What’s your .38 Special carry ammo?

[Navin Johnson]

Is this still clear gel masturbation or did Luckey gunner redo the tests?

For those of you unaware in the ammo section there is a sticky that concerns J frames and bullet performance

[revchuck38]

The old Remington 158+p LSWCHP was amazing, but none of the big ones make it with soft lead like that anymore until you go to boutique BB/UW & maybe DT but those are rather pricy.

From what I've seen, the bullets in the Remington and Winchester versions of the FBI load are the same as they've been for a while, albeit at a lower velocity. Federal definitely did change their bullet to one that seems not to expand. I carry the Remington version and am comfortable with it.

[revchuck38]

Is this still clear gel masturbation or did Luckey gunner redo the tests?

For those of you unaware in the ammo section there is a sticky that concerns J frames and bullet performance

Nobody's going to argue that clear gel is as good a test medium as calibrated ordnance gel. That said, consistently done clear gel tests can provide an apples-to-apples comparison for loads for which calibrated ordnance gel tests aren't available or are restricted to LE agencies. Most .38/.357 loads fall into that basket.

The good Doc posted that info almost 12 years ago and hasn't updated it since - like most of us, he has a day job. I carry Ranger Bonded 130-grain JHPs in my 642 because of it. Some promising loads have come up in the meantime, most notably IMO Federal's HydraShok Deep. I wish he'd update it with the sources he has.

[Ghost Dog]

From what I've seen, the bullets in the Remington and Winchester versions of the FBI load are the same as they've been for a while, albeit at a lower velocity. Federal definitely did change their bullet to one that seems not to expand. I carry the Remington version and am comfortable with it.

I thought perhaps the tin and antimony ratios had changed making it harder. But out of all of them, I do believe the Remington was the best version back in the day.

[Ghost Dog]

Nobody's going to argue that clear gel is as good a test medium as calibrated ordnance gel. That said, consistently done clear gel tests can provide an apples-to-apples comparison for loads for which calibrated ordnance gel tests aren't available or are restricted to LE agencies. Most .38/.357 loads fall into that basket.

The good Doc posted that info almost 12 years ago and hasn't updated it since - like most of us, he has a day job. I carry Ranger Bonded 130-grain JHPs in my 642 because of it. Some promising loads have come up in the meantime, most notably IMO Federal's HydraShok Deep. I wish he'd update it with the sources he has.

That's where I fall on the 130s. Stock up on some Hydrashok Deep now, and if not the Rangers will do. There is Organic Gel data on both from the manufacturer. Hydrashok Deep even ups .380 and looks like .32 acp as well.

It looked like in LuckyGunner's recent 5.7 vid that it may have been Organic Gel. It would be an overly immense undertaking to retest all the rounds in each caliber that have been tested, but pressuring them to admit some things the way they were presented was a bit skewed would be huge. Ie Penetration depths exaggerated in 9mm and lower pocket pistol calibers compared to the heavier larger calibers that maintain momentum in Organic Gel (the .32's/.312s have a high enough sectional density they mostly do penetrate far enough, where as many of the others likely don't), admitting that there isn't much Organic Gel data on the small calibers, etc. would go a long way. Testing a few of the best rounds in each caliber in proper Organic Gel testing would be a huge undertaking but would right things a bit and give them plenty of content to produce.

[Velo Dog]

If you’re going by published tests, be sure to look at the details and not just the averages.

On Lucky Gunner, the Remington 158 LSWCHP +P shows a respectable average expansion of .54 from a 4” barrel.

Drill down the detail, though, and one bullet out of five expanded to .75, skewing the average. The other four showed no significant expansion.

https://www.luckygunner.com/38-speci...rounds#geltest

The numbers you are referring to are the results from all 190 .38 Special bullets that Lucky Gunner fired into cloth covered Clear Ballistics gelatin from 19 different loadings through both a 2" and 4" barrel revolver.

The only .38 Special bullet that expanded to .75" was a single 130 gr +P Federal HST Micro from a 2" barrel

[03RN]

I use 147gr HSTs loaded to 930fps

[D-der]

I use 147gr HSTs loaded to 930fps

Question, Not at all trying to be a smart ass, I carry 147gr HST's in an LCR 9mm which I believe run about the same velocity, would you expect any difference in perceived recoil if you were to shoot your HST 38 load in an LCR 357 which is the same weight as the 9mm side by side? I'm just curious of case length might make any difference in shooting characteristics.

[03RN]

Question, Not at all trying to be a smart ass, I carry 147gr HST's in an LCR 9mm which I believe run about the same velocity, would you expect any difference in perceived recoil if you were to shoot your HST 38 load in an LCR 357 which is the same weight as the 9mm side by side? I'm just curious of case length might make any difference in shooting characteristics.

Good question. I'm not sure.

[JonInWA]

I've long preferred the Remington .38 Special 125 gr +P Golden Saber (or whatever they're calling it currently). It's accurate, well vetted, reasonably available, reasonably weather sealed and nickel plated, has decent specs, and there are great analog practice/training grgr +P UMC loads that are less expensive, such as Remington's own UMC .38 Special 125 gr +P.

Best, Jon