Please comment on my proposred snubbie ammo test procedures project:

I have two snubbies which I want to perform a defense ammunition test evaluation. In short, to determine the best ammo (for me) to carry in each gun. Here are my plans so far:

I will be testing the following "snubbie" ammunition for these two 38 special snubbies, one with a 1-7/8 and the other with a 2 inch barrel:

1. Hornady Custom 38 SPL 158 gr XTP JHP std pressure #90365
2. Hornady American Gunner 38 SPL 125 gr XTP JHP std pressure #90324
3. Fiochi 38 SPL +P 125 gr XTP JHP #38XTPP25
4. Fiocchi 38 SPL 125 gr SJHP (old style semi-jacketed HP) std pressure #38F
5. Remington UMC 38 S:PL +P 125 gr SJHP (old style w "scalloped" style lead HP) #L38S2
6. Federal 38 SPL +P 158 gr SWCLHP (old FBI style load)
7. Federal Premium 38 SPL +P 129 gr Hydra-Shok JHP #P38HS1
8. Speer 38 SPL +P 135 gr Gold Dot Personal Protection Short Barrel #GDHP-SB #23921GD

My ammo choices above are based on my current "snubbie" thinking to date:

1. With one exception all rounds above consistently penetrate 14 or more inches in denim covered ballistic gel. I purposely avoided ammo that fails to consistently hit 14 inches based on FBI's recommended pen. of 12 to 18 inches.
2. Though the Speer 135 gr GDHP short barrel round fails to consistently hit 14 inches, I included it anyway because of its street record w LEOs who have used it and my personal range experience with this ammo. Though it doesn't hit 14 inches, it consistenly reaches 12+ inches with extremetly consistent non-variable expansion.
3. Much of the ammo in this test fails to expand consistently, or at all, from 2-inch guns. I've read that if a pistol bullet expands but fails to reach the FBI recommended minumun of 12 inches, the "better" round might be one that reaches the FBI recommended range of penetration, with any expansion from a 2-inch snubbie considred more or less a bonuss so to speak. That is why I have chosen three loads above using XTP bullets, which typically expand less but penetrate more when compared with similar velocity ranges of more modern defense bullet designs.
4. I already tried Bufallo Bore's 158 Gr. +P FBI all lead round. I admire that round, but I can't achive any kind of reasonable grouping at 7 yds w/a snubbie. It was hard to handle and caused my sissy shooting hand to bleed from the web after less than a full box of these firebreathers. I'd say they are more like 357 mags than true 38 spc. I'm sure they would be perfect for a duty sized revolver or GP100 for someone who didn't want to shoot full house 357s. I would still carry them in a snub IF I could hit the broad side of a barn with them, but I can't w/my snubbie.

I may add more ammo to the test based on further research:

Winchester’s 158-grain all-lead hollow-point load X38SPD
Remington R38S12
Federal 147-gr. JHP +P+
Bufallo Bore 158 gr FBI SWCLHP std pressure

My proposed test procedure:

1. All shooting at 7 yards. I chose 7 yds because of the current theory of a "safety" factor of a perp covering 7 yards for a minimum reaction time to send a round before contact. It's a snubbie so connecting at more then 7 yds may be iffie under stress, esp. if the snub is a BUG and not your primary carry gun. Also based on the idea that a snubbie is really a "belly gun" used for emergency "contact distances" if your primary gun fails for some reason.
2. Shoot some range ammo to establish a consistent grip and sight picture before starting the test. I don't want those changing during the test, failing to do so could mess up the resulting data.
3. Shoot one five shot cylinder of ammo for each of the above ammo selections. Repeat the same test again with the same ammo in the same order. This is to minimize the chances of inconsistent results with any changes in my shooting, flinching, etc. The idea is if I mess up one test w/my bad technique I might be able to fix it before I shoot that same ammo again in the repeat 2nd test.
3. Wear the best shooting glasses I can find to deal with my presbyopia related sight piture. So far it's either 1.0 or 1.25 diopter polycarbonate safety glasses. Need more experimentation. I'll pick the best one for 7 yards, with may or may not be the best pair for 25 yards etc.
4. I'll use 7 inch bright orange colored halloween party paper plates for the targets, and paste a one-inch bright flourescent pink or green dot in the center of the plate. I could use a black dot, but for some reason black targets fade out of existence for me when focusing on the front blade, I seem to do better with bright party colors. I will test these before the test to make sure it's a good target combination for this particular test at 7 yards and my particular set of old eyes. 8 inch black bulls at 25 yards are the worst for me, esp. with plain black steel sights. I can't see either one with no resulting contrast. Remember Jerry Miculek and presbyopia, I'm not him and I have the other in abundance.
5. I'd like to shoot my preferred standing weaver, but I may consisder using a sitting rest. I'm leaning toward standing weaver because you don't shoot SD from a sitting rest, and the ammo may behave differently between supported vs unsupported and resulting snubbie physiscs.
6. All shots double action only, generally the case in revolver SD at typical close distance shooting. I don't shoot any of my pistols or revolvers single action anyway in any circusmstance, since I practice handguns with the idea of SD in mind vice bulls eye, hunting etc.
7. Immediately after each 5 round shot string, take some notes about anything and everything I noticed, like, disliked, or any other random thoughts that could affect or help my post-test evaluation after the smoke clears.
8. Complete all testing with jacketed rounds before testing any full lead, non-jacketed rounds, to minimize the chances of lead fouling skewing test results of jacketed rounds.

My proposed post-test evaluation criteria to choose the best round for each gun, in no particular order of importance:

1. Smaller groups are beter than wider groups other things being equal.
2. POA=POI other things being equal.
3. Easier or more natural shot recovery for each continuous 5 shot double action only aimed slow fire standing offhand shot string.
4. The general "feel" of shooting the round. I'm not sure what this means but it would probably show up on my notes taking procedure described above after each five shot string.
5. While penetration is important for me in this test, it's not the holdy grail. I will be picking the ammunition I can hit the target the best with, where PIA=POI (could be exceptions depedning on variance, shooting dead-on, six oclock etc), with the smallest group.
6. For final permanent ammo assignment for each gun, if there is a TIE, go for penetration followed by brand, with a major brand being preferred over a lesser brand, i.e. Hornady over Foicchi for example.

Please comment on anyting above or anything else you can think of to help me make the best ammo choice for each gun, for SD purposes only (not snubbie "competition", woods carry etc.)

Because this test will be expensive, the more thoughts and advice I can get from you guys the better, to minimize the chances of leaving out some procedure, product choise, or evaluation criteria. I'd hate to leave out anything to discover afterwards that I failed to include an important factor. I can't afford to mess this up because of the expense of this test.

Any and all comments and thoughts are GREATLY apprecaited.

Thank You.

My favorite and best performing .38 load for snubs was:
Federal Nyclad. Too bad they no longer make it.
I now use the old FBI load:
Federal 158gr +P all lead SWHP.

Be careful with +P+ in some of the snubbies. Some are not designed for +P+ pressure.

On some, even +P is not recommended.

I would consider the Federal HST 38 Special +P round. I’ve heard really good things about it.

quote:

Originally posted by bcjwriter:
I would consider the Federal HST 38 Special +P round. I’ve heard really good things about it.

I saw that. All HSTs get top reviews, they're one of the best. But the round you mentioned doesn't penetrate well. It sacrifices penetration for expansion, but overdoes on the expansion as penetration doesn't meet my minumum 14 in. rqt. I attribute this to the fault of a 2 inch barrel more than anything else.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:
Be careful with +P+ in some of the snubbies. Some are not designed for +P+ pressure.

On some, even +P is not recommended.

I don't think you can count on the +P designation as much as we'd like to for 38 special in particular. My understanding is that 38 +P TODAY is in some cases anemic to some 38 factory loads back when 38 spc was a stardard duty load for LEOs. The Speer 135 gr +P load is a pussycat in my airweight J.

Check this out...Lucky Gunner did a 38/357 ammo compare and contrast and it has great charts that are simple to read.

https://www.luckygunner.com/la...ver-ballistics-test/

Personally, I use Speer gold dot 38special I was issued when I was a cop, in my snubbie. When that runs out I will buy another box of gold dots.

At the range I use 148wadcutters or shoot lee 158rf cast bullets I make.

Reference MikeinNC ballistic test from Lucky Gunner--barrel length of 2" vs 4".
A potential variable is grip of the snubbie. I have a Smith 442 with a full grip VZ, a Taurus Ultralight with laser boot grip and Smith 640 with boot grip.
Lighter J frame with the full grip allows better shot placement. Heavier steel frame also helps.
Compromise was the low recoil hydroshocks.

I’ll be interested to see the end-results (and the process, too, if you decide to document and share). My carry-load for my 642 is the first round you listed, the Hornady standard-pressure one.

It's fine, if you want to play with it. Effectiveness of the round, however, is way behind shot placement. One round may be slightly more effective than another, but in reality a well placed .22 can do the job. I carry Gold Dots, not because they're much better than any other round, but that's what local LEO's carry. When asked why I carry such a nasty round and an example is passed around a courtroom, I have a good answer.

My test procedure, if I was looking for snubby revolver ammo, would be to read some studies done by FBI, testing labs, or police departments. They have the budget and capability to do such tests and I would get the benefit of all that for free. Since you stated that cost is a concern, I would spend the money to practice with your chosen round to become familiar with and proficient with that round.
Otherwise, since there are no feeding issues like a semi-auto could have, the only testing I would do is to fire off a box or two to verify no issues in them lighting off in my particular gun and to verify my point of aim.
If this is a hobby of yours that's a different matter.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 220-9er,

When we approved .38 as a backup/off duty load about 10 years ago (good grief, has it been that long? where does the time go?) the only ammo that passed our testing was the 135 gr Gold Dot. 158 gr LSWCHP worked ok in bare gel but failed when denim or any other barrier was introduced.

Since then, the Federal HST has come out and is getting rave reviews. I'd pitched the idea to examine it as an option, but we've approved a couple of 9mm BUGs and the .38s are slowly going away. There just isn't interest in the expense of new testing.

If I were looking for a new carry .38 load for a snub I'd be primarily concerned with can I hit a pie plate with all 5 rounds at 7 yards at speed one handed and will it penetrate 12 to 18 inches of gel. Expansion is a plus. That is however predicated on the fact that my use for a .38 snub is as a secondary weapon where the crap has hit the fan and the danger is up close and personal. I need to know I can make rapid hits from likely odd positions at speed more than I need "perfect" performance of the round. 5 .357 inch holes 14 inches through COM make up for some failure to expand. If it were a primary carry load for me then the ability to make accurate hits at longer range while maintaining terminal effectiveness becomes more important.

That's a long winded way of saying that I appreciate the fact that controllability seems to have significant importance to your protocol.

.

May I send you a box of Hornady's 38 Special 90 gr FTX Critical Defense Lite ammo to be included in your testing?

www.Hornady.com/ammunition/handgun/38-special-90-gr-ftx-critical-defense-lite#!/

I own my Dad's S&W Model 12-3 revolver he used as a back-up and for off duty carry. It is an aluminum-alloy frame with steel cylinder 2 inch stubby that does not handle hot loads.

I didn't find an email address in your profile, but mine is posted if you would like to accept my offer ~ please contact me.

Thanks!!!

.

Check the Luckygunner ammo tests referenced above. Hornady 90 gr. Critical Defense Lite did not perform that well, although it should have light recoil. There are many better loads available, and a limited number of +P rounds should not damage your Model 12.

quote:

Originally posted by sleepla8er:
.

May I send you a box of Hornady's 38 Special 90 gr FTX Critical Defense Lite ammo to be included in your testing?

www.Hornady.com/ammunition/handgun/38-special-90-gr-ftx-critical-defense-lite#!/

I own my Dad's S&W Model 12-3 revolver he used as a back-up and for off duty carry. It is an aluminum-alloy frame with steel cylinder 2 inch stubby that does not handle hot loads.

I didn't find an email address in your profile, but mine is posted if you would like to accept my offer ~ please contact me.

Thanks!!!

.

Sorry sleep, I'm not doing gel testing. That round doesn't hit the minimum 12 inch FBI recommended penetration, which is why I didn't put it on my list of ammo to test. I didn't know about the Model 12, I just looked it up and I can see why you'd want to evaluate that very light round. I see on the web that model 12 has some collector value.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:
Check this out...Lucky Gunner did a 38/357 ammo compare and contrast and it has great charts that are simple to read.

https://www.luckygunner.com/la...ver-ballistics-test/

Personally, I use Speer gold dot 38special I was issued when I was a cop, in my snubbie. When that runs out I will buy another box of gold dots.

At the range I use 148wadcutters or shoot lee 158rf cast bullets I make.

Yes I like that Speer round a lot. It's what I'm carrying now.

+1. This load was formulated specifically for 2” barreled snubbies. I like this as well as the Federal 129g +P load. Good luck with your tests.

quote:

Originally posted by bcjwriter:
I would consider the Federal HST 38 Special +P round. I’ve heard really good things about it.

quote:

Originally posted by SIGfourme:
Reference MikeinNC ballistic test from Lucky Gunner--barrel length of 2" vs 4".
A potential variable is grip of the snubbie. I have a Smith 442 with a full grip VZ, a Taurus Ultralight with laser boot grip and Smith 640 with boot grip.
Lighter J frame with the full grip allows better shot placement. Heavier steel frame also helps.
Compromise was the low recoil hydroshocks.

Amen on the grips. My Airweight came with the "bantam' grips. I ditched those and put on the boot grips from a S&W 357 J frame, good improvement, and the gun still fits the front pocket just fine.

What do you mean by the hydrashock compromise ?

quote:

Originally posted by TheFrontRange:
I’ll be interested to see the end-results (and the process, too, if you decide to document and share). My carry-load for my 642 is the first round you listed, the Hornady standard-pressure one.

Given the level of effort and expense, that's a good idea. I'd want to see it too if someone else was doing this. Can't wait to see h all those bad groups - ha !

quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
It's fine, if you want to play with it. Effectiveness of the round, however, is way behind shot placement. One round may be slightly more effective than another, but in reality a well placed .22 can do the job. I carry Gold Dots, not because they're much better than any other round, but that's what local LEO's carry. When asked why I carry such a nasty round and an example is passed around a courtroom, I have a good answer.

Agreed on +1 criteria of shot placement. One of my eval criteria is ability to hit the target. It's at the top of the eval criteria in the OP.