View Full Version : Which wadcutter is supreme?
In some recent post we have seen inconsistent performance from one of the better .38 special loads (135gr +p GD) and the new Hornady FTX, leaving the Corbon DPX which is nearly prohibitively expensive, especially if you plan on doing at least some practice with it (at least it is for me). So I was wondering which of the wad cutters is best? I know Remington uses a softer lead in their 158gr +p LSWCHP than Winchester does in their version of the same load, does Remington also use a softer lead in their full wad cutter? It is my understanding that a harder lead is preferable for wad cutters, correct?
Also, what are people's thoughts on wad cutter loads from reloaders like Georgia Arms? Are they something that could serve as a defensive round or is it best to stick with one of the major manufacturers? Thanks.
Beat Trash
06-08-09, 09:15
Do you mean wadcutters or semi wadcutters?
Most wadcutters are 148 gr. These are good especially if recoil is an issue with the shooter. I don't know if there is all that much difference between the different manufactures.
Semi wadcutters, usually 158 gr., come in solid and hollow point. I carried the SWCHP +P in the early 1980's. From what I understand, they can plug up when going through clothing, ect.
I am refering to full wadcutters. I was just wondering because there seems a fair bit of difference between the hardness of LSWCHP bullets between the major manufacturers so I wasn't sure if this carried over to full wadcutters too.
A harder one with the sharpest leading edge possible is ideal--solid brass, copper, or other hard material would be ideal, as long as it does not get classified as "AP" by the BATF...
Wayne Dobbs
06-08-09, 13:07
You might consider this one:
http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=111
Wayne nailed it. BB is great stuff.
PA PATRIOT
06-08-09, 16:42
It looks like the leading edges are rounded/tapered on those B/B loads, Safe Stop had one truly sharp leading edge with its full FMJ cup-faced wad cutter design but its a shame that the manufacturer shut down.
BB claims they use a hard cast lead lead at 150gr in that WC linked above. I'd start there.
With the BB load it would seem you lose the whole "low recoil" aspect of using wadcutters since it launches at a pretty fair speed from the barrel, and it is pretty pricey for a wadcutter. I may have to try some out though.
I guess all the major manufacturer wadcutters are not made from a hard enough lead to really get what is desiriable in a defensive wadcutter?
There is a local company (kind of like Georgia Arms) that loads ammunition and they load a 158gr wadcutter over 3.1gr of bullseye powder which it is my understanding that that is a "mid-range" load for a wadcutter. The bullet appears to be made out of a harder lead than the Remington wadcutters I have seen, but other than that I can't really say much. Assuming it is, would you guys think it is possibly a worthwhile round to at least look in to?
I am new to .38 special snubnose revolvers, that is the reason for all the questions. Thanks.
mourneblade
06-09-09, 12:38
I recently got a snubnose(LCR). I just went with a couple of boxes of DPX. Since it's a revolver you don't need to go through extensive functionality testing like you would an automatic using a certain round. At the ranges where I would use my snubnose I don't find the point of aim for various rounds all that different for defensive shooting purposes. Really I just need a feel for the recoil and trigger pull. So I planned to shoot a small amount of the DPX and mainly practice with cheaper rounds. Just my 2 cents...
Glock17JHP
06-09-09, 13:46
I like the Winchester Super Match 148 grain HBWC load...
My wife can shoot the feelers off a fly at 100 yards with it (joking)...
Actually, she is super accurate with it, and the front edges of the bullet seem to not deform much at all. I shot some into my water tank and there seems to be very little deformation there. I know water is not gelatin, but it should deform a bullet like that at least as much as gelatin would...
She shoots it out of her 3 inch S&W Model 64... she loves that load!!! :)
A harder one with the sharpest leading edge possible is ideal--solid brass, copper, or other hard material would be ideal, as long as it does not get classified as "AP" by the BATF...
Doc,
How would one get around that definition. It seems solid copper would be OK since it is not a listed material. I have written to the BATF, but never got a response on this exact issue.
Glock17JHP
06-17-09, 13:38
Sad... I looked online trying to buy some of Winchester's Super Match 148 grain Lead Wad Cutters for my wife... they want about $30.00 per box of 50, give or take a few $$$... and even after that shock, everyone is OUT!!!
So I looked for Sellier & Bellot's version...
Cabela's has it for about $15.00 per box of 50... I ordered 6 boxes... I intend to compare the lead hardness between the 2 loads... perhaps the S&B version is 'just as good'???
I purchased a couple of boxes of the Buffalo Bore wadcutter loads a couple of summers ago for testing and was a bit disappointed. The powder smoked very badly -- like half as bad as black powder, and it would definitely not be something I'd want in a daylight situation. The bullet itself was not a true wadcutter, as the edges were beveled, giving less cutting area and producing a significantly smaller frontal area. In spite of Tims' claim of using hard alloyed lead, the loads leaded up the barrel in short order. I'll have to check back to see if I still have the chronograph data, and if I do, I'll post it. Accuracy at subsequent testing proved to be mediocre at best, so I used what was left after testing for practice ammo.
Since then I've stuck with the WW loading, but after Doctor Roberts comments on the Cor Bon load, I plan to move to these as soon as they are available again.
The powder smoked very badly -- like half as bad as black powder, and it would definitely not be something I'd want in a daylight situation.
Tell me about it! I shot some awhile back and thought I was at a SASS match!:p
Found the data. It was further back than I remembered; September 25, 2007.
Here's my notes from another forum:
Tested the Buffalo Bore Item 20B 150 gr. WC yesterday. Temperature was 80 degrees Fahrenheit, elevation here is just over 300 ft.
Used an older non-+P rated 642 S&W, 1 7/8" bbl. Testing done 8 feet from chronograph in a ten shot string.
Velocities:
LO: 896 fps
Hi: 931 fps
Avg: 913.6
ES: 35.45
SD: 18.86
Unable to test for accuracy since I had surgery last Wednesday on my right ring finger to remove a ganglion. I shot weak hand, unsupported.
Recoil is subjective, but it felt identical to some old Winchester standard velocity 158 gr. RN's that averaged only 718 fps, but more than some old reloads that gave an average of 694 fps.
Though a wadcutter, this load has a bevel on the shoulder and this is a bit of a concern. Dr. Gary K. Roberts has stated he will test this load some time this year, so until his results are in, I can't say it is as good as the now defunkt Safe Stop load, which had a very sharp shoulder.
What I liked:
1. The velocity is fantastic for being standard pressure and only fired in a 1 7/8" bbl.
2. Recoil acceptable in the 15 oz. airweight, even shooting weak hand.
What I didn't like:
1. Smokes badly. Enough that it would give your position away if you were shooting from cover in an area that would mask your position (think open warehouse, etc.). Very noticeable.
2. Though listed as very hard cast, ten rounds leaded the barrel to the same extent I used to get shooting the old Winchester 158 gr. SWC 357's from a Model 19 back in the 70's. I didn't have any jacketed rounds to clean the barrel out and knew I'd have a job cleaning the barrel when my hand heals. I subsequently fired a cylinder full of reloads using bullets we cast ourselves and these lead rounds (VERY hard cast) actually cleaned it out. (Yeah!!!)
Concerns:
1. As stated above, the bullet profile; not a true sharp shouldered cylinder. However, for those using older, non-+P rated snubbies, this load wouild be great for reloads, since it is far easier to load fast than a true wadcutter.
I wish Tim had used the same sharp shouldered bullet of the Safe Stop, but cast significantly harder.
More testing to follow, once my hand heals sufficiently.
Glock17JHP
06-17-09, 22:51
That velocity is pretty high... maybe even close to +P velocities...
Winchester Super Match 148 grain Lead Wad Cutter goes about 710 FPS...
I tried some of the locally manufactured FWC I mentioned above and they were excessively smokey too. I wonder if BB uses bullseye powder on their FWC load as well like the ones I shot today. I don't have access to a chronograph so I have no idea what muzzle velocity might have been but there wasn't quite as much felt recoil as with the 135gr +p GD's or 130gr +p PDX1 I shot today. They dirtied up my gun a lot too, and there was some lead build up in the barrel after 50 rounds.
Has anyone fired the new standard pressure Hornady FTX rounds? Do they have significantly milder recoil than the +p offerings that are typical for snubnoses? I was just wondering if they would be a possible HP round that offers recoil close to the FWC rounds available. Only problem is it has been shown to not always expand and if it doesn't, it isn't going to do much in the way of wounding because of it's front profile.
I would be interested to hear how those S&B FWC rounds do for you Glock17JHP when you get them in if you don't mind posting a short range report if you have a chance?
Glock17JHP
06-19-09, 10:48
167,
What specific information are you interested in??? We have been using/shooting the Winchester Super Match load for many years now...
Level of recoil, shape and hardness of FWC (are the edges sharp, etc), and that is about it I guess. Just in general how they shoot and what your impression is. Thanks.
Glock17JHP
06-19-09, 13:43
Recoil with this load is very light... remember it is only 148 grains, and only 710 FPS. My wife is pretty recoil sensitive, and she loves this load to the exclusion of all other decent loads. Her revolver is a 3 inch S&W Model 64, and she is VERY accurate with this load/handgun combination. The lead seems hard enough, not sure exactly how hard. The leading edges are sharp, and still are visually sharp after firing into water. If you email me, I can send a picture of a pulled unfired bullet, and a recovered 'fired into water' bullet. My only criticism is the cost, which is around $28.00 to $32.00 per box of 50 (and everyone seems to be OUT OF STOCK right now). She uses Sellier & Bellot's generic version for practice ($15.00 per box of 50 at Cabela's... IN STOCK NOW), and loads the Winchesters back in it at home. I know others who just buy the Sellier & Bellot version for both uses, though.
SGT D USMC
06-27-09, 02:42
I read about a 38 spl load several years ago that tested to be very effective. It was a 200 gr lead and was a round nose, It may have even been a 38 S&W. it had a volicity of only about 700 fps. The test showed that it tumbled very soon. I think that this load was used in the 1930's or so by the police in Singapore. My buddy tested it in a 4" 38 at water jugs and was impressed, however he was more impressed when he shot a water jug with a +p lite weight jacketed HP.
So there, no real facts at all but if some wants to experment with a long 200 gr lead 38 bullet at low volicity I would be curious of the outcome.
he went into younder villiage and never returned.
Glock17JHP
06-27-09, 08:53
RN .38 Special (and other calibers) have the tendancy to tumble, but they are still not as effective as a 148 grain HBWC. The permanent cavity is sub caliber due to the RN bullet nose shape. In addition to not being as effective, the 200 grain bullet will obviously have more recoil, and that is a minus... especially as you go toward a lighter, smaller .38 (like a 'snubbie').
Shooting water jugs can be a lot of fun, I do that a lot. Hwever, trying to judge the effectiveness of a load by the 'splash' or general 'explosive appearance' of the water jugs when they are hit is very misleading. People are not water jugs. Water jugs can help gauge penetration depths, althoughwater penetration will be much greater than the equivilent gelatin or tissue penetration... in other words, it is not a 1 to 1 ratio.
SGT D USMC
06-27-09, 13:10
LOCK17JHP, I will not allow myself to be placed in the position of defending 200 gr round nose 38 bullets. and I don't claim water jugs to be a good test of bullet performance. I was stating that the 200 gr 38 round nose @ low volicity was found by the singapore police to be a very efficent stopper in the days before modern fast light jacketed bullets. I was stating that it was found to tumble much sooner than other 38 loads, Purhaps due to fleet yawl of the long bullet. This assumption was reached by historial fact not water jugs.
As to recoil, How much in felt recoil would a 200 gr bullet @ 700fps produce compared to a 148 gr At 800 fps or more.
Also I understand the postive features of the wadcutter with there flat nose and sharp cutting edge. I shot a elk with a 44 mag. with a smiwadcutter keith bullet, and allthough it was not a full wadcutter it has a flat nose and avery nice large cutting ring. It was a shoulder shot at about 30 yds and dropped the elk ( A large cow) in its tracks, as well as I had ever done with a rifle.
Back to the comparson of the 200 round nose to the 148 wadcutter. You mentioned the round nose sliding through flesh with little disruption. I think that does not apply if in fact the 200 tumbles much sooner than a shorter lighter round nose 38.I think that a tumbling 200 rn is better than a cutting wad cutter.
My choice would be the highest volicity 125 gr modern hollow point that would give an exceptable level of recoil.
he went into younder village and never returned
The 200gr .38 special loading, called the "Super Police" back in the day, was neither super nor a good police load.
In actual shootings that I am aware of the bullet had a tendency to bounce off of hard objects, like car glass and foreheads, due to very low velocity and the RNL bullet construction.
I'd call it a failed experiment.
"fleet yaw" has refers to the variations of yaw angle a bullet has in flight, induced by barrel to barrel idiosyncrasies in rifles; it does not refer to handgun bullets yawing in tissue.
The 200 gr LRN sucked...
I consider the 200gr .38 loading the original "less-lethal" round.
SGT D USMC
06-28-09, 22:39
In refering to "fleet yawl" It is my understanding that the angle of Yawl while traveling thru the air would have an effect on the tumbling once striking the target. Once again I don"t like to be in the position of defending the terminal effect of 200 gr rnd nose low volicity bullets. However none of you have addressed the tumbling qualities of that bullet. It apperas to be much different than 158 gr rnd I'm going to the desert for a week I will do more research when I return.
he went into younder village and never returned
SGT D USMC
06-29-09, 01:21
I found that the 200gr bullet that I was refering to was the british 38/200 it was replaced by a lighter fmj round prior to wwll due to the 38/200 being lead. The british 38/200 was a longer nosed bullet than the 38/200 super police round and the volicity was less than 700 fps. The only statement that I want to make about this bullet (british 38/200) Is that I defy you to reserch this round without finding frequent refrences to its tumbling on impact. And that is the reason that I stated that it should be considered when looking for a lead defense load.
he went into younder village and never returned
References I have read in the past indicate that this bullet also wasn't thought very highly of when it came to anti-personnel duties.
These bullets don't "tumble" so much as do a 180 at some point in their travel, with the size and speed of the bullet not a whole lot is accomplished in my opinion.
I strongly believe that the advantages to the .380/200 were theoretical at best, and an attempt to replicate the results of the .455 round with a lighter, smaller revolver.
Glock17JHP
06-30-09, 10:55
A 200 grain LRN .38 Special bullet that tumbles will not give consistent performance as will a 148 grain HBWC .38 Special. Penetration will be inconsistent, specifically. The yaw (not yawl) will likely have a very negative effect of the desired straight path of the bullet through tissue, too. Water jugs give good measurements (after calculating the difference between water and tissue/gelatin) of expected penetration depth. Expansion may be off a bit, however as relates to tissue/gelatin.
It is a slow LRN handgun bullet--it goes in nose forward, yaws 180 degrees after a few inches of penetration and continues on base forward before exiting. The bullet is too slow to develop a significant temporary cavity during the yaw cycle and too short to gain a substantial increase in the permanent crush cavity while it is yawing.
Wayne Dobbs
07-01-09, 09:06
Which is a very articulate way of saying it sucked...
I watched some old timers talk about how much that round sucked on another forum. Ray Atkinson was one of them.
PA PATRIOT
07-02-09, 11:47
My department issued the 200gr LRN .38spl for some years back in the 50's until the mid 70's from what I have been told. Almost any old timer back in my early days with the PPD would tell of these bullets having little effect after dumping a entire cylinder into a toad and that some bounce off of the skull or failed to penetrate heavy leather coats of the time. The department switched to range loaded full wad cutters for a while and then moved onto the lead 158gr semi wad wad cutter. After that jacketed 158gr H/P's then 125gr +P H/P loads which is the current issue.
SGT D USMC
07-08-09, 00:50
DocKGR, I must be confused, You said that the 38/200 tumbles 180 degres after just a few inches. of penertration then travels heel first. Also you mentioned that the bullet is going too slow to cause a significent tempory cavity and too short to cause a large permenent crush cavity. I agree and remember I am not a fan of the 38/200 and I have only stated that I think that it should be considered compared to the 148 fwc.
My confusion is that the tumbling 180 degrees with in inches of peneration would provide more permament crush cavity than the wc and the wc at 700fps would also not provide a significent tempory cavity . however once the 38/200 is traveling heal first it would cause as much permenet crush as the wc and being heavyer than the wc should penatrate deeper. So why is the 148 wc better?
I would perfer that comments Be limited to comparing the 38/200 to the 148 wc rather than mearly saying that the 38/200 sucks, which I agree with
He went into younder village and never returned.
I'm not Doc, but...
One real issue is getting the 200gr .38 even in to the bad guy. I've heard of cases where this round skid off, our would just plain bounce off, of bones such as sternums.
The wadcutter will be more likely to get inside, and cuts a full caliber hole from contact onwards.
Read some of Jim Cirillo's stuff as to why you want a sharp front edge on a handgun bullet.
I'm not sure how reliably the 200gr .38 special yaws, although I know the 200gr .380/200 British round tended to do so.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.