351 WINCHESTER
Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
And is related to the destructive capability of the projectile.
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..
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.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.
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.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.
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....
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.
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.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?
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.
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
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.
I say a 45 grain bullet from a .22 Hornet will not be as destructive as the same bullet from a .220 Swift.
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>
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?
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.I now realize your one of those dudes who likes to argue, just for the sake of arguing.
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.
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.