.38 double wadcutter load

[revchuck38]

So far, I've done little testing and no tuning for accuracy. But here's 10 shots at 10 yards with a two-wadcutter load. Fired standing, two-hands, slow and deliberate DA, from a S&W 38/44 Outdoorsman.

Attachment 46504

I know I couldn't do as well with the snubby. But I doubt I'd do any better with Gold Dots.

A couple of things...first, while we may not agree with your choice of load, few of us would disagree with your choice of revolver!

Secondly, you've got a nicely centered, big hole in the target with six flyers at ten yards. There's no telling where they'd be at longer range, and you're responsible for each one of them. Personally, I'd be pretty uncomfortable with that.

Thirdly, you obviously shoot well enough that all ten of the Gold Dots, had you tried them, would probably be in that nice hole in the ten ring.

[pettypace]

Please do not take this as a personal attack. I don’t know you; I just don’t think the concept works for me or should be recommended to anyone. Your group is proof.

That group is about 3.25” at ten yards. Slow fire with a service-sized handgun.

I am assuming you can press a trigger to the rear without ruining your sight alignment.

That’s about 8” at 25 yards. Slow fire. 4” off a dead center POA is useless to me. It’s useless to any shooter, because you lose the ability to correlate proper technique and visual feedback to success on target, so you cannot train with the gun and ammo carried.

If I had a service-sized gun that I couldn’t shoot freestyle into a 4” at 25 yards, I would sell it. 3” or less is even better. That lack of precision is not suitable for defensive use. I am imperfect enough that I don’t need help missing under pressure.

I'm convinced.

[BehindBlueI's]

I know I couldn't do as well with the snubby. But I doubt I'd do any better with Gold Dots.

I bet you would. This is 7 yards on 2" circles with a 2".357 LCR and standard wadcutters of my own load, each one shot "cold" about a week apart to test various front sights.



By the standards of this forum, I'm a pretty mediocre shot.

[WDR]

There's a reason that Federal developed the Flite Control Wad, to keep the lighter wad from accelerating through and disrupting the shot and enlarging the pattern.

Point of contention: I believe the wad used in the Flite Control loads ( and the Hornady equivalent) was actually developed by a fellow here in Utah and sold as law enforcement specific ammo under the "Choke" brand name. I think he still owns the patent, and Fed/Hornady produce it under license. I may be mis-remembering some details, and it is possible that Federal has improved upon the original design.

Also, I too happened upon the multiple projectile article in the Blue Press the same day I originally saw this thread... odd, that.

My 442 is still currently stoked with 135gr Gold Dots... even after reading the article.

[Ed L]

That link is from over 22 years ago ago regarding the NYC PD. They switched to hollowpoints a year or two later.

Yeah, wasn't it the 1994 and 1995 SOP-9s that documented numerous undesirable collateral injuries/deaths with 9mm FMJs?

It may have been several SOP-9s that stated this. But you are absolutely right that their rationale for the changeover from FMJ to hollowpoints was overpenetration that they experienced in some shootings where the bullets went through the perp and hit either another officer or a civilian. They finally made the changeover to hollowpoints in late 1998. The thing hindering it was the whole political correctness of hollowpoints and such.

In 1993-1994 the NYPD started a large scale transition to automatics, but there had been automatics in service before that on an individual and unit basis.

Apologies in advance for topic drift in response to a post.

[Dave T]

Someone mentioned this earlier in this long thread, but I'll repeat it because I believe it is so true:

There is no magic bullet.

Dave

[Glenn E. Meyer]

One reason I mentioned the NYC issue (besides Rudy) was to make the general point that the appearance of increased efficacy or lethality is seen as a negative. With police, the resistance to the AR platforms, leading to things like pump 223s, the early 9mm carbines (the first Ruger and the Beretta), the use of Min-14s is well known. Appearance influences some - the old handload will hurt me in court debate.

The current Rugers are more fun guns or ban state gun than a dodge around lethality.

[Ed L]

One reason I mentioned the NYC issue (besides Rudy) was to make the general point that the appearance of increased efficacy or lethality is seen as a negative.

That was 22 years ago. Can you find a major police department that doesn't use hollowpoints or some type of expanding ammo--like Hornady Critical Duty--which is like a hollowpoint with a plastic capsule to prevent it from getting clogged?

Appearance influences some - the old handload will hurt me in court debate.

I looked up NJ v. Daniel Bias that Massad Ayoob mentioned. In that case the court did not believe a husband's claim that his wife committed suicide by shooting herself in the back of the head. The husband first told the police that the wife shot herself as soon as he opened the bedroom door, but changed his story to say that the gun fired when he grabbed his wife's hand to pull away the weapon. Add to the fact that they were arguing earlier, and you can see why the husband was on trial. I don't know that having the gun loaded with a factory ammo would have helped.

I am not a fan of reloads for defensive use for several reasons--including the issue of reproducibility of forensics compared to factory ammo if it come to that--which is something Mr. Ayoob cites, as well as reliability when compared to better factory ammo. My main point is that I don't see any advantage to handloads over quality factory ammo and can see some possible disadvantages.

[pettypace]

I like history more than most, and am legitimately interested in your posts from a technical perspective and historical interest. Your clear gel data is new, to me, for this type of load, despite the limitations of clear gel.

What I'm not convinced is the desirability of effectively two .32 S&W long wad cutter equivalent hits (though .32 S&W long actually travels about 700 fps at the muzzle) compared to one premium JHP round. I agree with your source that two hits can be better than one, but:

1) .32 S&W long wadcutter has not been considered a viable defensive cartridge in at least 75 years.

2) Your clear gel data likely overstates it's effectiveness in terms of penetration

3) What is the penetration in bone? It's generally accepted on this forum that though .380 will reliably break bone, 32 ACP will not (and your projectiles have much less energy than .32 acp).

4) What is the spread between the projectiles at each, say, 3 yard increment? At what point are you "guaranteed" to miss a man sized target with at least one projectile? (Not to mention both projectiles as they zing off in different directions)

This could be one of those cases where you shoot a guy in the face at close range and he's treated and released at the hospital. That's okay if the threat is stopped, but not okay, if not.

All of these are in addition to the fact that this is 2020; premium defensive bullets, lawyers, handloaded defensive ammo, yadda yadda.

But I do find the technical discussion interesting, and I'm glad you brought it up.

You've made lots of good points. Sorry to take so long to reply.

I was surprised to see mention of .32 S&W Long and thought at first you had misread my posts. But I see now that I misread yours. You're right, the .32 S&W Long does sort of match up with one .36 caliber 100 grain wadcutter at 600 ft/s -- only, as you point out, the .32 is faster. I've never given the .32 S&W Long a second thought. But on the cast boolit forum there's a loooong thread (over 600 replies and a quarter million views) entitled "The .32 S&W Long as a man-stopper." I didn't bother reading it assuming the .32 S&W Long couldn't really be very effective. But maybe not. Let's run some numbers...

What does the magic equation (from the Schwartz) say about penetration for, say, a 100 grain .32 caliber wadcutter at 700 ft/s?

700^0.685*100/7000/(0.312/2)^2/3.14

Copy that mess and paste it into a google search and Alexa will instantly do a penetration test in validated 10% ordinance gel and report the results. She says 16.6". Yikes! And that's with a damn wadcutter. That would be massive over-penetration with a truncated cone. But could it produce instant incapacitation. Only if it hit CNS. Kinda like everything else.

What about wound trauma mass? Google can search for that, too. Here's the search string:

700^0.685*100/7000*17

Alexa says 21.6 grams. (Actually, I'm giving Alexa too much credit. Thank the Schwarz! Buy the book! It's a giant bargain.)

OK, 21.6 grams of wound trauma mass. Can we put that into perspective? MacPherson says 16 grams for any non-expanding, non-tumbling, non-wadcutter 9mm/.36 caliber projectile. MacPerson was a little conservative in that estimate. He only calculated the first 15" of penetration figuring the rest would be in thin air. But I don't think he was 5 grams conservative. So, in terms of wound trauma mass, that .32 S&W Long, 100 grain WC would probably crush as much hamburg as any non-expanding, non-tumbling, non-wadcutter 9mm/.36 caliber projectile.

Not exactly a "man-stopper" maybe. Probably not anything anyone here would consider adequate. Or would they?

MacPherson list 24 grams of wound trauma mass for .36 caliber wadcutter. Again, he's conservative and only counts the first 15" of penetration. But alexa was conservative with the .32 S&W Long. If she had read the Lyman 45th reloading manual she would have found a maximum load for 32 S&W Long as a 115 grain bullet at 823 ft/s. (3" barrel). That pumps the wound trauma mass up to about 28 grams -- about the same as a .38 wadcutter.

So, maybe the .32 S&W Long wadcutter hasn't been considered a viable defensive cartridge in at least 75 years. But the numbers indicate that with the right load it's probably just about as effective as a .38 wadcutter.

OK. I know I haven't answered any of your questions. But that will have to wait as the wife is nagging.

[BehindBlueI's]

Not exactly a "man-stopper" maybe. Probably not anything anyone here would consider adequate. Or would they?

.32 revolvers have tended to fare poorly in real world shootings I've seen, although in fairness that's probably something to do with lack of quality ammunition as well. It is a pretty reliable suicide gun, though, so shot placement and all.

I'd want to see bone testing (or the windshield test, which is a good indicator of bullets that perform well after a bone strike) before deciding if it was adequate or not, though. I know there's some interest in .32 Magnum and there's some modern loads/bullets offered for it. I don't know that it has reached down to the .32 Short or .32 Long, as it's not something I've personally got much interest in.