Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: Tumbling/Yawing .38 Special?

  1. #1
    The R in F.A.R.T RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Gotham Adjacent

    Tumbling/Yawing .38 Special?

    Early this evening, while looking up load data for the old British .380/200 load I came across some interesting tid-bits about 200-grain bullets in .38 Special traveling ~550-600fps.

    https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/200...ice-cartridge/

    The conceptual idea, is a .38 Special load that penetrates decently, recoils softly, and has the potential to yaw when it hits tissue. Science wise, the idea has some merit. The longer and heavier 200-grain bullets are less stable from the twist-rate common in .38 special barrels (particularly between 2-4"). And the low velocity doesn't allow high speed stability to occur either, such that when the bullet hits something it has a tendency to upset. I can see this being pretty lame, if we're talking an 85-grain .380 bullet, but a 200-grain lead slug seems like it might push a further on the penetration front. It seems that this was the same idea, by-the-by for the .380/200 load that British cooked up for Enfields and Webleys. Send a 200-grain round nose bullet out at about 6-650 fps. It penetrates fairly deep and may get upset in the process and turn over.

    While I'm not normally for voodoo magic to get bullets to work, the simple reality is that there aren't very many good .38 Special loads for snub-nosed revolvers out there. You get penetration and no expansion, plenty of expansion and minimal penetration, or expansion, penetration, and plenty of recoil. So, I'm interested in anything that might work a bit better. I know we have some guys who have probably played with 200-grain bullets in .38 Specials - what say you? Yay, nay, indifferent?

    The very real downside is that it is likely to not defeat any kind of intermediate barrier reliably. Chances are good if it hits windshield glass it will deflect pretty hard. So, anyone who may have a higher chance of shooting through a barrier this will be a non-starter.

  2. #2
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Years ago on another forum I asked Doc about the 200 grain slow bullet load. If memory serves me, he did not accept the claim that the load was effective. Rob, I agree with your opinion that .38 Spl bullets from snubs lack impressive ballistics. I think that it's the gun(j frame)that fits a niche, and the .38 Spl is the best choice available for this gun. It's a bare minimum at best. That's why today it's a backup weapon and not a primary sidearm. Of course, I stated the obvious.

  3. #3
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Allen, TX
    The problem with yaw is that you can't get it to be consistent as to the degree and location. We know that pointy or round nosed pistol bullets yaw, as do pointy and round nosed rifle bullets. They just do it at different points during their travel through tissue and so we can't count on that mechanism helping us out.
    Regional Government Sales Manager for Aimpoint, Inc. USA
    Co-owner Hardwired Tactical Shooting (HiTS)

  4. #4
    The .38 Special 200-grain LRN fell into disfavor, and eventually disuse, due to the fact that it often penetrated excessively and exited bodies without incapacitating/neutralizing the threat. Any reliance upon the LRN's tendency (which is far from a guarantee) to tumble/yaw coupled with its very low velocity―and the likelihood that the LRN will not expand―makes it a questionable choice at best. I am not sure why anyone would want to ''reinvent the wheel'' by returning to a non-expanding projectile that would behave no differently than an FMJ when there are truly exceptional designs that are readily available (Gold Dot, HST, PDX1, etc...) and are capable of doing a far better job than the .38 Special 200-grain LRN.
    Last edited by the Schwartz; 09-20-2018 at 12:11 PM.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.

  5. #5
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Also the factory 200 gr load had a hefty recoil. I've shot a lot of it over the years.

  6. #6
    The R in F.A.R.T RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Gotham Adjacent
    Quote Originally Posted by the Schwartz View Post
    there are truly exceptional designs that are readily available (Gold Dot, HST, PDX1, etc...) and are capable of doing a far better job than the .38 Special 200-grain LRN.
    And while they may do a fine job (and do) from 3" and longer revolvers, from 2" or less barrels, they tend to have inconsistent expansion and/or penetration. Or they have excessive recoil. Which is probably why 90% of J-Frame carriers here on P-F prefer the 148-grain HBWC for carry. Which is why I'm always interested in potential alternatives.

    And I'm sorry - did you change your name recently?

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by RevolverRob View Post
    And while they may do a fine job (and do) from 3" and longer revolvers, from 2" or less barrels, they tend to have inconsistent expansion and/or penetration. Or they have excessive recoil. Which is probably why 90% of J-Frame carriers here on P-F prefer the 148-grain HBWC for carry. Which is why I'm always interested in potential alternatives.
    Then why not stick with the HBWC which promises by its very design to cut a much larger permanent wound channel? An FMJ or LRN, with its rounded profile, is simply going to slip through soft tissue and push it aside without damaging it, whereas the HBWC, even if it doesn't expand, will cut a somewhat larger permanent wound channel due to the sharper edges presented by its profile. Although an FMJ or an LRN might yaw or tumble, that mechanism would be unreliable at best and quite a gamble.

    Quote Originally Posted by RevolverRob View Post
    I'm sorry - did you change your name recently?
    Relevance?

    I note that your profile says that you are the south side of Chiraq―assuming that you are talking about Chicago―my dad grew up on the south side, in Merrionette Park specifically, and I was born in Oak Park...which was, at the time, a little bit better than being on the south side, but only 'a little'.
    Last edited by the Schwartz; 09-20-2018 at 02:42 PM.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.

  8. #8
    Site Supporter Hambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Behind the Photonic Curtain
    I don't know who that author is, but I think paging @Dagga Boy for some historical data would be a good idea. I suspect that the main answer to less than ideal LRN back in the day was "shoot better", not different ammo. Given that ammo with bullets heavier than 158gr would be either a custom or handloaded proposition today, the real options are WC or MTFU for +P JHP.
    "Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA

  9. #9
    The R in F.A.R.T RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Gotham Adjacent
    Quote Originally Posted by the Schwartz View Post
    Then why not stick with the HBWC which promises by its very design to cut a much larger permanent wound channel? An FMJ or LRN, with its rounded profile, is simply going to slip through soft tissue and push it aside without damaging it, whereas the HBWC, even if it doesn't expand, will cut a somewhat larger permanent wound channel due to the sharper edges presented by its profile. Although an FMJ or an LRN might yaw or tumble, that mechanism would be unreliable at best and quite a gamble.
    I'll probably stick with my +P Remington LHPs for now. But I'm always interested in whether or not something got lost in the days of yore. It is unlikely that it did but you never know and I like to keep my eyes open.


    Relevance?
    I'm just trying to place your sig quote and screen name together and they aren't clicking. If not, it could simply be a missed connection.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hambo View Post
    I don't know who that author is, but I think paging @Dagga Boy for some historical data would be a good idea. I suspect that the main answer to less than ideal LRN back in the day was "shoot better", not different ammo. Given that ammo with bullets heavier than 158gr would be either a custom or handloaded proposition today, the real options are WC or MTFU for +P JHP.
    Shoot better is always the best answer. Honestly it's not as though +P JHPs hurt to shoot, it's that the recoil from them makes follow up shots a 50-50 proposition.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by RevolverRob View Post
    I'll probably stick with my +P Remington LHPs for now. But I'm always interested in whether or not something got lost in the days of yore. It is unlikely that it did but you never know and I like to keep my eyes open.

    I'm just trying to place your sig quote and screen name together and they aren't clicking. If not, it could simply be a missed connection.
    Well, that makes sense always looking for better options...


    Good luck with that. My sig line changes with the direction of the wind and/or how I am feeling on a given day.

    Hopefully you are far enough south of the south side to not be in the midst of the war-zone that it has become over these last two or three decades. The only thing that I really miss from there (all my family is gone from there now, thank Heaven!) is a long-defunct pizza joint up on North Ave, Cappizzi's Pizza, which made the best damned pizza in the world―I still have dreams where I go back and can almost taste it. Ah, nertz....now I am hungry.
    Last edited by the Schwartz; 09-20-2018 at 03:22 PM.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •