.38 Snubby Ammo Considerations

[Paul Gomez]

Recently there has been a bit of buzz about the SafeStop ammo, particularly for use in J-frame snubbies. The SafeStop bullet was designed by Jim Cirrillo and is manufactured by Fuzzy Fletcher of the "Village MetalWorks". Fuzzy's site is www.SafeStop.net.

The deal is that the old standby 158gr Lead Semi Wad Cutter Hollow Point +P generally kicks more than most people find comfortable, doesn't reliably expand in the IWBA 4-layer denim/calibrated geletin tests out of snubbies and cannot be used in the new titanium/scandium guns. Given this, the general recommendation of IWBA members and other non-Marshall/Sanow types has been to utilize the lowly 148gr wadcutter as carry ammo in snub nosed guns.

The thinking is that the 148gr wadcutter is easy to shoot, penetrates to roughly the same depth as the 158gr LSWCHP +P, and exhibits similar recovered diameter [ie it is a full .35 upon recovery, most of the SWCHPs offer a lesser diameter across the leading edge]. One concern expressed regarding the lead wadcutter has been that the lead used is fairly soft and the edges of the bullet become deformed [ie lose their initial edge] rather easily. The SafeStop is a plated wadcutter with a fairly distinct and sharp edge which, theoretically, will allow it to cut more tissue as it travels through the body.

Gary Roberts, of the IWBA, and David DiFabio, of AmmoLab infamy, both have expressed favorable opinions of the SafeStop ammo.

Here is all the data that I've been able to cull regarding the SafeStop .38 ammo. If anyone has additional info or experiences with it, please join in.
----------------------------------------
148 grain cup-faced wadcutter [non +p] @ 700 fps [j-frame snub]

148 grain safestop [v-notch wadcutter] @ 850 fps [j-frame snub]

Copper Plating over soft Lead [0% antimony] projectile, reformed to a wadcutter face with a sharp edge

Initial ammolab test results of pre-production +p Safestop show 13.2-inches of penetration in IWBA 4-layer denim test & a Recovered diameter of .68-inch.
---------------------

"this ammo works the best because of the "V" groove meant to allow expansion, if driven at appropriate velocities, & the very sharp outer edge caused by reswaging the parent bullet. The non +P wadcutter is not designed to expand, it does it's work with the sharp edge and is loaded to non +P velocity to allow for faster follow up shots and better control, thus more accurate bullet placement. The +P version of the Safestop round is designed with the same sharp edge and a "V" notch cut across the face to allow for expansion in as many scenarios as possible. It is very difficult to get expansion of any bullet unless the velocities are enough to cause it. The "V" notch will not fill with material as a hollowpoint would." --quoted from Fuzzy Fletcher, the guy who makes them.
---------------------

Personally, I like the idea of a plated wadcutter for my J-frame.

I would like to see more IWBA-protocol testing of this round, along with current testing of the 158gr LSWCHP +P out of a J-frame snubbie, and independent testing of the Speer 135gr +P Gold Dot and testing of some of the standard wadcutter loadings and I'd like to see some enterprising handloaders work up a variety of 148gr wadcutters of differing harnesses and platings and run them at velocities from 650 on up to 850 and see how they perform on the standard tests.

Here's a pic of the v-notch, +P SafeStop round.

 

[Preacherman]

The Safestop is Jim Cirillo's design, isn't it? It certainly looks interesting, but I've not tried it in the absence of any independent testing of it head-to-head with established loads.

I've standardized on the Speer Gold Dot 135gr. JHP +P for my snubbies, as this seems to be the best of the available loads at the moment (based on my own testing as well as comparison between available test results on defensive ammo from various sources).

 

[Paul Gomez]

Yep, the SafeStop bullet was designed by Jim Cirillo. The +P .38 Special version has been tested by both Gary Roberts & David DiFabio in accordance with IWBA test protocols. The non +P test results should be available soon.

The 135gr +P Gold Dot looks promising, but penetration is a little shallow for my likes. I expect to see Speer tweak that round over the near-term and wind up with slightly less expansion & correspondingly greater penetration.

Here's some random numbers and pictures of ammo tested out of J-frame snubbies.

The +P SafeStop [850fps], according to Gary Roberts test results ran to 18.4 inches on the 4-layer denim test.

The Speer TMJ-Wadcutter [779fps] ran to approx 20-inches, as did the federal 147gr HydraShok [892fps] and the 110gr HydraShok PD [792fps], according to Shawn Dodson.

None of the hollowpoints showed any expansion out of the 1 7/8-inch barrel of the J-frame. They produced greater recoil than the 148gr Wad cutter.

The desirable range of penetration on the IWBA 4-layer denim test is >13-inches & <16-inches +/- 0.8-inch and NGT 1-inch variation throughout the test.

It would seem that by reducing the velocity to the 700fps range, we could decrease penetration [ie decrease the likelihood of overpenetration] without risking underpenetration and, also, reduce felt recoil.

By using a plated bullet with a good crimp, the ammo would be suitable for use in the scandium/titanium guns as well as the regular Airweights.

 

[El Tejon]

Do we have any shootings with the Cirrillo bullet yet?

Have seen miserable failures with wadcutters in my line of work.

 

[Erich]

I've yet to see a shooting with a wadcutter, but I'm a "deeper is better" guy so I've stuck with the +P 158-gr LSWCHPs from my snubs. Again and again, I look at this Safestop stuff, but I'd never seen such detailed penetration info as what Gomez has posted today (much obliged, sir! ).

I also keep thinking about the Buffalo Bore LSWCHPs, but those would probably be too much for my Al-framed Agent (tho fine for my steel-framed 36s).

The Safestop stuff would be usable in all my guns. Maybe I should cruise by their site again this afternoon. Thanks again for posting this, Paul.

 

[Paul Gomez]

With the exception of the 135gr +P Gold Dot, I haven't seen any hollow point ammo that will expand in the IWBA 4-layer denim test when shot through an 1 7/8-inch J-frame. Now, the 4-layer denim test is a tough test, no doubt about it. It is not designed to simulate any particular sort of clothing. It is a repeatable engineering standard that is designed to challenge bullet performance.

Here's Shawn Dodson [of www.FirearmsTactical.com] quoting Duncan McPherson [pw2.netcom.com/~dmacp/] regarding the IWBA 4-layer denim standard.:

//////////////////////////////////
Dodson: There's a great deal of misunderstanding about the four-layer heavy denim cloth test. I refer you to the article, “Improved Handgun Ammunition,†by Duncan MacPherson, which is published in the journal of the International Wound Ballistics Association, Wound Ballistics Review, Volume 3, Number 3, 1998; pp. 12-21.

quote: [MacPherson]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modern JHP handgun bullet designs perform very reliably in testing; expansion failures are rare. It seems likely that occasional expansion failures in service are inevitable, but the number of failures in [actual California Highway Patrol shooting incidents] appeared excessive to me even though they were a relatively small fraction of all shootings. The unavoidable conclusion seemed to be that these expansion failures were a result of the fact that the expansion of existing JHP bullet designs [emphasis added] were not robust; in engineering terminology, lack of robustness simply means that small changes in conditions are likely to cause failure. Initially, this conclusion seemed surprising because “heavy clothing†stages have been common in handgun ammunition testing protocols ever since this approach was initiated by the FBI handgun ammunition test protocol defined in 1989, and the best modern JHP bullet designs have almost no failures either in these stages or against bare gelatin. A little more thought made this seem less surprising, because the “heavy clothing†stages in various tests seem to have been selected to represent specific clothing without any systematic investigation directed at evaluating what aspects of the cloth were critical.

A thoughtful investigation of the effects of soft barriers (e.g., clothing, as opposed to the hard barriers represented by building materials and automobile glass) seemed to me to be overdue. [California Highway Patrol Firearms Training Unit Lieutenant] Ed Fincel agreed with this assessment, and he, State of California Associate Procurement Engineer Nick Miloskovich and I set about implementing this investigation in the last quarter of 1996. This activity was very successful, and has led to a new ammunition test protocol [IWBA Handgun Ammunition Specification]; ammunition satisfying the requirements of this test protocol has been developed [Winchester Ranger T] and is now commercially available in .40 S&W. This new ammunition has much more reliable expansion after penetrating soft barriers than any ammunition previously available in this caliber. Improved .45ACP and 9mm ammunition designs are in the final development stages.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dodson: MacPherson’s article presents 3-4 pages of detailed information about how four layers of denim cloth was selected.

In short, four-layers of heavy denim cloth is not meant to simulate any specific clothing. It is merely an engineering evaluation tool.
//////////////////////////////////////////


Kirk,

I've heard, from a friend, about a very excited Cirillo calling to report some, umm, 'field studies' concerning one of his bullet designs. But, I definitely intend to inquire as to any details at the Summit in December.

 

[Dave Williams]

Paul,

Interesting topic, I've read all I can on this subject. I use the Remington 158gr LSWCHP +P out of a Centennial Airweight.

I've always thought that with the FBI load, if the bullet hits bone on a thoracic cavity shot, the bullet may upset and increase wound volume, which the WC wouldn't do.

Plus, the FBI load has a proven track history......On the other hand,whenever the use of WC for defense is brought up, someone (El T in this case) always brings up some horror story about it's use. No one ever does that with the FBI load.........do they?

Dave Williams

 

[El Tejon]

Sure it's failed, just like everything. Can't say I have had a Chicago load case, but I don't think I've had a case where it was used. Lots of fmjs, rns and wadcutters.

 

[HankB]

The deal is that the old standby 158gr Lead Semi Wad Cutter Hollow Point +P . . . cannot be used in the new titanium/scandium guns.

It can't be used in the new Ti/Sc guns? Why not? S&W warns against using bullets lighter than 120 grains in my 340 (which is a .357, not a .38) but there's no warning against using lead 158s. So as long as a particular load doesn't start backing out of the case, it looks OK to me.

One snubbie load that I pulled out of an old gun rag a couple of decades ago called for a 148 grain HBWC loaded backwards over a hefty (for a .38) charge of SR4756. I've seen this clocked out of 2" steel K-frame snubbies at over 1000 ft/sec, putting it right up there with Buffalo Bore's 158 LSWCHP. Certainly this was more like a low end .357 load than a +P .38. I've seen this load used to administer the coup de grace to a wounded whitetail, and tested in wet phone books, with impressive results. (Brand of HBWC made a difference.)

I wonder how a load like this (perhaps loaded down to the 850-900 ft/sec level) would perform in the "IWBA 4-layer denim standard" test?

 

[fletcher]

Concerning the 4-layer denim test: Is the round fired only through 4 layers denim, or is there gel behind it? Looks like just denim...

 

[Coltdriver]

Was the FBI Wadcutter load a hollow point??

I have recently switched to a warm 850 to 900 fps 158 grain wad cutter over unique powder for my .38 snubbie on the basis that smashing all the way through gives a better chance for a cns hit.

Rather than small light and fast I am going to bigger, heavier and reasonably fast but not plus p.

 

[DigMe]

Concerning the 4-layer denim test: Is the round fired only through 4 layers denim, or is there gel behind it? Looks like just denim...

There is gel behind it.

brad cook

 

[Paul Gomez]

El T,

Do ya'll see many shootings with wadcutters? I catch heck trying to find wadcutters for sale around here. See plenty of shootings with 130gr FMJ and 158gr Lead Round Nose & 158gr Lead SemiWadcutters, but not much with Wadcutters.

Dave,

Same question [regarding wadcutters]...I can find plenty of data concerning the old LRN 'widowmaker', but not much on wadcutters. All I can say, is the depth of penetration on the wadcutter is basicly equivalent to that of the LSWCHP, the hole is larger and the gun kicks a lot less...Add to that, the opinions of several people whom I hold as RKIs in this field and I'm comfortable running a wadcutter for defensive purposes in my snubbies.


Hank,

Unless S&W changed it's guidance, the Scandium/Titanium guns were rated for jacketed rounds only precisely because of uncrimped lead bullets being jarred from the cases under recoil and tying up the action.

The reversed HBWC loads tend to overexpand/shred material and vastly underpenetrate, as I recall.


Fletcher,

Yes, the 4 layers of 16oz denim are covering the leading edge of calibrated 10% ordance gelatin.

Coltdriver,

The so-called "FBI Load" aka "Chicago Load" aka "Metro Load" was a 158gr Lead SemiWadcutter HollowPoint +P which, typically, showed around 850fps out of a 4-inch barrel. I'm not aware of any 158gr Wadcutter bullets.

For Everyone ,

For years, the 158gr LSWCHP or LHP +P was the reccomended load for the .38. It held the distinction of being the only load that was agreed upon by both the IWBA/Fackler crowd and the Marshall/Sanow faction as the "way to go" for defensive applications.

The vast majority of the original gelatin testing and the S/M "One Shot Stops" data were generated from 3 and 4 inch duty guns. The 158gr LSWCHP +P performed adequately from the longer barrels, however when tested through the 1 7/8th inch J-frame snubbie barrels, they failed to expand and penetrated greater than 18-inches, for the most part.

For that, admittely uninspired performance, we can get similar [actually, slightly better] results from a standard velocity wadcutter. The wadcutter will be easier, for most people, to control and they will be more likely [one can hope, right?] to practice if shooting is not a painful experience.

 

[Coltdriver]

Paul,

Thanks for the correction. I meant semi wad cutter but I was just being sloppy with the nomenclature.

I am using plain semi wad cutters in my .38 and a jacketed hollow point in my .357.

Do you know if there is a standard for lead "hardness"? Or is there a way to state the hardness of the lead based on some scale?

 

[Paul Gomez]

It's called a Brinell Hardness Test. The values for lead range from [pure lead]around 4 BHN to around 40 BHN [hardest lead alloys].

Most bullet manufacturers will give you a BHN rating for their bullets.

For instance, Meister Bullets has this to say:

Bullet Hardness
Many factors contribute to bullet hardness, not only the lead, tin and antimony content in bullet alloy.

Uniform bullet hardness is achieved by the art of casting, cooling and an ambient temperature. Testing the hardness of an ingot is meaningless, since its cooling rate varies drastically. Only the hardness readings on actual bullets are meaningful.
Meister Bullets hardness is:


BRINELL HARDNESS 14-16

 

[HankB]

The reversed HBWC loads tend to overexpand/shred material and vastly underpenetrate, as I recall.

Paul, I think the problem with many reversed HBWC loads was that people loaded them with the same charge (2.7 grains of Bullseye) that was used in target loads. From a 2" snubbie, I doubt these things hit 700 ft/sec consistently. Nonetheless, the original Hydra Shock "Scorpion" load - an HBWC with a center post - was considered a good snubbie load in its day, despite the relatively mild loading.

Loaded up to maximum (today with lawyers and PSI pressure standard adherence I'm sure they'd be considered "over max" for a .38) they performed exceedingly well in wetpack, on a wounded whitetail, and I've seen them blow the heck out of a 4x4. (Admittedly, I don't know how they'd perform in calibrated gelatine.)

Plus, I found that the brand of HBWC made a difference. The original "old style" Hornady was best, and even had a groove about 1/8" from the skirt which functioned like a "crimping groove" if you didn't seat the bullet flush with the end of the case. The Speer HBWC was OK, too . . . when Hornady went to the knurled design, performance - even for target loads - plummeted.

 

[Ivy Mike]

Almost sounds like the SafeStop stuff would be better suited to a .357 than a .38

From the lineup of fired bullets Paul Gomez posted, I can reaffirm my confidence in the Gold Dot bullet. They populate the magazines of my FN Forty-Nine, my CZ-75b and my GF's FNP-9.

 

[jobu07]

I'm just curious, I run the same loads in my snubbie as ColtDriver does, the semi-wadcutter and all. So, what's the horror stories of involving wadcutters? Need to know if my safety is on the line!

 

[AZ SIG Shooter]

Regarding the standard 147 grain wadcutter round...

Hello. This is my first post here. I saw this thread linked from the S&W forum so here I am! Anyway, I witnessed one shooting with the standard 147 grain wadcutter round. This will take a bit of explaining so sorry for the length of this.
I was a firearms instructor in the Air Force from 1972 to 1978. While at Davis Monthan AFB in Tucson Arizona, we were shooting the wadcutter rounds for airman and officer qualification rather than the standard Air Force ball ammo of the time. This would have been about 1876 or 77. The Air Force had this silly way of "grounding" weapons when we fired the revolvers (we used S&W Model 15's at that time with four inch barrels). Well, to "ground" the revolver, you opened the cylinder and hung the gun on a nail that protruded from the 4X4 that served for barricade shooting. Well, on that day the line started shooting. One fellow didn't have his earmuffs on properly so he tried to adjust them..with a cocked revolver in his hand (this part I heard from the RO in the tower as he saw it). Apparently, he could not adjust the headsets properly so he tried to ground the weapon. Of course, the cylinder would not open as the gun was cocked! So, this nitwit simply put that nail through the trigger guard and let it go! The gun spun around and the nail hit the trigger and the gun went off. I was on the other end of the line, but odd as it may seem, I instantly knew something happened; it was a "feeling". I turned to look down the line and I saw a fellow backing away from the line holding his lower abdomen. The RO had called a cease fire by this time so we had to check all the guns hanging on the nails on our points. This was quickly accomplished. When I got to the fellow who had been shot, he was still standing. We talked him into laying down. He was afraid to lift his hands so we could see the damage and it was obvious he was starting to go into shock. We elevated his feet and I had someone hold a target (those heavy green cardboard silhouettes) to keep the sun out of his eyes. We finally got his hand off his stomach and pulled up his shirt. Nothing. We opened his belt and just below where the buckle would have been was a perfectly round, clean-edged black circle. The very edge of the wound was dark red. There was only one drop of blood in evidence. As it turned out, the bullet passed through his intestines and it lodged just in front of his pelvis. It did not strike the bone. My estimation would be that the bullet penetrated about eight inches, give or take an inch. He remained conscious and talking until the ambulance got there (about 20 minutes, but that is another story alltogether!). Anyway, for what it is worth, a genuine wad cutter shooting. BTW, the bullet passed through two layers of his fatigue pant just above the zipper, and his AF issue boxer shorts. The muzzle of the gun was probably about 18 inches from him when it discharged.
I know this was long winded..thanks for your patience!

 

[fastbolt]

I'm always interested in further developments involving short-barreled revolver ammunition.

I only have personal experience with a single instance where I used a Federal Nyclad 158gr LHP +P to dispatch a severely injured deer that had been hit by a car at freeway speeds, at least regarding learning how the bullet experienced deformation, anyway. I've dispatched a few deer using W-W 38SPD LSWCHP +P ammunition, but I've never been able to know how the other bullets actually expanded/deformed, or failed to do so. They did accomplish the task of dispatching the injured animals, though. Anyway ...

I fired the round into the top of the skull, standing directly above the animal after I had dragged it to a proper place & surface where I felt I could safely shoot it. The bullet entered the top of the animal's skull and penetrated to the bottom of the jaw, at the top of the front of the animal's neck, where it was trapped by the skin. While I couldn't recover and measure the bullet ... a couple of nearby state employee witnesses who were already visibly dismayed and queasy over the animal's injuries and resulting euthanasia probably would've misunderstood my reasons ... I was able to easily feel and roll the bullet between my fingers where it was just under the animal's skin.

The bullet felt as though it had deformed into a textbook 'mushroom' shape, and it felt very flat across the frontal area. Perhaps the softly swaged lead used in the Nyclad bullet, combined with encountering the animal's skull at as close to a direct angle as I could manage while the animal was moving around, resulted in the optimal performance of the bullet, expansion-wise.

I'm restricted from carrying any service or off-duty ammunition that isn't a hollow point. That being the case, for the most part I've always carried one brand or another of the 158gr LSWCHP/LHP +P load in my .38 snub guns, although I've tried just about every 'new' JHP/BHP load to come along, if only for a brief while. At the moment I'm carrying the 135gr +P GD, but that's only because I watched it fired from a Sc, short-barreled J-frame into denim covered gelatin at a gel shoot event last year, after it was learned that someone had brought a newly obtained box of the new ammunition along to the event. It worked as advertised in the limited testing, and it interested me.

In my hands it seems to generate felt recoil similar to my W-W & Rem 158gr LHP +P loads, and shoot to a similar enough POA at 3-11 yards.

It seems these diminutive 5-shot revolvers are enjoying a deserved renewed interest, and some seeming improvement in the ammunition available for them, too. I'll continue to keep an eye on these developments, since I prefer a J-frame for a lot of off-duty use.

The S&W factory restriction against all-lead bullet ammunition in the Ti & Sc J-frames is the primary reason I chose a 'regular' Airweight 642-1, so I could continue to use the LHP +P ammunition. I know couple of other folks that chose 642/442 +P rated guns for much the same reasons.

Then again, one of our folks said that he's experienced some occasional 'bullet-jump' issues with a major brand of JHP .38 ammunition in his all-titanium Taurus.

I like all-steel for durability over the long term ... but all things considered, the S&W standard aluminum J-frame, with steel cyclinder & barrel, is about as 'light' as I prefer to go when it comes to a compromise of durability, controllability and ammunition tolerance.

If I want to shoot 'more powerful' ammunition in a 5-shot short-barreled revolver, I've always got my Quad-Ported SP-101 DAO .357 Magnum. Much more controllable than any other 5-shot .357 revolver I've ever used. It's just too heavy for me to easily use it as a pocket gun, and if I'm going to wear a belt-holstered handgun, I generally go with a semiauto pistol.

 

[Erich]

AZ SIG Shooter, welcome aboard and thanks for a great post!

Fastbolt, another great post (as usual)!



I'm giving serious thought again to buying some of the Buffalo Bore 158-grainers to see what they can do. Probably pretty stiff recoil, but I was impressed at how manageable their fast .357 158s are. (Especially compared to .41 mags in a 21-oz Ti snub . . . .)

 

[Sean Smith]

Personally, I'm not sure a large degree of expansion is especially desireable in a low-powered cartridge fired from a <2" barrel. I'd be more inclined to go with a flat-point FMJ loaded as hot as is controllable in those tiny guns (which is to say, not that hot, really). Folks have taken 158gr LSWCHP +P loads from snubbies to the brain-box, and not been stopped.

Just my opinion.

 

[seeker_two]

Interesting information...

I wonder how Cirillo's load compares to the 158gr. FMJ-SWC load found in Sellier & Bellot .38 & .357 ammo...

I use the S&B .357 load as a backup when I need more penetration, and I've never had any problem. Plus, it's a lot cheaper than the Cirillo & other wadcutter loadings...

 

[CAS700850]

Can anyone shed some light on the old Treasury load, the 110 grn JHP loaded to +p or +p+ levels. I've carried the Cor Bon version of that in my Smith 649 in the past, and thought I was well served. Recoil was (relatively) mild in my stainless J-frame, though the blast was impressive. I thought of it as a great load for the small revolver.

I know some prefer heavier bullets for deeper penetration. There are also those who prefer velocity, and lots of it, so a lighter bullet is better from their perspective, and promotes expansion.

As far as I's concerned, I prefer a good quality hollowpoint that shoots well. When I shot up the Cor-Bon loads, I bought a box of FBI loads from Remington. Of course, it was meant for HD use in my Smith Model 19, but it fits the J-frame, too. Put a larger grip on the J-frame, though, to help with recoil control.

 

[dawg23]

Why not the CorBon DPX in .38 Special ??

Test results from another site:
10% Ballistic Gelatin Tests for:
Corbon .38 spl +p 110gr. DPX
Testing Platform:
S&W 642 – 1 7/8” Barrel
Barrier:
4 Layers of Denim


TEST RESULTS:

Round # 1:
Penetration: 15.50"
Recovered Weight: 111.0 gr.
Expansion*: .520 cal.

* Expansion measured at widest point.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
10% Ballistic Gelatin Tests for:
Corbon .38 spl +p 110gr. DPX

Testing Platform:

S&W Model 10 – 4” Barrel
Barrier:
4 Layers of Denim


TEST RESULTS:

Round # 1:
Penetration: 14.50"
Recovered Weight: 101.3 gr.
Expansion*: .550 cal.

* Expansion measured at widest point.