.38 S&W with cast bullets--penetration testing, casting & reloading

10K Views
Last Post 21 April 2010

CBA Member

LouisianaMan posted this 21 March 2010

I've been doing some load development and penetration testing with the .38 S&W over the past couple of months, and wanted to bring interested parties on this forum up to date on what I've got so far.

My interest in this caliber arose after I got interested in .38SPL/200 and .38S&W/200 loads. Once I decided to re-equip the ladies in my family with .38 S&W revolvers in 2” and 4", to simplify training & ammo, I started trying out some bullet casting & reloading options.

I'll post results of a number of “tests” I've done & see what it may stir up. BTW, I'm not trying to compare this venerable cartridge to any other one, nor am I trying to hot-rod it. I'm really just trying to load it to the level of the old 200g Super Police, but perhaps with a more effective bullet profile, as well as with 150ish LSWCs at vels slightly below .38SPL standard pressure loads. In the process, I've been pleasantly surprised to learn what many of you doubtless already knew, i.e. that it is easy to load the .38 S&W to useful levels, with surprising penetrative capabilities. The biggest problem in this regard is the concern that any useful load may get put into an old break-top or other mechanically unsuitable relic.

PLEASE NOTE: some of these loads are in excess of published data, so I AM NOT RECOMMENDING THEM FOR USE IN YOUR GUN. My test guns are modern, solid-framed revolvers of high quality, and a break-top or H&R probably IS NOT SUITABLE FOR THESE LOADS, even though I keep power levels below what may be achievable in K-frame .38 S&W revolvers.

I hope to prepare an article for possible publication on my “experiments,” but that's secondary to (1) having fun, and (2) finding suitable loads for the women in my family. I am asking for help from anyone with relevant publications & info, to include:

Copies, links, or citations from the British Army tests of the late 1920-early 1930s, that led to adoption of the .380 Rimmed Mk. 1, 200g LRN.
Ditto for the British official “List of Changes,” which shows information relative to their adoption of this cartridge & the associated Enfield (and Webley) revolvers.
Ken Waters' Pet Loads, and his 1979 article on heavy loads for .38 S&W.
Any data from ammunition companies establishing the loads, sales numbers, popularity, suitability, tech data etc. for .38 S&W ammo (and also .38SPL/200).
Professional analysis from other past publications.

I plan to contact Remington & Winchester to see if they can offer assistance. Also, Brassfetcher has agreed to test my ammo for the cost of materials only, plus the cost of a test barrel & finish reamer (I will check to see if he will waive the latter & fire equivalent 200g loads from his .38SPL revolvers).

Results follow in several subsequent posts.

Attached Files

30 Comments

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes

CBA Member

LouisianaMan posted this 21 March 2010

A while back I posted some penetration tests on .38 SPL 200g and .32 S&W Long 115g bullets vs. water-filled milk jugs on a couple of forums. Since I recently re-equipped my wife & daughters with sets of 2” and 4” barreled revolvers in caliber .38 S&W (NOT .38 SPL), I thought I would share some initial results against milk jugs. I wanted to get them something more than a .32, but less than a .38 SPL, since one daughter finds that difficult to deal with. By standardizing their guns & even holsters, all ammo, speedloaders, snaps, etc. are now the same--no more fumbling over the differences between guns, actions, and ammo.

TARGET: 5 water-filled jugs, backed by 2x12. RANGE: approx 10 feet GUNS: S&W Mod. 32-1 (2") and S&W 33-1 (4") LOAD: a. BULLET: Lee LSWC-TL, .358--158g nominal size. I “beagled” the mold to produce a fatter bullet when casting, as my revolvers' bores slug at .359. Outcome of casting was .359-.361, 161g with 50-50 WW-Pb + 4 oz. tin per 20 lbs. alloy. Estimated BHN = 7-9. COL: 1.155" b. Powder: Win 231. Charge: 3.0g. Chrono'ed velocity for 5-shot string: 708.2 fps avg, with SD slightly over 12 (i.e. very consistent). NOTE: this powder charge is derived from Lyman 49th for 160g bullet, but my charge IS IN EXCESS OF RECOMMENDED LOAD. USE A RELOADING MANUAL TO WORK UP YOUR OWN LOAD. In previous tests, I have noted that my lot of Win231 appears to be slower than average, which lot variation has been noted by Ed Harris as characteristic of this powder. Therefore, I start with recommended data and then work it up over the chronograph to vels similar to published velocities. Ed considers 700fps max for a 200g bullet in this gun, so I'm very comfortable with the same velocity from a bullet about 20% lighter.

OUTCOME: both the snubbie 2” and its longer-barreled 4” twin put their bullet thru all five milk jugs in an absolutely straight line, then buried themselves into the 2x12 behind the jugs. Interestingly, the bullet from the snubbie is buried up to its base, whereas the bullet from the 4” gun is embedded “only” halfway into the board. (See photos) Perhaps a measurement of barrel-cylinder gaps on the two guns will explain the difference, or perhaps it's a result of the slight out-of-roundness in each bullet caused by the “beagling” process in casting--perhaps one obturated more fully than the other. OTHERS NOTE: the grain of the board is the likely cause!

NOTE on photos: the groups fired were from a 2.9g load at 40' from sandbags. The group size is largely a result of my marksmanship, which is adequate for defense but no record-setter :-) Note that the group sizes are completely adequate for close-range defense, which is our chosen purpose for these guns. The additional hole visible in the board was caused by my earlier .38SPL 200g LSWC-K test, fired thru 6 jugs (not 5).

200g bullet tests with these revolvers follow soon. Velocity goal is about 600fps.

Attached Files

CBA Member

LouisianaMan posted this 21 March 2010

Now, back to heavy .38s. Can you tell from your sources whether the “satisfied customers” of 200g LRN in .38 S&W or .38 SPL had an explanation for the effectiveness they observed? I've seen many assertions, for instance, that the heavy/slow bullet tumbled, perhaps giving it a wounding capacity out of proportion to its nominal ballistics. This theory seems quite opposite to the reasons I've seen given for the British Army's adoption of this cartridge in the '20s; namely, that it tended to push straight through without deviation. (Also, that the lead bullet tended to be very destructive to bone.) It would be consistent, perhaps, with the Brits' apparent insistence that slow vel was better than hi-vel. Maybe they indeed bought “energy dump” theory, as I've seen stated, or perhaps they were reacting to effectiveness caused by tumbling.

In my field-expedient tests (aka shooting stuff & enjoying the heck out of it), both .38 SPL 200g LRN and the .38 S&W version of same show an obvious tendency to veer strongly as they pass through the “target medium.” (Ahem.) That was the case with my handloads in these calibers, as well as in a factory .38SPL 200g kindly provided by an Internet correspondent some months ago. (And yes, when I chrono'ed 10 shots before firing one for effect into the water-filled jugs, the factory load rated about 605 fps, as I recall.) When the entry and exit holes in the first two jugs are round, and the 2-3 jugs thereafter have far broader rents in the plastic, I've certainly supposed it was tumbling at some point.

When I've fired 200g LSWC-K at about 670, 720, 750, and 815fps in .38 SPLs, the bullets tracked straight through the jugs. That type of performance was replicated in my 158g (actual wt. 161g) LSWC at 710 in .38 S&W--buried nose first in the stop board after 5 jugs. That seems consistent with the supposed British approval of a round that pushed straight through. . .but not at all with any benefits derived supposedly from tumbling.

These several results seem consistent with much that is written about the behavior of SWC and LRN profiles in general. What I can't fully reconcile, however, is why the 200 LRNs apparently tumble and are/were considered relatively effective, whereas 158 LRNs apparently don't tumble and have long had a rather notorious reputation for ineffectiveness. Partially a function of a blunter nose, perhaps, but largely a function of low vel = marginal stability in the heavier bullet? That's consistent with its lousy penetration performance against cars, etc., but good performance (due to tumbling and greater tissue destruction) against BGs. It's also consistent with the 158s drilling through in stable fashion, penetrating deeply, perhaps a bit erratically, but generally creating a narrow wound channel whose effects were often delayed. (And glancing nose-first off bone, if impacted, whereas the tumbling heavyweight might tend to smash the bone?)

And if tumbling WAS the cause of an observed or perceived improvement in terminal performance of 200g LRNs vs. 158 LRNs and the like. . .are we seeing a case of achieving results similar to an expanding bullet after all? In other words, far greater tissue destruction, but due to tumbling instead of expansion? And the momentum inherent in a 200g bullet carries this tumbling effect all the way through the BG, thereby combining the best of expanding bullets and penetrating bullets, while reducing overpenetration and keeping recoil mild? And is the choice between 200g LRN and 200g LSWC-K one in which the LRN does better if there's no intervening cover to cause premature destabilization, whereas the LSWC does better if there is some other need for super-penetration, such as cover, upraised arms, side shots thru shoulder-torso-shoulder, heavy clothes, etc.?

Well, lots of questions whose answers were probably well-known back “in the day,” but not widely understood now. A nearly lost art or insight, like the ability to recognize the medicinal value of herbs--most of us now view them as weeds, if we notice them at all. Well, enough navel-gazing & transcendental meditation on lead bullets! (For now. . .)

Attached Files

CBA Member

LouisianaMan posted this 21 March 2010

The line-up

Mas, thanks very much for your interest in tracking down some historical results for me. I look forward to anything you can stir up.

Re. the recoil comparison you asked about--I loaded up some 200g .38 SPLs with a charge that should approximate the velocity of my .38 S&W load, but by the time I tried to shoot a few over the chrono, it was getting dark. Early bird gets the worm! Oh well, everything's set for tomorrow--I even put the “skinny” grips on my Colt Police Positive .38 Special to approximate feel & weight of S&W 33-1 .38 S&W. I believe the former is 22 oz, the latter 20 oz.

Also, I loaded up some RCBS 35-200 bullets in .38 S&W cases. This is a .35 Remington flat point bullet with a nominal weight of 200g, and the ogive and point look strikingly like the original British .380/200 service bullet, IIRC. Interestingly, the exact settings used to seat and crimp my 358430 LRNs at the top lube groove served to seat the 35-200 perfectly in the crimp groove. I'll work up something with this slug in the low 600s and then. . .look out, milk jugs!

Photo shows (L-R): .38 S&W 161g LSWC; 358430 LRN 198g; 35-200 LFP 215g; .38 SPL 193g 358430. (All wts. as-cast, rather than nominal.) Bullets are tumble-lubed and arrayed above respective loaded cartridges, with crimp locations aligned to facilitate comparison. Guns are Police Positive Special and Mod. 33-1.

Attached Files

CBA Member

LouisianaMan posted this 21 March 2010

Heavy bullet update, 21 FEB 10

I tried the 198g LRN in .38SPL with 3.0g Win231, seated in crimp groove. Average vel 574.6, so I'll probably need to try a 3.2g load to get velocities about the same as my .38S&W/200 load.

Apparent recoil in the Colt Police Positive Special, cal. .38SPL, was approximately the same--perhaps a bit stronger--than the .38S&W/200 fired from a S&W Mod. 33-1. Both barrels are 4".

Free recoil in the Colt .38SPL: 3 ft-lbs, 12 fps. In the S&W .38S&W: 4 ft-lbs., 14 fps. In other words, the .38SPL should have felt like it kicked less than the .38S&W.

In all likelihood, the somewhat stronger felt recoil of the .38SPL was a function of two things: the roundness of the Colt grip isn't as stable for me as the S&W grip, and I was in an extreme prone position as I fired over my chronograph.

Will post further recoil comparisons after I up the .38SPL/200 load to about 630fps, and fire it slow and rapid fire alongside the Smith .38S&W/200.

Although no milk jugs were injured in conducting the experiments above, 6 paid the ultimate price when I test fired one of the .38S&W/215g RCBS 35-200 cast from 50-50 WW-Pb + tin. An 8-shot string chrono'ed as follows: LO 596.4, HI 668.4, AVG 622.8, ES 72.03, SD 21.44. Excepting the HI and LO shots, the other six were from 605 - 627 fps.

The bullet tracked STRAIGHT through 6 jugs and embedded itself into the stop board 2x12, which was backed by other jugs. Clearly, the flat nose provides straight-on penetration, rather than the curving & apparent tumbling of the 200g LRN. Note that it is deeper in the stop board after 6 jugs than the 158g after 5 jugs.

Photos below show embedded bullets (2 x 161g LSWCs, 1 x 215g LFN); revolvers and 50' targets--probably the first time these two minty guns were ever fired. POI was +7". The very clean LRN bullet in the photo of the 4” gun was found next to my line of jugs--it was one of those previously shot thru the jugs and originally not recovered.

Attached Files

CBA Member

LouisianaMan posted this 21 March 2010

"Group photo”

Here's a photo of 7 of my 8 .38 S&W revolvers. #8 is in active service w/daughter :-)

Attached Files

CBA Member

LouisianaMan posted this 21 March 2010

British Army 200g bullet profile technical drawing

Here's a diagram I found of some British Army bullets, to include the .380/200g LRN (blunt) and the FMJ 178g version (see drawings at lower left). I believe the NEI mold appears to have the shape of the FMJ Mk. 2 bullet, and the Lyman 358430 is closer to the original 200g Mk. 1 lead bullet.

Attached Files

CBA Member

LouisianaMan posted this 21 March 2010

200g flat-nose bullets in .38 S&W--penetration testing 7 MAR 10

I used a die made by “BUCKSHOT” on Cast Boolits to flatten the noses of my 192g wheelweight 358430s, giving them a meplat approx. .275 in diameter, while reducing the LRN profile to something resembling a LWC without the sharp shoulder. Since the flattening process caused a bit of swelling, I ran them thru a 361 sizer to ensure a fit in my guns. I also reduced the charge from 2.7g Win231 to 2.6g, since diameter might have increased from as-cast .360 to .361. COL was reduced from 1.270 to 1.205” due to the bumping process; bullet seating depth was not altered from my earlier tests.

CHRONO RESULTS (10 shots, 4” bb. Mod. 33-1): LO 608.8 HI 643.0 AVG 629.8 ES 34.28 SD 9.43

PENETRATION RESULTS @ est. 10' vs. water-filled milk jugs: 1. 4” bbl, Mod. 33-1. Shot chrono'ed at 604.5fps. Bullet penetrated all 6 jugs in essentially straight line, barely exiting 6th jug, denting a stop board about 1/4” deep, then falling back into the jug (now very clean). I had placed cardboard between each jug, to see whether evidence of bullet tumbling existed. Neither the holes in the cardboard nor the holes in the jugs evidenced tumbling. Since the velocity was actually lower than the chronographed LRN 198g in my earlier testing, the LFP profile seems to account for increased penetration & straighter flight path vs. the LRN version of this bullet.

2” bbl, S&W Mod. 32-1. This shot screamed over the chrono at 575.0 fps, penetrating in a straight line into the 6th jug, but failing to exit. This bullet was also recovered in a very clean condition :-) No evidence of tumbling.
Both recovered bullets miked at .360 and evidenced no weight loss or deformation.

ACCURACY RESULTS: 50' off sandbags, 2 1/2” group 10 rds, POI +5", L 1 1/2".

ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS: 1. Penetration in LFP profile is markedly deeper & straighter than LRN profile of same bullet, despite lower velocity of the shot. The bullet hole is clearly larger and rounder in both paper target and mik jug than the LRN; larger wound channel and greater tissue damage are therefore likely. If any benefit obtains when the bullet tumbles in LRN form, however, this would be lost in LFP form.

192g LFP penetration is slightly less than 161g LSWC and 215g LFP (35-200). The meplat and bullet hole sizes of the 192g LFP and 161g LSWC are very similar; both are larger than the LRN, which is in turn larger than the 215g LFP.

Next tests are with a Lyman Ideal 360271 mold, nominally 150g, which casts 50-50 in WW-Pb + tin at .364+ and 157g lubed.

Attached Files

CBA Member

LouisianaMan posted this 21 March 2010

a few more photos re. 200g LFPs

Cartridge line-up

Cartridge photos are (L-R):

215g LFP (RCBS 35-200). This is a .35 Remington fifle bullet. Loaded in .38 S&W, it resembles the British 178g FMJ in shape, and the tumble-lube almost makes it look jacketed.
358430 “bumped” from LRN to LFP
358430 in original LRN
161g LSWC (Lee 358-158-SWC-TL)

Attached Files

CBA Member

LouisianaMan posted this 21 March 2010

50-yd. 200g test against pine tree, 157g against milk jugs

200g results @ long range

Attached photos of 50-yard target fired off of sandbags, prone, with the 358430 bullet in .38 S&W (vel. c. 630) from S&W Mod. 33. Bullet weight was 197-98g, cast .360 from 50-50 WW-Pb + tin. See also “better” target with .38 SPL @ 725fps, 192-93g, cast from straight WW, sized .358, fired from S&W Mod. 67.

I've plinked with autos at 75 yds before, but this is the first time I've fired a 50-yd. target with revolvers. Although my marksmanship is nothing to brag about, it would not have been fun to stand in front of the targets, especially since there was no keyholing at all. :-) I presume the difference in accuracy was due primarily to better fit, sights, weight of M-67, esp. since Mod 33's sights are nickel--a bit of a strain in sunlight.

I also fired .38 SPL into a live pine tree at 56 yards and my probe touched the base of the slug 1” deep, so the nose of the bullet penetrated about 1.8” into the wood, plus 1/4 to 1/2” of bark.

When I fired the .38 S&W slug into a different live pine tree at 58 yards, my probe found the base 5/8” deep, so the nose penetrated about 1.5” into wood, plus 1/4 to 1/2” of bark.

So, the .38/200 supposedly bounced off of an overcoat???? I can't speak personally for the British 178g FMJ service round, but this 358430 is very similar to the original Brit lead bullet 200g load, and anyone expecting his overcoat to stop this bullet had better be wearing blue tights with a big “S” on his chest! :-)

Water-filled milk jug penetration test with 150g LSWC

BULLET: Lyman Ideal 360271 LSWC, nominally 150g, but 157g as-cast with 50-50+tin, sized .361

LOAD: 2.5g Win231. COL = 1.086” Crimped in crimp groove.

REVOLVER: S&W Mod. 33, 4” bbl.

CHRONO: LO 694.6, HI 713.7, AVG 703.9, ES 19.08, SD 6.85

POI @ 60' approx. +2"

PENETRATION @ 10 FT.” (with both 4” and 2” guns) a. Mod 33, 4” bbl: Shot chrono'ed at 690.3 fps, drove straight line thru all 6 jugs, halfway-exited #6 and buried up to shoulder in 2x12 stop board. Note deformed bullet nose in photo.

b. Mod 32-1, 2” bbl” Shot chrono'ed at 581.2 fps. drove straight line thru 5 jugs, cracked hole barely in front of #6, and stuck horizontally between #5 and #6. Note undeformed bullet nose in photo.

PHOTOS:

017: Mod 67 .38 SPL with 50-yd. target

018: Mod 33 .38 S&W with 50-yd. target

004: Mods. 33-1 and 32-1 used for water penetration test of 150g LSWC, with recovered bullets at respective muzzles. Other cartridges shown, with nominal bullet wts. (L-R): Lyman 360271 LSWC 150g; Lee LSWC-TL 158g; Lee GB of Lyman 358430 LRN 195g; flat-pointed Lee GB of Lyman 358430 LRN 195g; RCBS 35-200 LFP, 200g.

Attached Files

Standard Member

Colin_In_Ottawa posted this 24 March 2010

Nice work. Thanks for your efforts. Is there an advantage to seating the 358430 to the top grease groove rather than the crimp groove or is it done just to mimic the “look” of the early MkI round? Cheers

Attached Files

Standard Member

bruce posted this 24 March 2010

I really like the one with the 35-200 bullet. I love this thread, and I read anything I can on .38 S&W, especially the heavy bullet stuff. But is there any evidence that this makes a good self-defense round? I'd love to believe that it does, but ugly hollowpoints moving significantly faster seem to be what is making people dead today.

I remember watching an old Columbo where the bad guy had shot the victim with some form of .38 British break-top. Nothing like getting murdered with a classic round!

Attached Files

Standard Member

bruce posted this 24 March 2010

I remember watching an old Columbo where the bad guy had shot the victim with some form of .38 British break-top. Nothing like getting murdered with a classic round!

Attached Files

CBA Member

LouisianaMan posted this 24 March 2010

Colin & Bruce,

Thanks for the input.

By seating to top lube groove instead of crimp groove, I get the COL to a very close approximation to what's listed in Lyman 49th. Also, AFAIK, seating long is generally an excellent way to keep pressures and/or pressure curves under control. Plus, it's what Ed Harris & Mikey (GBO) recommended ;)

As far as .38 S&W effectiveness as a defense round. . .you're right, there is little modern discussion in print about this caliber in any role, much less the SD/HD role. Specifically the .38S&W/200 and the .38SPL/200 are somewhat disputed, insofar as anyone pays attention to them at all anymore. Anecdotal evidence does what anecdotal evidence normally does--it provides evidence of both success and failure, and in the .38S&W the most widely-distributed anecdotes tend to ridicule it. One story is about a 200g (actually a .38SPL) bouncing off a car door during penetration testing, leaving only a scratch. The cop allegedly remarked, “Stop, or I'll scratch your paint!” Another is about a Brit .380 Rimmed slug failing to penetrate a German overcoat!

As some others have remarked. few lead bullets at a 45 degree angle will penetrate car doors anyway. From a 90 degree angle, many claim a .38SPL/200 shoots thru a car. The NYPD apparently considered it, in LRN profile, effective enough against cars, but not against people (due to overpenetration but small wound channel). For SD/HD, I'm not worried about shooting thru cars, whereas LEOs must.

On the German overcoat story, it specifically referred to the 178g FMJ version of the .380 Rimmed cartridge. But I've also come across a NUMBER of references to this ammo functioning dreadfully--one poster states he fired a lot of it while in the Hong Kong Police, IIRC, and actually saw a number come out the barrel and fall to the ground. Now we all know that such performance cannot be a result of cartridge or revolver design--it's obviously some poorly-made ammo, or ammo degraded by weather, oil, etc. (And yes, I intend to find some old overcoat material & shoot it with a 200g!:cool:

This evening I'll post some more thoughts on what may have made the .38 caliber 200g bullet tumble, or not tumble, and how I hope to test my hypotheses. Often the positive testimonials applaud the tumbling characteristic. . .but the negative testimonials about weak stopping power would seem to indicate that one can't always expect tumbling, or that tumbling may not prove effective in stopping an opponent.

My current hypothesis is that several factors may have caused certain bullet/load designs to tumble, whereas others would not. If a heavy, .800-long bullet indeed tumbles, the wound channel must be considerable, as for part of its travel it is presenting a .800 x .359ish frontal area.

If such a heavy bullet drills straight through nose-first, a “pointy” 200g LRN probably tends to have the same defects as the old police standard, the .38SPL 158g LRN, in that it “slips” thru rather than smashing or cutting thru. If a blunt 200g drills straight thru, I would presume its frontal area resembles a flat-nose meplat more than it does a “pointy” LRN, thus it would create a decent wound channel. Not as wide or sharp as an expanded HP, of course, but it would certainly go deeper. Also, most agree that lead. especially soft lead with a blunt shape, wreaks holy havoc on any bone it hits, tending to smash its way thru. Other bullets may pierce it or simply glance off it,

Now, to penetration & its role in the potential effectiveness of such bullets. Read “The Ayoob Files,” or any other source that strives to detail gunshot wounds in SD/HD situations, and note the number of bullets--expanded or otherwise--that fail to punch decisively thru raised arms, bones, and Lord knows what else, and still retain energy to reach the BG's vitals. Other stories abound of unexpanded HPs, plugged by clothing, etc. I'm certainly no expert, but my eyes tell me that a low vel .38 cal 200g slug w/flat nose plows straight thru 36 inches of water, plus 12 layers of plastic, and still retains some energy. I just have to believe that puts it into a totally different class than 110, 125, or even 158g bullets--and 1920s Brit + 1990s US tests seem to verify that .38 cal. 200g slugs do not deviate from their paths, whereas lighter bullets do.

Final note: at many angles, a 200g heavyweight would doubtless blast straight thru a BG. I believe that at any angle, it would get very, very deep into him. Now, our beleaguered LEOs are liable to be sued for anything they do, to include an “overpenetrating bullet.” If I lived in an apt. complex, I would have the same concern. But I live in a rural environment, with a house that offers a 60-foot indoor shot, with lots of leather furniture for a BG to dive behind, and I have no confidence that he will be standing there tamely awaiting a frontal shot. I expect (God forbid) to have to shoot thru some combination of leather furniture, raised arms, heavy clothing, and cell phones, into the side of an agile aggressor diving for cover. . .at 10-20 yards range. I expect to struggle to hit center mass, so I WANT PENETRATION, and my family & home layout is such that overpenetration isn't a concern. Plus, I find it hard to conceive of a shot that I would take with a light HP, that I would not take with some other bullet. What if you miss cleanly? And, if I don't hit CNS, the only physical way to stop the BG is to reduce his BP, and I believe an entry + an exit hole will accomplish that faster.

Bottom line: I suspect the 200g .38, whether .38S&W or .38SPL, would have been thought of far more highly if it had been a LFP or LSWC bullet, rather than a LRN. Nothing against HPs, but I think LRNs gave lead a misleading reputation. (Note the .44-40's generally positive rep--it was a LFP.)

Attached Files

CBA Member

LouisianaMan posted this 24 March 2010

Guys, please read these thoughts & poke holes in them. My Dad was a chemist, and my nephew is one, but the scientific gene skipped a generation in yours truly :-)

Hypothesis: a. Brits chose .380/200 for its deep penetration and blunt-nosed smashing effect when it hit bone, plus it “pushed right through” when it hit target. (NOTE: at this time, I don't know the barrel twist rate of Enfield/Webley revolvers, so cannot account for this factor yet.)

b. American police, etc., using the Colt New Police (.38S&W/200, with flat nose), probably had the same results. Ditto for those using the Winchester factory cartidge, with its very blunt nose.

c. American police, etc., using the “pointier” Remington .38S&W/200, probably were more likely to experience tumbling, as the pointier, even longer, perhaps less stable bullet tumbled when it hit the target, as it was only marginally stabilized.

d. Tumbling may also have partially resulted from use of S&W revolvers, with their slow twist of 1:18 3/4". Possibly the faster-twist Colts stabilized the bullets more fully, reducing likelihood of tumbling with any .38S&W/200 ammo. Likewise, faster-velocity 200g loads, such as the .38 SPL “Highway Patrol” load of c. 730-770 fps, may have been more stable & therefore less likely to tumble.

e. Possibly, changing barrel lengths from longer to shorter (i.e. to snubbies) may reduce velocity and stability of one or more loads to the marginal stability point, and cause a load to tumble in a snubbie that doesn't normally tumble in a 4” or longer barrel. Additionally, it is imaginable that a gun/load/bullet combination that is stable at close range, could become unstable as its velocity decays to a critical point over longer ranges.

f. Based on (a) thru (e) above, I hypothesize that the famous “tumbling” effect was more likely with “pointy” bullets at low vels (c. 600 or lower) when fired from S&W snub-nosed revolvers, whether in caliber .38S&W or .38SPL, and at relatively longer ranges. Conversely, that blunt bullets were unlikely to tumble in general, and even less likely at close range, when fired from Colts, 4” S&W's, or in higher-vel loads such as the “Highway Patrol” loading.

PROPOSED EXPERIMENTAL METHOD: attempt to obtain an adequate supply of both “pointier” bullets and blunt designs. Develop loads of c. 600, 700, and 750 fps with both bullet styles, to approximate .38S&W, .38 Colt New Police or .380/200 British, and .38 SPL “Highway Patrol” loads. Test each load from Colt, S&W and even Enfield/Webley revolvers against water jugs and wet newspaper, to determine which factor, or combination of factors, is more likely to give a tumbling effect. Test at close (7 yds), medium (25 yds) and long (50 yds.) range.

If we can succeed in identifying any real trends, we may have some decent answers even before we get our hands on British 1920s testing results and analysis. Accordingly, a modern-day shooter can optimize loads for his gun, because he can more reliably anticipate the effects associated with any of the popular loads/vels, bullet profiles, and revolver/barrel choices. For instance, one might learn to use a pointy bullet at low vel with an S&W snubbie if he wants the “tumbling” effect, whereas someone with a Colt may determine that “tumbling” is unlikely anyway, so he should load blunt bullets at the highest attainable velocities. If someone has only blunt bullets, he may forget tumbling completely.

If we can confirm my hypotheses, then it's time for more testing. Who out there has a Colt revolver in this caliber & would like to do some testing? How about Enfield or Webley? And a S&W .38SPL snubbie? Maybe some Remington (or other?) “pointy” 200g bullets?

Attached Files

Standard Member

bruce posted this 25 March 2010

Louisiana Man,

All this heavy lead handgun stuff fires me up, and after reading your posts last night I got to thinking about Buffalo Bore. Now they are typically big on speed and hard cast, but for some things they offer soft lead bullets with a gas check. This is especially true for .38 Special 156 grain LSWCHP, and a new round for .44 mag called a “Deer Grenade".

So my question is, how about casting one of your 200 grainers out of pure lead and paper patching it, or use a GC style mold. I was at the Alamo a few weeks back walking through the museum. There were lots of recovered lead balls there, and man were they flattened out. In an autoloader, they would get smushed on the feedramp, but in a wheel gun they would have a nice clean ride.

It would be interesting to see what a trip through the milk jugs would do to a pure lead 200 grain bullet at that speed.

Attached Files

CBA Member

LouisianaMan posted this 25 March 2010

Bruce,

I can't claim anything about “great minds,” but we're certainly thinking alike! Over next week's Spring Break, I intend to try that very thing. I'd like to see if the low-vel 200s can work in pure lead w/o causing barrel leading. Another option, very light amount of tin.

A third option is to use that RCBS .35-200 mold, which I intentionally sought out because it's a gas-check design. I have 1000 gas checks waiting to see if they're needed! If I need to go that route to keep the slug soft enough, I'll “smush” the nose down to about a .250+ meplat, which I've already experimented enough to maximize. That meplat isn't quite as big as my other options, but depending on how the soft lead reacts to target impact, that may give enough additional punch to warrant the smaller meplat.

Attached Files

Standard Member

bruce posted this 25 March 2010

Louisiana Man:

Maybe with the pure lead and a GC, the thing would flatten itself out pretty good. If so, it would save a step in your manufacturing.

Just how much milk do you folks drink, by the way?

Bruce

Attached Files

CBA Member

LouisianaMan posted this 25 March 2010

If a good dose of LLA doesn't keep me free of leading, then I'll try gas-check. Will also try a bit of tin separately, w/o GC. I'd like to establish that one, or both, work, so that others can duplicate if interested. Anyone with a 190ish mold could cast bullets at or near 200g with pure lead, and anyone w/o a GC design would appreciate the ability to use their existing molds.

Once again, I emphasize that I'm a dairyphile at heart, as are both daughters. I also love deer season for many reasons. . .but high on the list is that we rinse & save every gallon jug all season, and then crank up the penetration tests when season ends :-)

Attached Files

Standard Member

Colin_In_Ottawa posted this 26 March 2010

"By seating to top lube groove instead of crimp groove, I get the COL to a very close approximation to what's listed in Lyman 49th. Also, AFAIK, seating long is generally an excellent way to keep pressures and/or pressure curves under control. Plus, it's what Ed Harris & Mikey (GBO) recommended"

I checked last night and the 1.175 OAL in the Lyman book is to the crimp groove and not the top lube groove. Also, Ed answered my question on this and says to use the crimp groove as well. Probably doesnt change things as far as testing goes but you might get better SD's and ignition patterns with the fuller case that results with the deeper seating... Minor point.

Attached Files

CBA Member

LouisianaMan posted this 26 March 2010

Hi Colin,

Yes, my Lyman 49th indeed shows 1.175", but my Lee 2nd shows 1.240” for a 200g. And Lyman's max load is 1.8g Win231, and my powder dispenser doesn't do less than 2g loads. The two chrono'ed groups I spotted just now in my notes had SD's of 9.43 and 10.00. And since the advice I'd gotten, which was to load long in my I/J frames, seemed to achieve good results, I went with the longer COL.

It's certainly possible that Lyman's shorter COL is a superior solution, perhaps especially in K-frames. But I also note Lyman's test barrel max vel with Win231 is in the mid-500s, which makes me wonder about that pressure curve.

I'm no ballistician, so I'm not about to pit my knowledge against those more experienced & informed, but I wanted to share my rationale as fully as possible. HTH, and thanks again for keeping me on my toes !