those attempting to simulate FBI standards to those just plinkin' and posting their results, its pretty clear to me that the ammo in a .38 snubnose has a very tough job to perform- to be able to expand and penetrate properly from a low pressure gun with an abbreviated barrel.
Now, I do believe that the modern JHP's are great, they are the best we've ever had, but some things just aren't in the realm of the possibility because of the laws of physics.
Even though experts with a much more credible opinion then myself offer the opinion that there are JHP's that work and work well, I think the .38 special will do its best (or its worse lol) with heavier projectile loads.
This is because even if it fails to expand, a 158 grain bullet has the mass to utilize what the snubby can give it, to penetrate without deflection, and to not sacrifice penetration for expansion, which AFAIK, should be a sin in the defensive handgun world.
Does this mean I think the modern, lighter, JHP's are "worthless"?
Far from it.
But for me, I think that I'm going to carry the FBI load as my first volley.
Even if it fails to expand, that's still one heck of a chunk of lead, and in all the tests I've seen it FAIL to expand in, it seems to flatten and still increase in diameter making it more of a wadcutter then the FMJ profile vs jacketed lightweights that fail to perform, which tend to also lack sectional density and deflect more readily off bone and such (like 9mm and .380, for example) whether they expand and perform as advertise or fail and act like ball.
I'm thinking that alot of guys here are also right in their observation of how the FBI load might be a bit more "fumbly" in a stressful reload and possibly even easily damaged in the pocket, and certainly may be deformed under the regular practice of reloading.
So, I'm keeping the FTX on the speed strips for now, but I think I want to try the Gold Dot short barrel stuff as its also got a -real- reputation, so far as I've read, in actual shootings, and its 135gr weight isnt too bad either.
If I do buy another box or few of lightweights, it'll be the 110gr corbon solid coppers, because DocGKR's recommendations are highly regarded.
For all intents and purposes, I feel the hornady FTX line might be a good choice in .38 special for people like my wife, who have recoil issues.
And while I myself don't have those issues, I'm still not going to try any of that buffalo bore +p 158 grain FBI load in a small snubby, ESPECIALLY a charter arms revolver.
Now. Unless and until someone proves it otherwise in a thorough battery of tests, I do not feel the need to replace the Remington FBI load with the overpriced buffalo bore standard pressure load.
Its going to take alot of convincing to make me believe that Remington intentionally downloaded/reconfigured, to the point of making worthless, a cartridge that they know and the entire shooting world knows works.
And THEN they went and relabeled it from "express" to "high terminal performance"?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "express" line was never marketed solely for defensive purposes, but the name "high terminal performance" sure says just that.
Again, I just don't see Remington doing something as shady as relabeling something as such and THEN -intentionally- making it LESS effective at the very job the cartridge is now labeled to do, let alone is historically known to be useful for.
That just doesn't add up to my way of thinking.
I trust Remington to stand by its product as a well established American arms and ammo manufacturer.
As far as I'm concerned- the Remmy FBI load is now my go-to load, for snubnose .38 special.
Thank you all for your suggestions and for helping me make up my mind on this and especially to Brian for his direct help.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 19,888
- Reaction score
- 31,907
I am not all that impressed with the Hornady 110 grain FTX and never cared for bullets that light in a .38 Special bullet. The Remington "FBI Load" (NEW VERSION) is watered down to the point where I non longer trust it. The last time I chronographed FBI loads from the "Big Three" they were all in the mid 700's of velocity (out of a 2" M60) and are marginal for expansion and foot pounds of energy.
My current EDC loads (all chronographed and tested by myself) are either the Buffalo Bore "FBI load" (158 grain LSWCHP-GC) at 1025 fps and the Speer Short Barrel Gold Dot (135 grain JHP +P) at 850 fps BOTH out of my M60 2" barrel. The Speer has never failed to expand, penetrates to at least 12+ inches and has one of the best track records in actual shootings! The Buffalo Bore HEAVY load is a devastating round, penetrates 14 - 15 inches, expands fairly well and has 361 foot pounds of energy!
If you are serious about carrying the BEST defense load in a snub .38 Special, I would definitely consider one or both of these. The downside to the Buffalo Bore load is that it's a hard shooting round - although the most consistent and accurate of all the .38 special loads I've ever tested. The Speer GD is a bit less violent, but still maintains accuracy and consistency and it allows for quick follow up shots.
I have NEVER had a FTF or "bad bullets" from either one of the above rounds. (I can not say the same from the Rem's, & Win's.) IMHO the Hornady 110 grainer is simply TOO LIGHT a weight but there have always been two divided camps on this: light & fast OR slower and heavier. I have always gravitated towards heavy bullets and the Speer GD (135 grains) is the lightest I will go. YMMV
My current EDC loads (all chronographed and tested by myself) are either the Buffalo Bore "FBI load" (158 grain LSWCHP-GC) at 1025 fps and the Speer Short Barrel Gold Dot (135 grain JHP +P) at 850 fps BOTH out of my M60 2" barrel. The Speer has never failed to expand, penetrates to at least 12+ inches and has one of the best track records in actual shootings! The Buffalo Bore HEAVY load is a devastating round, penetrates 14 - 15 inches, expands fairly well and has 361 foot pounds of energy!
If you are serious about carrying the BEST defense load in a snub .38 Special, I would definitely consider one or both of these. The downside to the Buffalo Bore load is that it's a hard shooting round - although the most consistent and accurate of all the .38 special loads I've ever tested. The Speer GD is a bit less violent, but still maintains accuracy and consistency and it allows for quick follow up shots.
I have NEVER had a FTF or "bad bullets" from either one of the above rounds. (I can not say the same from the Rem's, & Win's.) IMHO the Hornady 110 grainer is simply TOO LIGHT a weight but there have always been two divided camps on this: light & fast OR slower and heavier. I have always gravitated towards heavy bullets and the Speer GD (135 grains) is the lightest I will go. YMMV
Last edited:
I have used Remington 158g FBI load for years and see no reason to change. If I want a lighter bullet I will use a .380
OP
Ramikrav
Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2015
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 51
Please excuse me if this sounds like I'm rudely second guessing you -I do appreciate your input greatly so please don't take my opinion wrong; but again, I've seen tests where pretty much each and every cartridge mentioned in this entire thread has not been as consistent from snubnose revolver, as they would be from longer barrels.
Here's a thought- doing some further research I've come to the understanding that the .38 special cartridge was originally a black powder design, and that the case capacity was originally meant to hold more of said propellant, with the modern smokeless requiring less space to make the caliber work and thus leaving lots of empty space in the case that may lead to the possibility of inconsistent powder burn. This in turn may lead to a bit of inconsistency in ballistics not being found in many other cartridges, and may be one of the reasons why there's such varying performance from snubnose .38 special revolvers, as well as the fact that, as i above mentioned previously, the abbreviated barrel isnt helping the already low pressured round much.
In other words, there's reasons as to why the .38 special is a challenge in itself to make work well from a snub, and I'm not entirely sold on the idea that Remington is downloading their loads.
I would change my tune entirely if multiple tests of this HTP load from Remington prove me wrong by showing consistently that it is in fact under powered when compared to its older loading.
Now, all this isn't an indictment of the snubnose .38 special, in all honesty, I think I'm in love with the snub.
Nothing I've owned carries so nicely and when you consider that the factory 158 grain +p seems to equal to or even have a slight advantage ballistically over the 9mm short barrels in that it throws a heavier projectile at the same if not a bit higher velocity then the 9mm heavyweight at 147gr, I personally am sold.
Again, i'm no expert so please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.
I'm also not dead set on finding the best most killin' ist' dinosaur slayin load for .38- I will be happy with a load that is both controllable as well as offering the best chances of performing well from my revolver.
that +p buffalo bore load looks to be for those who choose to carry a snubnose .357, yet run defensive .38 special loads in it, certainly not for the light weight 16oz charter undercover.
I will not be considering THAT load in the least, although, if the proof is in the pudding that Remington has in fact decided to cut corners to save money on production while also choosing to increase marketing hype to sell more ammo, rather then sticking with tried and true, I will indeed consider paying the extra cost for the buffalo bore standard FBI load.
If Remington did do this, they should darn well be ashamed of themselves.
Once upon a time while trying out differing guns for carry, I did have a .380 pocket rocket, and I did go looking for the most potent load I could find, and I did turn to buffalo bore.
The .380 +p 100 grain flat nosed lead wasn't entirely unpleasant to shoot, although in the gun I was using (keltec P3AT) it was unreliable when compared to ball and other manufacturers defensive ammo like the remington golden saber or federal low recoil hydra shok that I also tried, with multiple failures to fully return to battery requiring a simple palm slap to the slide to fully lock the breech for the next shot.
no other ammo did that in that gun.
the brass was also quite deformed in that load which was odd......
Anyhow, thank you to the board for continuing responses, I'm going to attempt to find more information about whats going on with remington and this modern roll out of their FBI load.
If I can find enough info I'll be sure to share, but to be honest, i'm hearing all sorts of conflicting accusations about it- either the lead alloy has been changed or the charge downloaded etc,etc.
Its starting to sound to me, no offence, to be a case of "they changed the label on my favorite thing so it cannot possibly be any good" syndrome.
Hey, it happens. When General motors became Government motors I became a ford guy lol.
In other words, sometimes there is some merit to such trepidation, but oftentimes, its baseless.
just sayin.
Remington -is in fact- marketing this high terminal performance line for personal defense.
Again, i just cannot see them intentionally going from the "express' label, which is admittedly more mundane in marketing, to directly marketing this load for personal defensive applications, and then turning around and watering it down or otherwise changing it up to make it less effective then the well known and highly regarded load.
Guys- this just doesn't make sense.
Now, just going from the manufacturers info-
From a 4 inch barrel remington is saying 890, which should make it above 800 from a 2", which -is- less juicy then the buffalo bore, however, I need to see how that effects terminal performance in tests before I'm ready to judge the round a dud. You may not need 900-1000fps at the muzzle to make the load work. From what I've gathered, in my reading, it needs to be above 800?
Does anyone have the actual factory speccs for the Remington express version of the FBI load?
And has anyone actually asked Remington about this?
If this is the same load that remmy has been selling for decades, just in a different box, then what works, works.
Last edited:
OP
Ramikrav
Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2015
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 51
Heres one video that I can find so far of the HTP. I'm guessing its so new its just not been tested alot.
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6jgKd0q_xA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6jgKd0q_xA[/ame]
The buffalo bore videos do show more consistency and power. But for that price, it darned well better.
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvVNtKicux4"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvVNtKicux4[/ame]
I'm still not convinced as to whether or not the Remington load is any different, as well, if it would be less effective then the preceding "express" load. To top that off, if compared to the buffalo bore, would the express load be any better?
I don't know..... but you can be the judge. Here is one of many videos you can find on the express load.
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r22EjxDfyo[/ame]
To me... it looks quite similar.
Yeah, the buffalo bore is more impressive, but its also more pricey, and with the videos I can find so far, I'm not seeing this huge difference in power from the remmy express to the HTP.
All variables like differing test equipment, procedure,different lots of ammo, etc,etc aside-
I think its the same thing guys.
Further testing, like some gel shots, are needed.
But I really don't think the new HTP load will perform any different then the express rendition. Maybe Remington did download their ammo while still under the express name, a long time ago, but I don't have a clue and in either case its irrelevant because the modern tests of the express load show it to be a successful one, and if in fact its no different from the HTP line, then its going to be just as good.
I do think that those of you investing in the buffalo bore have a point tho. It is a superior load.
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6jgKd0q_xA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6jgKd0q_xA[/ame]
The buffalo bore videos do show more consistency and power. But for that price, it darned well better.
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvVNtKicux4"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvVNtKicux4[/ame]
I'm still not convinced as to whether or not the Remington load is any different, as well, if it would be less effective then the preceding "express" load. To top that off, if compared to the buffalo bore, would the express load be any better?
I don't know..... but you can be the judge. Here is one of many videos you can find on the express load.
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r22EjxDfyo[/ame]
To me... it looks quite similar.
Yeah, the buffalo bore is more impressive, but its also more pricey, and with the videos I can find so far, I'm not seeing this huge difference in power from the remmy express to the HTP.
All variables like differing test equipment, procedure,different lots of ammo, etc,etc aside-
I think its the same thing guys.
Further testing, like some gel shots, are needed.
But I really don't think the new HTP load will perform any different then the express rendition. Maybe Remington did download their ammo while still under the express name, a long time ago, but I don't have a clue and in either case its irrelevant because the modern tests of the express load show it to be a successful one, and if in fact its no different from the HTP line, then its going to be just as good.
I do think that those of you investing in the buffalo bore have a point tho. It is a superior load.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 19,888
- Reaction score
- 31,907
Ramikrav:
What I posted is NOT my opinion, it is simply the results I got on my Chronograph shooting them out of my 2" Chief's Special M60-7! I have tested these carry loads on at least 4 separate occasions and the results are identical. All I can surmise from my ACTUAL CHRONOGRAPH RESULTS is that the velocity and energy figures that Winchester and Remington state is INCORRECT. I also do not know or care what barrel type and length they use to test their loads - I am only concerned how they perform in my 2" Chief's Special. I am NOT the only one who has gotten these result either! I have no stock in either Buffalo Bore or Speer and have no interest in promoting their Company - just simply passing on what I have seen with my own two eyes and my personal Chronograph. If you choose not to take my word that is certainly your prerogative and you are certainly free to choose what ever defense round you would like. Years back I too carried Remington FBI loads BUT after buying a Chronograph that came to a screeching halt.
I've also gone back into my stash and dug out some OLD STOCK of Remington FBI loads from the 70's and the results are around 10% hotter than current production. Again - I am not the only one who has witnessed this. It is pretty common knowledge that the SAAMI spec's have been lowered over the years and I have even sent back 5 boxes of Winchester FBI loads to Winchester for a refund because they were so watered down they were useless to me. Winchester agreed that they were not right, sent me an apology letter and a full refund including freight. Had I not chronographed them I would have not know either!
Chronographs are quite reasonable these days and you might want to consider buying one and doing your own testing. I think you will be a bit surprised at the fall-off between published velocities and actual real world velocities from REAL guns. Buffaol Bore ONLY tests their loads from actual production guns - NOT test barrels like others do! Go on their website and see for yourself.
Choose wisely.
Chief38
What I posted is NOT my opinion, it is simply the results I got on my Chronograph shooting them out of my 2" Chief's Special M60-7! I have tested these carry loads on at least 4 separate occasions and the results are identical. All I can surmise from my ACTUAL CHRONOGRAPH RESULTS is that the velocity and energy figures that Winchester and Remington state is INCORRECT. I also do not know or care what barrel type and length they use to test their loads - I am only concerned how they perform in my 2" Chief's Special. I am NOT the only one who has gotten these result either! I have no stock in either Buffalo Bore or Speer and have no interest in promoting their Company - just simply passing on what I have seen with my own two eyes and my personal Chronograph. If you choose not to take my word that is certainly your prerogative and you are certainly free to choose what ever defense round you would like. Years back I too carried Remington FBI loads BUT after buying a Chronograph that came to a screeching halt.
I've also gone back into my stash and dug out some OLD STOCK of Remington FBI loads from the 70's and the results are around 10% hotter than current production. Again - I am not the only one who has witnessed this. It is pretty common knowledge that the SAAMI spec's have been lowered over the years and I have even sent back 5 boxes of Winchester FBI loads to Winchester for a refund because they were so watered down they were useless to me. Winchester agreed that they were not right, sent me an apology letter and a full refund including freight. Had I not chronographed them I would have not know either!
Chronographs are quite reasonable these days and you might want to consider buying one and doing your own testing. I think you will be a bit surprised at the fall-off between published velocities and actual real world velocities from REAL guns. Buffaol Bore ONLY tests their loads from actual production guns - NOT test barrels like others do! Go on their website and see for yourself.
Choose wisely.
Chief38
S&Wrevolverfan
Member
Ramikrav, I did get a couple of boxes of the BB 158 grain lSWCHP-GC standard pressure to carry in my j-frames and believe it to be superior to the remington HTP, but for the price I can't go out and shoot much or I'd quickly go broke.
I decided to go ahead and order a quantity of the remington HTP 158 +P ammunition. I figure if it's not as powerful as the older express stuff at least it's as cheap or cheaper than the 130 grain target winchester load and I, like you like the heavier bullet.
And it has certainly got to be better than the 130 Grain WW or some the 158 grain LRN bullets in case it's needed for something more serious. Plus it's close enough to the BB 158 standard pressure to practice with.
I will also be using this in my 4" K-Frame revolvers as well and I think the remington will expand just fine with them.
I also have a few boxes of Gold Dot 135 +p just in case, but it's hard to find and expensive to practice with as well.
Thanks for all the information.
I decided to go ahead and order a quantity of the remington HTP 158 +P ammunition. I figure if it's not as powerful as the older express stuff at least it's as cheap or cheaper than the 130 grain target winchester load and I, like you like the heavier bullet.
And it has certainly got to be better than the 130 Grain WW or some the 158 grain LRN bullets in case it's needed for something more serious. Plus it's close enough to the BB 158 standard pressure to practice with.
I will also be using this in my 4" K-Frame revolvers as well and I think the remington will expand just fine with them.
I also have a few boxes of Gold Dot 135 +p just in case, but it's hard to find and expensive to practice with as well.
Thanks for all the information.
S&Wrevolverfan
Member
chief38, I don't doubt yours and others findings, but man there's no way a poor man can afford to buy enough BB or Gold Dot to do much practicing with.
As I said I think the Remington is better and close enough to practice with since the target ammo is the same or more than the 158+P remington.
I will still carry the BB or the Gold Dot for SD though.
Thanks for the info.
As I said I think the Remington is better and close enough to practice with since the target ammo is the same or more than the 158+P remington.
I will still carry the BB or the Gold Dot for SD though.
Thanks for the info.
OP
Ramikrav
Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2015
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 51
I am very thankful for the input and in no way do I discount or disparage the info being shared here. I sincerely appreciate the conversation and the help.
I see in the video tests I posted above some very clear things:
1. The Remington express -as tested- in more recent times, right before they relabeled their boxes to HTP, shows itself to work in tests and that the HTP is likely the same thing as the express load, just reboxed. I do not know how hot the same load was back in the day, but if gents who do have that info say its so, then I'll take their word for it. I'm not trying to second guess anyone here, I'm just trying to apply my own logic to the situation in order to make up my own mind.(I have been known to be a bit hard headed, so please dont take offence! )
That being said, I really dont think that Remington drastically changed that load from the express boxed loads recently tested, to the HTP box; and as far as I can see from those tests, the terminal performance is quite acceptable in the modern express load, and I'm going to say that likely translates over to the HTP boxed stuff too, as I really dont see a difference in it.
2. The buffalo bore standard load is likely the very best rendition of the FBI load for .38 special snubbies, in my opinion. It really is head and shoulders above the crowd in both power and consistency. I agree fully that it is the top choice, when you've decided to use the FBI load.
3. The Remington consistency is ......way....... all over the place. Far from condemning Remington, however, I think thats likely something you'll see in most ammo unless you are paying top dollar for the really good stuff.
I think the idea that one could use the remington or whichever flavor factory load as a training load/"zombie stash" load is a good one, with the buffalo bore in reserve as the actual carry load.
BUT then there's the cost of the buffalo bore stuff.
Buying a 20 round box of ammo for $30 plus the likely over $10 shipping fee hurts.
vs. $20 bucks and shipping for a 50 round box.....
Ouch.
Whip me. Beat me. Make me write bad checks....lol.
I understand that my hide is somehow related to the amount of money I may spend on the tools I use to defend it, but I think there's a balancing act here.
If the Remington stuff is still -good enough- which, as per what i'm seeing, it is; then for folks like me who cannot afford a near-to $50 box of 20 rounds of ammo, its a winner.
Not saying I dont want a box of the buffalo bore.
I do.
But you have no idea the h-e-double-hockey-sticks such a purchase would provoke to raise in this house lol. Just -one- box of that would likely raise such hades..... lol.
All in good humor, but I think the Remington FBI load is the way to go for me.
As for a backup load, I wonder is there any merit in spending the extra money for the specially labeled 135gr gold dot short barrel vs. the 125gr stuff?
I'd like to stick with the heavier load, but again, if I can get a box of 50 of the 125gr gold dots for less then a box of 20 of the 135gr, and the performance is not so much different as to be night and day in a snubnose......
Decisions, decisions.
Again everyone thanks a bunch for your help!
I see in the video tests I posted above some very clear things:
1. The Remington express -as tested- in more recent times, right before they relabeled their boxes to HTP, shows itself to work in tests and that the HTP is likely the same thing as the express load, just reboxed. I do not know how hot the same load was back in the day, but if gents who do have that info say its so, then I'll take their word for it. I'm not trying to second guess anyone here, I'm just trying to apply my own logic to the situation in order to make up my own mind.(I have been known to be a bit hard headed, so please dont take offence!
)That being said, I really dont think that Remington drastically changed that load from the express boxed loads recently tested, to the HTP box; and as far as I can see from those tests, the terminal performance is quite acceptable in the modern express load, and I'm going to say that likely translates over to the HTP boxed stuff too, as I really dont see a difference in it.
2. The buffalo bore standard load is likely the very best rendition of the FBI load for .38 special snubbies, in my opinion. It really is head and shoulders above the crowd in both power and consistency. I agree fully that it is the top choice, when you've decided to use the FBI load.
3. The Remington consistency is ......way....... all over the place. Far from condemning Remington, however, I think thats likely something you'll see in most ammo unless you are paying top dollar for the really good stuff.
I think the idea that one could use the remington or whichever flavor factory load as a training load/"zombie stash" load is a good one, with the buffalo bore in reserve as the actual carry load.
BUT then there's the cost of the buffalo bore stuff.
Buying a 20 round box of ammo for $30 plus the likely over $10 shipping fee hurts.
vs. $20 bucks and shipping for a 50 round box.....
Ouch.
Whip me. Beat me. Make me write bad checks....lol.
I understand that my hide is somehow related to the amount of money I may spend on the tools I use to defend it, but I think there's a balancing act here.
If the Remington stuff is still -good enough- which, as per what i'm seeing, it is; then for folks like me who cannot afford a near-to $50 box of 20 rounds of ammo, its a winner.
Not saying I dont want a box of the buffalo bore.
I do.
But you have no idea the h-e-double-hockey-sticks such a purchase would provoke to raise in this house lol. Just -one- box of that would likely raise such hades..... lol.
All in good humor, but I think the Remington FBI load is the way to go for me.
As for a backup load, I wonder is there any merit in spending the extra money for the specially labeled 135gr gold dot short barrel vs. the 125gr stuff?
I'd like to stick with the heavier load, but again, if I can get a box of 50 of the 125gr gold dots for less then a box of 20 of the 135gr, and the performance is not so much different as to be night and day in a snubnose......
Decisions, decisions.
Again everyone thanks a bunch for your help!
Last edited:
ContinentalOp
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2009
- Messages
- 6,315
- Reaction score
- 12,813
This is essentially what I did when I carried the BB FBI load. I bought 2 boxes of the BB ammo. I fired the ammo from one box to make sure it worked reliably in my gun (and that I could shoot it acceptably well) and used the other box for carry. I then used my PMC 132gr FMJ and Speer 158gr TMJ +P ammo as practice rounds.
I don't think there's a problem with relying on the Remington FBI load. While my first choice would be the Speer SBGD and my second choice would be the BB FBI (standard pressure) load, I would not feel uneasy if all I could get or could afford was the Remington load, so long as it was reliable in my gun and I could shoot it well.
FYI, if you keep an eye out you can occasionally find 50-round boxes of Speer's 135gr SBGD. I found some online a few months ago and picked up a few boxes. I can't remember the exact price but I want to say it was in the neighborhood of $27-29/box. I believe Speer, and possibly the other ammo makers, manufacture their products in batches and rotate them throughout the year. So if you can't find any SBGD now, they may pop up sometime in the next few months, or maybe around the same time next year.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 19,888
- Reaction score
- 31,907
Yes I know the Buffalo Bore loads are expensive, ($27.00 for 20 rounds) but my life and my family's lives are worth that much.
I do not shoot them all day long - every 6 months or so I simply shoot out the 5 I have in the gun daily and replace them with fresh ones. I load up my own practice ammo and that is cheap and plentiful enough to shoot all day. I rotate my ammo every 6 months just for the heck of it - not that it really goes bad.
Just a side note:
When I first read about Buffalo Bore years ago I was a nay sayer as well. After I actually bought and tested some personally, getting the same results time and time again, I KNOW it to be 100% TRUE! Again, BB tests out of ACTUAL, REAL guns and states what barrel lengths they are using - the other Company's do NOT! The Speer Short Barrel Gold Dot comes damned close (close enough for me) to what they say they will do in a 2" snubby. Win, Fed and Rem - not even close!
Last edited:
Many like the 158 lead FBI load............
however as you can see from all the above video's there can be
a fps from 758 to 822 in one snub nose and the same model
give an average of 847 fps in another test.
One reason it is important to shoot a box of each load and find
out how they work in your weapon.
however as you can see from all the above video's there can be
a fps from 758 to 822 in one snub nose and the same model
give an average of 847 fps in another test.
One reason it is important to shoot a box of each load and find
out how they work in your weapon.
S&Wrevolverfan
Member
chief38, As I said earlier I decided a while ago to carry the BB standard ammo, just can't afford to practice with it as we all really need to do with our carry ammunition.
I can't/don't reload so I think the Remington +p HTP is a good compromise to do some training with, as it is still a 158 grain load and although a little weaker is close enough. Plus it could be used if need be.
Anyway thanks for all the good information.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 19,888
- Reaction score
- 31,907
That's a good practice ethic to follow and will not break the bank.
All this talk about the classic FBI load is making me wax nostalgic. Now you have me wanting to break into the four remaining Express boxes I have left. It's all your fault!
Truth be told, the snub nosed revolver has always been a bit of a compromise, especially when it comes to external ballistics. There's a dearth of rounds that can be reasonably expected to "do the job" when fired from a short barrel; some have an impeccable street record, but none are the Hammer of Thor. No handgun round is, really.
Both the FBI load and the GDSB load perform admirably in controlled testing, until the dreaded four layers of denim are involved. Then the edge goes to Speer's offering. But there have been documented failures of the GDSB in IWBA tests as well. So what do we place our trust in?
I adopt the view of Sykes and Fairbairn in "Shooting to Live" and S.A. Urey Patrick in "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness." Namely, that there are no magic bullets, and that a projectile has but one task. In order to perform that task, it must penetrate deeply enough to reach vital organs and be placed in such a way that vital organs (essentially the circulatory and central nervous systems) are struck. Expansion is to be considered a bonus if and when it occurs. And finally, there is no such thing as a guaranteed stop. We can improve the odds in our favor to a degree, but it is not absolute.
The point to this inconclusive rambling is that ultimately, we need to find a proven round that is known to "work" and practice enough with it that shooting our chosen sidearm becomes like second nature.)
Truth be told, the snub nosed revolver has always been a bit of a compromise, especially when it comes to external ballistics. There's a dearth of rounds that can be reasonably expected to "do the job" when fired from a short barrel; some have an impeccable street record, but none are the Hammer of Thor. No handgun round is, really.
Both the FBI load and the GDSB load perform admirably in controlled testing, until the dreaded four layers of denim are involved. Then the edge goes to Speer's offering. But there have been documented failures of the GDSB in IWBA tests as well. So what do we place our trust in?
I adopt the view of Sykes and Fairbairn in "Shooting to Live" and S.A. Urey Patrick in "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness." Namely, that there are no magic bullets, and that a projectile has but one task. In order to perform that task, it must penetrate deeply enough to reach vital organs and be placed in such a way that vital organs (essentially the circulatory and central nervous systems) are struck. Expansion is to be considered a bonus if and when it occurs. And finally, there is no such thing as a guaranteed stop. We can improve the odds in our favor to a degree, but it is not absolute.
The point to this inconclusive rambling is that ultimately, we need to find a proven round that is known to "work" and practice enough with it that shooting our chosen sidearm becomes like second nature.)
OP
Ramikrav
Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2015
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 51
No magic bullets, agreed.
Bigger holes, and heavier projectiles that give more chance of straight line penetration, so if shot placement is acceptable, greater chance of scoring.
Thats my line of thinking.
Fairbairn and Applegate are certainly no stranger to me, as a student of krav maga I've been into alot of WW2 combatives too. I own one of Bokers' modern renditions of the FS knife, marketed with F & A signature.
I just didn't know what to make of the 110 FTX, and the snubnose .38.
Bryan has PM'd me some links with very good information.
I have to say i'm disappointed that if, in fact its true, that any cartridge, is ever deliberately watered down.
I know handguns aren't death rays, but I feel that deliberate weakening of any cartridge does a disservice to the entire shooting community.
If in fact they'd been downloading .38 special over the years, its a real shame, and one could only hope that given the popularity (and the necessity, in the modern world) of people carrying concealed, that major companies would be changing course on that with the .38, because of the growing resurgence of people wanting snub revolvers.
Bigger holes, and heavier projectiles that give more chance of straight line penetration, so if shot placement is acceptable, greater chance of scoring.
Thats my line of thinking.
Fairbairn and Applegate are certainly no stranger to me, as a student of krav maga I've been into alot of WW2 combatives too. I own one of Bokers' modern renditions of the FS knife, marketed with F & A signature.
I just didn't know what to make of the 110 FTX, and the snubnose .38.
Bryan has PM'd me some links with very good information.
I have to say i'm disappointed that if, in fact its true, that any cartridge, is ever deliberately watered down.
I know handguns aren't death rays, but I feel that deliberate weakening of any cartridge does a disservice to the entire shooting community.
If in fact they'd been downloading .38 special over the years, its a real shame, and one could only hope that given the popularity (and the necessity, in the modern world) of people carrying concealed, that major companies would be changing course on that with the .38, because of the growing resurgence of people wanting snub revolvers.
On the "watering down" of the .38 Special...
It's true that SAMMI quietly reduced the maximum allowed pressures of the .38 Special some time in the 70's. What was once "normal" for the round then became the "+P" standard. My understanding was that this was done in the interest of sparing the owners of imported revolvers with questionable metallurgy from experiencing critical malfunctions (i.e. "kabooms"). Whether or not that's true is the subject of much debate, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
That being said, you'll see occasional reference being made to the "good old days" when the .38 Special clocked 1,000 FPS or more in its prime. What is not often mentioned is that ammo manufacturers more or less "cheated" by using non-ventilated test barrels that were well above the common snub and service lengths. The result was outrageous reported factory velocities that, frankly, sounded too good to be true. The best example of this is from none other than the S&W ammo booklet that was included with their older revolvers.
Fast forward to today. Manufacturers now use vented test barrels to accurately simulate the loss of velocity due to the barrel/cylinder gap. We've also learned that raw velocity is not crucial to designing an effective bullet. If "more is better," why don't the major ammo manufacturers cater to the "need for speed"? Well, todays bullets have a lot more R&D invested in their design; we now have a realistic understanding of terminal ballistics and how bullets perform when fired through intermediate barriers like heavy clothing, automotive glass and steel, and drywall. This isn't to say that newer is better. There are, in fact, older designs like the LSWCHP that perform very well so long as you're not expecting things like high weight retention through glass or robust expansion at snub velocities when heavy cloth is encountered. These are trade-offs for some, deal-breakers for others.
Consider this: Would a 158 gr. bullet travelling at quasi-magnum velocities be easy to control in a 19 oz. revolver? How about an Airweight? What if there were proven choices with a solid track record that work without all the sound and fury of a boutique load? Would you choose the load that seems "anemic" on paper but has a proven record on the street if it meant you can get faster follow-up shots and stay on target easier?
And therein lies the rub. I know Buffalo Bore's re-invention has its share of devotees here, but it is the "FBI load" in spirit only. The "5 brindell hardness" Rim Rock bullets are evidently NOT, as demonstrated by controlled testing by tnoutdoors9. Think about this for a moment... A bullet that soft travelling at the advertised velocities of the "full power" version would turn itself inside out. tnoutdoors9 clocked the "standard pressure" version at about 850 FPS. That's about the velocity you'd get with Remington's version from a 3" barrel. However, the bullet failed to expand when fired through denim and instead morphed into a wadcutter shape. (Incidentally, Remington's version expands just fine in the equally severe FBI heavy clothing test at that velocity.) What this tells us is that the Rim Rock bullet is, in fact, a harder alloy, and in fact it actually needs to be if it's expected to hold together at 1,000 FPS or more. A violently expanding bullet tends to underpentrate, which defeats the purpose of choosing the LSWCHP in the first place. Could Remington push their bullets harder? Sure, but then you might have the undesired effect of fragmentation, and the less mass the bullet has, the more quickly it comes to a stop when encountering resistance in living tissue.
What I'm saying is, speed alone does not dictate whether a round is "effective" or not. Sometimes, less really can be more. My only concern with the new HTP round is that Remington may have went with a slightly harder alloy for ease of manufacture, and thus a lower price point for the consumer. The Express load used to cost upwards of $35 a box or more, whereas the new HTP loading can be had for $20 or less in the same 50-count box. This doesn't mean that they "broke" the FBI load. It should still work fine, so long as it isn't fired from anything shorter than a 3" barrel. Any shorter, and it loses enough velocity where expansion becomes iffy whenever intermediate barriers are involved. This is the same exact problem encountered with Winchester's version; at some point in history they tweaked the alloy of their version to be harder, which adversely affected expansion reliability from snubs.
Edit: I highly recommend reading the late Stephen A. Camp's article titled ".38 Special LSWCHP +P: Still a top load?" I hope you find it as educational and enlightening as I did when I first read it years ago.
It's true that SAMMI quietly reduced the maximum allowed pressures of the .38 Special some time in the 70's. What was once "normal" for the round then became the "+P" standard. My understanding was that this was done in the interest of sparing the owners of imported revolvers with questionable metallurgy from experiencing critical malfunctions (i.e. "kabooms"). Whether or not that's true is the subject of much debate, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
That being said, you'll see occasional reference being made to the "good old days" when the .38 Special clocked 1,000 FPS or more in its prime. What is not often mentioned is that ammo manufacturers more or less "cheated" by using non-ventilated test barrels that were well above the common snub and service lengths. The result was outrageous reported factory velocities that, frankly, sounded too good to be true. The best example of this is from none other than the S&W ammo booklet that was included with their older revolvers.
Fast forward to today. Manufacturers now use vented test barrels to accurately simulate the loss of velocity due to the barrel/cylinder gap. We've also learned that raw velocity is not crucial to designing an effective bullet. If "more is better," why don't the major ammo manufacturers cater to the "need for speed"? Well, todays bullets have a lot more R&D invested in their design; we now have a realistic understanding of terminal ballistics and how bullets perform when fired through intermediate barriers like heavy clothing, automotive glass and steel, and drywall. This isn't to say that newer is better. There are, in fact, older designs like the LSWCHP that perform very well so long as you're not expecting things like high weight retention through glass or robust expansion at snub velocities when heavy cloth is encountered. These are trade-offs for some, deal-breakers for others.
Consider this: Would a 158 gr. bullet travelling at quasi-magnum velocities be easy to control in a 19 oz. revolver? How about an Airweight? What if there were proven choices with a solid track record that work without all the sound and fury of a boutique load? Would you choose the load that seems "anemic" on paper but has a proven record on the street if it meant you can get faster follow-up shots and stay on target easier?
And therein lies the rub. I know Buffalo Bore's re-invention has its share of devotees here, but it is the "FBI load" in spirit only. The "5 brindell hardness" Rim Rock bullets are evidently NOT, as demonstrated by controlled testing by tnoutdoors9. Think about this for a moment... A bullet that soft travelling at the advertised velocities of the "full power" version would turn itself inside out. tnoutdoors9 clocked the "standard pressure" version at about 850 FPS. That's about the velocity you'd get with Remington's version from a 3" barrel. However, the bullet failed to expand when fired through denim and instead morphed into a wadcutter shape. (Incidentally, Remington's version expands just fine in the equally severe FBI heavy clothing test at that velocity.) What this tells us is that the Rim Rock bullet is, in fact, a harder alloy, and in fact it actually needs to be if it's expected to hold together at 1,000 FPS or more. A violently expanding bullet tends to underpentrate, which defeats the purpose of choosing the LSWCHP in the first place. Could Remington push their bullets harder? Sure, but then you might have the undesired effect of fragmentation, and the less mass the bullet has, the more quickly it comes to a stop when encountering resistance in living tissue.
What I'm saying is, speed alone does not dictate whether a round is "effective" or not. Sometimes, less really can be more. My only concern with the new HTP round is that Remington may have went with a slightly harder alloy for ease of manufacture, and thus a lower price point for the consumer. The Express load used to cost upwards of $35 a box or more, whereas the new HTP loading can be had for $20 or less in the same 50-count box. This doesn't mean that they "broke" the FBI load. It should still work fine, so long as it isn't fired from anything shorter than a 3" barrel. Any shorter, and it loses enough velocity where expansion becomes iffy whenever intermediate barriers are involved. This is the same exact problem encountered with Winchester's version; at some point in history they tweaked the alloy of their version to be harder, which adversely affected expansion reliability from snubs.
Edit: I highly recommend reading the late Stephen A. Camp's article titled ".38 Special LSWCHP +P: Still a top load?" I hope you find it as educational and enlightening as I did when I first read it years ago.
Last edited:
OP
Ramikrav
Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2015
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 51
Again, thanks all for the highly informative discussion.
Its what I came here for.
At this point, I'm wanting to see someone do a proper terminal test of the HTP load.
Very, very badly.
ETA-
Just found this from Stephen Camp after reading the above link to his blog:
hi-powers--handguns: Informal Tests: Hornady Critical Defense .380 & .38 Special
The FTX isnt a horrible choice in .38 special. There are better, but its not bad.
Hornady should really step up to the pump and make a .38 special FTX load with a bit more mass. They went as low as 90gr in the "lite" version, which, surprisingly, in the tests I've seen, aint bad.
They should do a 158gr FTX.
Its what I came here for.
At this point, I'm wanting to see someone do a proper terminal test of the HTP load.
Very, very badly.
ETA-
Just found this from Stephen Camp after reading the above link to his blog:
hi-powers--handguns: Informal Tests: Hornady Critical Defense .380 & .38 Special
The FTX isnt a horrible choice in .38 special. There are better, but its not bad.
Hornady should really step up to the pump and make a .38 special FTX load with a bit more mass. They went as low as 90gr in the "lite" version, which, surprisingly, in the tests I've seen, aint bad.
They should do a 158gr FTX.
Last edited:
I'd go with BB's +P SWCHP load in a +P rated revolver.
It is the ballistic equivalent to the old 38/44 load, but with an expanding bullet.
Hits over 1,000 fps from a J frame snub.
It's even better from a 4" barrel.
I often carry the 110 grain +P+ CorBon load in my 36.
The odds of me needing to shoot through auto glass or 4 layers of denim are ridiculously low.
It is the ballistic equivalent to the old 38/44 load, but with an expanding bullet.
Hits over 1,000 fps from a J frame snub.
It's even better from a 4" barrel.
I often carry the 110 grain +P+ CorBon load in my 36.
The odds of me needing to shoot through auto glass or 4 layers of denim are ridiculously low.
Last edited:
