Buffalo Bore Standard Pressure .38 Results

[rdrancher]

Today I fired three rounds of the BB Standard Pressure Short Barrel Heavy .38 Special 158gr. very soft lead cast, SWC-HC (20C/20) into one-gallon water jugs from my 642-1 at a distance of 10'.

The results were surprising.

Round #1 exited the rear of the 4th jug at an upward angle and deflected off of 5th jug, denting it. The bullet started to break apart upon impact with the 1st jug. Very small fragments were found in all four jugs.

Rounds #2 & 3 left perfect wadcutter-like exit holes out of the back of the 5th jug. Apparently none of the bullets expanded! Small fragments were recovered in the jugs, but I failed to note which jugs they were in.

I would love to show you recovered bullets, but unfortunately, all of them continued on to bury themselves in the dirt backstop. Did they expand upon impact with the dirt? We'll never know. It would be impossible to distinguish recovered bullets from the hundreds of lead bullets in the backstop left from previous practice sessions.

This was by no means a scientific test. I started carrying this ammo a couple of weeks ago and finally had the time to test the Buffalo Bore ammo out for myself. I did not use a chrono, nor did I make provisions to recover bullets that penetrated all of the jugs of water. Truth be told, I expected them to possibly shed large fragments (as they did in brassfetcher's test) or expand and be recovered in or between the jugs. I was wrong.


I had planned to use the BB round in both my 642-1, Vintage Undercover, and in a speed strip for reloads (to include my SP101 in .357 mag) to simplify my carry routine. But I'll have to rethink my options. I will repeat this test again (with better planning) when I get the chance, but until I can prove that this round will expand reliably out of the 1-7/8" barrel of the 642-1, I'll go back to Speer 135gr GDHP+P's that I have on hand. The Gold Dots (including Buffalo Bore's .357 mag version 19E/20) I've fired into water and mud have consistently expanded.


rd

 

[ArchAngelCD]

You report about the new Buffalo Bore .38 Special standard pressure ammo is very troubling. They have been recommended by many people including most of the gun magazines over the past few months.

If you want a round that will be as reliable as the Speer rounds you are carrying give DoubleTap 125gr .38 Special +P rounds a try. They are made with a 125gr Gold Dot LV (low velocity) bullet. They are accurate rounds and less than half the price of the Speer rounds. Speer is charging $22/20 rounds whereas DoubleTap is charging $26/50 rounds.

IMO they are probably the best choice right now and the price is right too. At those prices I can actually afford to practice with my carry ammo.

 

[Deanimator]

I'll reserve judgement until somebody does a test into ballistic gel. I've never been hassled by milk jugs, and gel is as close as you can legally get to those entities which might hassle me and still be shooting inanimate objects.

 

[rdrancher]

You report about the new Buffalo Bore .38 Special standard pressure ammo is very troubling.

I'm most troubled by the lack of expansion. I would expect similar exit holes from a semi wadcutter.

I'll reserve judgement until somebody does a test into ballistic gel.

Read my entire post. I referred to Brassfetcher's results, which can be seen here. http://www.brassfetcher.com/Buffalo%20Bore%20158gr%20(non%20+P)%20SWC-HC.html

Here's a photo of all of the fragments recovered from three rounds next to an unfired BB round. The three Gold Dots shown for comparison were recovered from water/mud.



rd

 

[DawgFvr]

I understand that BB has just come out with another New round for .38 special and also .357 for short barrel revolvers. You might want to try that one out.

Me? I'll stick with 110 grain Corbon DPX all copper tops in my 642.

 

[Headless]

Seems fine to me - it penetrated so far that you are unable to see how well it expanded; it's in the backstop. Seems like only finding those few fragments actually would imply that the rounds stayed mostly intact and penetrated well. I don't think that seeing those rounds shooting cleans through some water jugs is really anything negative at all... penetration is king, expansion is secondary and 'nice if affordable'. I'd rather have a round plug straight through someone and allow 2 holes for bleeding rather than embed in them leaving only one hole...not to mention, if you are shooting through any kind of barriers the penetration is going to be far more important. Of course, in a perfect world, every bullet shot would expand to 1 inch wide and penetrate exactly as far as it takes to pop out the back of your target, then fall harmlessly onto the ground... but that's not going to happen.

I used to load 110gr DPX in my .38 until i realiszed it won't even penetrate through the trim/mantle on a door or window frame.. it seems like it just doesn't have any oooomph behind it. I expected the round to penetrate an inch thick wooden barrier at least, but the dpx didn't even come close. The heavy 150 grain rounds shattered it and kept going.

I also read a thread here on THR where someone was getting extremely low speeds out of his 642 w/ the 110gr DPX rounds - that ran good speeds out of another 642 - a very small difference in cylinder gap was found to be the culprit. Since i don't know the cylinder gap on my gun, I decided heavier, longer rounds that are less effected by cylinder gap would be a safer bet. And they're heavier, so they penetrate much better.

 

[rdrancher]

Seems fine to me - it penetrated so far that you are unable to see how well it expanded; it's in the backstop.

It's not fine with me. There are many less expensive rounds available that will provide deep penetration. At over a buck a round, I expect more.

Keep in mind that Buffalo Bore's 158gr tactical low-flash .357 mag using the Gold Dot bullet penetrated three jugs (stopping between the third and fourth) and expanded nicely when fired from my Ruger SP101 / 2.25" barrel.

I'm going to go out behind the barn again today and set up a bit differently. I'll see if I can capture a few slugs and post the results.

rd

 

[Headless]

Jugs of water don't really mean much; they don't react like humans. It sounds like the .357 into water behaves differently than the .38 fired into water.. i guess the next time i'm attacked by a horde of jugs of water i'll opt for the .357 and save the lives of the last 2 jugs

The buff bore @ brassfetcher resulted in an avg. expanded diameter of .399 + .429 + .389 + .400 + .427 / 5 = .408.

The speer GD 135gr resulted in avg. expanded diameter of .601 + .605 + .593 + .597 / 4 = .599 - just about .2 of an inch more. It also penetrated around 9-10 inches, with the deepest penetration being only 10.2 inches. So you give up .2 inches of diameter when you switch to the buff bore... but you get at least 4 more inches of penetration, and likely more than that, for the lost .2 inches of diameter.

It's your choice; expansion or penetration. You've only got so much energy to use from a .38 snub, and you just can't get both characteristics in ideal amounts from this load.

For those who think that penetration is the most important property of the round, the buffalo bore 158gr is clearly winning out. The speer didn't even pass the conservative 12 inches of gelation that the FBI considers necessary - much less the 18 inches that they indicate is ideal.

For those who think that expansion is the most important, the speer wins out. I've read doctors' reports indicating it's practically impossible to tell the difference in wound channel between all common handgun calibers - I'm not convinced that if it's so hard to tell the difference between totally different calibers (.25acp vs. 9mm can't be distinguished?!) that it would be noticeable simply from changing the type of bullet to one that expands by .2 inches more. Sure, it is possible that the extra .2 inches of diameter will cause a shot to be a fatal wound rather than an ineffective one - but it's also possible that the round only penetrating 10 inches will cause it to stop short of a devastating wound - such as was the case in the well known miami FBI shootout. Looking at my body, and considering being shot from the side rather than the front, i can easily see 10 inches not being enough penetration for someone to shoot my heart from the opposite side of my body. Considering the first thing i intend to do when i realise i'm about to be shot at is to thin my profile and move off the line of fire, that is an important consideration for me - i assume the assailant will have the same thoughts in mind - and he could be a larger man than I am, making the distances longer.

I think it's more likely that i'll need the penetration to go through a barrier or heavy clothing - or flesh - than it is for me to need that extra .2 inches to make a shot more fatal than it is. The FBI agrees with me, but that's probably purely coincidental - what do they know about shooting people anyway? When it comes down to it, choose whichever round suits your concept of what matters, and practice a lot - because when it comes down to it, the bullet doesn't mean much when the shooter can't do his part. If the shooter does his part, the type of bullet won't matter unless it's not up to the task of penetrating whatever obstacles are in the way of essential organs. Most of the time, any of the commonly recommended self defense rounds will do just that.

 

[jt1]

I asked Tim to respond as soon as I read the OP:

From: "Tim Sundles" <[email protected]>
To:<[email protected] t>
Subject: Re: (20C) Ammo test at THR
Date: 05. February 2008 20:00:42

We've fired many many many of these loads into Bal Gel of different types and they work very well in bal. gel. We also know of a couple bad guys that have been shot with this load and they are both dead. However, we've never tested them in water and don't think water represents anything meaningful in terms of usefulness on humans.

I'm absolutely swamped right now and simply don't have the time to get involved on the Internet, but feel free to post this email if you like.

Best Regards,

Tim Sundles

----- Original Message -----
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected] ; [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 7:27 PM
Subject: (20C) Ammo test at THR

Tim,

Here is a test of the (20C) Standard pressure 158gr .38 spcl conducted by one of our members. Can you comment? As you know I carry this round I am most interested. It is located in the revolver forum.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=337288

Thanks,
jack

While I have not conducted any formal testing myself, the results I have seen on various hard targets still leaves me with a good feeling about this round. Other tests and opinions by knowledgeable folks seem to indicate the same. rd, I do not totally reject your test results and I am looking forward to seeing what you find by further investigation. My X42's still have BB on board.

 

[rdrancher]

It sounds like the .357 into water behaves differently than the .38 fired into water.. i guess the next time i'm attacked by a horde of jugs of water i'll opt for the .357 and save the lives of the last 2 jugs

Yeah, funny.

The .357 GD bullet (Speer's version) when fired into gelatin (brassfetcher test again) expanded and exited the back of the block, but the same bullet (although it's BB'S version) stopped in the water jug results.

If those are expected results than the results of my BB .38 spec experience when compared to Brassfetcher's gelatin test would have to be considered odd.

I posted the same results over on the S&W board. One of the comments spoke to the very soft lead used in this round. The lead used in the ammo I have is not soft. Possibly BB has made changes since my purchase.

rd, I do not totally reject your test results and I am looking forward to seeing what you find by further investigation.

jt - I'm not an expert, and neither do I claim that my testing concludes anything, but I have to be 100% sure of my carry choice, and this has left me a little uneasy to say the least. I do want to purchase some of the BB standard pressure GD stuff and give it the test. I really do like the .357 mag tactical version I carry in my SP101.

rd

 

[Rampant_Colt]

It's not fine with me. There are many less expensive rounds available that will provide deep penetration. At over a buck a round, I expect more

My sentiments as well.

Thanks for sharing this, but i suspect wetpack will provide a better 'basement-backyard-junk-science' ammo testing, as you are able to measure exact penetration depth.

A Fackler Box is superior to using water-filled jugs as well -- it uses ziplock storage baggies in a wooden trough

 

[DawgFvr]

Headless? Where did you hear that Corbon DPX had those mentioned difficulties in penetration?

Read the latter portion of the below article. It has great penetration even through windows (without deviation). There is also a real world shooting with .40 DPX that shows awesome trauma and thorough penetration.

http://www.gunthorp.com/ammo basics.htm

 

[Headless]

Hello Dawg,
I've read the page you linked - it was actually part of my original decision making process when i chose to carry it in my S&W 642 - but I noted that all 3 of those DPX rounds are very different than the performance we get out of a 110gr dpx round from a .38 - 9mm dpx is 115gr and is pushed to much higher speeds than we see from our snubs - 1275fps on the 115gr round compared to ~1050fps from a good snub .38 for our 110gr rounds. On the .40s&w we see 1200fps and a larger bullet - 140gr! and the .45 is in it's own world at 1075fps with a 185gr round. You must agree that all of these are very different than the 110gr .38spl @ ~1000-1050 fps from our snubs. I saw excellent results from the DPX and was convinced it was the right way to go - and i still am using it in my semi-auto's...just not in my revolver.

I did some digging and found the thread showing these inconsistencies.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=300103

Note that in this thread, the 110gr DPX only got ~900-940fps from his 442! That's dismal for a round that light - also note that out of the same gun the 158gr from remington still maintained ~800-820fps. It was discovered that his 442 had a fairly wide cylinder gap -" .0085" ~ .009" " - and apparently per post #21 the max spec is .011" - even wider - from S&W!

If i knew my gun's cylinder gap, i might carry the DPX 110gr again. I still do carry it in my .40S&W S&W CS40 and in my S&W 659 9mm @ 115gr along with some winchester ranger in some of the mags. The failure to expand is one thing, but what the thread i linked to above didn't tell is the penetration story - at 920fps, i do not feel comfortable in a 110gr round doing it's job in either department - in brassfetcher's test, 1013fps only resulted in ~13 inches of penetration. At 1100fps+, there's a different story - though it still doesn't penetrate as well as the 158gr... If the round was a 185gr i'd be fine with 950-1000fps - still not happy with 900-920

 

[Headless]

If those are expected results than the results of my BB .38 spec experience when compared to Brassfetcher's gelatin test would have to be considered odd.

I don't think they are odd; you're talking about different bullets moving at different speeds in totally different mediums. If we stick to the same medium then we got some nice comparable results - for example, the .357, being a higher energy round, managed to both penetrate well (exits the block) and expand well. The .38 doesn't penetrate and expand well - it does one or the other; the dpx expands well but doesn't get ideal penetration - the heavy buff bore penetrates well, but doesn't expand as much as the dpx. The gold dot 135gr does just like the DPX - but it expands more aggressively, thus penetrates even less than DPX. See the pattern? More penetration = less expansion, unless you switch calibers (.357) then you see more of both due to the energy increase.

 

[rdrancher]

'basement-backyard-junk-science' ammo testing

Pretty close there RC but I like to think of it as behind-barn-junk-science.

A Fackler Box is superior to using water-filled jugs as well -- it uses ziplock storage baggies in a wooden trough

Understood...but I'm not that high tech.

I used hard white plastic containers for this observation as opposed to soft clear milk jugs. Only three of the containers used this time were of the same size. All of the containers pierced by the four bullets were split from the entry/exit holes to the bottom and only used one time. Speer GDHP's were placed in the photo for comparison.



Round #1 - My bad - I forgot that the first container was a shade taller than the rest. Bullet traveled through 12" of water and was captured at the back of the arresting box. A micro-fragment was found in the first container.

Round #2 - Recovered at the back wall of the second container at 20". No fragments were found.

Round #3 - Recovered between the second and third containers at 22". No fragments were found. Deformation was caused by contact with the wood at the bottom of the containers and the corner of the third container.

Round #4 - Recovered on the surface of the dirt backstop after traveling through 22" of water and the cardboard flap of the arresting box. No fragments were found.



So why the difference between today's and yesterday's results. Hard plastic vs. soft? Did the soft plastic clog the hollow cavity and turn it into a flat-nose? I have no idea. But I am more confident in the load.

rd

 

[Headless]

See what I meant about shooting water jugs? Gel and gel covered with commonly encountered materials (denim, aluminum, etc.) are used for a reason...and even then there's a lot of variation caused by small changes.

 

[rdrancher]

See what I meant about shooting water jugs? Gel and gel covered with commonly encountered materials (denim, aluminum, etc.) are used for a reason...and even then there's a lot of variation caused by small changes.

OK, I'll give you that. But I still have to get my hands on some of those Fackler storage baggies for a real test.

BTW - After the second test I'm comfortable enough to start using this round again for EDC.

rd

 

[DawgFvr]

Headless...you got bad info on that post...that guy had a definite problem with his 642 cylinder gap...which he admits down the post a bit. Hell...all ammo will look bad out of an old, beat up, S&W that was not properly taken care of. Fix the Gap and the stats would agree with every other sites stats...donchathink?

I'll not use those BB FBI loads myself. I will, however, check out their new .38 special and .357 rounds designed for the short barrel snubbies. I noted that they were a brand new item on their site.

 

[Headless]

Hello DawgFvr,
I came away with a different impression - the original poster says his cylinder gap is approx .0085" ~ .009".

Then, 2 posts later, this poster says:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=3697005&postcount=21

S & W specs. for bbl./cyl. gap. Some years ago I bought a new 940. When I got home I noticed a rather large gap. I measured it and it was right at .011. I called Smith the next day & asked them what their max. specs. were and I was told .011.

.011 is even higher than the original poster's .0085" to .009" gap - that indicates that his pistol is within S&W's specifications and any particular 442 could be the same as his gap or even higher.

 

[DawgFvr]

I came away thinking that the poster was highly confused and rather snide. I also found it rather funny that Corbon DPX 110 grain copper tops did so awesome in other tests and different sources on the internet. His very unprofessional test was the only one I found wanting. Hard to believe you would put all your marbles on that one particular event...eh?

 

[rdrancher]

My Humble Opinion

First of all, thank you all for your comments. It's been an eyeopener.

Looking back at Brassfetcher's tests and observing the results of my barnyard-science, I've come to this decision on my everyday carry round of choice in my 642-1 and vintage Charter Arms Undercover.

In order of choice.

#1 - Buffalo Bore Standard Pressure (SP) 158gr. SWC-HC Item No. 20C/20
14.5" penetration in gelatin
.41+" average expansion

My experience leads me to believe that if the BB SP bullet does not expand (due to clogging of the hollow point) that it will continue to act as soft lead semi-wadcutter internal wrecking house, with deep penetration. Recoil is fairly soft, a little less than the Speer GDHP short barrel load that I've fired.

#2 - Remington 158gr. LSWCHP Item No. R38S12 (FBI Load)
12.6" penetration in gelatin
.592" average expansion

Brassfetcher's heavy clothing test shows similar expansion, losing approximately 1" in penetration depth. This is the load with a ton of excellent street data, and the choice of more than a few CCL holders. I've found the recoil to be very acceptable and the price is a real hook, especially for any extensive practicing with a carry round.

#3 Is still up for grabs, but the following rounds looks promising. I'll be purchasing some of this to see if the recoil is acceptable. I won't be using this in the CA.

Buffalo Bore Heavy 158 gr. LSWCHP+P Item No. 20A/20

I can only speculate, but traveling just a little less than 200 fps faster than the BB SP load and delivering over 120 ft. lbs. more energy - I can only imagine more of what the Standard Pressure load already offers. This also means a lot more recoil.


I'm also interested in BB's Speer HC (Gold Dot Short Barrel) loads in both standard and heavy versions. Brassfetcher has good results for one of them, but I can't tell which one. The one tested far outperformed Speer's version.

I also want to check out the DoubleTap 125gr .38 Special +P (Gold Dots) suggested. They do sound interesting.

YMMV

http://www.buffalobore.com/ammunition/default.htm#standard38
http://www.brassfetcher.com/38%20Special.html

rd

 

[The_Shootist]

BB "Heavy" FBI .38's?

I can't recommend shooting these out of a "lighter" snubby, unless you are trying to build up your pain threshold

I fired a box of those thru my SP 101 and these are STOUT rounds! I couldn't tell the difference between them and a medium .357 round. If you can put them on target I would have every confidence they would get the job done. Its just that it would take some practice to make effective followup shots.

In fact, I was thinking of running some through my 4" bbl 686+. I have a feeling the recoil would be "just right" . That and the 158 grain loading would facilitate shooting to POA.

I'm not recoil shy - but if you are going to get borderline .357 performance (along with the recoil) from a .38 +P round, you might as well use a medium powered .357 round.

 

[rdrancher]

I can't recommend shooting these out of a "lighter" snubby, unless you are trying to build up your pain threshold.

Thanks for the heads up.

One of the members over on the S&W board is sending me a few to try out. We'll see what happens!

rd

 

[jt1]

rd - I have used the 20A and 20C with no problems for quite some time now. As you know the 20C is my current carry round, but until I tried it I was using the 20A as my EDC. The +P is quite warm but it is manageable and while I would not recommend an all day session, I believe you will be ok with them. Having said that they do seem like a max load for the airweight and I find the recovery time for the 20C to be just enough quicker and the performance good enough that I switched to it as my primary EDC and I carry a speed strip reload of the +P. Lately I have been considering having my weak side 442 loaded with 20A and my strong side 642 with 20C. An interesting exercise is to have three standard and two +P loaded randomly and conduct a point shooting drill, it will teach you to maintain a proper grip (a very tight one) and not to anticipate recoil. Enjoy

 

[Vanzpp]

Does anyone know if it's OK to use the BB LSWCHP+P loads in a Smith aluminum 642? The Smith is +P rated, but BB is loaded hot with heavy perceived recoil. I don't want to significantly reduce the life of my gun or risk bullet creep.