Vintage Ammunition Test: Winchester .38 Special 158-grain LSWCHP (W38SPD)

[the Schwartz]

Compared to terminal ballistic testing conducted in 10% concentration ordnance gelatin, terminal ballistic testing in water is a very simple process that greatly reduces the technical and logistic burdens of terminal ballistic testing while still producing scientifically valid, highly repeatable test data that is directly comparable to terminal ballistic test data obtained in shear-validated 10% ordnance gelatin and human soft tissues. At present, there are no other valid human soft tissue simulants other than 10% Type 250-A ordnance gelatin and water.

In an effort to provide legitimate test data for those who have elected to carry a short-barreled revolver (≤ 3 inches) for daily chores, I elected to test a round that has withstood the test of time (that's the ''vintage'' part of the test) remaining popular amongst those who desire—or at least hope for—projectile expansion from their snub-nose revolvers.

The following test data is presented without much commentary allowing for everyone/anyone to draw their own conclusions.

The test platform was a well-cared for, unmodified stainless steel Ruger SP-101 with a 3.0625-inch barrel with factory iron sights.

Impact velocity for each test projectile was measured with a Shooting-Chrony F-1 placed 10 feet in front of the test medium.

The test medium consisted of 12 water filled ½-gallon paperboard cartons aligned in a row ahead of loose spun cotton batting in the event of projectile exit. Neither test projectile exited the row of paperboard cartons and both of them were recovered inside of a carton.

The test gun:


The test ammunition:


Date: 21st July 2021
Temperature: 89°F
Relative Humidity: 66%

Winchester .38 Special (MS) 158-grain LSWCHP (W38SPD)
Test Firearm: Ruger SP-101, unmodified
Barrel Length: 3.0625 inches
Barrier: None
Range: 21 feet
Test Medium: H₂O @ 82°F

Average Expanded Diameter: 0.6057 ± 0.0005 inch
Recovered Weight: 156.5 grains
Impact Velocity: 1,017 fps

Front:


Reverse:


Predictive Analysis:

Q-model
DoP: 13.27 inches
Wound Volume: 3.13 cubic inches
Wound Mass: 1.89 ounces

mTHOR model
DoP: 13.04 inches
Wound Volume: 3.08 cubic inches
Wound Mass: 1.85 ounces

========== ========== ==========
========== ========== ==========

Date: 21st July 2021
Temperature: 89°F
Relative Humidity: 66%

Winchester .38 Special (MS) 158-grain LSWCHP (W38SPD)
Test Firearm: Ruger SP-101, unmodified
Barrel Length: 3.0625 inches
Barrier: 4 layers of 16-ounce cotton denim; IWBA standard barrier
Range: 21 feet
Test Medium: H₂O @ 82°F

Average Expanded Diameter: 0.4362 ± 0.0005 inch
Recovered Weight: 157.8 grains
Impact Velocity: 991.3 fps

Front:


Lateral:


Predictive Analysis:

Q-model
DoP: 27.24 inches
Wound Volume: 3.33 cubic inches
Wound Mass: 2.01 ounces

mTHOR model
DoP: 24.87 inches
Wound Volume: 3.04 cubic inches
Wound Mass: 1.83 ounces

It is interesting to note that, besides exhibiting mitigated expansion that resulted in significantly greater predicted penetration depth, the lead alloy was soft enough to capture the imprint of the denim fabric at impact.



DoP = maximum equivalent depth of penetration in 10% ordnance gelatin (or human soft tissue)
Wound Volume = total volume of the entire permanent channel
Wound Mass = total weight of tissue damaged/destroyed within the entire permanent channel

[Glock17JHP]

Compared to terminal ballistic testing conducted in 10% concentration ordnance gelatin, terminal ballistic testing in water is a very simple process that greatly reduces the technical and logistic burdens of terminal ballistic testing while still producing scientifically valid, highly repeatable test data that is directly comparable to terminal ballistic test data obtained in shear-validated 10% ordnance gelatin and human soft tissues. At present, there are no other valid human soft tissue simulants other than 10% Type 250-A ordnance gelatin and water.

In an effort to provide legitimate test data for those who have elected to carry a short-barreled revolver (≤ 3 inches) for daily chores, I elected to test a round that has withstood the test of time (that's the ''vintage'' part of the test) remaining popular amongst those who desire—or at least hope for—projectile expansion from their snub-nose revolvers.

The following test data is presented without much commentary allowing for everyone/anyone to draw their own conclusions.

The test platform was a well-cared for, unmodified stainless steel Ruger SP-101 with a 3.0625-inch barrel with factory iron sights.

Impact velocity for each test projectile was measured with a Shooting-Chrony F-1 placed 10 feet in front of the test medium.

The test medium consisted of 12 water filled ½-gallon paperboard cartons aligned in a row ahead of loose spun cotton batting in the event of projectile exit. Neither test projectile exited the row of paperboard cartons and both of them were recovered inside of a carton.

The test gun:


The test ammunition:


Date: 21st July 2021
Temperature: 89°F
Relative Humidity: 66%

Winchester .38 Special (MS) 158-grain LSWCHP (W38SPD)
Test Firearm: Ruger SP-101, unmodified
Barrel Length: 3.0625 inches
Barrier: None
Range: 21 feet
Test Medium: H₂O @ 82°F

Average Expanded Diameter: 0.6057 ± 0.0005 inch
Recovered Weight: 156.5 grains
Impact Velocity: 1,017 fps

Front:


Reverse:


Predictive Analysis:

Q-model
DoP: 13.27 inches
Wound Volume: 3.13 cubic inches
Wound Mass: 1.89 ounces

mTHOR model
DoP: 13.04 inches
Wound Volume: 3.08 cubic inches
Wound Mass: 1.85 ounces

========== ========== ==========
========== ========== ==========

Date: 21st July 2021
Temperature: 89°F
Relative Humidity: 66%

Winchester .38 Special (MS) 158-grain LSWCHP (W38SPD)
Test Firearm: Ruger SP-101, unmodified
Barrel Length: 3.0625 inches
Barrier: 4 layers of 16-ounce cotton denim; IWBA standard barrier
Range: 21 feet
Test Medium: H₂O @ 82°F

Average Expanded Diameter: 0.4362 ± 0.0005 inch
Recovered Weight: 157.8 grains
Impact Velocity: 991.3 fps

Front:


Lateral:


Predictive Analysis:

Q-model
DoP: 27.24 inches
Wound Volume: 3.33 cubic inches
Wound Mass: 2.01 ounces

mTHOR model
DoP: 24.87 inches
Wound Volume: 3.04 cubic inches
Wound Mass: 1.83 ounces

It is interesting to note that, besides exhibiting mitigated expansion that resulted in significantly greater predicted penetration depth, the lead alloy was soft enough to capture the imprint of the denim fabric at impact.



DoP = maximum equivalent depth of penetration in 10% ordnance gelatin (or human soft tissue)
Wound Volume = total volume of the entire permanent channel
Wound Mass = total weight of tissue damaged/destroyed within the entire permanent channel

Schwartz,
I tested this exact load in my water-testing tank back when I was in the IWBA. My published article included pictures of the expanded bullets. This was the first testing I ever did that was published in the IWBA's journal. This load expands very consistently.
-Ron Jones.

[revchuck38]

The older stuff was apparently a lot spicier than the current version. In Lucky Gunner's test, the average velocity was 839 fps from a 4" gun.

[TiroFijo]

Can this bullet be replicated with a casting mold?
Which one? Does it has some special geometry in the HP cavity, thickness of the nose walls, or anything more or less similar will do?
What alloy would you estimate?

Thanks in advance.

[SCCY Marshal]

You could cast with Outpost75 grade mold selection and much effort in alloy concoction, or have someone else do it for you:

https://rimrockbullets.com/xcart/g-c...-ammo-box.html

And some quick reading for home casting:

https://www.hensleygibbs.com/edharri...eatingitoo.htm

[the Schwartz]

The older stuff was apparently a lot spicier than the current version. In Lucky Gunner's test, the average velocity was 839 fps from a 4" gun.

It sure is. The significantly higher average velocity (≈1,000 fps) of the vintage lot goes a long way towards ensuring that there will be enough dynamic pressure to initiate and drive projectile expansion. Then, of course, there is the issue of the use of the Clear Ballistics product which has a much lower density than mammalian soft tissues and 10% ordnance gelatin. As you already know, the only two factors that determine dynamic pressure are the projectile's impact velocity and the density of the test medium. When both variables are decreased as in the case of the Lucky Gunner tests, the resulting dynamic pressure will also decrease accordingly. I'm not entirely sure that the observed performance in the Lucky Gunner tests are an indictment of the current load. Until the newer ammunition is fired into 10% ordnance gelatin or water, is probably not possible to draw a valid conclusion.

Can this bullet be replicated with a casting mold?
Which one? Does it has some special geometry in the HP cavity, thickness of the nose walls, or anything more or less similar will do?
What alloy would you estimate?

Thanks in advance.

Just spitballing here, but...

Using the informal ''pencil lead test'' where lead alloy hardness can be bracketed by using different pencil lead hardnesses to make minor deformations in alloy samples, my best estimate of the hardness of the alloy used in the vintage load (tested above) is BHN = 9 to 11. Using that bracket as a guideline, I'd imagine that once a source for an alloy of proper hardness is found, it would just be a matter of obtaining a bullet mold with the proper geometry. In order to "tip the scales" in favor of reliable expansion at lower velocities, a lead alloy having a BHN of 8 or 9 might not be a bad place to start since it will require lower pressure to exceed the alloy's yield strength and initiate expansion.

[the Schwartz]

Schwartz,
I tested this exact load in my water-testing tank back when I was in the IWBA. My published article included pictures of the expanded bullets. This was the first testing I ever did that was published in the IWBA's journal. This load expands very consistently.
-Ron Jones.

Sounds interesting.

Once I figure out which issue it is in, I'll have to have a look at that article.

[Glock17JHP]

Sounds interesting.

Once I figure out which issue it is in, I'll have to have a look at that article.

Wound Ballistics Review, Vol 3, No. 1, starting on page 13.