.38 double wadcutter load

[pettypace]

*Note from moderator: New thread created for the topic*

This thread show a lot of love for wadcutters in the .38 snubby. I like wadcutters, too. In fact, I like them so much I've been loading two to a cartridge.

Before you tell me that the two projectile idea "has been tried repeatedly and rejected" or that "the concept is a loser on all levels" (as I was advised by some on another forum) at least consider these points:

• The .38 Special, even a snubby at standard pressure, can launch a 200 grain bullet at over 600 ft/s.
  
• Two 100 grain wadcutters can be stacked base-to-base in a .38 Special case and leave plenty of room for enough powder to get 600 ft/s. (WARNING: Don't try this with published loads for 200 grain bullets! Seating depth is much too deep for that.)
  
• Predicted penetration in 10% ballistic gelatin for a 100 grain .36 caliber wadcutter at 600 ft/s is about 12". (see Quantitative Ammunition Selection by Schwartz and/or Bullet Penetration by MacPherson.
  
• My own testing in Clear Ballistic gel shows that two projectiles hitting the gel simultaneously penetrate significantly deeper than the predicted penetration of the same projectiles fired singly at the same velocity.
  
• The combined cross sectional area of two .36 caliber wadcutters is equivalent to a single .50 caliber projectile.
  
• Predicted wound mass for two 100 grain wadcutters at 600 ft/s (as per Schwartz and/or MacPherson) equals or exceeds that of most JHP loads from a .38 snubby.
  
• I've found accuracy to be more than adequate for any likely civilian self-defense scenario.
  
• Most importantly, given a well-placed shot, two projectiles per trigger pull significantly increases the chances of a "vital" hit.

Of course, it's not all gravy. Recoil is stout. Accuracy at 25 yards leaves something to be desired. POI does not match POA. And the two wadcutter load is not speed loader friendly.

[BehindBlueI's]

Of course, it's not all gravy. Recoil is stout. Accuracy at 25 yards leaves something to be desired. POI does not match POA. And the two wadcutter load is not speed loader friendly.

The point of wadcutters is largely in the reduced recoil and the shape not deflecting from bone as easily. If we're going to up the recoil to the point of launching 200 gr of projectile, what are you actually gaining over any number of proven 130gr +P bonded loads? A cartridge that is accurate and will generally shoot to POA.

Seems like a gimmick to me, something to do because you can and not because of any real gain. I'll stick with factory loads with a proven track record that hit where I aim at.

[03RN]

How about a wc and swc? Wouldn't have to be loaded as deep.

[SiriusBlunder]

To me, a "predicted" 12'' of penetration in bare gel is pretty marginal and not something I'd carry if there were better options. I'd rather have 1 deep penetrating projectile than 2 shallow/marginal ones.

Plus what BBI said about recoil.

[pettypace]

To me, a "predicted" 12'' of penetration in bare gel is pretty marginal and not something I'd carry if there were better options. I'd rather have 1 deep penetrating projectile than 2 shallow/marginal ones.

I suppose if we accept the FBI 12" to 18" penetration requirement, then 12" would be "marginal" by definition in that it's at one margin of the acceptable range. But I think the real question is whether or not 12" of penetration is adequate. If the FBI didn't think so, they would have set the minimum higher.

To put that 12" penetration in perspective, consider the Fackler wound profiles below for three different .36 caliber loads. The typical penetration for the classic "FBI load" (the middle profile below) was only about 12.6" -- barely into the FBI green zone -- yet, as Fackler noted, "it's reputation for reliability and effectiveness in the human target is exemplary."



As for preferring one deep penetrating projectile over two shallow/marginal ones, I'm sure you don't mean that you'd sooner trust your life to one shot from a .38 Special LRN (top diagram above) that penetrates well past the FBI green zone than to two shots with the shallower/marginal FBI load.

But for the question of the two 100 grain wadcutters at 600 ft/s, all this talk of marginal penetration is really moot. As I noted in my previous post:

My own testing in Clear Ballistic gel shows that two projectiles hitting the gel simultaneously penetrate significantly deeper than the predicted penetration of the same projectiles fired singly at the same velocity.

I should have stated just what I meant by "significantly deeper." For example, in a typical test of five shots fired from a S&W 442 into Clear Ballistic gel, of the ten projectiles entering the gel, three exited the gel after 16", 16", and 19" of penetration. Of the seven projectiles captured in the gel, one stopped sideways at just 14" and the others penetrated to 17", 17.5", 17.5", 18", 18.5", and 19".

[pettypace]

How about a wc and swc? Wouldn't have to be loaded as deep.

I haven't tried a SWC out front. But one of my early "experiments" was with two 95 grain truncated cone bullets from a Lyman 356404 mould. The back bullet flies base forward and penetrates like a WC while the front TC bullet penetrates much deeper. In fact, in one test one of those little buggers penetrated through 22" of Clear Ballistic gel, made a quarter inch deep dent in a pressure treated 2x10 several yards behind the gel, and bounced back hitting in the ankle a buddy standing behind me at the firing line. After that, we were more careful how we back-stopped the gel blocks.

Actually base-to-base truncated cones is not a bad option. The Lyman 356404 mould is not all that common, but six-cavity Lee TL356-95-RF moulds are cheap and plentiful. And as you noted, having more of the bullet nose outside the case eases some of the seating depth concern. Also, if the back bullet is a base-forward TC, then there's no bulging of case to worry about. And the whole thing is speed-loader friendly to boot.

[SiriusBlunder]

I guess I was too subtle with ""predicted" 12'' of penetration in bare gel". That's a "paper" expectation and marginal at that.

Clear Ballistic Gel is not recognized as a valid tissue simulant so I don't see value in those numbers.

So yes, any talk of penetration is moot until you have some BG and 4LD testing of your pet load in validated 10% ordinance gel. If it performs well in validated 10% ordinance gel, I would reconsider my position on penetration. Not so much on the recoil & POA/POI issues BBI mentioned.

I will continue to trust my life on ammo that Doc recommends. For the 3 months a year I carry a snub in my winter jacket outer pocket, in addition to my normal EDC, that will be the barrier blind ammo mentioned in BUG's: .380 ACP vs. .38 Sp.

[Hambo]

at least consider these points:

No, thanks.

At the risk of confronting someone who wants to convince yet another forum that they've found the magic bullet, perhaps you should consider that everyone who has disagreed might just be right. Single bullet loads are effective, available, and have been through real testing protocols. To say nothing of how you're going to explain why doubling down on bullets was necessary to the DA.

[RevolverRob]

Before we run off and jam multiple projectiles into a cartridge - let's bear in mind two things.

1) Accuracy reigns supreme, you can't stop what you can't hit. Buck 'n' ball or "double ball" loads tend to produce abysmal accuracy beyond 10-yards.

2) Clear gel typically shows penetration results that are 40% higher than recovered in 10% organic gel. So, 19" of penetration in 10% organic gel would probably be ~15", while 13-17" seems "good enough" in clear gel, it isn't. That's severe under-penetration given that clear gel shows more penetration.

So no.

[Totem Polar]

I think that a lot of people are going easy on the FNG—which is not a bad thing.

A bad thing is concocting weirdo handloads far enough out of the mainstream to have completely lost sight of the shore, and then advocating for defensive carry of said loads. That would be a bad thing, if that were actually happening in this thread.