Wadcutters for .38 Special SD loads?

[351 WINCHESTER]

Outstanding sd load for a .38 snubby. Even plain old factory loads moving at about 650 fps will penetrate deep and the w/c gives a cookie cutter effect. Very efficient from a snubby. From a 4" there are better loads for sure.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Not sure what the velocity would be in a 2" barrel (~700fps from a 7.5" barrel listed), but it woudl be a big 230gr deep penerating slug of lead.

Back in the olden days there was a heavier bullet factory loaded for the .38Spl - IIRC it was a 200 gr. RNL. Did they call it a "Highway Patrol" load? That was a looong time ago...

It wasn't even popular 60 years ago, and AFAIK isn't produced any longer. The issue with a .38Spl, moderate weight bullets and moderate velocities isn't helped along by a heavier bullet at even lower velocities IMHO.

There's no real problem with a 148 gr. wadcutter as a carry load I can see, and a good number of advantages to it. For a reload in a speedloader or speed strip you'll want something pointier and easier to get indexed in the cylinder IMHO. A good SWC should help out, or you could step up to a 110-135 gr JHP load if those were workable for the shooter.

I carry CorBon DPX 110s in my 642 right now, and have a case of Speer 135GD snubby loads waiting when those are gone.

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

Well...we'll be shooting her new LCR this weekend and have a lot of ammunition to try. 158 gr RNFP hardcast lead reloads, Federal 130 gr. FMJs, 148 gr. WC handloads, and a few rounds of various SD hollowpoint stuff generously donated by Dudes at the range so we can determine her recoil tolerance.

The fun is that she's really excited to have "her own revolver" and really looking forward to shooting it and getting familiar.

She's calmed down about flinching and worrying about recoil so this should be a great opportunity to do some serious study and work on grip, stance, and breathing. I really appreciate everyone's input on this. It has helped a lot!

VooDoo

 

[Vern Humphrey]

How timely. In the December-January 2014 Handloader editor Dave Scovill discussed this in part of his monthly column on page 10. He states: The Lyman 429348 180-grain wadcutter fired out of a .44 Magnum at something close to 1200 fps was/is the most destructive bullet I've ever used in a handgun and easily matched damage produced by a high-velocity hollowpoint varmint bullet launched from a rifle.

I don't know why this wouldn't apply to a wadcutter out of a .38 as well, even though the velocity would obviously be somewhat less.

The Kinetic energy of the .44 mag load is 575 ft/lbs and that of the .38 Special is only
256 ft lbs. That's a big difference.

 

[VA27]

Back in the olden days there was a heavier bullet factory loaded for the .38Spl - IIRC it was a 200 gr. RNL. Did they call it a "Highway Patrol" load? That was a looong time ago...

It wasn't even popular 60 years ago, and AFAIK isn't produced any longer. The issue with a .38Spl, moderate weight bullets and moderate velocities isn't helped along by a heavier bullet at even lower velocities IMHO.

IIRC, that load was the Super Police. Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, a young Detroit police officer named Evan Marshall tested it against a car door out of a Model 60, causing one of the other officers involved in the testing to exclaim, "Stop, or I'll scratch your paint!"

The Highway Patrol load was a pointed cone shaped full metal jacket (the exact weight escapes me at the moment) bullet. My partner and I tested it on an old refridgerator compressor. It didn't go all the way through. However, the Remington 125gr SJHP DID! I carried that 125gr load exclusively until I was forced to carry the new-fangled G22 some 10 years ago.

Don't get me wrong, I like Glocks. But if all I had was a 4" 357 and that 125gr load, I'd never feel disadvantaged.

 

[35 Whelen]

The Kinetic energy of the .44 mag load is 575 ft/lbs and that of the .38 Special is only
256 ft lbs. That's a big difference.

Kinetic energy means nothing in the real world. It is merely a means by which the relative power of cartridges and projectiles of similar size may be compared.

My reference to Mr. Scovill's column was simply to point out that wadcutters, according to him, are very destructive projectiles. If you disagree with this assertion, you might want to take it up with him.

35W

 

[Plastikosmd]

BPDave
"I bought a box of full wadcutters for SD out of my model 36 Chief thinking that they would give the benefits mentioned here.
Well I got an unwanted surprise when I tested the ammo1 Due to the full purchase a full wadcutter gets going down the barrel, you get more felt recoil than from jacketed or SWC bullets"

(I am not being a wise!@#)
I was wondering if you could explain this further? Is this concept valid? I would like to read more about it. Also, I would have guessed that impact/friction etc would serve to lessen recoil as the firearm would be forced forward, not rearward/recoil. (projectile energy is moving forward, drag would tend to pull the firearm with it) This would be different than recoil from the explosion/imparting energy to the bullet initially. In thinking about it, I guess it could change the impulse of the recoil but I cant wrap my head around how it would make it 'more'

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Kinetic energy means nothing in the real world. It is merely a means by which the relative power of cartridges and projectiles of similar size may be compared.

And is related to the destructive capability of the projectile.

My reference to Mr. Scovill's column was simply to point out that wadcutters, according to him, are very destructive projectiles. If you disagree with this assertion, you might want to take it up with him.

Who said I disagreed with Scovill? What I disagree with is the premise that a bullet from a .38 Special will be as destructive as a bullet from a .44 Magnum -- which is a claim Scovill never made..

 

[MartinS]

"That's what I carried my first tour in Viet Nam -- in a 6" Colt M357. I used a max load of Unique, and used this load twice. It ended both fights -- but a cylinder full would lead the barrel badly."
That sentence speaks louder than a ton of gelatin, to my ears. Were those wadcutters front side forward or reversed?

 

[Iron Sight]

I dont think I will be buying any but?

http://atomicammunition.com/38spec.html

 

[Vern Humphrey]

"That's what I carried my first tour in Viet Nam -- in a 6" Colt M357. I used a max load of Unique, and used this load twice. It ended both fights -- but a cylinder full would lead the barrel badly."
That sentence speaks louder than a ton of gelatin, to my ears. Were those wadcutters front side forward or reversed?

Reversed -- that is, hollow base forward. They penetrated fully, and in one case broke a spine.

 

[35 Whelen]

And is related to the destructive capability of the projectile.

No, Vern. Bullet energy is a mathematical calculation and nothing more. The destructive capabilites of projectiles is dependent on many factors, but primarily on bullet design. If energy were all that determined destructive capabilities then a FMJ bullet and a soft point bullet of identical calibers, with identical weights, driven at identical velocities would have identical destructive capabilities, but we all know that simply is not the case.

Who said I disagreed with Scovill? What I disagree with is the premise that a bullet from a .38 Special will be as destructive as a bullet from a .44 Magnum -- which is a claim Scovill never made..

In your hasty attempt to disagree with me, you missed my point. The point was that wadcutters, according to Mr. Scovill, are very destructive projectiles. In referencing Mr. Scovill's column, I was inferring, which requires, from those participating in the subject, knowledge of the subject.

35W

 

[Vern Humphrey]

No, Vern. Bullet energy is a mathematical calculation and nothing more. The destructive capabilites of projectiles is dependent on many factors, but primarily on bullet design. If energy were all that determined destructive capabilities then a FMJ bullet and a soft point bullet of identical calibers, with identical weights, driven at identical velocities would have identical destructive capabilities, but we all know that simply is not the case.

No, Whelen -- kinetic energy is real, and is the energy that allows a bullet to express its potential for destruction. With two identical bullets, one with twice the kinetic energy of the other, the destruction inflicted by the high energy bullet will be greater.

That's why a 40 grain hollow point fired from a .22 Long Rifle is not as destructive as a 40 grain hollow point fired from a .220 Swift.

In your hasty attempt to disagree with me, you missed my point. The point was that wadcutters, according to Mr. Scovill, are very destructive projectiles. In referencing Mr. Scovill's column, I was inferring, which requires, from those participating in the subject, knowledge of the subject.

In your hasty attempt to make a point, you claimed that a wadcutter from a .38 Special would have the same destructive effects as a wadcutter from a .44 Magnum at more than twice the kinetic energy.

 

[35 Whelen]

No, Whelen -- kinetic energy is real, and is the energy that allows a bullet to express its potential for destruction. With two identical bullets, one with twice the kinetic energy of the other, the destruction inflicted by the high energy bullet will be greater.

That's why a 40 grain hollow point fired from a .22 Long Rifle is not as destructive as a 40 grain hollow point fired from a .220 Swift.


In your hasty attempt to make a point, you claimed that a wadcutter from a .38 Special would have the same destructive effects as a wadcutter from a .44 Magnum at more than twice the kinetic energy.

You're misquoting me and taking things out of context, but I'm having fun, so....

According to your statements bullet energy defines the destructive potential of a projectile. Therefore based on your logic, any two bullets whose calculated energies are the same will possess the same amount of destructive force. That means a .22 caliber 45 gr. hollowpoint bullet fired from, say, a .22 Hornet, travelling 2700 fps that has calculated energy of around 725 foot pounds is equal in destruction to a .44 caliber (.429") 240 gr hollowpoint bullet fired from a .44 Magnum revolver travelling at around 1170 fps which also has around 725 fp of energy. Correct?

35W

 

[Vern Humphrey]

You're misquoting me and taking things out of context, but I'm having fun, so....

How can I be misquoting when I use your own words?

Here's the issue:

How timely. In the December-January 2014 Handloader editor Dave Scovill discussed this in part of his monthly column on page 10. He states: The Lyman 429348 180-grain wadcutter fired out of a .44 Magnum at something close to 1200 fps was/is the most destructive bullet I've ever used in a handgun and easily matched damage produced by a high-velocity hollowpoint varmint bullet launched from a rifle.

I don't know why this wouldn't apply to a wadcutter out of a .38 as well, even though the velocity would obviously be somewhat less.

This is a claim that a .38 Special wadcutter would have the same impressive terminal performance as a .44 Magnum wadcutter at 1200 fps or 50% more velocity than the .38.

According to your statements bullet energy defines the destructive potential of a projectile. Therefore based on your logic, any two bullets whose calculated energies are the same will possess the same amount of destructive force. That means a .22 caliber 45 gr. hollowpoint bullet fired from, say, a .22 Hornet, travelling 2700 fps that has calculated energy of around 725 foot pounds is equal in destruction to a .44 caliber (.429") 240 gr hollowpoint bullet fired from a .44 Magnum revolver travelling at around 1170 fps which also has around 725 fp of energy. Correct?

Not correct -- the above is what is called a "straw man argument" where on person constructs an easy-to-refute argument and attributes it to his opponent.

I say a 45 grain bullet from a .22 Hornet will not be as destructive as the same bullet from a .220 Swift.

 

[35 Whelen]

How can I be misquoting when I use your own words?

Here's the issue:



This is a claim that a .38 Special wadcutter would have the same impressive terminal performance as a .44 Magnum wadcutter at 1200 fps or 50% more velocity than the .38.


Not correct -- the above is what is called a "straw man argument" where on person constructs an easy-to-refute argument and attributes it to his opponent.

I say a 45 grain bullet from a .22 Hornet will not be as destructive as the same bullet from a .220 Swift.

Let me cut and paste EXACTLY what I said since you seem to misread my statements:

How timely. In the December-January 2014 Handloader editor Dave Scovill discussed this in part of his monthly column on page 10. He states: The Lyman 429348 180-grain wadcutter fired out of a .44 Magnum at something close to 1200 fps was/is the most destructive bullet I've ever used in a handgun and easily matched damage produced by a high-velocity hollowpoint varmint bullet launched from a rifle.

I don't know why this wouldn't apply to a wadcutter out of a .38 as well, even though the velocity would obviously be somewhat less.

35W

Now, where in that statement did I say a .358" wadcutter was as powerful as a .430" wadcutter? My point, to the dim of thinking, was if a .44 caliber wadcutter is destrctive, then so should a .35 caliber wadcutter, from a relative point. That does NOT mean they'll perform identically. Nowhere in the above statement did I say or even indicate they'd perform identically.

Not correct -- the above is what is called a "straw man argument" where on person constructs an easy-to-refute argument and attributes it to his opponent.

I say a 45 grain bullet from a .22 Hornet will not be as destructive as the same bullet from a .220 Swift.

Call it what you want but that statement was based DIRECTLY on YOUR logic!

I say a 45 grain bullet from a .22 Hornet will not be as destructive as the same bullet from a .220 Swift.

I think maybe you're finally starting to understand and see the err in your thinking! Ironically, that's pretty much what I said in Post #56:

Kinetic energy means nothing in the real world. It is merely a means by which the relative power of cartridges and projectiles of similar size may be compared.
<snip>

Hang in there!

35W

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Let me cut and paste EXACTLY what I said since you seem to misread my statements:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 35 Whelen View Post
How timely. In the December-January 2014 Handloader editor Dave Scovill discussed this in part of his monthly column on page 10. He states: The Lyman 429348 180-grain wadcutter fired out of a .44 Magnum at something close to 1200 fps was/is the most destructive bullet I've ever used in a handgun and easily matched damage produced by a high-velocity hollowpoint varmint bullet launched from a rifle.

I don't know why this wouldn't apply to a wadcutter out of a .38 as well, even though the velocity would obviously be somewhat less.

Now, where in that statement did I say a .358" wadcutter was as powerful as a .430" wadcutter?

See the part in bold, above.

And, by the way, how do you apply "powerful" to the diameter of a bullet? (See the words in italics above.)

 

[35 Whelen]

I clarified that statement in the post above.

I now realize your one of those dudes who likes to argue, just for the sake of arguing. I also realize that I was a fool for trying to explain anything to you because you're not interested in any explanation or for that matter expanding your mind in any way...only increasing your post count.

35W

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I now realize your one of those dudes who likes to argue, just for the sake of arguing.

It takes two to argue. And I realize some people will make claims that are unsupported by physics, and try for post after post to prove they're right and Newton is wrong.

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

OK, I have decided to continue working up custom loads for my Wife (and myself) in .38 Special using this wad cutter concept. Berry makes these slick 148 gr. copper plated numbers in HBWC and DEWC configuration and *both* are available and not very expensive! This will give her practice rounds that can be used for SD which I like.

I'm not gonna load 'em hollow base forward...what advantage, if any, does the hollow base offer over the double ended except that the hollow base obturates better thus sealing the bore?

I'm inclined to use the HBWC configuration but I'd like opinions as you guys have given me a lot to chew on in this discussion and I thank you.

VooDoo

 

[Vern Humphrey]

When you use HBWCs you want to stick to the loads listed in your manuals -- which are on the low velocity side. The reason is that with high pressures it is possible to blow an HBWC apart, with the skirt being left in the bore. The next shot with a bore obstruction can wreck your gun.

For DEWCs, you can load them as fast as any listed lead bullet load of the same weight.

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

When you use HBWCs you want to stick to the loads listed in your manuals -- which are on the low velocity side. The reason is that with high pressures it is possible to blow an HBWC apart, with the skirt being left in the bore. The next shot with a bore obstruction can wreck your gun.

For DEWCs, you can load them as fast as any listed lead bullet load of the same weight.

*Thank You!!*

That sets my mind perfectly. While I primarily intend these as lower recoiling rounds for my Wife's LCR, they are gonna be shot out of my Dan Wesson .357 as well so I might as well prepare for the possibility that we will push them a bit.

Plus I'm betting that once she gets comfy, I can pump this load up a little.

VooDoo

 

[suemarkp]

Note that he said you can load them AS FAST as a typical load of the same weight. This does not mean the same POWDER CHARGE because wadcutters are generally seated flush with the case mouth and regular bullets are out much further. This makes the "combustion chamber" for wadcutter loads smaller than a normal load of the same weight so the pressure will be higher if the power payload is the same.

So if you don't have a chronograph, start with a minimal or starting load of a "regular" bullet of that weight. Even better would be to find some loads in the book for DEWCs near that weight just as a comparison.

In a 357, it is a rather long case, so the combustion space isn't as greatly reduced as it would be in a 9mm. So the effect isn't as pronounced in 357, but do take note of the OAL used in your load data.

 

[S.B.]

Iggy, Depends on what speed loader is used and you can always roll crimp for easier reloading.
Steve

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

This does not mean the same POWDER CHARGE because wadcutters are generally seated flush with the case mouth and regular bullets are out much further. This makes the "combustion chamber" for wadcutter loads smaller than a normal load of the same weight so the pressure will be higher if the power payload is the same.

Thank You. I have a lot of data/loads for 148 gr wad cutters in .38 Special....I exclusively use Unique and have some really light and low power starting points. I'll likely start about 4.3 gr. of powder and start working it up slowly.

We'll find her maximum tolerance for recoil long before we find the maximum pressure/velocity of the load would be my guess as in her hands they will mostly be coming out of a Ruger LCR.

VooDoo