JUST TESTED THE "NEW" REMINGTON HTP FBI LOAD VS THE OLD ONE

[Ramikrav]

Great thread.
sometimes zombies are good lol.

I'm still wanting to see a proper gel test, from a snubbie, with properly calibrated gel etc,etc before condemning the HTP as useless.

That being said, i'm in negotiations right now with the mrs to allow me to spend money on some ammo.

I wish I could justify spending so much for a 20 round box of ammo that the Buffalo Bore brand asks, but as of now I'm looking for a box of Gold Dots, having made my mind up that the 135gr is a better bet then 125gr in a snub, thats what I'm after.

 

[CoMF]

Great thread.
sometimes zombies are good lol.

I'm still wanting to see a proper gel test, from a snubbie, with properly calibrated gel etc,etc before condemning the HTP as useless.

That being said, i'm in negotiations right now with the mrs to allow me to spend money on some ammo.

I wish I could justify spending so much for a 20 round box of ammo that the Buffalo Bore brand asks, but as of now I'm looking for a box of Gold Dots, having made my mind up that the 135gr is a better bet then 125gr in a snub, thats what I'm after.

I wish you were in the market for Speer's GDSB load sooner! SGAmmo had an unprecedented amount of it in stock recently, in the LE 50-count packaging no less, for about $28 a box. I had to really "sell" my wife on my idea to purchase several boxes of it, so I can emphasize with your plight.

Like you, I'm not willing to condemn the new HTP LHP round until we have hard evidence of its terminal effectiveness. In fact, short of buying a bullet hardness tester and pulling bullets from Express and HTP rounds, we may never have a "scientific" answer. I'm admittedly skeptical about the reports of reduced velocities based on "real world" chronos of the previous version from snubs, but the stories of harder alloyed bullets (e.g. "not as easily dented with a fingernail," "bullets have a lighter, 'frosted' appearance," etc.) give me pause for concern.

Be that as it may, if Remington really has "pulled a Winchester" by utilizing a harder alloy for ease of manufacture, the load should still work just like it always has in barrels of 3" and up. Absent conclusive proof, however, I personally am still hesitant to trust the new HTP in snubs based on what I know about Winchester's Super-X version. As Heinlein once quipped, "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Remington had to make a change somewhere to allow the lower price point, and the bullet composition is a prime suspect.

 

[Ramikrav]

As I understand it, there has been alot of noise being made about advancements in ammunition technology as of late, up to and including the FBI declaring that such advancement has been good enough to rectify the 9mm in its ever so esteemed opinion.
Thing is, all these advancements most certainly have had effect on the entire ammunition manufacturing world.

Now,I'm not an engineer and I don't even load my own ammo,but-

Is it really a bridge too far to speculate that such advancements have resulted in the ability to produce a different, yet still effective, FBI load for less?

Perhaps a cheaper to produce or whatever powder?

Maybe even manufacturing techniques, such as incorporating more automation to the process of making the older express line, have reduced costs?

I have no clue, but that's my optimistic speculating on the matter until I see definitive proof -a scientific, repeatable terminal test- on the HTP FBI load before I am absolutely convinced one way or the other.

The good news is, that even if it fails, and mushes up into a wad cutter, its STILL better, IMHO, then a JHP that fails to expand.

 

[JayFramer]

I wonder if messaging Remington about this new change would be a waste of time? My guess is probably yes. I might have to call them.

 

[CoMF]

Is it really a bridge too far to speculate that such advancements have resulted in the ability to produce a different, yet still effective, FBI load for less?

Perhaps a cheaper to produce or whatever powder?

Maybe even manufacturing techniques, such as incorporating more automation to the process of making the older express line, have reduced costs?

I have no clue, but that's my optimistic speculating on the matter until I see definitive proof -a scientific, repeatable terminal test- on the HTP FBI load before I am absolutely convinced one way or the other.

Those are all reasonable speculations, and you kind of have to look at all online ammo discussions with a healthy degree of skepticism.

Heck, for those who swear by 3" barreled carry guns (and there are a signifigant amount of people who'll sing their praises, I myself am one of them), the new HTP LHP is better than ever because they now have an FBI load with the Remington name behind it for a value price.

Since I currently only own and carry snubs, however, and have documented evidence of what a harder alloyed LSWCHP will do when fired from short barrels, I'm reluctant to embrace this new load from Remington.

The good news is, that even if it fails, and mushes up into a wad cutter, its STILL better, IMHO, then a JHP that fails to expand.

A reasonable conclusion. A bullet with a rounded ogive will not crush as much tissue as the meplat of the full wadcutter shape. It's still not as efficient at creating permanent wound channels as a properly expanding JHP, but it's still an improvement.

I embraced the newer GDSB load for pragmatic reasons, not necessarily because I think "newer is better." My stock of the older Express version is very finite, and I do make a habit of "rotating" my carry ammo periodically. Once my four remaining boxes are gone, they're gone. If evidence bears out that this new HTP can be trusted just as much as its predecessor from snubs, you can be assured I'll start buying it in earnest. For now, I'm staking on another proven load that seems to also "work" very well on the street despite its shortcomings (reduced sectional density; has difficulty meeting the 12" penetration minimum, and when it does, it does just barely; has occasionally failed to expand in IWBA testing).

 

[Waywatcher]

The good news is, that even if it fails, and mushes up into a wad cutter, its STILL better, IMHO, then a JHP that fails to expand.

Exactly, I completely agree!

I keep my steel 36-7 loaded with 158 HTP and my Airweight loaded with 110 DPX. Very reliable expansion from Barnes bullets. It also recoils much less, which is worth pursuing in an airweight. Makes for a slightly lighter carry too, half ounce lighter for 5 rounds.

For those who care (I am one that does,) HTP ammo is very clean shooting. Seriously cleaner than Gold Dot.

 

[CoMF]

Just thought I'd post this link, since it's pertinent to the discussion:

Crime Lab Innovates Gelatin Tests

It's quite an entertaining read. I nearly spit my cereal out this morning trying not to laugh from the following excerpt:

"My phone rang one morning in 1972, and I heard the captain's distinctive drawl. "Hey, Allan! I've got this [Redacted] salesman from Winchester sitting across from me trying to sell me a new .38 Special load. He claims New York City is using it." The words "New York City" struggled off his tongue with the same tone used in a famous picante sauce commercial. "You got any way to tell me if this idiot is lying?" The good captain always put direct communication above the social niceties."

Also of interest are the 10-round averages for each tested load. I may have to eat my joking remarks about the "golden age" of .38 Special velocities. An honest 951 fps from a period 4" barreled K-38 is pretty darn impressive.

 

[Texas Star]

Back in the 1970's, the Winchester box had the letters MS on it. I had to call Winchester in East Alton, IL to learn what they meant. It was Maximum Service. At the time, I think they listed the ammo at 1090 FPS.

It had a good street rep.

I avoid ALL Remington products now, as they have poor QC reps. I've kept an M-870, but it was bought about 10 years ago. I'm really disappointed in how Remington handled the dangerous trigger issue on M-700 and earlier rifles, too. That was a real black eye for the firearms industry, and the media has exploited it.

I load Speer Gold Dot 125 grain .38 in four - inch and longer barrels and their 135 grain GD in snub and three-inch barrels. I have some 158 grain lead SWC-HP Plus P from Federal, load No. 38G, that is probably 15 years old. I'd load that if penetration was a real need, as on larger animals. Same for where thick winter coats might be a factor in shooting someone.

I'm eager to learn more about Buffalo Bore, but it costs a LOT and not all dealers stock it. What I've seen on the Net suggests that their ammo is very hot but safe. That heavy Plus P round should be a good defense load and capable of taking most smaller animals like raccoons and even deer. It's better than the old .38-44 round. I'm impressed, but has anyone here shot any live animals or people with it?

 

[chief38]

I imagine that the reason for the denim layer test is because so many people now days wear Denim of some sort and is a popular "constant" to shoot through for bullet testing. If one was looking for a common dress material to fit the bill, what is more common than Denim??

 

[CoMF]

I imagine that the reason for the denim layer test is because so many people now days wear Denim of some sort and is a popular "constant" to shoot through for bullet testing. If one was looking for a common dress material to fit the bill, what is more common than Denim??

Close. From a scientific perspective, four layers of 16 oz. unstarched denim make for a more consistent test barrier with less potential variables than the assembled set of clothing used in the FBI "heavy clothing" protocol. While the IWBA test may produce more consistent results, it's still overkill from a real world standpoint, and its FBI counterpart is equally effective at weeding out bullets that aren't robust expanders.

 

[Groo01]

Groo here
This might be a reason to shoot "mid-range"357s from a snub.
You might get FBI load specs.

 

[V0OBWxZS16]

I imagine that the reason for the denim layer test is because so many people now days wear Denim of some sort and is a popular "constant" to shoot through for bullet testing. If one was looking for a common dress material to fit the bill, what is more common than Denim??

"Despite having been discussed multiple times over the past two decades, there still appears to be a great deal of misunderstanding about the four-layer heavy denim cloth test.

The four layer denim test is NOT designed to simulate any type of clothing--it is simply an engineering test to assess the ability of a projectile to resist plugging and robustly expand. FWIW, a senior engineer at a very respected ammunition manufacturer that supplies ammunition to many of the largest LE agencies in the Nation has commented that bullets that do well in 4 layer denim testing have invariably worked well in actual officer involved shooting incidents.

For additional information, you may wish to review Duncan MacPherson's seminal article on the topic: "Improved Handgun Ammunition" published in the old journal of the International Wound Ballistics Association, Wound Ballistics Review, Volume 3, Number 3, 1998; pp. 12-21."
- DocGKR

 

[chief38]

"Despite having been discussed multiple times over the past two decades, there still appears to be a great deal of misunderstanding about the four-layer heavy denim cloth test.

The four layer denim test is NOT designed to simulate any type of clothing--it is simply an engineering test to assess the ability of a projectile to resist plugging and robustly expand. FWIW, a senior engineer at a very respected ammunition manufacturer that supplies ammunition to many of the largest LE agencies in the Nation has commented that bullets that do well in 4 layer denim testing have invariably worked well in actual officer involved shooting incidents.

For additional information, you may wish to review Duncan MacPherson's seminal article on the topic: "Improved Handgun Ammunition" published in the old journal of the International Wound Ballistics Association, Wound Ballistics Review, Volume 3, Number 3, 1998; pp. 12-21."
- DocGKR

Well at least they chose a product that is worn my most these days........

 

[Naphtali]

Let's disregard the "four layers of 16 ounce denim," substitute "winter clothing," and go from that perspective.

 

[CoMF]

Let's disregard the "four layers of 16 ounce denim," substitute "winter clothing," and go from that perspective.

The older Remington FBI load performs fine in the FBI "heavy clothing" test, from a 3" barrel at least.

I forget the average recorded velocities, but I believe they were in the mid to upper 800 FPS range.

 

[Nevada Ed]

I think that Remington is pushing its new ammo over the lead SD ammo.
I went to two sites and both had six SD loading .....
only one was the lead FBI loading, all the others had a jacket.

Lead may be getting phased out...?

The tree huggers and bird watchers are gaining on us.

 

[Naphtali]

On 03 January 2016 I wrote to Buffalo Bore about their enhanced "FBI Load." While I believe information I requested to be important for me to strongly consider buying that ammunition for EDC, apparently Buffalo Bore does not. OR answers present a less than favorable perspective on the ammunition. There has been no reply.
*************
Dear Sirs:

I shoot Remington's +P 38 Special 158-grain LSWC-HP "FBI Load" in my S&W 640-1 (357 Magnum, 2.125-inch barrel). I was recently informed of your SKU: 20A/20 Heavy .38 Special +P Ammo - 158 gr. L.S.W.C.H.P. - G.C. ammunition.

At 25 yards how closely will your enhanced FBI Load's point of impact correspond with my Remington FBI Load while I use the same point of aim?
***
Your blurb on your FBI Load describes extreme expansion with about 14 inches of penetration in human flesh.

- What are penetration-expansion results when "winter clothing" fronts the flesh?

- What are penetration-expansion results when conventional clothing plus a typical "cheap" room-to-room door fronts the flesh?
***
Please describe how effectively your FBI Load is sealed. Upon request or special order, may I obtain your FBI Load in nickel plated brass rather than unplated?

 

[caleb4387]

Back in the 1970's, the Winchester box had the letters MS on it. I had to call Winchester in East Alton, IL to learn what they meant. It was Maximum Service. At the time, I think they listed the ammo at 1090 FPS.

It had a good street rep.

I avoid ALL Remington products now, as they have poor QC reps. I've kept an M-870, but it was bought about 10 years ago. I'm really disappointed in how Remington handled the dangerous trigger issue on M-700 and earlier rifles, too. That was a real black eye for the firearms industry, and the media has exploited it.

I load Speer Gold Dot 125 grain .38 in four - inch and longer barrels and their 135 grain GD in snub and three-inch barrels. I have some 158 grain lead SWC-HP Plus P from Federal, load No. 38G, that is probably 15 years old. I'd load that if penetration was a real need, as on larger animals. Same for where thick winter coats might be a factor in shooting someone.

I'm eager to learn more about Buffalo Bore, but it costs a LOT and not all dealers stock it. What I've seen on the Net suggests that their ammo is very hot but safe. That heavy Plus P round should be a good defense load and capable of taking most smaller animals like raccoons and even deer. It's better than the old .38-44 round. I'm impressed, but has anyone here shot any live animals or people with it?

Underwood makes the same thing a beat cheaper

 

[caleb4387]

I found a box of winchester fbi loads in a pawn shop that were at least 20 years old. I wish i hadnt shot them all up. Thry were definetly hotter than;any of the remington loads ive shot. Havent tried the newer winchester loads yet

 

[TeaDub]

An excellent thread. Thanks for all the information.

I was on the verge of ordering a handful of boxes of the new HTP rounds when I saw this information. My carry revolvers are all 2" and I just don't know if the new stuff is what I am looking for.

I had been carrying the Golden Saber load. Wanting to step up the weight a bit, I finally settled on the 135 grain, short barrel Gold Dot. That load seems to have a good track record and should be available for some time to come. The drawback is price. At 60ish cents per round, I can't practice with it as much as I'd like. The price of "progress" I guess.