Wadcutters for Defense?
- Thread starter JCooperfan1911
- Start date
That's not the way the judicial system works.
The issue would arise when the judge, acting as gatekeeper, refuses to admit certain evidence, as he must.
Part of the relevant rules of evidence come from a civil case involving pharmaceuticals.
Should the time come when gunshot residue evidence is ruled inadmissible at trial, the concern about handloads will no longer exist.
I kind of like the meat targets. It is like field observation to test what someone developed in a lab. It isn't uncommon for field tests to send things back to the drawing board.
It does not "test" anything.
38s don't really hurt for penetration. I see folks saying they'll take penetration, and go with the wadcutter.
A 158 grain lrn will out penetrate a wadcutter at standard pressure. So will 130 grain fmj. A Keith style bullet especially hardcast will out penetrate all 3! And if you were carrying for predator defense, that is what I would recommend.
If you ask about wadcutters for self defense against an attacker, I think it's been shown that nowadays there are better options that will match the standard pressure wadcutters in penetration (they tend to go like 16 inches), while ALSO expanding to .45 or more while recoiling the same or less!
Unless you're choosing the wc from a reloading stand point for tons of practice, I don't see the point.
A 158 grain lrn will out penetrate a wadcutter at standard pressure. So will 130 grain fmj. A Keith style bullet especially hardcast will out penetrate all 3! And if you were carrying for predator defense, that is what I would recommend.
If you ask about wadcutters for self defense against an attacker, I think it's been shown that nowadays there are better options that will match the standard pressure wadcutters in penetration (they tend to go like 16 inches), while ALSO expanding to .45 or more while recoiling the same or less!
Unless you're choosing the wc from a reloading stand point for tons of practice, I don't see the point.
JERRY
Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2003
- Messages
- 3,847
It shows what a bullet would most likely do in a non homogeneous target composed of similar material as the human torso. Gel blocks are nice for showing a controlled environment using a consistent medium to test bullet expansion in penetration. If only people were that consistent.
Setting aside for a moment the fact that dead meat and live tissue do not react the same way--just what do the results "show" that is meaningful?
JERRY
Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2003
- Messages
- 3,847
They show what a bullet will likely do when encountering various tissue and bone mediums consistent with the desity of a human torso.
Dead meat is not "consistent with" the density, or with any other characteristic, of the human torso. The meat tests are a gimmick.
JERRY
Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2003
- Messages
- 3,847
And gel tests are not? They only show what a bullet will most likely do when fired into ballistic gel.
Have you not been following the thread?
Have you not paid attention to the numerous other threads on this subject?
Have you actually watched Paul Harrell's tests he uses the same set up each time. He uses pork ribs which are certainly similarthe size and density of human ribs.
And they're probably more consistent in size and density than humans.
JERRY
Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2003
- Messages
- 3,847
Don't. I think his simulation is better than gel regarding what a bullet might or probably do. Let folks watch and decide for themselves.
Yes.
How many ammunition firms use meat for development testing? The answer is none, for reasons discussed here, in other threads, and in the trade literature.
First it would be prohibitively expensive to use a fairly expensive single use meat targets for R&D when gel can be melted and reused many times.
Second everyone in the industry understands that gel doesn't accurately mimic human anatomy.
Third gel is a very good way to compare 2 different bullets and the meat target is pretty good at seeing how a bullet reacts against simulated anatomy and a guy can do both
You shoud define test to better explain the context of your viewpoint. You lost me.
The results are neither objectively measurable nor repeatable. Nothing meaningful can be concluded from them.
J-Bar
Member
A 148 grain wadcutter over 2.7 grains of Bullseye has been the classic .38 Special competition load for decades. 3.5 grains of HP-38 under that 148 grain wadcutter is a bit more bouncy and deliciously accurate in my guns. I'm not urging anyone to use it for self defense, but it's a fun load if you want to try it.
But you'll jump up and down in a tizzy when someone points out the same about tales from the ER.
The only observations I'm aware of from forensic medical analysis relate to what cannot be concluded from the results.
Except with that they drew a CONCLUSION
JERRY
Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2003
- Messages
- 3,847
That would be more realistic and in reality just a pretty "meat target" Yet somebody will still complain as if there was something better.
trackskippy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2010
- Messages
- 3,561
LOL, there is. Stop worrying about your magic bullets and shoot first, shoot fast, and shoot often, and load them up with as much as it takes, and in all the right places as best you can.
The reality is, pistol calibers suck, and if you think your special bullets are going to make up for your lack of skill, youre deceiving yourself.
With all the arguing and hand wringing over this foolishness, how many here spent at least an hour on the range this week working on and honing your "realistic" skills with what you carry?
If you insist on carrying a 5 shot snubby, and all you can shoot reasonably well with, realistically, are light loaded wadcutters, then use them, as long as youre realistic with yourself about your shooting with them. And we arent talking about what you do in slow fire, bullseye type shooting here either.
The reality is, pistol calibers suck, and if you think your special bullets are going to make up for your lack of skill, youre deceiving yourself.
With all the arguing and hand wringing over this foolishness, how many here spent at least an hour on the range this week working on and honing your "realistic" skills with what you carry?
If you insist on carrying a 5 shot snubby, and all you can shoot reasonably well with, realistically, are light loaded wadcutters, then use them, as long as youre realistic with yourself about your shooting with them. And we arent talking about what you do in slow fire, bullseye type shooting here either.
