Wadcutters for Defense?

When I carry my snubby .41 magnum I use Cast Performance 250 grain WFNGC at roughly 825 fps. It is surprisingly controllable. I haven't shot them into gelatin yet...
Cast Performance 250 WFNGC.jpg
 
Kleanbore said:
Meaningless. Repeatability is required for scientific proof, design decisions, performance comparisons, and evidence. "Actual use" on humans is not measured--it is just observed.
Click to expand...

And using a system like the “meat target”, you can observe comparative results between different calibers. Gel is not people, but we can learn things by shooting it. The meat target is not people, but we can also learn things by shooting it.

Scientific proof is not absolutely needed to make useful comparisons of ballistic performance, and that should be obvious from the fact that scientific proof of effectiveness for the intended purpose is pretty limited beyond saying something like “.22 Kolibri is definitely not good enough” or “.50BMG is an effective stopper.”
 
RevolvingGarbage said:
And using a system like the “meat target”, you can observe comparative results between different calibers. Gel is not people, but we can learn things by shooting it. The meat target is not people, but we can also learn things by shooting it.

Scientific proof is not absolutely needed to make useful comparisons of ballistic performance, and that should be obvious from the fact that scientific proof of effectiveness for the intended purpose is pretty limited beyond saying something like “.22 Kolibri is definitely not good enough” or “.50BMG is an effective stopper.”
Click to expand...

Paul is an avid huntsman and has formulated his meat target to more accurately reflect what damages he’s seen in actual living animals. It seems like a solid plan.

Wonder if he does a lot of barbecuing?
 
RevolvingGarbage said:
And using a system like the “meat target”, you can observe comparative results between different calibers.
Click to expand...
For that piece of meat, at that time.... But what can the observation tell us that is meaningful?
RevolvingGarbage said:
Scientific proof is not absolutely needed to make useful comparisons of ballistic performance,
Click to expand...
It essential for admissibility of evidence, but that's really not important here. Those "useful comparisons" would not be useful for decisions regarding dimensions or shape, materials, selection velocity, or product selection unless the tests are repeatable. Otherwise, it's just a game.
 
Kleanbore said:
For that piece of meat, at that time.... But what can the observation tell us that is meaningful?
It essential for admissibility of evidence, but that's really not important here. Those "useful comparisons" would not be useful for decisions regarding dimensions or shape, materials, selection velocity, or product selection unless the tests are repeatable. Otherwise, it's just a game.
Click to expand...

The last part if your reply is worth exploring. It can be called a game, much as a wargame is a type of game. It’s “play” which is in no way analogous to the actual act and can’t be, and yet in the playing of the game again and again, useful experience and knowledge is gained. How you want to quantify that knowledge or what you think it’s useful for can perhaps be debated, but there certainly is validity to the exercise.
 
RevolvingGarbage said:
It can be called a game, much as a wargame is a type of game. It’s “play” which is in no way analogous to the actual act and can’t be, and yet in the playing of the game again and again, useful experience and knowledge is gained.
Click to expand...
True for war games, business school assignments using simulation, the study of mathematical interactions, and so forth. But putting a ruled scale next to a piece of dead meat that has been shot can provide little useful experience or real knowledge. By "game", I meant that in the sense of playing, or doing things that might seem fun.

It's not just the lack of repeatability. Dead meat does not react the same way as living tissue.

Of course, gel is just a surrogate medium that approximates resistance to penetration and that shows bullet expansion. It is used in design and development and to establish performance specifications.

We understand that bullets that meet spec generally perform well in the field.
 
Kleanbore said:
True for war games, business school assignments using simulation, the study of mathematical interactions, and so forth. But putting a ruled scale next to a piece of dead meat that has been shot can provide little useful experience or real knowledge. By "game", I meant that in the sense of playing, or doing things that might seem fun.

It's not just the lack of repeatability. Dead meat does not react the same way as living tissue.

Of course, gel is just a surrogate medium that approximates resistance to penetration and that shows bullet expansion. It is used in design and development and to establish performance specifications.

We understand that bullets that meet spec generally perform well in the field.
Click to expand...

I don’t recall seeing Paul Harrel ever lay a ruler out next to a meat target. The observations are generally things like “Here’s what this bullet did today to this meat target compared to what this other bullet did to it, and also what both bullets did after exiting the meat target and what the projectiles looked like afterwards.”

This is usually done in conjunction with chronograph readings of other rounds from the same lot on the same day, and perhaps talking about comparisons to what other rounds on other days did to other meat targets.

Have you actually watched any of his videos?

Edited to add (and im aware this is straying off topic): I only ask because I get the impression you think it’s about using a bunch of food tied together and measuring results to get a pass or fail result directly correlating to suitability for self defense, and Paul pretty explicitly states that it should not that kind of test. It’s not meant to stand in for scientific testing. If you would say you understand that and your point is somehow that any unscientific testing is no more useful than playing leapfrog, then I would call that a fairly obtuse position to take.
 
Last edited:
I use 200 gr wadcutters in my 44 special. I use $148 gr wadcutters in my 38 special. If I have to shoot someone a big hole and a medium hole will probably go through the perp. I'll take penetration over expansion any day of the week
 
DR505 " When I carry my snubby .41 magnum I use Cast Performance 250 grain WFNGC at roughly 825 fps. It is surprisingly controllable. I haven't shot them into gelatin yet..."

Do you really need a gas check at that fps ?
 
nofendertom said:
DR505 " When I carry my snubby .41 magnum I use Cast Performance 250 grain WFNGC at roughly 825 fps. It is surprisingly controllable. I haven't shot them into gelatin yet..."

Do you really need a gas check at that fps ?
Click to expand...

No, but I also use that same bullet in my 6.5" 657 Classic Hunter at MUCH greater velocities.
 
CDW4ME said:
If one is selecting wadcutters because of recoil, data:
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/revolver-ballistics-test/
148gr. WC @ 713 fps (same bullet I used in prior post to this thread)
110 Hornady FTX Critical Defense @ 858 fps (this expands in gel unlike the WC - 14.1'' / .44)
Using this load data for approximate powder charges:
https://shootersreference.com/reloadingdata/38-special/
And this recoil calculator, I'm assigning a 1 lb. firearm weight - 16 ounce snub
https://shooterscalculator.com/recoil-calculator.php
148 gr. @ 713 fps (assigned 4 gr. powder) = .56 recoil impulse, 17.9 recoil velocity
110 gr. @ 858 fps (assigned 5 gr. powder) = .53 recoil impulse, 17.0 recoil velocity
Data says WC recoil is no less than a HP that penetrates and expands.
Click to expand...
Clear Gelatin terminal performance test results cannot be relied upon for choosing defensive ammunition.

Ballistic gelatin comparisons: Part III
There's a clear difference between synthetic and organic gelatin that law enforcement needs to understand

Implications
With respect to the tested product, our results suggest the following implications:
  • The clear synthetic gelatin must be calibrated by the user before use. The factory warranty cards cannot be relied upon to give an accurate measure of the product’s calibration.
  • The clear synthetic gelatin currently demonstrates a tendency to limit bullet expansion and increase bullet penetration, compared to FBI-standard, 10% calibrated organic gelatin. Based on our limited sample, this tendency seems to apply irrespective of bullet manufacturer, materials, design, construction, weight, pressure, or velocity. It seems that bullets penetrate significantly more in the clear synthetic, even when acceptable variations in organic gelatin penetration depth are accounted for.
  • The clear synthetic gelatin currently does not appear to be a suitable substitute for FBI-standard, 10% calibrated organic gelatin if the bullets will be measured and evaluated according to FBI performance standards. Because the bullets we tested behaved so differently in the clear synthetic gelatin versus the 10% calibrated organic gelatin, it’s not appropriate to use the FBI standards ‒ which were designed to be applied to 10% calibrated organic gelatin – to measure bullet performance in the clear synthetic product.

    In example, it’s inappropriate to measure and evaluate bullet penetration according to the FBI protocol (which rewards bullets that penetrate between 12” and 18” in 10% calibrated gelatin and penalizes those that fall outside this window) when bullets may routinely penetrate an extra 6” in the clear synthetic. If we did apply FBI standards to the clear synthetic, we might “pass” a bullet that normally fails the FBI protocol because it doesn’t penetrate deeply enough. Conversely, we might “fail” a bullet because it over penetrates in the clear synthetic, even when it normally passes the FBI protocol because by remaining within FBI penetration limits.
  • There is no apparent “conversion” between data derived from 10% organic gelatin and the current version of the clear synthetic. Unfortunately, our limited test doesn’t indicate a conversion “shortcut” is likely. It would be convenient if we could develop a conversion factor that would equate the organic gelatin and clear synthetic gelatin, but our data indicate that bullet performance is too variable in these mediums to develop a universal “rule of thumb.” Perhaps a skilled mathematician could derive a constant from a more complete sample, but we’re not seeing one lurking in the data.

See: https://www.police1.com/police-prod...elatin-comparisons-part-iii-IbjkEYB93TAd5o6J/
 
trackskippy said:
I think if wadcutters will get you to shoot the gun on a regular basis, and to the point that you can shoot it well, in any way you might be called on to shoot it, then youre probably better off with them, than something you wont. Just dont assume they will relieve you of having to put in, and keep up the work to be effective with them though. It doesnt matter what the ammo is, if you cant quickly and on demand, put it where it needs to go.
Click to expand...

I could not have said this better myself. I just ordered 500 Speer 148 grain LHBWC and I plan to load them up with Unique or HP38 in bulk and take my wife to the range at least once a month. I want her to have muscle memory with our 38s just in case, God forbid, she ever has to use one in an emergency.
 
Shawn Dodson said:
Clear Gelatin terminal performance test results cannot be relied upon for choosing defensive ammunition.

Ballistic gelatin comparisons: Part III
There's a clear difference between synthetic and organic gelatin that law enforcement needs to understand

Implications
With respect to the tested product, our results suggest the following implications:
  • The clear synthetic gelatin must be calibrated by the user before use. The factory warranty cards cannot be relied upon to give an accurate measure of the product’s calibration.
  • The clear synthetic gelatin currently demonstrates a tendency to limit bullet expansion and increase bullet penetration, compared to FBI-standard, 10% calibrated organic gelatin. Based on our limited sample, this tendency seems to apply irrespective of bullet manufacturer, materials, design, construction, weight, pressure, or velocity. It seems that bullets penetrate significantly more in the clear synthetic, even when acceptable variations in organic gelatin penetration depth are accounted for.
  • The clear synthetic gelatin currently does not appear to be a suitable substitute for FBI-standard, 10% calibrated organic gelatin if the bullets will be measured and evaluated according to FBI performance standards. Because the bullets we tested behaved so differently in the clear synthetic gelatin versus the 10% calibrated organic gelatin, it’s not appropriate to use the FBI standards ‒ which were designed to be applied to 10% calibrated organic gelatin – to measure bullet performance in the clear synthetic product.

    In example, it’s inappropriate to measure and evaluate bullet penetration according to the FBI protocol (which rewards bullets that penetrate between 12” and 18” in 10% calibrated gelatin and penalizes those that fall outside this window) when bullets may routinely penetrate an extra 6” in the clear synthetic. If we did apply FBI standards to the clear synthetic, we might “pass” a bullet that normally fails the FBI protocol because it doesn’t penetrate deeply enough. Conversely, we might “fail” a bullet because it over penetrates in the clear synthetic, even when it normally passes the FBI protocol because by remaining within FBI penetration limits.
  • There is no apparent “conversion” between data derived from 10% organic gelatin and the current version of the clear synthetic. Unfortunately, our limited test doesn’t indicate a conversion “shortcut” is likely. It would be convenient if we could develop a conversion factor that would equate the organic gelatin and clear synthetic gelatin, but our data indicate that bullet performance is too variable in these mediums to develop a universal “rule of thumb.” Perhaps a skilled mathematician could derive a constant from a more complete sample, but we’re not seeing one lurking in the data.

See: https://www.police1.com/police-prod...elatin-comparisons-part-iii-IbjkEYB93TAd5o6J/
Click to expand...

Very interesting post, Shawn.

I am by no means an expert in this subject, but I'll throw in my 2 cents, for the 2 cents that my opinion is worth.

I have never had to shoot a human, thankfully. But I've killed a pretty fair number of deer with a wide variety of projectiles.

I have never met a human, or a deer, who was composed of ballistic gelatin. Deer, and humans, are composed of various tissues, of differing densities and elasticities. Including bones.

Bullets fired into deer DO NOT behave like bullets fired into ballistic gelatin. They tend to fragment much more readily in the former, than in the latter. Especially when they are designed to expand quickly.

Choose wisely.

When contemplating lethality, I tend to put more faith in momentum, than in kinetic energy.

My load of choice for my 3" .38 revolver is a 158 grain SJFP in standard velocity. But I won't fret if I have wadcutters in it when I might need it in an emergency.
 
Vern Humphrey said:
Can anyone point to a single case where the use of handloads has actually been raised by the prosecution?
Click to expand...
"From the horse's mouth":

Massad Ayoob and Bill Wilson discuss hand loading ammunition for self-defense. Critical Mas ep39 - YouTube

"Are there reasons to avoid using hand loaded ammunition instead of factory loaded ammo for self-defense? Bill Wilson and the Youtube Community want to know. Massad Ayoob, with his vast experience in self-defense trials as an expert witness, gives his reasons why he suggests only using factory ammunition for self-defense. Massad cites real cases, such as New Hampshire v. James Kennedy and New Jersey v. Daniel Bias."
 
Onty said:
"From the horse's mouth":

Massad Ayoob and Bill Wilson discuss hand loading ammunition for self-defense. Critical Mas ep39 - YouTube

"Are there reasons to avoid using hand loaded ammunition instead of factory loaded ammo for self-defense? Bill Wilson and the Youtube Community want to know. Massad Ayoob, with his vast experience in self-defense trials as an expert witness, gives his reasons why he suggests only using factory ammunition for self-defense. Massad cites real cases, such as New Hampshire v. James Kennedy and New Jersey v. Daniel Bias."
Click to expand...
He makes some excellent points.
 
I agree, excellent points. And for the possible situation of home defense, of one or several criminals breaking into your home, I agree that factory ammo is best from a liability standpoint. But that scenario isn't the only potential use of defense ammo.

We must also consider the possibilities that many people don't feel comfortable discussing....those arising from total societal breakdown. Years ago we thought such a thing couldn't happen. Now we know that it could.

I'm not loading 50- and 100-round boxes of +P hollow points for burglars. I'm prepping for the day when the electrical grid goes down and there is no water or food or gasoline.

Edited to add: Ayoob has the worst toupee I've ever seen. It looks like a gag gift.
 
Last edited:
Savage30L said:
I have never met a human, or a deer, who was composed of ballistic gelatin. Deer, and humans, are composed of various tissues, of differing densities and elasticities. Including bones.
Click to expand...
Over three decades of experience show that properly prepared and calibrated 10% Type 250A ordnance gelatin accurately reproduces the average inertial forces and the shear forces that resist bullet penetration in typical soft tissues. It also accurately depicts a bullet's wounding effects in soft tissues.
 
Jim Watson said:
The point of the midrange wadcutter is not great effectiveness, it is less recoil.
A soft fast hollow point will be more effective if you don't mind the kick.
Click to expand...

The advantage of a wadcutter or semi-wadcutter is not the point, it is the lack of it.

In theoretical terminal ballistics, a bullet's sharp shoulder will cut tissue instead of pushing through it. It is also less likely to deflect off bone.

In real life, if you poke a couple of holes in a guy, he will likely be unable or unwilling to discuss the esoterica we enjoy arguing about.
 
Shawn Dodson said:
Clear Gelatin terminal performance test results cannot be relied upon for choosing defensive ammunition.

Ballistic gelatin comparisons: Part III
There's a clear difference between synthetic and organic gelatin that law enforcement needs to understand

Implications
With respect to the tested product, our results suggest the following implications:
  • The clear synthetic gelatin must be calibrated by the user before use. The factory warranty cards cannot be relied upon to give an accurate measure of the product’s calibration.
  • The clear synthetic gelatin currently demonstrates a tendency to limit bullet expansion and increase bullet penetration, compared to FBI-standard, 10% calibrated organic gelatin. Based on our limited sample, this tendency seems to apply irrespective of bullet manufacturer, materials, design, construction, weight, pressure, or velocity. It seems that bullets penetrate significantly more in the clear synthetic, even when acceptable variations in organic gelatin penetration depth are accounted for.
  • The clear synthetic gelatin currently does not appear to be a suitable substitute for FBI-standard, 10% calibrated organic gelatin if the bullets will be measured and evaluated according to FBI performance standards. Because the bullets we tested behaved so differently in the clear synthetic gelatin versus the 10% calibrated organic gelatin, it’s not appropriate to use the FBI standards ‒ which were designed to be applied to 10% calibrated organic gelatin – to measure bullet performance in the clear synthetic product.

    In example, it’s inappropriate to measure and evaluate bullet penetration according to the FBI protocol (which rewards bullets that penetrate between 12” and 18” in 10% calibrated gelatin and penalizes those that fall outside this window) when bullets may routinely penetrate an extra 6” in the clear synthetic. If we did apply FBI standards to the clear synthetic, we might “pass” a bullet that normally fails the FBI protocol because it doesn’t penetrate deeply enough. Conversely, we might “fail” a bullet because it over penetrates in the clear synthetic, even when it normally passes the FBI protocol because by remaining within FBI penetration limits.
  • There is no apparent “conversion” between data derived from 10% organic gelatin and the current version of the clear synthetic. Unfortunately, our limited test doesn’t indicate a conversion “shortcut” is likely. It would be convenient if we could develop a conversion factor that would equate the organic gelatin and clear synthetic gelatin, but our data indicate that bullet performance is too variable in these mediums to develop a universal “rule of thumb.” Perhaps a skilled mathematician could derive a constant from a more complete sample, but we’re not seeing one lurking in the data.

See: https://www.police1.com/police-prod...elatin-comparisons-part-iii-IbjkEYB93TAd5o6J/
Click to expand...

I'm aware of the nuances of clear gel.
I used Lucky Gunner tests as an example because they have different bullets tested in the same media (clear gel) all in one link.
Also, the OP used a Lucky Gunner video in the thread start; if Lucky Gunner is in the thread start examples from the same seem appropriate to me.
If one is not satisfied with the example(s) I provided they are welcome to search for tests that they like.
I think a HP that expands is a better option than a WC; you can try to show I'm wrong with examples that suit you, or not, doesn't affect me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
Wadcutters for Defense?
2 3
Replies
55
Views
4K
deputy tom
deputy tom
W
  • Locked
Wadcutters for self defense loads?
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
8K
jeepnik
jeepnik
V
  • Locked
Wadcutters for .38 Special SD loads?
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
10K
suemarkp
S
T
  • Locked
Best .357/.38 defensive load?
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
sidheshooter
S
C
  • Locked
. 38Spl Semi-wadcutter or Hollowpoints
Replies
23
Views
2K
GRIZ22
G
Back
Top