Big Bore Guns with Big full wadcutters

[wcwhitey]

@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:
View attachment 1125597

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

Your points are valid but they have nothing to do with this post. The question was about CCW revolvers using cartridges like .44 Special not Semi Auto cartridges. I would not debate your choice of handgun, it’s yours so “carry on”. It’s just not pertinent to the subject!

There are good and bad choices in every caliber. Some hollow point designs work some better than others. Specific to short barreled velocity challenged cartridges of the big bore type in a revolver Wadcutters and Semi Wadcutters are an improvement over RNL or Non-Expanding hollowpoints.

 

[CDW4ME]

Your points are valid but they have nothing to do with this post. The question was about CCW revolvers using cartridges like .44 Special not Semi Auto cartridges. I would not debate your choice of handgun, it’s yours so “carry on”. It’s just not pertinent to the subject!

There are good and bad choices in every caliber. Some hollow point designs work some better than others. Specific to short barreled velocity challenged cartridges of the big bore type in a revolver Wadcutters and Semi Wadcutters are an improvement over RNL or Non-Expanding hollowpoints.

A thread in General Handgun Discussion that starts with "Who here believes" is asking for opinion.
I posted pics comparing a non-expanding HP similar to what a WC would do versus a HP which has everything to do with the OP.
I chose to add my preferences into my on topic reply, which I think I am entitled to do especially since this thread is not in the revolver forum.
Now, I wonder why someone who I was not responding to chose to try to "correct" me, lets see:


And there it is, the #1 place where you post is in the revolver forum, that explains it.

 

[wcwhitey]

A thread in General Handgun Discussion that starts with "Who here believes" is asking for opinion.
I posted pics comparing a non-expanding HP similar to what a WC would do versus a HP which has everything to do with the OP.
I chose to add my preferences into my on topic reply, which I think I am entitled to do especially since this thread is not in the revolver forum.
Now, I wonder why someone who I was not responding to chose to try to "correct" me, lets see:
View attachment 1125632

And there it is, the #1 place where you post is in the revolver forum, that explains it.

Read the first sentence of the OP “Who here believes that full wadcutters are a good defensive round to carry in their ccw revolver.”. As they say “reading is fundamental”.. I was even being nice! I don’t intentionally look for fault, I just thought you were not talking about the proper subject. It this was a revolver vs. semi auto thread you would have valid points. Sorry if I hurt your feelings! I did not mean too!

 

[wcwhitey]

Double Tap

 

[someguy2800]

Your points are valid but they have nothing to do with this post. The question was about CCW revolvers using cartridges like .44 Special not Semi Auto cartridges. I would not debate your choice of handgun, it’s yours so “carry on”. It’s just not pertinent to the subject!

There are good and bad choices in every caliber. Some hollow point designs work some better than others. Specific to short barreled velocity challenged cartridges of the big bore type in a revolver Wadcutters and Semi Wadcutters are an improvement over RNL or Non-Expanding hollowpoints.

I think he has a very valid point given the ongoing discussion showing that a handgun bullet can indeed wound larger than just its crush diameter as shown by his picture of a .400" bullet producing a 1" diameter wound in tissue. Anyone that has taken game animals and then studied the results knows this but it gets lost when people only focus on what happens in gel.

 

[someguy2800]

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.

I think a guy could do worse. If I were going to carry a 44 wadcutter for defense, I would want it to be a hollowpoint wad cutter though because a flat nose with a decently hard alloy with probably penetrate several feet.

 

[StrykerByte.45]

Wadcutters are a major advantage over Jacketed. There is soft and hard casts, flat and hollow point. JHP out of revolvers are inferior to wadcutters. The only reason for jacketed rounds is for reliable feeding in auto loaders. Not saying they are pointless in revolvers, nor better in some cases. The lead can be too soft or hard.
I use backwards loaded lead hollow point wadcutters, but I understand that they are anti-personnel and will only be effective on direct hits to soft tissue, barriers like glass will likely fragment a lead round making it useless. Hardcast wadcutters will likely have good glass penetration and straight line, likely over penetration. So in some cases, a jacketed hollow point gives a good balance.

 

[wcwhitey]

I think he has a very valid point given the ongoing discussion showing that a handgun bullet can indeed wound larger than just its crush diameter as shown by his picture of a .400" bullet producing a 1" diameter wound in tissue. Anyone that has taken game animals and then studied the results knows this but it gets lost when people only focus on what happens in gel.

I tend to agree to a point! He chose 9mm, .45 ACP and 10MM to make his point. This as I read it was to back up his decision on why a 9mm pistol of higher capacity was a better choice. My response was directed to a full Wadcutter, unless you have a S&W Mode 52 for a CCW autos do not shoot or chamber. Not an apples to apples comparison.

Let’s get back to basics as I understand the point but let’s put it in simple terms. For a revolver (big bore as originally stated) we generally have a choice of Round Nose Lead, Semi Wadcutter, Full Wadcutter and Hollow Point of some type. If we carry something like .38 Special or .44 Special we know that velocity is challenged, often at or sub 800 fps from a shorter barrel if we are using full weight (158 grain for .38 or plus 200 for .44). So the question was will Full WC”a enhance to performance of a bullet in those calibers. The answer is yes, larger diameter with a sharper shoulder will create more tissue damage than a RNL or none expanding Hollow Point. The exception would be something like a soft lead SWC Hollow Point FBI load in .38 or the older Federal 200 Grain SWC Hollow Point in .44 Special. Those rounds have the benefit of a SWC style bullet and expansion or not are superior to RNL. They are superior in my opinion to rounds that have basically a FMJ profile with an open cavity that don’t expand as well. Now if we were talking proven rounds that work in Short Barrels like the Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel in .38 or the 165 Grain Hornady FTX in .44 Special then the point is not there, they as long as they expand I would consider them superior choices. Full circle back to the original question though. Yes a full Wadcutter with a full diameter nose and sharp shoulder will create more tissue damage than a rounded or pointed non expanding solid projectile. A caveat. With anything that does not expand there is always a chance over penetration, that could be a a non performing 9mm hollow point or a .45 ACP that does not perform. These bullets have the disadvantage of being a rounded profile by nature in order to properly cycle in a semi auto. When they do not open up tend to create an un-spectacular wound channel like a FMJ.

 

[.38 Special]

My limited experience indicates that, in the .44 Special, wadcutters work better on small game - rabbits and squirrels - than do cast hollowpoints. The hollowpoints generally act like roundnoses, which in my experience are just awful in terms of stopping power.

I will say that when the hollowpoints actually open in small game, they are more destructive than anything else, to the point that your meal may be completely wrecked.

I question whether wadcutters are generally capable of the penetration necessary for personal defense. I'm not saying they aren't, but rather that I honestly don't know.

 

[Autodidactic]

Wadcutters are a major advantage over Jacketed. There is soft and hard casts, flat and hollow point. JHP out of revolvers are inferior to wadcutters. The only reason for jacketed rounds is for reliable feeding in auto loaders. Not saying they are pointless in revolvers, nor better in some cases. The lead can be too soft or hard.
I use backwards loaded lead hollow point wadcutters, but I understand that they are anti-personnel and will only be effective on direct hits to soft tissue, barriers like glass will likely fragment a lead round making it useless. Hardcast wadcutters will likely have good glass penetration and straight line, likely over penetration. So in some cases, a jacketed hollow point gives a good balance.

JHP are good in revolvers if it's premium, and sufficient velocity.

For example, Speer Gold Dot +P .38 special does actually work well in short and long barrels. Federal Punch does too it seems. But, most HPs don't in short barrels. I think more do out of longer barrels as they get sufficient velocity.

 

[Autodidactic]

My limited experience indicates that, in the .44 Special, wadcutters work better on small game - rabbits and squirrels - than do cast hollowpoints. The hollowpoints generally act like roundnoses, which in my experience are just awful in terms of stopping power.

I will say that when the hollowpoints actually open in small game, they are more destructive than anything else, to the point that your meal may be completely wrecked.

I question whether wadcutters are generally capable of the penetration necessary for personal defense. I'm not saying they aren't, but rather that I honestly don't know.

Tests show they do penetrate over 12 inches

 

[someguy2800]

I question whether wadcutters are generally capable of the penetration necessary for personal defense. I'm not saying they aren't, but rather that I honestly don't know.

I would think the tricky thing with a hollowpoint wad cutter would be getting the hardness and velocity right to make them expand over a range of velocity and going through different materials. A copper jacket tends to stabalize the core such that a JHP can expand as intended over a 1000 fps window. I think that would be a lot harder to balance in a soft cast bullet, but I can't say I've done the testing to know.

 

[westernrover]

@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.

What do the clear gel pictures illustrate about capacity? I understood you were attempting to interpret the "wound track" in the gel. In post #23, I showed that a hollowpoint that expanded to over 1" in diameter also left a very thin wound track no wider than the track of the unexpanded JHP or the wadcutter.

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:
View attachment 1125597

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

So the .65 caliber expanded XTP made a hole much larger than .65".

We don't see that in gel:



In fact, in some places, the track disappears! Does this mean there would be no disruption of tissue in that part of the bullet's track? Or does it mean that we're seeing a problem with interpreting the terminal ballistics by looking at tracks in gel?

If the .65 caliber expanded XTP made a larger-than-expanded-caliber wound, could a wadcutter do the same?

 

[.38 Special]

I would think the tricky thing with a hollowpoint wad cutter would be getting the hardness and velocity right to make them expand over a range of velocity and going through different materials. A copper jacket tends to stabalize the core such that a JHP can expand as intended over a 1000 fps window. I think that would be a lot harder to balance in a soft cast bullet, but I can't say I've done the testing to know.

I suspect that probably is true. Most of the cast HPs I have used have very small hollows and don't reliably open even when cast of pure lead. One notable exception has been the Lyman "Devastator" series which have been very reliable for me, but which also rarely offer the accuracy I am after.

There is, of course, of the "backwards HBWC" deal, but haven't tried it enough to have any worthwhile experience. Perhaps it is worth revisiting.

 

[Autodidactic]

I suspect that probably is true. Most of the cast HPs I have used have very small hollows and don't reliably open even when cast of pure lead. One notable exception has been the Lyman "Devastator" series which have been very reliable for me, but which also rarely offer the accuracy I am after.

There is, of course, of the "backwards HBWC" deal, but haven't tried it enough to have any worthwhile experience. Perhaps it is worth revisiting.

I can't speak for home cast, but it seems like a lot of HPs do expand out of full sized revolvers, but because .38 special is right on the cusp of requisite velocity with full size, the snubbies often go below the threshold.

.38 Special and .357 Magnum Self-Defense Ammo Ballistics Test - LuckyGunner.com Labs

This shows some even expand out of the two inch, but a lot don't.

 

[wcwhitey]

I suspect that probably is true. Most of the cast HPs I have used have very small hollows and don't reliably open even when cast of pure lead. One notable exception has been the Lyman "Devastator" series which have been very reliable for me, but which also rarely offer the accuracy I am after.

There is, of course, of the "backwards HBWC" deal, but haven't tried it enough to have any worthwhile experience. Perhaps it is worth revisiting.

Buffalo Bore uses a RimRock 158 grain SWC-HP in both their standard pressure and +P version of the FBI type load in .38 Special. From what I have seen is that they expand reliably at both 900 and 1100 fps respectively from 2” revolvers. This bullet from RimRocks website is 8 BHN with a gas check. That is soft. Hard to say what it would do even that soft at 750+ fps from a snubby with a standard or generic +P. The 4” guns give it just enough jump to make similar bullets work. I used to carry the Federal NYCLAD 158 SWC-HP both in a 2”’and a 4” revolver. It had a good reputation as did the non HP version in my Department. From personal observation they worked well. No clue if they expanded as I have never seen an autopsy report but they did what they were intended to do with few rounds fired. The nice thing about that style of HP bullet is if it does not expand you still have a fairly aggressive bullet style in the SWC shape.

 

[Autodidactic]

Buffalo Bore uses a RimRock 158 grain SWC-HP in both their standard pressure and +P version of the FBI type load in .38 Special. From what I have seen is that they expand reliably at both 900 and 1100 fps respectively from 2” revolvers. This bullet from RimRocks website is 8 BHN with a gas check. That is soft. Hard to say what it would do even that soft at 750+ fps from a snubby with a standard or generic +P. The 4” guns give it just enough jump to make similar bullets work. I used to carry the Federal NYCLAD 158 SWC-HP both in a 2”’and a 4” revolver. It had a good reputation as did the non HP version in my Department. From personal observation they worked well. No clue if they expanded as I have never seen an autopsy report but they did what they were intended to do with few rounds fired. The nice thing about that style of HP bullet is if it does not expand you still have a fairly aggressive bullet style in the SWC shape.

I’ve got both those BB rounds. I will say though, any +p Buffalo Bore out of an airweight is brutal.

 

[wcwhitey]

I’ve got both those BB rounds. I will say though, any +p Buffalo Bore out of an airweight is brutal.

Gun Sam did a nice video with both the standard pressure and the +P version. Obviously velocity favored the +P version as it was 1200 fps out of a 4 revolver. The standard pressure above 1000 from the same 4” and over 900 from the 2”. The conclusion was that there was really no need for the +P version as all rounds expanded to over .60 the only difference being that the +P penetrated a bit deeper. I will say personally that I would not look forward to shooting either from my 638. In shot a few Federals NYCLAD from the gun and they were not fun and about 100 fps slower. When I carried them all the time it was a Model 640 all steel and it would get painful at the end of a box. I was younger then too!

 

[Autodidactic]

Gun Sam did a nice video with both the standard pressure and the +P version. Obviously velocity favored the +P version as it was 1200 fps out of a 4 revolver. The standard pressure above 1000 from the same 4” and over 900 from the 2”. The conclusion was that there was really no need for the +P version as all rounds expanded to over .60 the only difference being that the +P penetrated a bit deeper. I will say personally that I would not look forward to shooting either from my 638. In shot a few Federals NYCLAD from the gun and they were not fun and about 100 fps slower. When I carried them all the time it was a Model 640 all steel and it would get painful at the end of a box. I was younger then too!

Paul Harrell covers these too. He agrees the standard pressure is sufficient, and, the +p is too much recoil. The ‘standard pressure’ in his tests is hotter than some other brands’ +p.

He covers it halfway through.




I have a range of Underwood and BB .38 special. I’ve only fired my BB 125 grain +p, and it’s the most brutal .38 I’ve shot out of my airweight. However, it’s not the most powerful I have from those two brands lol.

 

[tactikel]

I’ll take a JHP or a Lehigh Defense at maximum velocity over a wadcutter, as long as they penetrate 12”. If they fail to expand you still have a comparable wound channel.
I carry Gold Dots or XTPs for my SD ammo for 9mm and .45 acp, for .380 I carry Lehigh Defense 68 gr.

 

[Riomouse911]

My limited experience indicates that, in the .44 Special, wadcutters work better on small game - rabbits and squirrels - than do cast hollowpoints. The hollowpoints generally act like roundnoses, which in my experience are just awful in terms of stopping power.

I will say that when the hollowpoints actually open in small game, they are more destructive than anything else, to the point that your meal may be completely wrecked.

I question whether wadcutters are generally capable of the penetration necessary for personal defense. I'm not saying they aren't, but rather that I honestly don't know.

If the wadcutter is propelled at a greater than traditional wadcutter velocity, they will penetrate pretty well. But, I have had 2.7 gr Bullseye powered plated dewc bounce off of conveyor belt target backing that standard-velocity .38 ammo punched right through. I think those type of soft-shooting wadcutter rounds would certainly have issues penetrating a skull, sternum, humerus or other larger bone.

I ordered some heavier-weight wadcutters for .38, .41, .44 and .45 loads from Matts Bullets, one of these days I hope to get time to load some rounds up.

Stay safe.

 

[Autodidactic]

If the wadcutter is propelled at a greater than traditional wadcutter velocity, they will penetrate pretty well. But, I have had 2.7 gr Bullseye powered plated dewc bounce off of conveyor belt target backing that standard-velocity .38 ammo punched right through. I think those type of soft-shooting wadcutter rounds would certainly have issues penetrating a skull, sternum, humerus or other larger bone.

I ordered some heavier-weight wadcutters for .38, .41, .44 and .45 loads from Matts Bullets, one of these days I hope to get time to load some rounds up.

Stay safe.

I think the issue is that by the time people buy these supercharged wadcutters such as from Buffalo Bore or Underwood, you might as well be firing a Gold Dot.

 

[Riomouse911]

I think the issue is that by the time people buy these supercharged wadcutters such as from Buffalo Bore or Underwood, you might as well be firing a Gold Dot.

Ya, those rounds definitely don’t recoil like the traditional bullseye loads do.

Stay safe.

 

[Leon tP]

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.

On a scale of,

Hell No, they Suck to Absolute Very Best with Hell No being the lowest and Very Best being the highest then Yes, I believe full wadcutters are a good choice for defensive use in your ccw revolver.

Here's my own scale in descending order, not scientific at all!

Absolute Very Best

Better than the Average Round

Good all purpose Performer

Maybe, if I Don't have any other Choices

Hell No, these rounds Suck!

Like my Real Estate friend would always say, Location, Location, Location!

In gun terms: Shot Placement Matters! You're ability to land hits to critical areas of an attacker will matter the most.

Can I envision a scenario where 5 rounds of wadcutters is insufficient? Sure, I have an active imagination. Do I worry about such scenarios? Not too much, I practice active situational awareness so, hopefully, I don't find myself in a situation where such force is needed.
Do I believe more rounds is better? Sure I do, but I'm not going to turn into that officer who's packing 145 rounds on his belt, that seems to me to be a little excessive.

JMHO

 

[Tallball]

I was carrying my Bulldog a lot for a year or so, due to the clothes I had to wear.

I felt fine carrying lead SWC. I don't have any valid scientific reasoning. When I shoot objects with 44's and 45's, they just seem to get damaged more than when I shoot them with 38's or 9mm.