Underwood Xtreme ammo; Defender or Penetrator

[becket]

Given the difference between shooting gelatin and a wall of human fat, bone, muscle and gristle; which solid copper Underwood offering would you choose for defense in a .38? Let’s make it more interesting and choose one for a 2” barreled snubbie; and one for a full size 4” barreled revolver. I am leaning toward the Penetrator in the snubbie, thinking the loss of velocity would be made up a bit, at least, by the better ability to penetrate. I fully concede that both rounds are impressive in gelatin; but in the much tougher
system of various human animal densities,
I feel things become much murkier. Help me understand your own reasoning. Or pick one ‘just cause’ .

 

[Pat Riot]

I would buy and try both for accuracy in your gun(s). I would also want to test them for recoil and for follow up shot speed.

 

[DocRock]

Neither. At .38 Special velocities,let alone from 2" barrels, copper solids and " hard cast lead" are gimmicks, or costly indulgences. You shouldn't be shooting large boned animals with 38 Special snubbies. And if you are shooting people, jacketed soft points or a softer lead, like BHN 12, will expand, enhancing the otherwise underwhelming 38 Special performance.

 

[Pat Riot]

Neither. At .38 Special velocities,let alone from 2" barrels, copper solids and " hard cast lead" are gimmicks, or costly indulgences. You shouldn't be shooting large boned animals with 38 Special snubbies. And if you are shooting people, jacketed soft points or a softer lead, like BHN 12, will expand, enhancing the otherwise underwhelming 38 Special performance.

Excellent point! I was looking more at the OP’s request versus validity of the ammo.

Becket,
This is a link to an ammo test done by Lucky Gunner with .38 Special and .357 Magnum in 2” and 4” barreled revolvers. This test REALLY opened my eyes to my most accurate round out of my S&W 442. The performance of the bullets emulated that of a FMJ .38 Special. This test was done in 2017 so there are some rounds we have today that aren’t in this test. The Underwood ammo is one of those not tested, so it won’t help you in this manner, but what it does do is show that one should use ammo that matches the gun for defensive purposes.

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/revolver-ballistics-test/

I, myself, have to re-evaluate my carry ammo. Since I have moved to California I do not have a CCW...yet. I discovered this website after moving here over a year ago. My favorite ammo for carry in my snubby was Hornady American Gunner. I will still use it for home defense in longer barreled guns but for a snubby, it’s just more expensive FMJ.

 

[Aikibiker]

I would look for whatever round is closest in weight to your practice ammo to minimize POA/POI differences. I think that is the penetrator loading. Don't worry about over pentration, it is just a name not an adequate description of what the round does.

These fancy "screwdriver tip" rounds seem to be a good bet for shorter barrels that might not get traditional hollowpoints going fast enough to expand. I have heard they work great in small .32 acp and a compact .380 pistols. For longer barrels they do not seem to do anymore damage than traditional hollowpoints that do expand, so at that point you are just paying extra for something new.

 

[1942bull]

I would use Extreme Penetrator with the 2” barrel; and Extreme Defender. The lower velocities out of 2” barrels will.impair expansion of a JHP. With the 4” barrel expansion would be more reliable, but I would still opt for the benefits of a fluid transfer round in terms of penetration and wound channel. There have been numerous tests that show better their performance when shot from shorter barrels and smaller calibers. Once you get up to 9mm out of a 4” barrel the Extreme are unnecessary, but I would still prefer the Extreme. In 40, 10mm, 45 I think a JHP is fine. I load my EDC LCPII with Lehigh Extreme Penetrator. It osts more than JHP but all the testing I have read and seen indicate it is a better performer than jhp out of a short barrel. I like starting alive so paying abit more for the ammo is just additional life insurance.

 

[dickydalton]

Federal HST Micro in mine. One of them expanded and a foot deep in the body slow someone down and 4 more will probably finish them.

 

[becket]

Thanks all. I Carry Corbon +p in my .38 with HST as a close alternative. At the moment I am carrying my 64-3, 4” barrel. I am looking hard at one of the new Taurus 3” .357/.38 (9mm conversion cylinder); though $$$ permitting I’d rather snag a 686 Plus and be done with it. I have usually relied on a 3” or less revolver as either a secondary to my pistol; or as a main carry on especially sweltering N.E. fla summers. I scoffed at ‘those crazy screwdriver bullets!’ for a few years but over the past months have given them a grudging respect. After seeing them hammer thru metal/heavy glass barriers without deformation or point of aim deviation; including 2 sides of rib bones and 2 tests with shatter patterns using synthetic medical bone sheets, the Penetrator keeps velocities impressive. It’s sibling’s retained energy is close enough behind to remain interesting, especially with the consistency of its (however temporary gel can show) initial shock entrance channel.
Plus, I just dig handgun round ballistics for its own sake. I do wish we could get away from ‘all gel all the time’ testing and include more 16” pressed sections of dense hog bone, meat and gristle to better simulate real world bullet reactions. That would mean certain unfortunate folks couldn’t immediately see the cool trails and slo-mo violence of bullets blasting into clear gel; and half the YouTube tacti-cool experts living in mom’s basement eating Cheetos would probably go into a complete hand wringing tizzy. We can’t have that, just for actual realistic performance testing. Just ask those that subscribe, just see that gel bounce.
Sorry for the digression; and thanks again for the helpful thoughts.