.44 special snub vs. Water Jugs, S&W, Corbon DPX, Buffalo Bore, Underwood

[Tony_the_tiger]

Since I have no gelatin or other way to do standardized ballistic testing, and I wanted to compare different ammo for our S&W 296 .44 special snub (2.5" barrel, titanium cylinder, aluminum or scandium frame, centennial design), I settled on 1 gallon water jugs.

The purpose of this test was to see which I was most accurate with and then to put them through the water to see what happens and help me come to a decision about which rounds to carry.

Ammo Tested:

a) Buffalo Bore .44 Special 200 Grain Hardcast Wadcutter

b) Buffalo-Barnes .44 Special 200 Grain Tac-XP

c) Underwood .44 Special 200 Grain Gold Dot

d) Corbon .44 Special 200 Grain DPX

Results:

a) BB .44 special HC Wadcutter

Buffalo Bore advertises this as 913 fps out of a 296 revolver - exactly the gun I am shooting with today. Out of a bigger gun it approaches and eventually exceeds 1000 fps.

I found this round to be too much for the lightweight snub, and I am choosing not to carry it based on recoil and the amount of pain it did to my hand. I did shoot it through jugs and it penetrated through 4 gallon jugs completely before veering off into the great unknown (probably due to my accuracy). The bullet was not recovered. I'll save this round for a heavier gun. Awesome bullet profile and penetration through jugs, but inaccurate for me in a light gun. Time to move on.

b) Buffalo Barnes .44 special Tac-XP

Based on my cursory analysis, this 200 grain Tac-XP bullet from barnes is the same used by Corbon in their DPX branded ammo. The difference is how hot they are loaded.

Buffalo bore has clocked this at 1017 fps from a S&W 296, the gun I am using today. From a 4 inch barrel and larger, it is approaching 1100 fps - wow!

This round hurt my hand so much in the lightweight snub that I didn't want to shoot it any more. Not only that, but it was very inaccurate for me due to this. I think this would be a fantastic round for a heavier steel gun with a longer barrel. For the lightweight .44 special snub, this round is way too much to carry and due to the pain, I made a choice not to shoot this through the jugs.

c) Underwood Gold Dot

Underwood has taken the Gold Dot round and loaded it to 1100fps. However, Underwood does not specify the barrel length that it was tested on and when I called them they were unable to tell me or remember which barrel it was tested on. Given that, I have to assume they were not testing it on a snub. I have no idea how fast this bullet was going in the 296, however this had better accuracy and less perceived recoil than the Buffalo Bore rounds even though it is supposedly pushing a similarly weighted projectile at comparable speeds.

This round as fired out of the 2.5 296 snub penetrated 3 one gallon jugs completely and was recovered inside of the 4 water jug.

This round totally blew up the first water jug it entered, did respectable damage to the second jug, and was recovered in good shape - however, it looked like a petal would soon come off.



Back in 2009 a member of a different forum pushed the .200 grain .44 special gold dot to comparable velocity and found that it shattered (http://smith-wessonforum.com/ammo/78419-interesting-results-44-gold-dot.html)

My results are not consistent with their test. However as posted above it does look like it may be going pretty fast for the .44 special gold dot however I am pleased with the result - projectile recovered in tact, with pretty gnarly curves and just look at what it did to the first water jug:



I might carry this round but I want to test it again for accuracy and through some more jugs.

d) Corbon DPX 200 grain

This is likely the same bullet used in the Buffalo Barnes round. I first came to this rounds attention through the work of Stephen Camp (R.I.P) http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Corbon 44 Special DPX Report.htm

Stephen clocked it at 998 - 1046 fps out of a 3" Taurus 431.

Corbon themselves published them at 950 ft/s from a 4.0 inch test barrel.

However, two reports on the web I have read shooting this load out of snubs only achieved around 650 ft/s out of the round.

I have no idea how fast it is going out of the 2.5" S&W 296.

However, the round penetrated completely through 3 one gallon jugs and came to rest in the 4th jug.

A second shot penetrated through 3 one gallon jugs and bounced off the 4th jug.



This round was very accurate for me and had the least perceived recoil of the four rounds.

Discussion:

Based on my results today, and with exception to the fact that a water jug is not an ideal ballistic medium, I have limited my current carry choices to the .44 special Gold Dot by Underwood and the .44 special DPX by Corbon.

Both penetrated through 3 jugs completely. I daresay the DPX looks about perfect on expansion, which is the reputation they have. However, without a chronograph I have concerns about the low speeds published by others. I called Barnes and they noted 700 as the speed needed for this round to expand well. That still doesn't tell me how it performed in terms of velocity today.

Re: the Gold Dot, I do have concerns about the damage to the petal and reports on the web about .44 special gold dot failure. I'd love to know how fast these are going out of the 2.5" but that will be impossible until I get a chronograph. The Underwood Gold Dot had the most impressive damage to the water jug as evidenced above.

Right now I will probably carry the DPX for accuracy however, having narrowed down my options to 2 out of the original 4 choices I do think another range session is warranted where these rounds can be further tested for accuracy and water jug penetration/expansion.

I had considered carrying the Buffalo Bore rounds however in the snub, accuracy is king and I feel those rounds were designed for a heavier gun.



DPX and Underwood Gold Dot - winners of today's water jug shootout.

Thoughts, comments, and discussion are welcome. Do you think that Gold Dot looks damaged or within acceptable parameters? How do you feel about the DPX and Gold Dot penetrating completely through 3 water jugs even though we don't know how fast they are going?

There are several other nice looking .44 special rounds however today's testing is limited to what I had on hand. .

Thanks for hearing me out.

-Triple T

 

[Dave T]

Well done, reasonable report. Thanks for posting this.

In your position I would choose the CorBon DPX. The consistency of the performance and the increased control tip the scales in my view.

YMMV,
Dave

 

[Frank44]

Thanks for the report, very interesting!

 

[peacemaker45]

Good report! I'm somewhat curious as to why you're leaning so determinedly towards the heavy end of the spectrum, though, for a LW snub? Remember, handguns aren't rifles. They don't kill with energy; their bullets only damage what they touch. Thus, once you've got enough velocity that you're within your bullet's design range, and you're getting sufficient penetration, that's enough. More power won't do anything for you except drill holes in the landscape on the far side of the target, and make your gun harder to control. Much sound and fury, signifying nothing, as it were.

I'd be looking for a load that gives 800-850 fps, rather than focusing on those super specials.



Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

My thinking is that velocity loss from a snub puts the hot loads in the defensively acceptable range. For example the DPX at 950 fps from a 4" barrel may be just right from a 2.5" barrel. As another example, the Speer gold dot. 44 special is published at around 850 fps from a 6" barrel. One might consider that load inappropriate for snub use, however without comparable data I could not make a firm decision on that.

 

[Gordon]

Ever try mundane old Silvertips in your 296? All the rock and roll I want and they expand!

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

Havn't tried them but thank you for the suggestion.

 

[back40]

nice write-up. i've been meaning to try the BB HC wadcutters and the 255gr keith load, but they'll be from my 3.75" super blackhawk. looks like you have a winner in the corbon dpx, however i'd be really interested to see what velocity you are getting. you've confirmed that i need to get a chronograph, and have possibly inspired me to shoot a few water jugs myself.

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

For the time being I'll have to be content that I am well protected against 3 and a half one gallon jugs lined up in a row with the DPX!

I'm looking forward to hearing how your Ruger Blackhawk tests go.

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

FYI, from: http://www.warriortalk.com/archive/index.php/t-43356.html

I don't mean to take the place of Mike (TeamCorbon) who is an expert on Corbon ammo, but since we at Barnes Bullets supply our XPB bullet for their DPX rifle and handgun lines, I hope he doesn't mind if I jump in here. Mike is usually on the road and his time for or access to the 'net may be limited.

A major shooting guru pushed for us to make a .44 S&W SPL bullet that would expand at low speed. The Corbon DPX 200 grain offering is that bullet. It has a wide range of function. The petals will stay on it even up to 1200 fps mv, peeling all the way back to the shank. Corbon tested their loading out of a 4" barrel at 950 fps mv:

( http://www.dakotaammo.net/products/corbon/dpx.htm )

and it is reasonable to infer up to a 100 fps velocity loss out of a 2" barrel. That would put mv @ 850 fps.

This bullet is tested for expansion in water @ 750 fps. throughout the production run. It opens to an average of .70" with the petals just about straight out from the body (45 degrees). It will still open at even lower velocities but not quite so much.

Tested in ballistic gel @ ~800 fps through four layers of denim, expansion is at maximum .77" (average) with penetration @ ~12" with 100% weight retention.

As with our other all-copper bullets, with no jacket and core to separate, these will do well as barrier penetrators despite their relatively low velocity because the mass is high.

CB3

 

[dickydalton]

I loaded some Barns TAC-XP 200s and some 240 Rem Core loct Hollow Points a week ago. 12 grains of 2400 for both. The Barnes clocked 800FPS and the Rem 240 850. (Remember same charge)
12 grains is a hot load for a 240 and the 200 Barnes could take another grain+. I shot both into a pure clay bank from 30'. The 200s looked just like your's for expansion and one penetrated an inch and fell off and the second penetrated 1 1/2" and stuck. The 240 Remington's penetrated almost 3" and had to be carved out with a knife.
The Barnes 200s weighed 200 and 200.1 after and both measured .745 across the petals. The 240 Rems weighed 238 and 240 and measured .68 and .73 respectively.
These were shot from my 629 Mountain gun with the 4" barrel and both were very shootable and almost tame.
The 240 Remington get's the nod from me, when I have them. The TAC-XP get's the nod when I have them. I plan to load the Barnes a little faster and see what happens.

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

Unfortunately the 296 is limited to a 200 grain bullet, but it sounds like your 240 is a solid load.

I wonder what 1" - 3" penetration of pure clay means in terms of terminal performance

 

[RevolvingGarbage]

From personal experience informal ballistic testing in water and gelatin, I suspect those DPX loads are running close to the lower end of their velocity window. I would guess you are probably getting 750-800 fps.

 

[dickydalton]

I am only assuming " Extreme terminal performance", as I haven't shot anyone or an animal with them.
As an aside I also shot a 210 44 Mag Silvertip and a 44 Mag Black Talon (woooo?) into the same bank. The Silvertip exploded in the first inch so it's a fine home defense round.
The vaunted Black Talon (a whole 1190 FPS) penetrated the most going 4" but was in three pieces that I haven't weighed. I didn't have any of my Keith SWC mags with me, but I guarantee you they would go lots deeper.

 

[Jaymo]

I'd like to see how the BB 190 grain LSWCHP does.

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

Looks like a good load for a heavier .44 special then I have available!

In all seriousness however, and the take home point of this thread, is that I do not intend to give the impression that water jugs or even gelatin or clay are comparable to each other or to to human or animal tissue.

However, the value is that we can compare bullet performance relative to brand and load in the same media. In this case, comparing the bullets served a distinct purpose for me. It was interesting and useful for me to see that a Gold Dot going (presumably) faster than the DPX round in the same caliber and bullet weight penetrated equivalently through the jugs. It was also useful for me to eliminate the much hotter rounds based on discomfort and inaccuracy from the lightweight snub.

Just goes to show that there is more to the picture here than weight and velocity.

I had considered using a chronograph against the DPX, but then I had to ask myself: "would an increase or decrease in velocity improve your understanding of the rounds appropriateness for self defense?"

The answer to that question is no, I don't think it would, because velocity is a single data point with no direct correlation to terminal ballistics. Meanwhile, I have a different data point with no correlation to terminal ballistics... a direct comparison of the DPX to the Gold dot which tells me that they perform similarly in terms of penetration through single gallon water jugs. I truly hope that I never do come to understand their terminal ballistics. May these rounds perforate only jugs!

On top of that, both came out with what would appear to be complete weight retention. Not bad by my estimate for a day's work.

As noted in my original post, accuracy is the key word and so I am using that as the final criteria for carry load. I recently switched my carry load in .38 special back to the 135 grain gold dot + p round due to accuracy as compared to other brands.

In the future I will be looking to repeat the performance of these rounds and to measure other calibers against the benchmark here. However I will have to wait since the ammo shortage is looming still. That said there is a Buffalo-Barnes .357 mag 140 grain XPB short barrel load that I hope to test out later in the week in an Sp101. At a near guaranteed 1150 fps on that round I'll be looking to see how it compares to this .44 special DPX running anywhere from 650 - 950 fps.

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

From The High Road archives: http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-465655.html

To stay on thread, IME water jugs are VERY hard on bullets. I have shot rifle bullets into wet newspaper, and then shot the same bullets into a row of water jugs, and on several occasions the bullets will hold together in the newspaper and the same bullets disintergrate or shed their jackets in the water. If your bullets will hold together and penetrate in the water, they should penetrate just fine.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

I tend to agree. The hydraulics of water impact is actually a pretty hard barrier and if anything, tends to over-expand bullets moreso than gel test. Water penetration of expanding bullets can't be considered much more than a test of a bullet's integrity but from what I've seen, if it (1) expands well in water, (2) penetrates well and (3) holds together, it also tends to do very well under controlled test conditions and for that matter, real-world performance. There are exceptions too...some bullets tend to shed their jackets and/or fragment in water and yet, have an excellent reputation in real-world performance. As for as the value of this sort of thing well, it's fun to shoot them but about all I would trust is that if a bullet don't expand in water, it's doubtful it's gonna' expand, period.