Target Wadcutter vs HollowPoint Snub Nose Self Defense

[marb4]

“Shot placement is king. Penetration is queen.”

Given that I’ve recently become somewhat of a student of the snub nose 38, I’ve been waffling between which of two types of loads would be the most consistent, “best” performer from a short barrel for self defense: the standard 148 grain full wadcutter or a jacketed hollow point of some kind.

I’ve had the opportunity to do quite a bit of testing on two specific loads in calibrated 10% ballistic gel.

The first is the Winchester 110 grain standard pressure “Kinetic HE” JHP. I’ve chronicled results from this load in another thread but basically in the 20+ rounds I have tested, it seems to consistently penetrate between 11 and 13 inches into the gel through 4 layers of cotton t-shirt and expands to around ½ inch. Not at all a bad performer from a snub nose.

The second load tested was the Remington 148 grain target full wadcutter. This round consistently penetrates 20-22 inches through gel and t-shirt with extremely minor if any expansion.

A test using simulated bone (5/8 inch thick hardwood embedded 1 inch into the gel block) showed the Wichester penetrating the “bone” and going an additional 4 inches into the gel. The Remington wadcutter penetrated the “bone” and traveled another 14 inches into the gel block. (see photo below)

Also of important note is I am able to shoot the wadcutter (with its reduced recoil) much more quickly and accurately than any hollow point load I have tried including the light for caliber 110 grain Winchester.

General consensus seems to indicate that regarding self defense ammunition, “Shot placement is king. Penetration is queen.” If I accept this as true, then I would have to give the nod to the solid target wadcutter even though many criticize this load as far to anemic to be considered for self defense. So again, if I believe “Shot placement is king. Penetration is queen.” then what reasons could anyone give to convince me that the shallower penetrating less “accurate” JHP load is superior for self defense compared to the deep penetrating more “accurate” target wadcutter?

Left to Right: 148 gr wadcutter through "bone", 148 gr wadcutter gel only, Winchester 110 gr gel only, Winchester 110 gr through "bone"

 

[Sauer Grapes]

Your HPs seem fine. 11-13 inches is also fine in my mind. Your dumping the energy of the round in your target, causing more trauma.

The wadcutter might just pass str8 thru. Old technology, stick with the HPs. Ball ammo is ball ammo to me. If it doesn't expand it's no different than FMJ ammo in my mind.

Practice some double taps. If I'm worried about my 2nd round, I've probably missed my first.

 

[Haywood]

The NYPD tested their 38 Spl. Speer Gold Dot 135gr. +P JHP on the street. To not beat around the bush as they say, they were pleased with it's stopping power, penetration and expansion. I am not aware of any other curent ammo test while used on the street. I'll go with actual shootings for my choice.

 

[AZAndy]

Don't overlook the old FBI load-- 158-grain LSWCHP. Buffalo Bore still makes 'em, not sure who else does. I saw a nice test with them that convinced me to start carrying them, but damned if I can remember where.

Edit to add: It's this one. Low flash, designed for short barrels, not +P. I'll see if I can't track down a test.

 

[rdrancher]

My feeling is that a hollow point that doesn't expand looks a whole lot like ball ammo. And HP's that do expand in denim covered gel tests may not do so well through a heavy coat, bib overalls and a shirt or two beneath that.

I've been using BB's 150gr standard pressure hardcast wadcutters exclusively in .38 special revolvers for the last 5+ years. They do crush/break bone and keep on truckin'. I run the same round on the ranch and in town, and in old or new guns which is pretty handy. Underwood now has the same load for a much better price, so I'll be moving that direction.

HP tests with some pretty poor results from member Brassfetcher: http://www.brassfetcher.com/Bone%20Simulant/Bone%20Test%2038.html

 

[Branko_D]

There's no free lunch in physics. To deform a lead bullet takes quite a bit of energy; if you don't take it into account, saying X or Y has more energy transfer is quite a bit of guesstimation.

The hollowpoint will cause a wider permanent wound cavity and that's the main factor of pistol cartridge wounds, and it has roughly sufficient penetration (you'd wish for a couple more inches, but 11-13" is ok) so it's probably more effective. Wadcutter is more effective then FMJ / RNL because the permanent wound cavity is larger. It's kind of hard to see in gel, because gel isn't as elastic as tissue. Would the wadcutter overpenetrate? Hard to say, depends what it runs into. Skin is pretty elastic so gel test can be misleading.

Still, hollowpoints are quite widely used, they work for everyone else, they'll work for you if you need them. The agencies which use them have good reasons why they use them, and it's probably the best choice for you, too. Then again, people shot each other with effect just fine before the advent of the hollowpoint, and militaries around the world still do, so I figure non-expanding ammo works out well enough.

 

[ThomasT]

It wouldn't make any difference to me. I am not all that sold on hollow points. Not to the point were I would spend over a dollar a round. The wadcutters look good to me. But I always go for penetration. And the fact you can shoot them faster and hopefully more accurately would make me lean towards the wadcutters.

 

[Thomas Traddles]

I'd be interested to know what velocity the BB 150g wadcutter is moving out of the snub. Standard velocity wadcutters, as I recall, fall somewhere in the mid-700fps range. Does BB run hotter than this out of the snub?

PS I carry 148 gr wadcutters over a 3.5-4 grain charge of Bullseye in my LCR. This is a snappy round recoil wise in that gun. If the BB gives standard pressure loadings with that kind of penetration, it might be worth a look simply from the standpoint of ease of follow-up shots because of reduced recoil.

 

[rdrancher]

Buffalo Bore chronographs their rounds from actual guns, not test barrels. BB lists the hardcast at 868 fps from a 2" barrel. In my experience, the round kicks less than a short barrel Gold Dot, with less flash at night as well. https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=111

 

[trentcwwilson]

I'm amazed nobody has brought up the old inverted hollow base wadcutters. I've been carrying them for years and in my testing, they expand quite well. Granted, the ME will be pulling fragments rather than,let's say, bonded hollowpoints that retain 100%.

 

[eldon519]

Handgun "energy dump" is irrelevant.

 

[StrawHat]

When I carried a 38 Special, I used a double ended wadcutter at about 900 fps. From testing I did and speaking with the Coroner in several cities, I was content with that load.

Here is an article you might find interesting.

http://www.grantcunningham.com/2011/11/ed-harris-revisiting-the-full-charge-wadcutter/

Kevin

 

[gbran]

Wadcutters make nice little perfectly round holes in small game. Not much meat damage. I've used wadcutters on hogs too., Pretty decent penetration. Of course these were launched out of 3-4 inch barrels.

 

[stu1ritter]

Also a wadcutter fan and when loading for my carry snubs, decided to just move the wadcutter out of the case and get some room for some powder. Accurate molds and I have them for all calibers I shoot and they can be loaded to any LSWC velocity. 32 S&W Long, 32 H&H, 38 Special, 44 Mag.

Stu

 

[W.E.G.]

Shoot 'em between the shirt pockets.
That will handle 95% of the situations involving a defensive handgun.

Shoot 'em anywhere else, and you can count on the fight to continue.

 

[TimSr]

I carry hand loaded cast DEWC in my snub @ 950fps. Buffalo Bore does make a defense wadcutter. Most standard wadcutter loads are very light loaded to penetrate a sheet of paper.

I arrived at that decision through a process of elimination.

An unexpanded hollow point is a round nose bullet. I am not confident that 158gr will reach velocity to adequately expand consistently, though I'm sure some will.

Those light weight defense loads with 135gr or 125gr lighter would probably work great, but my snubby has fixed sights, and that ammo shoots way low in it.

If you're going to use a non-expanding bullet, its hard to find a wider meplat than a wadcutter, and their performance will easily be more predictable.

Stu, love those bullets! When I was developing my loads, I had to start with wadcutters seated out to SWC depth just so I could work with SWC data. I think some slower powders work better seated deep, but there is very little load data for that.

 

[edmo01]

In the woods I tend to carry different handloads including lead semi-wad cutters. For self-defense carry ammo, I'm another fan of the Gold Dots...

Specifically for my 38 Special snubs I carry the Speer 135 grain Gold Dot +P short barrel.

Edmo

 

[eldon519]

A factory 148 wadcutter at a measly 650fps will fully penetrate a human target. Trying to push a non-expanding bullet faster doesn't really increase its lethality in any meaningful way, it just slows down your follow-up shots.

 

[handloader357]

I'm amazed nobody has brought up the old inverted hollow base wadcutters. I've been carrying them for years and in my testing, they expand quite well. Granted, the ME will be pulling fragments rather than,let's say, bonded hollowpoints that retain 100%.

I recently picked up a box of hornady hbwc's just for this purpose. What powder charge are you using with yours?

 

[rdrancher]

When I carried a 38 Special, I used a double ended wadcutter at about 900 fps. From testing I did and speaking with the Coroner in several cities, I was content with that load.

Here is an article you might find interesting.

http://www.grantcunningham.com/2011/...rge-wadcutter/

Thank you for the link StrawHat. I found the exit energy data mentioned for the wadcutter very interesting.

 

[trentcwwilson]

I recently picked up a box of hornady hbwc's just for this purpose. What powder charge are you using with yours?

That depended. To and from range was 2.7 grains of bullseye, standard target load. Everywhere else was 3.5 of Titegroup. That is above max load, but my gun handles it with no pressure signs. Be smart, work up. I'm even playing around with Clean Shooter D032. A renamed lovex powder that is the cleanest I've shot. But I'm not comfortable enough yet to call it a carry load.

 

[handloader357]

That depended. To and from range was 2.7 grains of bullseye, standard target load. Everywhere else was 3.5 of Titegroup. That is above max load, but my gun handles it with no pressure signs. Be smart, work up. I'm even playing around with Clean Shooter D032. A renamed lovex powder that is the cleanest I've shot. But I'm not comfortable enough yet to call it a carry load.

Yep, I will definitely work up and not do anything stupid. I'll also be working with a +p gun and brass. Maybe I'm over thinking things, but am wondering how much pressure is affected by seating the bullets backwards as your theoretically making the combustion chamber smaller by taking the hollow cavity away.

 

[trentcwwilson]

It's been done for years. I'm using non +p brass with mag primers to ensure good ignition. Haven't had a problematic load since I'm gone to bullseye and titegroup. Titegroup does feel a tad hot though.

 

[joneb]

For a 1.875" S&W 36 a 148-158 gr bullet hits at the POA at 10 yds, a 110-125 gr bullet will hit low and often requires a windage adjustment.
If shot placement is king, then I would use a bullet weight that shoots well. If that weight happens to be in the 150ish gr weight I would want to know the performance of those bullets.

 

[ljnowell]

That depended. To and from range was 2.7 grains of bullseye, standard target load. Everywhere else was 3.5 of Titegroup. That is above max load, but my gun handles it with no pressure signs. Be smart, work up. I'm even playing around with Clean Shooter D032. A renamed lovex powder that is the cleanest I've shot. But I'm not comfortable enough yet to call it a carry load.

D032 is mirror image of AA#2, it's actually produced on the same line with the same equipment that AA#2 used to be produced on in Europe. I've chronographed it side by side with AA#2 using identical charge weights. Performance was identical.