.38 double wadcutter load

[HCM]

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.

The very idea of carrying handloads for self-defense purposes in 21st century America is ridiculous. While the liability argument may be debatable, the idea that you are going to produce handloads that will equal the quality and reliability of premium defensive or duty ammunition from one of the major US manufacturers is a nonstarter.

In days gone bye, when factory options were limited and distribution was not a click and a credit card away there was a certain logic to rolling your own for serious purposes but as they say the past is another country and they do things differently there.

As to the loading itself, BB I hit the nail on the head. The attraction of wadcutters as a carry option is reduced recoil hopefully resulting in better shot placement. There are no magic bullets. Assuming baseline terminal ballistic performance is met shot placement trumps everything in the real world.

People don’t like to hear that it’s the Indian not the arrow because they don’t like facing their own mortality. What if they miss? The fact is no matter how skilled you are the outcome is never certain and there is always an element of luck in any armed confrontation. People don’t want to face that reality so you get magic bullets, ballistic Wobblies etc as variations on the classic lucky rabbits foot.

[SeriousStudent]

I'll just leave this here:

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....l=1#post965534

[pettypace]

No need to go to PM. I've pulled the relevant posts and created a thread dedicated to your topic.

Well, thanks! (I think?)

So, why would anyone want to have two bullets leave the barrel with each pull of the trigger? I don't think I can say it any better than MacPherson:

"These vital structures are not large, and so a very minor displacement in bullet strike location can have a very large effect on WTI (wound trauma incapacitation). Even if a bullet strikes the "right" location, the small displacement that leads to either severing or not severing an artery or motor nerve has a very large random (or luck) component... Firing multiple shots into areas containing vital structures is a tactical response to the random element; this approach can greatly increase the chances that at least one bullet will penetrate a vital structure." (Bullet Penetration, page 52.)

That seems obvious enough. Ten bullets fired into areas containing vital structures are much more likely to hit something important that just five bullets. If you don't agree with that, don't waste your time reading the rest.

So, now, the only question is whether or not two projectiles can be loaded into a .38 Special case and have sufficient accuracy to hit the area and enough penetration to reach the vital structures.

One way to approach the penetration question would be to look at this chart from Brassfetcher: http://www.brassfetcher.com/Handguns...Selection.html

One of the loads he tested from a .38 snubby was the old Remington Multi-Ball 140gr (R38SMB). And according to Brassfetcher two .36 caliber lead round balls (i.e., 000 buck) stuffed into a .38 Special case over enough powder to give 800 ft/s will penetrate 16" of validated 10% ordinance gel with or without FBI heavy clothing.

That 16" of penetration is exactly what MacPherson's "Lead Alloy Sphere Penetration Depth" graph predicts for a .36 caliber ball at 800 ft/s. So there are two data points to verify penetration in validated 10% gelatin.

I suppose it could be argued that if that old Remington Multi-Ball load was worth a crap, they'd still be making it. But then, maybe if the '67 Corvette was worth a crap they'd still be making that, too.

Or it could be argued that a .36 caliber round ball couldn't really do much damage. Bill Hickok isn't around to question that and for all I know, he might have used conical bullets.

I think the major weakness of the Remington Multi-Ball load would probably be accuracy and barrier penetration. And I can't speak from experience to either of those concerns.

[jandbj]

Not something I’m gonna try but, IIRC, Dean Grenell (sp?) did some work with these back in the day... my library is still packed from my latest move but I’ll see if I can find the articles when those books transfer from boxes to bookshelves.

[BehindBlueI's]

That seems obvious enough. Ten bullets fired into areas containing vital structures are much more likely to hit something important that just five bullets. If you don't agree with that, don't waste your time reading the rest.

Let's assume the shooter can, in fact, shoot. The shooter relies on the bullet going to where the point of aim is. The shooter aims at a vital structure. The reduction in both precision and accuracy decrease the odds of hitting a vital structure. If the shooter is blindfolded, or just sucks and is counting on a luck-guided bullet, then perhaps your odds increasing are correct.

What are "self defense distances" and how do we know?

How friendly is your local prosecutor? If your shoot is on the bubble of good shoot/questionable shoot do you think questions might be asked about hand loaded double projectile ammunition?

I don't even know how many people shot I've investigated. Hundreds as lead detective for sure. Likely in the thousands if you count assisting. I've presented self-defense claims to screening prosecutors. Based on this experience I continue to recommend factory ammunition that retains it's weight and is barrier blind (see DocGKR's list) when possible. For those who simply can't deal with the recoil of an expanding barrier blind load, a wadcutter is a viable alternative.

But then, maybe if the '67 Corvette was worth a crap they'd still be making that, too.

Definitely off topic, but aside from aesthetics a '67 'Vette is complete crap compared to the modern equivalent. I've owned a Corvette and four Camaros over the years, from 1980 to 2011 model years. My current 2011 SS/RS is faster and better on straights or curves, stops better, is safer, is more reliable, and even manages to get better fuel economy despite that compared to the old school (or even relatively recent school...) 'Vettes. Isn't as sexy, though, I'll give you that.

[WDR]

I suppose it could be argued that if that old Remington Multi-Ball load was worth a crap, they'd still be making it. But then, maybe if the '67 Corvette was worth a crap they'd still be making that, too.

Both examples are old ideas and tech... but only one of them is really worth the nostalgia involved in digging them up and putting them to good use. Time and tech has marched on.

You'd be far better served by single bullet loads, verses trying to turn your J-frame into a mini-shotgun. Might as well buy one of those .410 revolvers if you're goin' whole hog...

For plinking, or specific uses, a "multi-ball" load might make sense. For general carry where your opponent gets a vote on time/place/distance of your engagement, it's probably not ideal, even with the possibility of slightly greater wounding capabilities. I'll take RA38B or 135gr SB Gold Dot in my snubby, please.

[SiriusBlunder]

<snip>

One of the loads he tested from a .38 snubby was the old Remington Multi-Ball 140gr (R38SMB). And according to Brassfetcher two .36 caliber lead round balls (i.e., 000 buck) stuffed into a .38 Special case over enough powder to give 800 ft/s will penetrate 16" of validated 10% ordinance gel with or without FBI heavy clothing.

That 16" of penetration is exactly what MacPherson's "Lead Alloy Sphere Penetration Depth" graph predicts for a .36 caliber ball at 800 ft/s. So there are two data points to verify penetration in validated 10% gelatin.

<snip>

I didn't think the penetration issue at hand was the Remington Multi-Ball projectile (000 buck @ 800 fps).

I thought we were talking about your double WC load.

My initial thought when I read '100 grain .36 caliber wadcutter at 600 ft/s' was "sounds like a very anemic .380 ACP so I doubt it penetrates adequately" followed by "don't rush to judge on paper/feelings, see what it does in testing".

Your calculated (i.e. estimated) penetration of 12'' in 10% ordinance gel is marginal.

As RevolverBob pointed out, your testing in Clear Ballistic Gel doesn't look promising, but I'll grant we don't have any data in 10% ordinance gel to really have an informed opinion on penetration for this load.

However, there is still the POA/POI and recoil issues as an accurate first shot, and accurate & timely follow-up shots, also increase your odds of hitting something important.

If we're now talking about the Remington load, I remember reading it wasn't accurate and the buckshot often fused together or didn't separate under 10 yards so you didn't get two wound channels. That was over a decade ago so don't recall all the details like distance, source or what kind of testing was done.

If you think duplex handgun ammo is a good idea, maybe you'd like the Doubletap Equalizer. It's still in production.

[john c]

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.

[Bucky]

This reminds me of an incident that occurred at a USPSA match a year or so ago. A guy shows up shooting a revolver. After the first stage, we score and it looks like the stage hadn’t been taped, but I suspected otherwise. I insisted on running him on the next stage. Sure enough, he was getting two holes with each pull o the trigger.

I was watching very closely, and here is the problem. While one bullet would hit the center of the shoot target, a second hole would appear in the no-shoot target that was next to it, NOT overlapped. That means one bullet was striking 16” off point of aim.

We asked if he was loading two bullets, and of course he denied it. I DQ’D the ammo as unsafe. Someone even offered up some ammo, but he declined. I never did see him again.

[Bucky]

Definitely off topic, but aside from aesthetics a '67 'Vette is complete crap compared to the modern equivalent. I've owned a Corvette and four Camaros over the years, from 1980 to 2011 model years. My current 2011 SS/RS is faster and better on straights or curves, stops better, is safer, is more reliable, and even manages to get better fuel economy despite that compared to the old school (or even relatively recent school...) 'Vettes. Isn't as sexy, though, I'll give you that.

Agreed. I went from a ‘69 (not mine, but my best friend’s so I drove it often) to an ‘09 to a ‘19.

To bring this back on topic, while not everything is made better today, the technology to do so is. This is especially true in the manufacturing of ammunition. And even if you did think you could make a better mousetrap, it’s going to look bad.

I’m not LE, never investigated anything (well, crime related). I’m also very pro gun, pro self defense. However, if I were on a jury, this double bullet thing would certainly raise an eyebrow, as would putting poison or exploding material in a bullet would.