Informal Penetration Test, .38SPL 200g W-W Factory Load

[LouisianaMan]

Thanks to a kind donation of 12 rounds, I was able to fire some factory-loaded Winchester-Western .38SPL ammo with a 200g LRN bullet earlier this week.

Temp 83 degrees; rounds loaded and fired w/o effort to seat powder against either bullet or primer.

1.Colt Detective Special, 2" bbl.
2. Velocity: Lo: 595.2 ; Hi 620.7; Avg 604.5; ES 25.52; SD 9.38.
3. POI at 15 yards: +4.5" ; L 1.25"

I also fired a single round through my Ruger 4" bbl. at 681.4fps; POI was + 2 1/8"

I'm saving a single round for this weekend, when I'll have the obligatory shootout with 6 milk jugs! I'm presuming it will penetrate less than the handloads I discuss below. . . .

OBSERVATIONS: Old threads on this and other forums indicate factory velocities for the old "Highway Patrol" loading were 770fps (prob. 6" bbl or test bbl.) Another source indicated a factory 200g round was rated at 730fps. An older Lyman manual gave reloading data that stated a "factory duplication" load gave 703fps. The ammo I tested seems most consistent with the last-named round, as my 4" bbl. clocked only 22fps slower, albeit with a single shot that is statistically inadequate. The 2" D.S. averaged almost exactly 100fps slower than this claimed factory duplication load, however, so that seems consistent for a snubbie.

I have now loaded my own 200g LRN (358430) & LSWC-K (Mt. Baldy) bullets to 750fps from my 4" guns, and will see what the LRN gives me in the snubbies. Previous chrono work shows the LSWC-K at 718fps in my D.S. Will also make some penetration tests with this "speedier" LRN, which I'll post after we can drink milk and shoot the jugs!

I recently shot a 200g LRN at 663fps from a Colt D.S. 2" bbl., and it penetrated 5 jugs (30" of water) at a range of 10 feet. After going through 3 jugs in a straight line, it deviated downward a bit into the 4th, then significantly into the 5th. It came out the back side of the 5th near the very bottom (i.e. total downward deviation about 4") and eventually scooted under the bottom of the 6th jug hard enough to crack it and cause it to leak out! The slug itself was under the 6th jug front edge. . .very clean indeed!

My previous tests with the LSWC-K at 718fps (2" snubbie), posted here earlier,  penetrated all 6 jugs and struck nose-first into a 2" x 12" placed behind the last jug, knocking a hole in the board up to the bullet shoulder, then falling out onto the ground while knocking down the 15" long board. Bullet path was arrow-straight.

[LouisianaMan]

Shot it out Sunday with the wily milk jugs, using the W-W factory 200g load from my 2" Colt D.S., range 10 feet. This load chrono'ed recently at 605fps (see original post).

RESULTS:

1. Penetrated 5 jugs through-and-through. Two pop-off caps launched, all screw-ons remained intact, #2 jug split along the handle seam.
2. Missed #6, left classic keyholing dent 1/16 to 1/8 inch deep in backstop behind #6 (a piece of 2X12), caromed off and was not found.
3. Bullet tracked straight through jugs 1 and 2, and entering #3; deviated slightly right in exiting #3 and entering #4; deviated significantly thru #4; entered #5 near right edge and exited in right rear corner, thus missing #6. Total deviation about 4-5 inches rightward.

ANALYSIS:
1. Penetration and deviation very similar to handloaded 200g LRN chrono'ed at 663 fps.
2. Note that 200g LSWC-K at 718fps penetrated all 6 jugs arrow-straight, then penetrated 2x12 backstop to the shoulder, knocking down backstop & falling out. (This is my "service load" & it clocks just over 750fps from 4" guns.)

UPCOMING: will test 750fps LRN and LSWC-K loads from 4" guns.

Thanks again to Mikey, whose advocacy of the .38SPL 200g loads got me interested in this type of load. Those who follow these issues may remember his penetration test with handloaded ammo, in which he shot clean through 6 jugs and did not recover the bullet. (I've chrono'ed his load at 763fps from a 2" bbl.; my own load is loaded down to 718fps.)

[LouisianaMan]

Thanks first off to Mikey & MikeP, two whose previous discussions of the 200g bullets in .38SPL on GBO forums got me interested in (1) what the load was considered to offer back in the 1920s British service tests and contemporary US police ammunition selection, and (2) whether any of these rationales would seem relevant to me today in my own choices.

Let me add: I taught history at USMA for a number of years, and the historical issues associated with these loads are what originally attracted my interest. Also, while my first concern in ammo selection is penetration, I fully realize that modern expanding-bullet loads have a lot to offer. I am NOT arguing against them! I do, however, have concerns about their reliability, especially from short barrels & at low velocities, through clothing, etc. (Look at the new critical personal defense ammo Hornady is marketing, and ask "Why?")

Last prelim comment: I agree with many that shot placement is KEY. As my not-so-great eyes look over my sights in my house at night, however, I realize that in a SD/HD situation, I'd be striving to hit the apparent center-mass of a possibly fast-moving target someday. I'm a decent shot, but I'd be lucky to be able to place a shot with precision under those conditions. So, here goes.

Although a 200g .38SPL load has not been commercially offered for some time now, I think it should be, in LSWC-K form, specifically for what it offers in snub-nosed revolvers. Maybe a WFN profile would do, and allow reloading w/o having to deep-seat the bullet & crimp over the front shoulder of the LSWC-K, like I can with the LRN. Since no ammo company can offer it without seeming to undercut the reasoning for premium expanding-bullet loads, however, I'm confident that the 200g solution will be left strictly to handloaders. 

Personally, I was interested in chrono'ing & penetration testing a factory 200g load to see what it would do, and tangentially to see why it caused (-es) such a variety of perceptions as to its effectiveness or lack thereof. A few still advocate it; most seem to consider it obsolete at best, or even disparage it as the "widowmaker" (for the good guys).

Granted, the factory .38SPL W-W 200g round I chrono'ed at 605fps (2" bbl) is indeed lighter than I personally would want to depend on. ME-wise, it's about 162 fpe.

By contrast, the .38SPL 200g "Highway Patrol" load, which was advertised at about 770fps (6" bbl, I believe), is the basis for my personal reload velocity goals of 750/4" bbl, and these offer a different level of power than the milder factory load I tested. My reload thru a snubbie gives 229fpe at 718fps; thru a 4" bbl. it is 250fpe at 750fps. (Modern-day standard vel .38SPL 158g at 755fps is 200fpe in 4"-V bbl. for comparison.)

To the extent that ME is any guideline, then, a "Highway Patrol"-equivalent load offers:
1. 41% increase in ME vs. the "standard" old W-W 200g load I tested in snubbies (229fpe vs. 162fpe)

2. 24% increase over (today's) factory loaded 158g in snubbies, assuming 158g MV = 725fps. (229fpe vs. 184fpe)

3. 15% increase in a snubbie vs. modern factory 158g in a 4" bbl. (229fpe vs. 200fpe)

4. 25% increase in a 4" bbl. over today's 158g/4-V bbl. (250fpe vs. 200fpe)

Key conclusions, as I see them:

1. The appropriate comparison btwn. the .38 S&W "Super Police" round (aka the British service .380/200 round) and the .38SPL is at the velocity offered by the W-W "mild" factory load I chrono'ed in the original post, i.e. about 600fps in a snubbie and 680 (albeit only a single chrono'ed shot) from my 4" bbl. This is very similar to the British vels of about 630fps in their 1920s-30s service revolver.

2. Comparing .38SPL 158g to .38SPL 200g, which was the greater focus of comparison for US police agencies some decades ago, the "mild" 200g W-W load at 680fps (again, I chrono'ed only a single round of this in a 4" bbl.) gives 205fpe, almost exactly the same as today's 158g grain load (200fpe). Thus, no real difference in ME.

3. Comparing the standard 158g load to the 200g "Highway Patrol" load, however, the latter offers a significant upgrade in ME. ***Indeed, in a snubbie, it is more powerful than a 158g load from a 4" barrel--I suspect that was the key point for police agencies exploring how to get the most out of the .38SPL.***

4. I also need to shoot a standard 158g into milk jugs and check penetration--Slim Rem, on another thread, said his 158LRN penetrated only four jugs, vs. my 5 for the 200g LRN and 6+ for the 200g LSWC-K. His result may offer more insight about mid-20th century US police attempts to use 200g loads: they got better penetration. Granted, I'm shooting milk jugs--not scientific, not car windshields, etc., and that could decisively alter things.

5. When you change bullet profiles from the blunt 200g LRN to the LSWC-K, as Mikey has advocated for a long time, the ME figures remain the same for a given velocity, but the bullet track remains absolutely straight, without the deviation I've experienced with the LRN. This seems to get at the quality the British admired in their 1920s testing--the 200g carries straight through. (I don't know how my water test compares to their media--perhaps my 18" before deviating thru water equates to a "straight-through" in whatever they used.)

6. In sum, even the 200g "mild" W-W gives increased penetration over 158g. Once you boost power to 200g "Highway Patrol" levels, you have increased penetration and increased energy vs. 158g loads. When you add in LSWC-K configuration (or WFN?) to "Highway Patrol" vels, you have depth of penetration, straight wound channel, improved permanent cavity wound characteristics vs. LRN, and increased energy.

7. Although the performance described in #6 above is probably bested by the more recent 158g +P "FBI load" and its addition of expanding bullet/better wound channel and (probably) less danger of overpenetration. . .many have commented that the FBI load often fails to expand from a snubbie. Therefore, my "bottom line" is that a "Highway Patrol" level 200g load with LSWC-K profile still seems to offer an outstanding standard pressure snubbie SD option for those who hesitate to place their bets on expanding bullets from a short barrel. Too bad it's available only to those who reload. . . .

Thanks for listening as I tried to reason my way through the history of these 200g loadings! Of course, the Brits simply may have screwed up in the 1920s, but the line of thinking I've outlined above seems consistent with much of their rationale, and barely scratches the surface on low pressure/controllability advantages, plus the apparent fact that they weren't comparing the 200g lead bullet to modern JHPs or even LHPs, I guess. Thus, their criteria seem to have been penetration and wounding characteristics of an essentially non-expanding bullet. (And I think Fackler might argue they were onto something!)

[Anduril]

LouisianaMan

I know what the Lyman 358430 bullet looks like, does the factory LRN have a similar profile?
Thanks.
..

[LouisianaMan]

Yes, profile is very similar. I'll try to upload a photo or two this weekend. The VERY blunt but slightly tapered bullet allows all that weight to still fit the chambers in all 5 of my .38s. The shoulder of the LSWC-K is just a bit too bulky to fit many of the chambers, so I have to load it very deep in the cartridge case & crimp over the shoulder itself, as Mikey has reported.

[spruce]

Interesting post.  If I'm reading it correctly I believe your conclusion is that you favor the SWC or a flat nose (with a wide meplat) profile over the RNL.  I would agree with that, and I think "real world" performance validates that conclusion.

Just for the sake of discussion I might offer a few thoughts if you don't mind.  Keep in mind, these are just my opinions and are not meant to criticize your choice of what to carry!

I think most handgun cartridges, and especially those like the .38 Special operate in a velocity range where bullet expansion can be very problematic.  The only real solution is to decrease bullet weight and increase velocity (to ensure expansion),  BUT the tradeoff is a loss of penetration, which if severe enough, will make the round ineffective.

That being said, I can't say I agree the increase in weight from 158gr to 200gr makes the round any more effective in a self-defense scenario.  My reasoning is a 158gr, .38 cal, non-expanding bullet will provide more than ample penetration - more times than not thru-and-thru, and what more is needed?

My personal choice in this caliber is to go with a medium weight (125-135 gr) bullet and give it as much velocity as possible.  This philosophy taken to it's extreme (which can't be done in a .38 spl!) results in the .357 magnum 125grJHP which is currently the load by which all others are judged in regards to one-shot stops.

Bottom line is these discussions are interesting and enjoyable, but I doubt we'll ever reach a definitive conclusion!!  Carry what works for you.

[LouisianaMan]

Spruce,
     Thanks for your thoughts on the matter, and let me say right up front that I personally welcome the intellectual exercise of examining different aspects of the evidence. From a hobby perspective, I "like" the 200g loads just as I "like" certain of my guns more than others. . .but I personally had to think thru/read thru/and practice with different loadings & calibers to determine whether I wanted to "adopt" a 200g load for "service." I'm 50 now, and have been reading & enjoying different versions of these discussions ever since I started shooting--I guess I never will get tired of thinking about guns, ammo, etc.! My postings on the 200g loads are just a way of wrestling with this stuff in a more logical way than I otherwise would, and seeing what discussion it may stir up. I've changed loads many times, and may do so again in future!

     One reason I've changed loads over time is changing situations: apartment, vs. suburban home, vs. rural home. Also, fairly high threat situation in Houston 1990 vs. a much lower threat now. My current HD situation could feature 20 yd. indoor shots, with upholstered furniture in the way, and is in a rural location with minimal concerns about overpenetration. Thus, I would very likely need to shoot through cover, and would be surprised if I faced a full frontal shot. In a small apartment, I might select Glasers. . . .

     With all that being said, I think you hit on some very important points. Here are my thoughts:
1. Yep, an SWC or large meplat FN is what I prefer. All kinds of very convincing evidence indicates that RN configurations don't create anything like full-caliber wound channels, and the same sources convince me that "permanent crush cavity" is the only, or at least the primary, incapacitating agent at pistol vels. (See Fackler; also Beartooth Bullets website.) My own "tests" confirm what I've read about RN slugs tending to deviate in their paths; that could "spoil" a well-directed shot.

2. The reduced weight--higher velocity--improved expansion formula you suggest is indeed the dominant trend in ammo design since about the early 1970s (SuperVel ammo, for instance). There's a ton of evidence showing the effectiveness of that approach, including the superb effectiveness of the .357, as you point out. Believe me, I'm not trying to set myself up against that mass of information & evidence and truly expert knowledge. I would NOT feel poorly-armed with a medium weight expanding slug, as you suggest. Speer Gold Dots in 125g and 135g seem to fit that bill, for instance. The older 158g +P "FBI load" was a similar approach that has proved very effective over time, especially in 3" or longer barrels.

3. With that being said, however, even the premium modern bullets have had trouble expanding reliably at the velocities achievable from snubbies, esp. in .38 SPL, and more especially in standard-pressure loadings. (More about that directly.) Tests in the often-maligned ballistic gelatin show very impressive and reliable expansion, but once they add denim, towels, etc. to the equation they have many instances in which the bullet's HP plugs up with fabric, fails to expand, and then acts as a LRN or LFP would. In standard pressure loads, modern JHPs run 110g or 125g weight, as they won't even try to get expansion from anything heavier. (See Steve's Pages "Terminal Ballistics" data; also http://www.snubnose.info/tech.htm)

4. As those tests show, along with other sources, it's very difficult to get adequate penetration from that bullet weight in .38 if the slugs DO expand as intended. To me, that is extremely worrisome. Frontal shot at close range with slim bad guy, probably OK. 15 yards away, darkness, through raised arms and sweatsuit "hoodie" fabric, with BG weighing 225 or more, I'm not so confident. That's how bad guys tend to dress in my area, and many are built like that or bigger. Note that Hornady "Critical Defense" ammo is specifically an attempt to ensure penetration. . .so clearly they're aware that's still a problem.
 
5. Three main reasons I'm more interested in standard pressure loads than I used to be: I really find them easier to shoot well, although I shoot anything adequately; my wife & two kids (both teenage girls) REALLY find +P ammo tougher to handle, and I almost ruined shooting for them by giving them airweights with 129g and 130g +P loads, and even high vel standard pressure 110g and 125g loads, several of which have a surprising amount of flash & intense report (and thus "perceived" recoil). Also, two of my guns are Colts, with minimal use of +Ps encouraged for them, and a third is a Cimarron Lightning (1873 clone).

6. I really hate to use a defense ammo that I can't begin to practice with, and most premium loads are over a dollar per shot. Granted, that's not a "show-stopper" as you can practice with other ammo. . . .

7. My personal primary HD sidearm is actually a .45LC with a couple of Speer 250g GDHP followed by 255g large-meplat LWCs. I'll soon expend the GDs and stick with lead, because my biggest ammo-related concern is using ammo that's been around a while and might have its primer neutralized by oil. My wife uses a .38, and my daughter has downgraded to a .32 due to the misadventures with the airweights (above). .32 load: 115g LFP at 770fps in 2" bbl, shoots thru 6 jugs!

8. Last comment: best answer I have to your thought about 158g has plenty of penetration, is that I don't fundamentally disagree. That's why my wife's load has been a 158g LSWC, although I'll see if she can handle the increased recoil of the 200g :-) Old Brit tests plus newer US military tests seem to indicate that 200g slugs penetrate much straighter, however, and tend to do so even through bone. That doesn't happen with 158g slugs, although LSWC do better than LRN. When you add in my concern about having to penetrate from non-frontal angles, plus shooting thru leather recliners, that's why I want the heavier slug. FBI and Fackler, among others, insist that quick "stops" only happen thru hits in central nervous system; next fastest are rapid blood loss by hitting heart, vena cava, etc., or at least stopping locomotion by breaking pelvis. The 200g LSWC/LFN gives outstanding prospects of achieving those effects if the bullet hits the right place, even though their smaller caliber (i.e. .357 vs. whatever expanded diameter you achieve from an expanding slug) gives you less probablility of clipping veins/arteries, etc., if the expanding bullet performs as designed.

In sum, I trade certainty of penetration & full-caliber wound channel against the possibility of achieving better results if the bullet expands, and thus causes more decisive damage, and also penetrates adequately w/o deviating in an unhelpful way or failing against bone, leather chairs, belt buckles, etc.

Whew, I'll shut up now. Not trying to "beat down dissent," simply trying to give full responses to your thoughtful concerns. Now, if I could get a 200g LSWCHP that could expand at 800fps from a .357 snubbie, I'd be in hog heaven!

[spruce]

Can't fault your reasoning of favoring the heavier bullet weight considering the environment you may have to use it in.

As a general rule I tend to prefer large caliber (.40 and above) for defensive purposes.  The .357 mag 125gr HP (excellent in a 4", good in a 2") is also a favorite, but if fired inside a dark room it's both deafening and blinding, which in my opinion makes it less than ideal for home defense.

I view the 2" .38 spl as a good backup (second) weapon and just passably adequate for a primary CCW.  The .38 spl in 4" or longer versions becomes a much more effective weapon.  Perhaps it' greatest virtue is that it is easy for almost anyone to learn to shoot well and 2 rounds of .38 spl in the torso is FAR more effective than 6 rounds of .44 mag in the wall(s)!

My personal choice for home defense is a 1911 .45 auto loaded with hardball and a 20 gauge 870 pump loaded with #3 buckshot.  Our nearest neighbor is 2 miles away so there's no worry about over penetration.  I choose hardball because I may WANT to shoot thru a wall or two if for example an intruder ducked into another room to take cover.  The .45 auto is effective without expansion, has minimal muzzle flash, and very manageable recoil.  And, just as important, my wife can also handle both it and the 20 gauge effectively whereas a 12 gauge or a .357 mag is a bit more than she cares to master.

I guess to sum up I could certainly sleep well knowing I had a 4" model 10 .38 spl close at hand - loaded with 158gr SWCHP's (my preference) or (grudgingly!) 200gr SWC!

[LouisianaMan]

Spruce,
Funny how similar our thoughts are in these matters, and even our HD situations. My nearest neighbor is 150 yds away through dense woods, and next nearest are hundreds of yds away.

Ditto, our sidearms. You've chosen .45ACP hardball, very similar to my hardcast .45LCs. My shotgun is a Mossberg pump 20ga with--you guessed it--#3 buck. My experience 20 yrs ago with a S&W 4" .357 in a low-light indoor range soured me a bit on .that caliber for HD; the flash & blast were horrific with 125g fireballs & I remember the lead spitting with 158g SWCs. Obviously highly effective, but at quite a price. That Model 66 had to go back to the factory for repairs. . .I don't know if it was just one of those things, or a reflection on the fact that full-house .357s can be tough on a gun. I didn't really shoot it that much, so I presume it was the former. Nonetheless, I came away feeling like high-power loads in that setup were rough. I much preferred shooting the M1911A1 I carried as my assigned sidearm. (SN#1943589--wish Uncle Sam would have sold it to me!)

I don't have a CCW, since I teach JROTC in high school ("gun free zone"). When not involved with school, I tend to have a .38 or .357 snubbie in the car/truck, loaded with my newly-beloved 200g LSWC-Ks :-) My various .38s are placed in appropriate locations in the house as secondary guns, as are two other .45LCs; since I have them for hobby's sake, may as well have them available if things go sour.


Since my 625-7 N-frame is too large for my wife, as are K-frames, my wife has had the 2" Colt D.S. by her bedside for years. Just recently I acquired a 4" Police Positive Special--the exact same gun w/ longer barrel and w/o ejector shroud, so that is now by her bedside.

I got away from automatics because I was shooting some CAS for a while & I got set up for .45LC and .38SPL. Also, my wife practices enough to hit the target pretty doggone well, but not enough to stay prepared on safeties, magazine release buttons, clearing jams, etc., and she has trouble racking slides on any auto. After having two Mossberg springs fail on me from staying loaded, I also was concerned about pistol magazines & springs, so I just decided to go revolver and solve all these concerns at once. Wife can point & pull, springs remain at rest, etc. I'd like to keep the shotgun loaded, but compromised by loading a stock sleeve and a sling w/shell loops, in case I have time to load it. Otherwise, it's a revolver.

Back in Houston in the early '90s is when I got a Beretta 92F, b/c home invasions by 2-4 guys were a REAL problem within a mile radius of my house. Heck, I also got an AR-15! That's a major reason we settled in the country after I retired from the Army in '05.