Big Bore Guns with Big full wadcutters

[357smallbore]

Who here believes that full wadcutters are a good defensive round to carry in their ccw revolver. I carry them as my primary rounds in my Rossi 720 (44 Special).They are 200gr Underwood FW. I carry a speed strip with 5 Blazer 200gr JHP as spare rounds.
I have 100% belief that if needed, these will do the job and cause major damage to end the threat against me or my family.
Chronographed at 925fps. That's 380flb of .44 caliber muzzle energy. If I can do my job, these rounds will do theirs.

 

[Rob96]

Full caliber hole with penetration. I remember several years back they were saying this was a good loading for J frame 38's.

 

[Hal]

I'm not a fan of wadcutters as a substitute for a jacked hollow point.
There just hasn't ever been any serious development over the years.

 

[IlikeSA]

I keep 6 wadcutters in a speedloader for 357 mag, loaded to slightly hotter than 38 special.

I keep my 45 Colt loaded with 3 JHP, 3 hardcast LSWC, unless I am in the woods, in which case it's 6 hardcast lead SWCs. I wouldn't be opposed to a full wadcutter, but a good SWC/LFN gives me more range and can be loaded hotter than a full wadcutter, at the sacrifice of about 10-30% meplat, depending on bullet shape/casting. Eventually speed of projectile causes more permanent damage than meplat cutting power, though I don't have the numbers in front of me. There was a study on meplat size/speed about 20 years ago on the topic. The tradeoff is greater recoil with the hotter loading.

 

[StrawHat]

…I keep my 45 Colt loaded with 3 JHP, 3 hardcast LSWC, unless I am in the woods, in which case it's 6 hardcast lead SWCs. I wouldn't be opposed to a full wadcutter, but a good SWC/LFN gives me more range and can be loaded hotter than a full wadcutter...

Hmmm. I cast the SAECO 453, 235 grain full wadcutter, from a fairly soft, 20/1 alloy. I size them .454 to fit the throats of my largest cylinder and load them over a hardball dose of Bullseye to get 850ish fps. This is what I use everyday in my S&W Model 22-4.

No leading, and quite a bit of impact. I don’t see how you could not load them hotter if you wanted to in your 45 long Colt.

Kevin

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

Like so many aspects of shooting it has never been studied properly. Recall some of the gun writers of the past suggesting 38 WCs for self defense, citing the low recoil which would allow quicker follow up shots. Dean Grenell wrote that he found a WC an excellent rat hunting round.

 

[Hal]

I had a different experience with a full wadcutter style shooting rats.
There was a rat infested set of RR tracks by the alley behind a store I worked in years ago.
When I would go back there to unload a truck, I'd take my Sheridan Blue Streak with me and shoot rats.
Since there were hundreds of them, I got to play around with the pellets and a single edge razor blade to see how I could tweak them.

If I shaved the pellet to a point, I could nail one out to about 20 yards and it would go right down.
An unmodified pellet was good out to about 15 maybe 20 yards.

The worst were the ones that I had cut to small the dome off and turned them into wadcutters. Those were ok, but, they didn't seem to put the rats down - like right now! - like the regular ones did.

100% total worthless were the ones I loaded backward - with the empty skirt facing forward. Those failed to kill the rats 100% of the time so I stopped using them. I hate rats, but, I'm not a sadistic killer.

Maybe they (wadcutters) work, maybe they don't - I know a lot more research $$$ have gone into developing jacketed hollow points so that's what I stick with for defense.

 

[buck460XVR]

@ SD distances with a .44 caliber handgun, IMHO, bullet construction between a WC and a JHP is a moot point.

 

[westernrover]

The "big hole" theory has been around. Currently prevailing theory based on the evidence available to date does not grant an advantage to it.

 

[Riomouse911]

I have zero proof that a big bore WC would be as effective as a JHP designed for SD, Critical Defense for example. But theory, based on experience shooting a wide variety of rounds, leads me to believe that those big WC rounds you have would put a big hurt on a criminal if impacting in spots that defensive rounds should be placed.

Hopefully you (or any of us) will never need to find out.

Stay safe.

 

[PapaG]

For me, factory loads in my s.d.carry gun. In the woods, my carefully crafted hollow point or flat point lead, from 38 through 45 Colt and all in between.

 

[holl]

I load them for use in my Taurus 856 .38 special


and for use in my Cimarron US Cavalry .45lc.

 

[CDW4ME]

So glad this is in general gun discussion.

5 rounds is comparatively lacking, versus other "big bore" options.
For example, a Glock 30 with 11 rounds, a 1911 in 45 acp - 8 or 9 rounds depending on magazine, Shield 45 acp - 7 or 8 rounds.

Two hits to incapacitate on average, including 44 and 45 and we can't ensure 100% hits, good hits:
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power

I'd take a Sig 365 with 11 rounds of 9mm HP rather than a 5 shot revolver, regardless of whether the revolver had WC or HP.
380# of KE referenced in OP - let me see if we can get that from a compact 9mm ...
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/
Corbon 115+P @ 1,221 fps = 381# KE and that bullet did 13.6'' / .56 after heavy clothing.
Federal HST 124+P @ 1,168 fps = 376# KE and that bullet did 18.3'' / .66 after heavy clothing.

Look at the wound track 1st shot of a 45 HP that did not expand, straight line with little other disruption:


Compare that to a 9mm that did expand, it is visibly more disruptive out to 10'' than the straight line of the non-expanding 45 acp:


11 rounds of 9mm with a good HP > 5 rounds of "big bore" WC which is basically non-expanding HP.

 

[reddog81]

The "big hole" theory has been around. Currently prevailing theory based on the evidence available to date does not grant an advantage to it.

There's probably not a big advantage, but on the flip side there's probably not a big disadvantage either. A 200 grain .429 wadcutter bullet punching a hole through someone is basically going to get about the same as your normal 45 ACP load.

 

[StrykerByte.45]

JHP make a smile shaped slice on skin, wadcutters punch a hole. There will be more blood loss on a hole. A lead wadcutter hollow point also expand more reliably than a JHP at low velocities(ie: less recoil), but a JHP penetrates glass and other hard barriers better and retain thier shape. More velocity can be gained from lead projectiles than a jacketed with equal weight.

 

[Dunross]

I like big bore wadcutters out of short barrels such as a Charter Arms Bulldog Pug. No need for high velocities. A 200gr wadcutter in the 800fos range will penetrate plenty while still remaining controllable for faster followup shots.

For a longer barrelled gun I would go with higher velocities and a hollow point, but short barrels won't always get a bullet going fast enough to reliably expand. Wadcutters don't have to.

 

[wcwhitey]

There is something to be said for a wide nosed bullet like SWC and DEWC in calibers that reliable expansion is iffy at best. That’s why you see them for .44 Special and .38 Special a lot. Not that I carry it for defense but the .32 family benefits from WC’s also. These calibers simply do not always reach the velocity threshold from carry length barrels to reliably expand. Although a hollow point will minimize over penetration if it doesn’t expand it is still a tapered bullet, less tissue damage and wound channel. Some progress has been made in .38 Special and there are a few that work well from snubbies. The .44 Special is another story, nobody other than the boutique ammo makers like BB and Underwood even try to make a round that runs fast enough to get reliable expansion. So in some cases a full diameter sharp edged bullet has merit both in wound channel and recoil. Make it heavy, make it wide but make it mild and you get a decent wound channel with light recoil. The British did quite a bit of experimenting with flat wide bullets around WWI and had to change the design back to a RNL because of fear of International Court. Of course I am not talking about some of the rounds from BB and Underwood designed for large animal defense. Those are designed and pushed hard for penetration which would be counter productive for a self defense CCW. JMHO

 

[cfullgraf]

I’m a fan of heavy, slow moving bullets for self defense.

I have moulds snd cast 44 and 45 caliber wadcutters for my revolvers.

The only trouble I have with wadcutters for self defense is reloads can be difficult due the the squared front end of the wadcutters.

Hence, I’d prefer to use semi-wadcutters where the nose of the bullet helps guide the reload into the chamber.

Ideally, if I could find a SWC bullets that shoot to the same point of aim as the wadcutters then I’d have bullets that rechamber more easily but still have bullets that perform well.

 

[westernrover]

Look at the wound track 1st shot of a 45 HP that did not expand, straight line with little other disruption:

I don't believe the pattern made in clear or 10% ballistics gel can be interpreted as a "wound track." If you're looking the bloom in gel, I don't think that can be interpreted as a wound in tissue. I'm not knocking gel in general or questioning the validity of its use. We have to interpret it correctly. I've never heard or read an expert interpret torn gel as a wound. I've heard a lot of youtube amateurs gawk at torn gel. What does it mean?

Also, bear in mind what 45 they used for that test:



With a 3.64" barrel, it may actually be representative of the kind of carry guns people really carry, Shields, Officer-length 1911's etc. It could also be argued as a fair comparison to the 9mm Shield they used, but with the low pressure and heavy bullets, the 45ACP is going to have proportionally much more improved performance than the 9mm when a longer barrel is used.

The 45 ACP ammo in question just wasn't designed for a 3.64" barrel. It may be fair to say that most 45 ACP JHP is not or that it may be difficult to get it to perform in such a length.

 

[westernrover]

To compare full wadcutters to JHP that do expand, we can look at the 38 Special results from the same series of tests:




What I notice about the wadcutters is they penetrated well. They tore less gel than the JHP, especially from 2" to 7" depth. But then they had similar tracks. This is important because the hollowpoints didn't shrink in size. They just slowed down toward the end of the track. If the expanded hollowpoint had a larger "crush path" we should see that larger track all the way to the end. Is it larger? Large enough to see?

So if it's not the expanded hollowpoint's increased diameter that's tearing more gel between 2" and 7", what is it? What's happening here is the JHP is producing a larger stretch cavity. The temporary stretch of the clear gel produces a permanent tearing that we see as the white marks when the gel has come to a rest -- but that cannot be interpreted as a "permanent wound cavity." How much stretch the tissue can actually take before being torn depends on the elasticity of the tissue. Clear gel isn't an analog for any real tissue's elasticity. Is 10% gel? If we were to see those cloudy tracks in 10% gel, does that represent the "permanent" wound cavity? I've never seen an expert identify those tracks as permanent wound cavities. I've only ever seen permanent wound cavities illustrated in drawings. But I haven't seen everything yet. If someone has a credible source for interpretation of tracks in gel, please point it out.

 

[wcwhitey]

I don't believe the pattern made in clear or 10% ballistics gel can be interpreted as a "wound track." If you're looking the bloom in gel, I don't think that can be interpreted as a wound in tissue. I'm not knocking gel in general or questioning the validity of its use. We have to interpret it correctly. I've never heard or read an expert interpret torn gel as a wound. I've heard a lot of youtube amateurs gawk at torn gel. What does it mean?

Also, bear in mind what 45 they used for that test:

View attachment 1125563

With a 3.64" barrel, it may actually be representative of the kind of carry guns people really carry, Shields, Officer-length 1911's etc. It could also be argued as a fair comparison to the 9mm Shield they used, but with the low pressure and heavy bullets, the 45ACP is going to have proportionally much more improved performance than the 9mm when a longer barrel is used.

The 45 ACP ammo in question just wasn't designed for a 3.64" barrel. It may be fair to say that most 45 ACP JHP is not or that it may be difficult to get it to perform in such a length.[
I agree! Also consider that .45 ACP hollowpoints are for the most part all rounded by design for better feeding. Although it’s a .452 bullet, it is basically a FMJ if it does not expand. Same as any semi auto round. It is not a Wadcutter nor a Semi Wadcutter with a flat nose and sharp shoulder. That changes things and not exactly a good comparison overall. Revolver rounds both expanding and non expanding have an advantage of being able to more more aggressive shape wise. Look at a 158 SWC-HP for instance. It may or may not expand in a short barrel but it does still have a SWC profile regardless.

 

[westernrover]

People who "believe" in hollowpoint handgun bullets tend to believe they "wound" more. But to believe this, they have to believe that the expanded hollowpoint is making a bigger "crush path" because the gel experts have unanimously declared that the "stretch" cavity does not perform wounding function at handgun bullet velocities. So the only additional wounding a hollowpoint does is the diameter of the crush path shown through to the end of the path in the gel -- not those wide blooms at the beginning.

 

[westernrover]

Look at the crush path of these 45ACP bullets that expanded to greater than 1" diameter:



Remember, it's not those white blooms at 5" that are the "permanent wound cavity". It's only the actual path of the bullet through the tissue. If I look at the track of the first 1" diameter bullet (in the picture at the top), at 12" depth, the track in the gel does not look so huge. What's going on here?

Is the gel "closing up" behind the bullet? Isn't that what supposed to be so lamentable about the old LRN bullets? They just "slip through"?

 

[Autodidactic]

To compare full wadcutters to JHP that do expand, we can look at the 38 Special results from the same series of tests:

View attachment 1125567
View attachment 1125568

What I notice about the wadcutters is they penetrated well. They tore less gel than the JHP, especially from 2" to 7" depth. But then they had similar tracks. This is important because the hollowpoints didn't shrink in size. They just slowed down toward the end of the track. If the expanded hollowpoint had a larger "crush path" we should see that larger track all the way to the end. Is it larger? Large enough to see?

So if it's not the expanded hollowpoint's increased diameter that's tearing more gel between 2" and 7", what is it? What's happening here is the JHP is producing a larger stretch cavity. The temporary stretch of the clear gel produces a permanent tearing that we see as the white marks when the gel has come to a rest -- but that cannot be interpreted as a "permanent wound cavity." How much stretch the tissue can actually take before being torn depends on the elasticity of the tissue. Clear gel isn't an analog for any real tissue's elasticity. Is 10% gel? If we were to see those cloudy tracks in 10% gel, does that represent the "permanent" wound cavity? I've never seen an expert identify those tracks as permanent wound cavities. I've only ever seen permanent wound cavities illustrated in drawings. But I haven't seen everything yet. If someone has a credible source for interpretation of tracks in gel, please point it out.

Yes but that’s a 4 inch barrel. A lot of .38 hollowpoints either don’t expand out of a 2 inch, or they do and only penetrate maybe 9 inches. That’s where the argument for the WC comes in.

 

[CDW4ME]

@westernrover - the Lucky Gunner clear jel pics I posted were to illustrate how a non-expanding bullet (WC) compares to one that expands.
OP starts with: "Who here believes" and the comparison was in support of my opinion that 11 rounds 9mm is preferable to 5 rounds wadcutter.
I could link a Youtube video using sim-test rather than clear gel; Nah, if one is inclined they can look for a different test, or not. Doesn't affect me.

I've got one bullet test that was not in gel, a 155 XTP 10mm that expands to about .65 in gel managed to make a hole bigger than a quarter in tissue:


Do I think a 44 wadcutter would make a hole that big? Nope. But, like, ... that's just my opinion.