Evaluating the .38 Spl+P FBI Load/Gelatin overreliance

[Doug.38PR]

I have been using the above said load in Remington for the past 14 years in both my 4 inch and snub nose .38 revolvers in both Colt and S&W.

The legendary and proven 158 gr LSWCHP in .38 Spl+P or “FBI Load” as it’s often called for short.

Remington seems to not be producing or selling their version of this roubd for the time being so I just transitioned over to Federal’s version. Winchester’s is avalilable too but they are a little too proud and pricey (like $1.00 a round). Buffalo Bore version I keep as a reserve backup reload just in case but not something I prefer to keep loaded as a primary carry for reasons that ade another discussion for another time (btw, Buffalo Bore DOES perform as advertised)

Anyway, I have noticed over the past few years discussions and videos concerning the above said round demonstrating that it “won’t expand out of 2 inch barrels”. These discussions and demonstrations revolve around it’s performance in a block of gelatin (with sometimes some old blue jeans or a few water jugs thrown in)


But is that really a fair or accurate appraisal? 1) genations of real world shootings on live human bodies with flesh, bone, water, tissue, blood, etc. show the FBI Load to expand exceptionally well out of both 2 and 4 inch revolvers. 2) some of these same gelatin tests also “show” other field proven rounds like the 9BPLE 115 gr +p+ JHP or .357 Magnum 125 gr SJHP as having poor penetration and/or weak expansion (which is certainly not the case in real life shootings). Then the experts will jump to their favorite latest greatest round with some star sword or vicious animal or zombi killer name.

Based on all this, would it be accurate to say that gelatin, while useful, is overused and over relied on? And field reports on real world shootings going way back under appreciated?

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Remington is still making their FBI load, they just changed them over from Remington Express to their HTP line. (High Terminal Performance)

The old part # was R38S12 and the new part # is RTP38S12.

You can probably find it cheaper elsewhere but here is a listing on Midway just to show you the newer box.
Remington High Terminal Performance Ammo 38 Special +P 158 Grain Lead

Here is another listing that costs less but it is also out of stock. You can have them email you when it's back in stock, good price!
50 Round Box - 38 Special +P 158 Grain Lead Hollow Point Remington HTP Ammo - RTP38S12 | SGAmmo.com

 

[JayFramer]

Please give us your proof that they reliably expand in actual bodies if you can find it. You might be completely right, but we need evidence. The FBI and others chose ballistics gelatin as the closest match to human tissue that can be used as a baseline to test performance levels across the board between different loads. The FBI load is excellent from a 4” barrel, but a snub with 1 7/8” simply doesn’t allow for enough velocity for it to open up in gel RELIABLY.

Again, you might be totally correct and you mentioned that you are aware that the round reliably expands from a snub nose barrel length in real human bodies. But you have to provide your evidence of that. As it stands all you are saying is “it worked” back then and yes I’ll give you that, it does have a good reputation for effectiveness even in a snub. But that does not automatically imply that it is superior to more modern loads like the Speer Gold Dot short barrel 135 gr. +P or the new Federal HST. Both these loads pass the FBI criterions with regards to penetration and they both expand really well from 2” or less barrels.

 

[BB57]

Doug, there's some validity in what you've noted, and in fact validity is the piece some folks miss when they look at gelatin data.

As noted above, the advantage of ballistic gelatin is that it can be calibrated and then used to compare one round against another, as well as to compare the same round in repeated tests.

Test animals and cadavers had advantages in terms potentially greater validity given the presence of skin, muscle, bones, organs, etc, that better replicated real world performance. However, that same variability that was more valid in terms of emulating a human target also made consistency in testing problematic. Ballistic Gel isn't the "most realistic" test media out there, but it is the best available test media that also allows for a high degree of consistency and repeatability of test results.

In short, ballistic gel trades decreased validity for increased reliability (consistency from test to test).

The thing people tend to forget or under play is that the FBI arrived at its penetration and expansion standards by reviewing extensive data on real world shoots, noting loads that were consistently effective or ineffective.

Once they identified effective and ineffective loads based on extensive field data, they then tested those loads in ballistic gelatin and noted the relative performance of those good and bad performing loads in ballistic gelatin to establish an acceptable minimum penetration and an acceptable maximum penetration standard. That work was also based on revision and evolution over time of theories of why some loads worked and others did not based on real world data collected in actual shoots. That analysis of real world shoots was, and remains, essential to give the test standards on going real world validity.

-----

A short and dirty history of they events leading up to the current gel testing and penetration test protocols might be useful. The current test protocols were prompted in part because of over reliance on past theories that resulted in selection of ammunition that was not ultimately effective in the field.

For example, prior to 1986, the prevailing theory in law enforcement was that a load with maximum energy that dumped that energy quickly would produce more reliable incapacitation. It made some sense logically and there's a strong case for that in center fire rifle rounds on human targets (where adequate penetration also occurs. However in pistol rounds, where the total energy is always small compared to a rifle at similar short tranges, it was a failure in the real world.

The short term response was to up the energy levels with +p and then +P+ loads, but that didn't solve the underlying problem, and in fact it mostly just promoted more rapid expansion and even less penetration. Lightly constructed and fast moving rounds like the 115 gr 9mm JHP or .45 ACP 185 gr JHP of that era were found to under penetrate and often failed to reach vital blood bearing organs, or the spinal column.

As a result, officers and agents died and after the 1986 Miami-Dade shootout, updated field data was used again to select new loads. As a mostly knee jerk reaction to the poor performance of 115 gr JHPs, there was a general shift to the heavy 147 gr sub sonic 9mm JHP rounds based on the theory that the heavier rounds would offer better penetration. That proved to be the case, but those rounds were also found to frequently fail to expand and then over penetrate. Their low velocities just did not allow for reliable expansion.

The end result was further revision of theory, a deeper dive into field data, and much more extensive use of ballistic gelatine to verify penetration results and make an apples to apples comparison of various loads. That was backstopped by other penetration tests such as windshield glass, door panels, and minimum expansion and min/max penetration after passing through heavy clothing (which is not the same as the 4 layer denim test most often used in informal heavy clothing testing).

----

The end result is that loads that pass the FBI protocols - all of them, not just bare and heavy clothing penetration tests - work well for law enforcement officers.

However, the needs of LEOs vary a bit from the needs of armed citizens, who generally should not be firing at fleeing suspect, through barriers, etc., with the result that using just the gel test data is a pretty decent proxy. Even then, the 12" standard isn't an absolute minimum given the face to face target aspect common to most armed citizen self defense shoots, but its still a decent standard to "shoot" for.

That said, the old FBI load still works as well as it ever did, and bullet placement has never stopped being the most important factor in achieving rapid incapacitation.

 

[cowboy4evr]

For the effectiveness of 38 spl bullets , cast , jacketed and those from the boutique ammo makers I suggest you watch Paul Harrell on youtube . He has done excellent videos showing expansion and penetration from various manufacturers . Regards, Paul

 

[gen3guy]

Much of what we think we know about the venerable "FBI load" is anecdotal at best. It's been a full generation since the FBI actually used this ammo so I'm sure much of the tribal knowledge is lost. The test data is still out there, but that begs the question; "If I have a 158 Gr. SWCHP and the case head is stamped '+P', does that make it the 'FBI' load?" As to barrel length, it shouldn't be lost on anyone in this forum that the last weapon that the FBI used this ammo in was the 3" K frame.

Since people don't rely on revolvers much at all anymore, I suppose old-timers and nostalgia buffs like us have to figure this nonsense out for ourselves.

 

[Doug.38PR]

Remington is still making their FBI loadh, they Just changed them over from Remington Express to their HTP line. (High Terminal Performance)

The old lady # was R38S12 and the new part # is RTP38S12.

You can probably find it cheaper elsewhere but here is a listing on Midway just to show you the newer box.
Remington High Terminal Performance Ammo 38 Special +P 158 Grain Lead

Here is another listing that costs less but it is also out of stock. You can have them email you when it's back in stock, good price!
50 Round Box - 38 Special +P 158 Grain Lead Hollow Point Remington HTP Ammo - RTP38S12 | SGAmmo.com

It is featured on several websites and is even memtioned on Remington’s owm site on ballistics comparison. But as you note...everybody is out.

A guy at the local gun store told me the other day that Remington had discontinued it along with some other handgun ammo because it wan’t selling well.
I don’t know if that’s entirely true but Remington did face bankruptcy about a year ago so it would seem logical that they would cut corners at least temporarily

 

[Sistema1927]

Even with the new boutique wonder bullets, shot placement is still key when using a handgun since all of them are a bit of an under powered compromise.

 

[Doug.38PR]

Please give us your proof that they reliably expand in actual bodies if you can find it. You might be completely right, but we need evidence. The FBI and others chose ballistics gelatin as the closest match to human tissue that can be used as a baseline to test performance levels across the board between different loads. The FBI load is excellent from a 4” barrel, but a snub with 1 7/8” simply doesn’t allow for enough velocity for it to open up in gel RELIABLY.
ls.

Ed Lovette, on page 3 of his book “The Snubby Revolver” states of the LHP: “...I had contacts within firearms training units of most of the big city agencies that has adopted the LHP. Their reports were always the same: ‘Given good shot placement on the part of the officer, the LHP is a very reliable duty load in both our 2-inch and 4-inch service revolvers. One or two shots to the upper torso generally stops the actions of the bad guy.”

and

The late Stephen Camp discusses several cases in which LSWCHP was used in actual shootings and also discusses the gelatin tests and mentions, as I am here, that their setups are not that realistic. (Who wears 4 layers of denim?)

 

[rockquarry]

Even with the new boutique wonder bullets, shot placement is still key when using a handgun since all of them are a bit of an under powered compromise.

Never quite understood "boutique" as defining anything even distantly related to a bullet.

Regardless, you're exactly right on shot placement even if others relegate this most important point to a very secondary status. Many seem to abandon practical reasoning when the topics are FBI Load, +P, ballistic jello, etc. Rather, they seem to adopt an obsessional textbook theory manner of thinking that may have little real worth.

 

[Doug.38PR]

For the effectiveness of 38 spl bullets , cast , jacketed and those from the boutique ammo makers I suggest you watch Paul Harrell on youtube . He has done excellent videos showing expansion and penetration from various manufacturers . Regards, Paul

I subscribe to his channel and yes Mr. Harrell does have very interesting and probably more realistic setups.
But even then (as ge admits), live people are not made up of some old blue jeabs,a slab of pork ribs from the grocery store and a bag of oranges.

Still, it does make for a more realistic demonstration.


I myself usually just use a wet sandbag or sandpit for my expansion tests.
LSWCHP expands well even from 2 inch there.

 

[Doug.38PR]

Never quite understood "boutique" as defining anything even distantly related to a bullet.

Regardless, you're exactly right on shot placement even if others relegate this most important point to a very secondary status. Many seem to abandon practical reasoning when the topics are FBI Load, +P, ballistic jello, etc. Rather, they seem to adopt an obsessional textbook theory manner of thinking that may have little real worth.

And that’s what I’m driving at here. Being more practical. Real world performance and actual record rather than 4 layers of denim on top of a block of Jello recorded on youtube and that’s the “scientific” textbook sales point for one ammo or against another

As for “boutique”, yes, what my wife buys and wears has nothing to do with this thread, forum or even with the gun she carries.

 

[Borderboss]

Ed Lovette, on page 3 of his book “The Snubby Revolver” states of the LHP: “...I had contacts within firearms training units of most of the big city agencies that has adopted the LHP. Their reports were always the same: ‘Given good shot placement on the part of the officer, the LHP is a very reliable duty load in both our 2-inch and 4-inch service revolvers. One or two shots to the upper torso generally stops the actions of the bad guy.”

and

The late Stephen Camp discusses several cases in which LSWCHP was used in actual shootings and also discusses the gelatin tests and mentions, as I am here, that their setups are not that realistic. (Who wears 4 layers of denim?)

That's different than what you said in your original post. It can be argued that any bullet is effective with good shot placement into the upper torso.

But I've never seen evidence that the 158gr SWCHP +P round actually expands in soft tissue out of a snub. Sure, it'll expand if it hits a rib, but that also presents other stopping power issues, like reducing the effect on the vital organs that the bullet didn't get to.

Good, bad or indifferent, the ballistic gel testing is the benchmark now.

For additional info, I carry the Winchester 158gr SWCHP +P load in my 1954 M&P snub for a single reason: it won't break the barrel. The barrels from that era can't stand up well to jacketed bullets without cracking (been there, done that). I can't carry the Buffalo Bore version because of the gas check, which I think will have the same effect as a jacketed bullet on the barrel.

For other .38s, I use the Remington 125gr +P Golden Saber. In ballistic gel testing, the results are outstanding in snubs.

 

[boatbum101]

I wouldn't be concerned about gas checks damaging a barrel . I've shot them for years out of many revolvers . FWIW most of my revolver hunting loads use gas check cast bullets , the rest I use either LBT or Keith designed cast bullets . Granted these are in magnum calibers not 38 special . I do not have nor have ever had a snubby . 3" K frames oh yes & in my 65's the Buffalo Bore 20A or Rem GS 125 JHP get the nod .
Average Joe Blow when chosing defensive ammo usually defer to the FBI tests & chose accordingly . Bullet technology has made leaps & bounds in the last 20 years . I've always picked what the LE agencies issue be it the Fed HST , Speer Gold Dot or Win Ranger T . Whichever shoots , functions & is controllable with reasonable accuracy gets the nod . As stated many times bullet placement is king . Goal is whatever allows multiple rapid hits with sufficent penetration / expansion without a foot long muzzle flash .

 

[Doug.38PR]

Average Joe Blow when chosing defensive ammo usually defer to the FBI tests & chose accordingly . Bullet technology has made leaps & bounds in the last 20 years . I've always picked what the LE agencies issue be it the Fed HST , Speer Gold Dot or Win Ranger T . Whichever shoots , functions & is controllable with reasonable accuracy gets the nod . As stated many times bullet placement is king . Goal is whatever allows multiple rapid hits with sufficent penetration / expansion without a foot long muzzle flash .

I used to lean this direction years ago. But 1) I prefer to go with ammo that has an established acceptable record rather than what’s new and trendy 2) typically such older established ammo isn’t as expensive and is more profitable to practice with and 3), since someone mentioned Paul Harrell, he recently expressed the opinion that carrying what Law Enforcement currently does will keep you safe and out of trouble in the aftermath isn’t necessarily true. In fact it can backfire on you. I don’t necessarily agree with that, depending on where you live, but it is a valid point.

 

[Doug.38PR]

That's different than what you said in your original post. It can be argued that any bullet is effective with good shot placement into the upper torso.

But I've never seen evidence that the 158gr SWCHP +P round actually expands in soft tissue out of a snub. Sure, it'll expand if it hits a rib, but that also presents other stopping power issues, like reducing the effect on the vital organs that the bullet didn't get to.

Good, bad or indifferent, the ballistic gel testing is the benchmark now.

For additional info, I carry the Winchester 158gr SWCHP +P load in my 1954 M&P snub for a single reason: it won't break the barrel. The barrels from that era can't stand up well to jacketed bullets without cracking (been there, done that). I can't carry the Buffalo Bore version because of the gas check, which I think will have the same effect as a jacketed bullet on the barrel.

For other .38s, I use the Remington 125gr +P Golden Saber. In ballistic gel testing, the results are outstanding in snubs.

I take it to mean the reports show that the LHP functioned reliably and as intentioned. I see no reason to think otherwise as that is what Lovette was addressing
If shot placement were the only factor (a most important factor to be sure) then the LHP never would have been developed because the 158 gr LRN would have been deemed fine. But it wasn’t

 

[biku324]

The search for the magic bullet continues.

 

[Doug.38PR]

The search for the magic bullet continues.

No. More a search for the more than adequate bullet than racing after the latest magic bullet based on subjective internet tests

 

[AZretired]

Personally I like the FBI load regardless of who makes it. Back in the day my department carried the M19 loaded with Federal 125 JHP and we had no complaints. Many local PD's used the FBI load also with no complaints.

A note of question about current FBI test protocol. I read somewhere that the FBI does not use 4 layers of denim but rather 1 layer of denim, 2 layers of T-shirt and 1 layer of sweatshirt. Does anyone know for sure?
Also it appears that most You Tube Testers use 4 layers of brand hew very stiff denim which I would think would be much tougher than say, 2-3 year old stone washed denim.

 

[JayFramer]

Ed Lovette, on page 3 of his book “The Snubby Revolver” states of the LHP: “...I had contacts within firearms training units of most of the big city agencies that has adopted the LHP. Their reports were always the same: ‘Given good shot placement on the part of the officer, the LHP is a very reliable duty load in both our 2-inch and 4-inch service revolvers. One or two shots to the upper torso generally stops the actions of the bad guy.”

and

The late Stephen Camp discusses several cases in which LSWCHP was used in actual shootings and also discusses the gelatin tests and mentions, as I am here, that their setups are not that realistic. (Who wears 4 layers of denim?)

Extremely cool, thank you for the info. I was not aware of that. Real world usage and results in bodies is of course the ultimate test, thanks for backing that up very cool.

The issue now is twofold:

1. Manufacturers, especially Remington, have watered down the FBI load in recent times. Will it perform as well as it used to when the real hot stuff was on the street?

2. It’s pretty tough to find. I think of all the current ones out there, actually Buffalo Bore’s “standard pressure” LSWCHP is going to be the closest to the original load itself and would be a good choice in a snub or service revolver.

I’ll continue to use Gold Dot short barrel not because it’s any better, I just happen to have plenty and it too is a proven load that’s been used for years. The short barrel Speers were even the last authorized service loads for NYPD not only in snubs, but for the small number of officers left carrying them as primary. Now that’s not the case for better or worse, but between them and LAPD, the Speer load has a very good reputation of performance.