So I just shot a box of wadcutters through my airweight
- Thread starter Wishbone
- Start date
If you don't want expanding ammo, I would look at 158 LSWC. Seems to tumble, and sideways bullets, tumbling through a body, are decent balistically.
Bulk 38 Special Ammo For Sale - 158 gr LSWC Federal Ammunition In Stock - 1000 rounds
Bulk 38 Special Ammo For Sale - 158 gr LSWC Federal Ammunition In Stock - 1000 rounds
Rammer Jammer
Member
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPXDwi7O0jg[/ame]
It'll Work
Boy, a cat fight can start with this concept. Never could figure why that is. I wouldn't feel under gunned with a 148gr / HBWC. After all, there isn't that much difference between a 148 & 158. A single shot from a 158gr lead RN killed Lee Harvey Oswald, toe tag dead. It'll penetrate to where it needs to be. Is it the best defensive .38? I think that depends on who is behind the sights. What's best for me might be all wrong for you and the reverse.
I hand load mine. I like tightwad for HBWC, and Hornady Frontier bullets.
Boy, a cat fight can start with this concept. Never could figure why that is. I wouldn't feel under gunned with a 148gr / HBWC. After all, there isn't that much difference between a 148 & 158. A single shot from a 158gr lead RN killed Lee Harvey Oswald, toe tag dead. It'll penetrate to where it needs to be. Is it the best defensive .38? I think that depends on who is behind the sights. What's best for me might be all wrong for you and the reverse.
I hand load mine. I like tightwad for HBWC, and Hornady Frontier bullets.
Great video, he made the point I was trying to make better than me.
2K7
Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2009
- Messages
- 360
- Reaction score
- 427
Back in the day....
we used to load 158 grain, hollow based wadcutters backwards in the case for short distance defense loads in the J frames before todays "answer to all" ammunition.
One thing I don't miss about that load was the hour or so of lead removal from the barrel.
Today, it's 130 grain FMC for practice and 130 grain HP for carry.
If a bad guy gets past this, by that time my wife will be in full rescue mode to save me.
we used to load 158 grain, hollow based wadcutters backwards in the case for short distance defense loads in the J frames before todays "answer to all" ammunition.
One thing I don't miss about that load was the hour or so of lead removal from the barrel.
Today, it's 130 grain FMC for practice and 130 grain HP for carry.
If a bad guy gets past this, by that time my wife will be in full rescue mode to save me.
Last edited:
ctxcummins
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2017
- Messages
- 113
- Reaction score
- 158
If wadcutters are fun, you gotta try these guys.
Flyingfool
Member
It seems most ballistic charts show at least into gel that with snubbies, despite hollow points, there is so little velocity, that very little expansion occurs. Even with +p the expansion is not all that dramatically more expansion.
This, if you expect little expansion. Then with wad cutters or hollow points you expect to get a 38 caliber hole going in. And not much larger hole exiting if you even get an exit wound.
So a wad cutter is designed to cut and nOt expand. Usually wad cutters show deeper penetration because the diameter doesnt enlarge like the minimal expansion that occurs (and increased drag) with hollow points.
So do you want a longer (deeper) 38 caliber wound channel, or a shkrter slightly larger diameter wound channel? That is really the choice here.
Ultimately death occurs from loss of blood. So, if death is The desired result. creating a wound channel (or multiple) that creates the fastest blood loss is "the best". Which is better longer narrower channel or shorter wider channel???
I can see good arguments on both sides. I can see how a cutting design like wad cutter cutting through clothing and getting full or deeper penetration and holding onto velocity (and this penetration) can reliably get results. Hollow points may over expand upon hitting bone? Or not go as deeply?? Plugged hollow point with clothing may just result in being little more than a wadcutter anyhow.
While no guarantees about distance of threat. But I think the staristics show that it is usually well inside 20' if not inside 10'. So Im not sure wad cutters ballistic coefficient matters at all.
Shooting an animal in the neck to kill it is not efficient. As unless you actually hit the spinal cord, wont cause huge bleeding. Shooting the lamb in the vital orgsns would have been far more "humane" way to dispatch the animal. It was not a fault of the design of the ammo. At least in my opinion.
This, if you expect little expansion. Then with wad cutters or hollow points you expect to get a 38 caliber hole going in. And not much larger hole exiting if you even get an exit wound.
So a wad cutter is designed to cut and nOt expand. Usually wad cutters show deeper penetration because the diameter doesnt enlarge like the minimal expansion that occurs (and increased drag) with hollow points.
So do you want a longer (deeper) 38 caliber wound channel, or a shkrter slightly larger diameter wound channel? That is really the choice here.
Ultimately death occurs from loss of blood. So, if death is The desired result. creating a wound channel (or multiple) that creates the fastest blood loss is "the best". Which is better longer narrower channel or shorter wider channel???
I can see good arguments on both sides. I can see how a cutting design like wad cutter cutting through clothing and getting full or deeper penetration and holding onto velocity (and this penetration) can reliably get results. Hollow points may over expand upon hitting bone? Or not go as deeply?? Plugged hollow point with clothing may just result in being little more than a wadcutter anyhow.
While no guarantees about distance of threat. But I think the staristics show that it is usually well inside 20' if not inside 10'. So Im not sure wad cutters ballistic coefficient matters at all.
Shooting an animal in the neck to kill it is not efficient. As unless you actually hit the spinal cord, wont cause huge bleeding. Shooting the lamb in the vital orgsns would have been far more "humane" way to dispatch the animal. It was not a fault of the design of the ammo. At least in my opinion.
kthom
Member
For me, adequate penetration is my first priority. I want more rather than less. If penetration is not adequate to allow the projectile to touch or pass through vital organs and important nerve centers, the outcome is likely not immediately good, or perhaps even after the fact. My long time experience with full wadcutters is that given adequate velocity, they are good penetrators. What is damaged or destroyed deep inside the target is never a guaranteed thing, which is why I tend to prefer more than one bullet strike on the target! That increases the odds of the preferred outcome. I do not and would not recommend a target loaded full wadcutter as a good choice for personal protection. On the other hand, 850/900 fps with a hard cast full wadcutter from a 1 7/8" barrel snubby will definitely qualify for my recommendation. I have not found much expansion to exist in most .38 Special loadings, even some of the premium ammo examples loaded to +P pressures. So for me, a full bore sized hole as far as the bullet travels is what I want. Remember that expansion results in even more diminishing velocity and thus penetration. That said, I am personally aware of quite a few times when a target loaded full wadcutter got the job done!
I have seen the results of an expanding bullet that did not penetrate to the vitals on both humans and animals. A very serious wound was the result, but it certainly was not immediately deadly. Physics is physics, and the laws of physics cannot be changed. We all have limitations, and those are different for each of us. I want a round fired from a handgun that I can control and shoot very well, including rapidly, and also with which I can practice enough to maintain my shooting skills so as to give the best accuracy I can personally manage. Remember that many of us are not as young as we used to be. We cannot see as well as when we were younger, and we do not have the hand and body strength that we used to have. Some of us have arthritis or other maladies that handicap our ability to fire and function as we used to be able to do. I still want to have my personal protection with me at all times, especially as I get older and less physically able.
Others may be able to handle a more powerful platform than I, but I want to be able to handle the most powerful platform that I am capable of handling. I have seen far too many folks over the years who were trying to use a handgun that was simply to big and too powerful for them. Their efforts were not nearly as effective as they could have been. I'm way past the time when "macho" gets it done for me. I want to be effective! So I shoot handguns and ammunition that gets it done for me and I am still effective. I am also still determined to get the job done without hesitation. Effective self protection involves so much more than just the equipment we choose to perform that task. I try to remember that all the time and I try to be ready to deploy if that is called for! And I am very happy with my choice of handgun and the ammo that I carry in it as well. When the flag flys, it's always somewhat of a crapshoot with no guarantees. I'm ready to take my chances with that!
I have seen the results of an expanding bullet that did not penetrate to the vitals on both humans and animals. A very serious wound was the result, but it certainly was not immediately deadly. Physics is physics, and the laws of physics cannot be changed. We all have limitations, and those are different for each of us. I want a round fired from a handgun that I can control and shoot very well, including rapidly, and also with which I can practice enough to maintain my shooting skills so as to give the best accuracy I can personally manage. Remember that many of us are not as young as we used to be. We cannot see as well as when we were younger, and we do not have the hand and body strength that we used to have. Some of us have arthritis or other maladies that handicap our ability to fire and function as we used to be able to do. I still want to have my personal protection with me at all times, especially as I get older and less physically able.
Others may be able to handle a more powerful platform than I, but I want to be able to handle the most powerful platform that I am capable of handling. I have seen far too many folks over the years who were trying to use a handgun that was simply to big and too powerful for them. Their efforts were not nearly as effective as they could have been. I'm way past the time when "macho" gets it done for me. I want to be effective! So I shoot handguns and ammunition that gets it done for me and I am still effective. I am also still determined to get the job done without hesitation. Effective self protection involves so much more than just the equipment we choose to perform that task. I try to remember that all the time and I try to be ready to deploy if that is called for! And I am very happy with my choice of handgun and the ammo that I carry in it as well. When the flag flys, it's always somewhat of a crapshoot with no guarantees. I'm ready to take my chances with that!
Last edited:
DonD
Member
My retired cop son and a friend of mine who is a law enforcement investigator for a state strongly disagree. One of them remarked "Stupid is as stupid does" and both have seen enough first hand shootings, one of them a .357 Mag to the head, gory indeed.
Better have more power than you think you need than less.
I'm no Jerry Michulek but I can get really heavy Buffalo Bore .357s on COM pretty rapidly. No weenie factory wadcutters for me, ever. Don
wrkerr
Member
AZretired
Member
Blame your point of aim, not the round. What's in the neck? Not much so the lamb would have bled out - eventually. Should have made chest shot and hit the heart. Wadcutters will penetrate deeply. Neck shot was a waste of ammo.
SuperMan
Member
...just wondering...anyone here ever had a defensive shootinting with wadcutters?
Friend of mine shot a guy in the neck with a Model 60 using the standard FBI 158 LSWC HP +P load...it stuck in the guys neck and he turned and ran....
I am sure they will work...the question is how well....
Bob
Friend of mine shot a guy in the neck with a Model 60 using the standard FBI 158 LSWC HP +P load...it stuck in the guys neck and he turned and ran....
I am sure they will work...the question is how well....
Bob
I am of the school that a 38 from a snubby isn't going to reliably expand if at all. Recently I ordered some Underwood 150 gr 38 wadcutters. They advertise something like 850 FPS. Let's say 800 out of a snubby.
I shot some at some ar 500 steel targets last weekend. A bit snappier than the 148 Remington wadcutters I was shooting, but not bad. It looked liked the steel was being dented some. I wonder if these bullets are harder.
I like em.
I shot some at some ar 500 steel targets last weekend. A bit snappier than the 148 Remington wadcutters I was shooting, but not bad. It looked liked the steel was being dented some. I wonder if these bullets are harder.
I like em.
Flyingfool
Member
there is reports of police using wad cutters killing many people.
Probably killed more than all these modern self defense ammo.
Probably killed more than all these modern self defense ammo.
IMO, the federal hst is the best 38 special defensive round on the market at the moment. https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/tested-federal-hst-38-special-p/
Bonus points for looking like a wadcutter (obviously it's not).
Bonus points for looking like a wadcutter (obviously it's not).
ABPOS
Member
So you're saying they didn't penetrate the few inches of muscle to make it to the bone? Or did they hit the bone and stop? I'm not sure many rounds would penetrate a thick spinal bone...... Would be interesting to see what rounds would defeat a spinal column.... I have a hard time believing that it wouldn't have made it through the little bit of muscle to make it to the bone.
Similar threads
