.38 double wadcutter load

[SiriusBlunder]

<snip>

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.

You're mixing models and barrel lengths to cherry pick numbers.

Your original 100 grain .36 cal WC @ 600 FPS has an estimated penetration of 11.42 inches per Schwartz (+/- .39 inches).

That is clearly less than 12'' but you originally reported it as "almost 12''". That is not marginal, it's a fail. (Not to mention it's an estimate from the expedient equation).

On to the new loadings under discussion.

From Schwartz:

.38 WC 148 grain @ 650 FPS has an estimated penetration of 17.87 inches and a wound mass of 30.39 grams
.32 WC 100 grain @ 700 FPS has an estimated penetration of 16.61 inches and a wound mass of 21.61 grams

That's ~40% more tissue.

If you only want to look at the first 15'' of penetration using Schwartz, then that would be:

.38 WC has a wound mass of 25.54 grams
.32 WC has a wound mass of 19.51 grams

so the .38 would crush ~30% more tissue which makes sense seeing that the surface area for a.357 WC is 30% larger than a .312 WC (diameters of the WC bullets I looked up).

Then you report numbers from a 3'' barrel with a .32 WC but still use 2'' numbers for a .38 WC? What are the numbers with a 3'' barrel and a .38 WC and are we passed "snub" lengths now? If you're only looking at only the first 15'' of penetration, that increased velocity won't matter.

To sum up, is 30% less tissue crushed (on paper) just as effective? Maybe to you, but I'd like to see testing (BG, 4LD, and AG) and real world results on a .32 WC before making that claim.

ETA: Despite the .45 ACP looking better on paper than 9MM, they both perform about the same now in the real world. That may be the case with .32 and .38 WC's, but I doubt we're going to see real testing and enough results from the street to know.

Also, I'm referring to a .32 S&W Long WC with these numbers. I'm some what interested in .327 Fed Mag LCR loaded with .32 H&R Mag for the extra round, but again, not lots of testing/real world data on these loadings that I've found so I haven't gone there yet.

[pettypace]

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.

Just took a look at Buffalo Bore. They offer a hardcast 100 gr WC at about 900 ft/s. I don't know anything about smashing bones or windshields. But I'd bet if they're cast hard enough, those might do the trick.

[pettypace]

You're mixing models and barrel lengths to cherry pick numbers.

Your original 100 grain .36 cal WC @ 600 FPS has an estimated penetration of 11.42 inches per Schwartz (+/- .39 inches).

That is clearly less than 12'' but you originally reported it as "almost 12''". That is not marginal, it's a fail. (Not to mention it's an estimate from the expedient equation).

On to the new loadings under discussion.

From Schwartz:

.38 WC 148 grain @ 650 FPS has an estimated penetration of 17.87 inches and a wound mass of 30.39 grams
.32 WC 100 grain @ 700 FPS has an estimated penetration of 16.61 inches and a wound mass of 21.61 grams

That's ~40% more tissue.

If you only want to look at the first 15'' of penetration using Schwartz, then that would be:

.38 WC has a wound mass of 25.54 grams
.32 WC has a wound mass of 19.51 grams

so the .38 would crush ~30% more tissue which makes sense seeing that the surface area for a.357 WC is 30% larger than a .312 WC (diameters of the WC bullets I looked up).

Then you report numbers from a 3'' barrel with a .32 WC but still use 2'' numbers for a .38 WC? What are the numbers with a 3'' barrel and a .38 WC and are we passed "snub" lengths now? If you're only looking at only the first 15'' of penetration, that increased velocity won't matter.

To sum up, is 30% less tissue crushed (on paper) just as effective? Maybe to you, but I'd like to see testing (BG, 4LD, and AG) and real world results on a .32 WC before making that claim.

ETA: Despite the .45 ACP looking better on paper than 9MM, they both perform about the same now in the real world. That may be the case with .32 and .38 WC's, but I doubt we're going to see real testing and enough results from the street to know.

You caught me! Not much gets past you.

[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.

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

1) It sure looks like the .32 S&W Long, especially with, say the Buffalo Bore load (100 grain .32 caliber WC at maybe 825 ft/s) is more potent than one-half a duplex load (say 100 grain .38 WC at 600 ft/s). The .32 would have 24" of BG penetration; the .38 less than half that. While in terms of wound trauma mass the two are more or less equal at about 19 grams each.

But there are two wadcutters in the duplex load. Of course, that doesn't improve the penetration problem (more on that below) but it does double the wound trauma mass to close to 40 grams. More importantly, if it can be made to work, the duplex load might, as MacPherson wrote "greatly increase the chances that at least one bullet will penetrate a vital structure." (Bullet Penetration, page 52).

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

2) Yes. The CG vs validated 10% ordinance gel is one problem and the inadequate penetration of 100 grain .38 WC at 600 ft/s is another. I think there's a very simple workaround for the first problem. But the second problem, is simply an accident of physics, and that too can be easily solved.

I'm not married to 100 grain WC at 600 ft/s. What if we just move to a 110 grain WC? Then the predicted BG penetration jumps to just over 12" and satisfies the FBI minimum requirement. Sure, not by much. But why not pump the velocity up to say, 650 ft/s? That gives just over 13" of BG penetration. Still not enough? Then replace the front wadcutter with a 95 grain truncated cone. Then the front bullet has over 15" of penetration. That should be enough.

I know there are folks who question the "paper" predictions and apparently don't trust the penetration models of Mssers. MacPherson and Schwartz. But I do.

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).

3) Rightly or wrongly, I haven't worried too much about bone. I figured hard-cast, sharp-edged wadcutters should resist glancing better than a FMJ and deformation better than a soft factory target wadcutter. And I think the FBI 12" penetration requirement already takes some of the bone problem into account.

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)

I can't answer the dispersion question with any authority as I'm postponing such question while I work on the penetration problem. But I have shot plenty of targets over the chronograph at five yards which can at least give one data point.



This was was five shots from a "hybrid" load -- a 95 grain TC in front and a 105 grain WC in back at 700 ft/s. Because the WC and TC cut different holes, we can see that even at 5 yards there is some obvious vertical dispersion between the front and back bullets. I assume that the back bullet leaves the barrel an instant later and is more effected by recoil. But I'm not sure of that.

At any rate, I've never seen any tendency for the bullets to "zing off in different directions."

The notes on the target show the predicted penetrations (TC=16.5", WC=13.1") and under the "NRA" the average measured penetrations in CB gel: TC=19.5", WC=14.5". Those last numbers, now highly suspect, led me to think I was seeing a "drafting" effect. I hope to soon have that sorted out.

[john c]

I know the previous post is still in progress, but I wanted to bring this up while it's still fresh in my mind.

I think the apples-to-oranges mismatch in my comparison between the .357 100 gr DEWC at 600 fps (times 2) and the .314 100 grain WC at 750 fps is that the .32 is smaller in diameter so the energy is carried deeper into ordnance gelatin versus the wider wound channel of the .357 DEWC which is shallower. Thus the wound channels have very similar amounts of flesh destroyed, but the .32 channel is deeper. This is reflected in your statement that the .357 DEWC penetrates less than 12 inches. Basically, the would channel for the .32 S&W long wadcutter is a longer and thinner tube. This is good because of the penetration meeting FBI standards. The 2 x 100 grain .38 special wadcutters have a fatter and shorter would channel tube. This is sub-optimal because of low penetration below FBI standards.

Since penetration is pretty important to hit vital structures. Otherwise, I agree that two hits has a greater chance for effectiveness. Maybe the better duplex round is 2x 100 grain DEWC in a .327 magnum case? You could likely push them at a full 750 to 800 fps. Plus you get an extra round in a J-frame sized gun. I don't own a .327 magnum gun, or I would test this for you. I'm also away from my copy of Quickload, so I can't run the numbers to see if those numbers are possible within pressure limits.

Two 100 grain .32 wadcutters at 750 fps would provide the penetration necessary meet FBI standards for each projectile. At this point you're increasing your chances of hitting vital structures.

At that point, the question remains about the dispersion of the rounds. If you 10 hits in, say 10 inches at 25 yards, I think you're approaching viability. Also, you'd need to test to see if the 100 gr .32 DEWCs will reliably break bone simulant.

[pettypace]

1) It sure looks like the .32 S&W Long, especially with, say the Buffalo Bore load (100 grain .32 caliber WC at maybe 825 ft/s) is more potent than one-half a duplex load (say 100 grain .38 WC at 600 ft/s). The .32 would have 24" of BG penetration; the .38 less than half that. While in terms of wound trauma mass the two are more or less equal at about 19 grams each.

But there are two wadcutters in the duplex load. Of course, that doesn't improve the penetration problem (more on that below) but it does double the wound trauma mass to close to 40 grams. More importantly, if it can be made to work, the duplex load might, as MacPherson wrote "greatly increase the chances that at least one bullet will penetrate a vital structure." (Bullet Penetration, page 52).



2) Yes. The CG vs validated 10% ordinance gel is one problem and the inadequate penetration of 100 grain .38 WC at 600 ft/s is another. I think there's a very simple workaround for the first problem. But the second problem, is simply an accident of physics, and that too can be easily solved.

I'm not married to 100 grain WC at 600 ft/s. What if we just move to a 110 grain WC? Then the predicted BG penetration jumps to just over 12" and satisfies the FBI minimum requirement. Sure, not by much. But why not pump the velocity up to say, 650 ft/s? That gives just over 13" of BG penetration. Still not enough? Then replace the front wadcutter with a 95 grain truncated cone. Then the front bullet has over 15" of penetration. That should be enough.

I know there are folks who question the "paper" predictions and apparently don't trust the penetration models of Mssers. MacPherson and Schwartz. But I do.



3) Rightly or wrongly, I haven't worried too much about bone. I figured hard-cast, sharp-edged wadcutters should resist glancing better than a FMJ and deformation better than a soft factory target wadcutter. And I think the FBI 12" penetration requirement already takes some of the bone problem into account.



I can't answer the dispersion question with any authority as I'm postponing such question while I work on the penetration problem. But I have shot plenty of targets over the chronograph at five yards which can at least give one data point.



This was was five shots from a "hybrid" load -- a 95 grain TC in front and a 105 grain WC in back at 700 ft/s. Because the WC and TC cut different holes, we can see that even at 5 yards there is some obvious vertical dispersion between the front and back bullets. I assume that the back bullet leaves the barrel an instant later and is more effected by recoil. But I'm not sure of that.

At any rate, I've never seen any tendency for the bullets to "zing off in different directions."

The notes on the target show the predicted penetrations (TC=16.5", WC=13.1") and under the "NRA" the average measured penetrations in CB gel: TC=19.5", WC=14.5". Those last numbers, now highly suspect, led me to think I was seeing a "drafting" effect. I hope to soon have that sorted out.

the Schwartz has pointed out via PM that the penetration and wound mass numbers I reported in paragraph "1)" above for the Buffalo Bore .32 S&W Long cartridge are both incorrect. Of course, he's right!

The correct numbers, from the Schwartz PM:

Q-model: PEN = 17.035 inches; Total Wound Mass = 22.268 grams
mTHOR: PEN = 18.530 inches; Total Wound Mass = 24.222 grams
MacPherson: PEN = 19.334 inches; Total Wound Mass = 25.272

I guess that's why he writes the book and I just read it!

[Moshe Dayan]

I have some .308 Winchester you can try out...

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Hey, here's buckshot that breaks in two!

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...plits-in-half/

Wait till it becomes a handgun load, who is to judge whether it is the ultimate man stopper. Sorry to divert.

[jeep45238]

I have some .308 Winchester you can try out...

[pettypace]

Here's another blast from the past: The original Webley Manstopper with two multi-projectile "modern manstoppers" circa 1935. From a sketch by Hatcher in Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers, page 361.