Underwood .38 Spl 150gr Wadcutter in Clear Ballistics Gel

Test Gun: S&W M442
Barrel length: 1 7/8 inches.
Ammunition: Underwood .38spl 150gr Wadcutter (Item 732)
Test media: 10% Clear Ballistics Gel
Distance: 10 feet.
Chronograph: Caldwell Ballistic Precision Chronograph G2.
Velocity average: 806fps

https://general-cartridge.com/2022/11/23/underwood-38-spl-150gr-wadcutter-in-clear-ballistics-gel/

 

Interesting. Are you suggesting that we consider swapping out our defensive labeled ammo for these wad cutters in our snubnose ccw revolvers?

 

I'm not suggesting anything, just showing the results.

 

is there a SWCHP to compare to?

 

Very interesting! Thank you. Looks like it's got a standard wadcutter beat by a good 10 inches of penetration. But I think the buffalobore hardcast wc has this one beat by that same amount!

 

Well, 25 inches should be through and through cutting a .36 caliber hole all the way. Slow on the reload, but chances are you won't need more than the first cylinder anyway. I do the same with my 44 Bulldog.

 

What results? The only result you mention is "Velocity average: 806fps"

 

How do you feel about the penetration of this vs a standard target wadcutter? What advantage is there to crushing the FBI penetration range like this?

 

Click on the link, on his site he has a lot of great test results, chrono, penetration and expansion of several popular loads! Great site and work he's doing, and much appreciated.

 

https://general-cartridge.com/2022/11/23/underwood-38-spl-150gr-wadcutter-in-clear-ballistics-gel/

 

Oh, I see it now. Not sure why OP couldn't just post the text here, it's not that much. Great info, but seems like click-bait.

 

Even if is click-bait, it is not “in your face” and is a small price to pay for the info. And the website has results from a number of different ballistic gel tests in different calibers.

 

Never mind

 

While good for "paper punching", it doesn't appear that these rounds would be suitable for SD/HD as they have no expansion and they "over penetrate" (25" +).

 

While cutting a .357 hole in a SD assailant is likely effect, why would you not progress into the 20th century and use a JHP (expansion and less over penetration), or Lehigh, ARX (barrier blind and massive wound channels)? At pistol velocity hydrostatic is not a factor.
I use: Gold Dots, Lehigh, ARX (discontinued), XTPs.

 

Maybe..... some of the shooters are armored up?

 

If you go to the write up on the site, this load is specifically for the guy who has a 38 snub as an only gun but is going camping and wants a 'just in case of toothy predators' option.

Then you want every bit of that 25 inches.

 

A hardcast wadcutter in 38 is exactly what I would choose if taking a 38 into the woods.

 

Those aren't far off the numbers for 'full charge' wadcutters (mine show 728'sec in 2"), which is about the same as the old 158 RNL.
Not the perfect thing for self defense, but you could do far worse.
Moon

 

The theory is that most .38 loads do not reach the velocity threshold for consistent reliable expansion out of a 2 or even 1 7/8 barrel. This is not an issue out of traditional four inch barrels where most .38 loads were originally designed to operate. But the snubbies struggle with generating velocity. In order to achieve the velocities needed for reliable expansion the rounds are loaded to pressures that make the j frames difficult to control for most shooters.

One solution to this problem is the wadcutter bullet which is more or less proven to be much more damaging to tissue than FMJ because of its sharp edges and has also shown to penetrate much deeper than standard or +p loads out of J Frames They do so with regular loads, instead of + loads, making the gun much easier to control.

On a side note, I actually have one wadcutter loaded in my S&W J frame right now. Last year I had to put a deer out of its misery with my S&W 438 airweight because from 5 feet a .243 seemed like overkill. The gun was loaded with 5 Federal HST 130gr +p. When I got home I couldn't get the darn Federal box to open so I replaced the 5th round with a 1980s Federal 158 grain wadcutter out of a half spent box. I only occasionally carry that gun, but today was one of those days(unusually hot day here). I took the gun out of its holster this morning and unloaded it to give it a wipe down and noticed that wadcutter is still in it with four +p HSTs.

I actually buried that deer head so I cold examine the damage cause by the HST at a later date but forgot about it. Til today.

 

I get the idea behind the Wadcutter’s it was the thing to do when bullet technology WAS limited to rounds like a RNL, SWC and a SWC-HP aka the FBI Load. There are now choices that will work and expand on a regular basis making the point sort of mute. However in a field or small game environment a Wadcutter is not a bad choice really the only downside being they tend to be under loaded. The hard cast loads are interesting but now we get into a dilemma. Are we going with a full Wadcutter for tissue damage or penetration? Yes the full Wadcutter has an advantage over a SWC in frontal area but won’t penetrate as much as a good Semi-Wadcutter like a Keith style bullet. There is a reason why the Keith SWC’s have been so popular over the years. They work, they penetrate, are super accurate and do impressive damage on flesh and bone. They also allow for more case capacity allowing for greater potential in the load itself. When I carry a load in the field that is .38 Special (no large predator issues for me) it is a hard cast SWC WNFP at standard pressure just for targets of opportunity like a .22. For self defense a Speer 135+P Short barrel that will expand. For paper punching a Swagged 148 HBWC. If there were no bullets that were proven to reliably expand from a 1 7/8” barrel I would go back to a 158 SWC +P with the widest nose I can find.

 

Well, the thing is that hollow points don't reliably expand out of snubbies, so use something with a huge meplat to get the most damage.

In gel is one thing.
After going through clothing is another. (clogs the hollow point and sometimes won't expand)
After going through clothing and bone is another altogether.

Wadcutters remove the question mark with these variables. We accept that they're not going to expand, but they'll never be smaller than 0.358".

Also, there is the question of what is more damaging: a tumbling wadcutter or expanded hollow point?

As for this load, to me it seems like too much penetration. Don't want to blow through a perp, then the wall and hit someone in the next room. Remember that the FBI penetration range ALREADY factored for having to shoot through auto glass and still penetrate deeply enough to stop the perp. This is one reason why many people are comfortable with a tiny 380; in a self defense scenario, it is unlikely we'd ever have to shoot through a barrier.

I had a point where I had a real squirrel problem in my back yard. They were brazen, so I could stand inside the house with the door cracked and shoot them with my air rifle from inside, just 13 yards away. The most devastating shots were wadcutters. Even though pure lead hollow points expanded from .177 to .23 caliber, the wadcutters hit harder* and the entry wound bled a lot more. The interior damage had the same thing. You may say "that is different" but I don't think so. It's all scaled: .177 into a squirrel vs. .358 in a human. Velocities are about the same; those pellets were moving out at about 920 fps, though they slow down very quickly, with the diabolo shape and ~8 gr. projectile weight. Probably not a factor at 13 yards.

* I have some slo-mo video where I could see the initial impact very well. Anywhere in the head or neck just turned their lights out immediately, which was not always the case with a domed pellet or hollow point. Anywhere in the heart/lung area just caused quick and massive bleeding and they never made it more than a few yards when hit like that.

 

I bet these could be moving pretty quick for a .38SPL out of something with a 6” barrel.

 

Back when I worked on an organic farm rabbits and grackles were public enemy #1. We were non mechanized and used a lot of labor to transplant seedlings. Rabbits could nip off a 100 yards of transplants overnight and the birds would clear an acre of cherry trees the morning before we could harvest. We didn't really use chems or aggressive pest control but we would goof off taking pot shots after lunch on targets of opportunity while it was still too hot for heavy labor or harvest.

We had a Red Ryder, a Crosman multi pump BB/.177, a Chinese single pump 800-900fps .177, a Crosman Quest 1000 .177, and a lower end single pump .177 pistol like the Marksman B3. I really liked it.

The Red Ryder would actually knock down a rabbit hard enough to dispatch if you hit them just right but the BB trajectory was more art than science. I despised the multi pump Crosman and never used it. The Chinese air rifle with any .177 pellet was good and the Crosman 1000 with any pellet would blow through a rabbit or grackle with just about anything but the wadcutters always made for a lot more drama. None of us were good enough to shoot very far so the ballistics of such small pellets was pretty negligible but clearly the wadcutters had a lot more smack to them.

However, in the pistol I absolutely loved the small Gamo round ball pellets. That pistol was more difficult to load but I could jam the round balls in blind without taking my eyes off the target. With reduced pistol velocity but a slightly higher pellet weight and round ball ballistics I found they worked great.

Purely anecdotal evidence from amateur pest control but I also figure the theory applies to other calibers. We ate a few rabbits but have never done any other form of hunting. I'm comfortable hedging my bet on wadcutters in a low power situation versus falling short of performance velocity in a hollow point.