Question about 38 special 135gr +p Gold Dot

[167]

I know that the 135gr +p SBGD is the prefered round for use in snubnose revovlers, but I was wondering how extensively it has been tested? Brass fetcher puts it penetrating right around 10" in BG, the Speer catalog puts it around 11" IIRC, DocGKR puts it around 13". That seems to be fairly inconsistent, or is that the norm for this type of testing? Is it recommended not because of the penetration but because it is one of the few that performs well in denim test as well as in BG? Thanks, I was just curious.

[RWK]

Preferred round? I don't know that I'd call it THE preferred round. It is highly recommended because it was designed for use in snubnose revolvers instead of a round designed for 4" bbls being pressed into service in a snubnose. The expansion of the JHP is very consistent. Having said that, I switched from the Gold Dot to the Cor-Bon DPX. Same performance range and less wear-and-tear on my wrist.

[167]

Maybe "preffered" is wrong, I guess most recommended would be more suitable, or at least it seems to be the most recommended. I know that it is suppose to be a consistent performer, but how extensively it has been tested. How many times have the tests been repeated and achieved the same results? Four or five times? Ten or fifteen, fifty maybe? I am just wondering how large of a data set those statements are founded on.

Here is a link (http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/DocGKRData/38spl_HorndayFTX_SpeerGDHP_CorbonDPX.htm) to test done by DocGKR in which the SBGD failed to expand in the denim test, which is speculated to be from an excessive velocity spread. Those test also indicate there may be some consistency issues. And as I said before, other test show it under penetrating. I imagine there are many tests that I haven't seen results for, so that is why I am asking these questions. I figure some of you guys are privvy to that sort of information where as I am not.

[RWK]

I know that it is suppose to be a consistent performer, but how extensively it has been tested. How many times have the tests been repeated and achieved the same results? Four or five times? Ten or fifteen, fifty maybe? I am just wondering how large of a data set those statements are founded on.

Doc or Marcus are your best sources for that type of info. I'm just a consumer. I did notice that Doc described the GD denim test failure as a "heretofore unseen disaster". Maybe he would elaborate on that for you.