Potent New Buffalo Bore .38 Special Loading

[Pointblank]

This is what a premium self-defense cartridge (Speer Gold Dot 135 grain Short Barrel) is supposed to do:

Speer Gold Dot .38 Special +P 135 gr Ammo Test - YouTube

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[bmcgilvray]

Great! When some Sim-Test dressed in denim comes after me that load will be just the ticket.

Otherwise, I prefer something with a little more weight and velocity for snub use.

Nobody ever shills for Gold Dot here on the Forum.

[glockman10mm]

This is what a premium self-defense cartridge (Speer Gold Dot 135 grain Short Barrel) is supposed to do:

Speer Gold Dot .38 Special +P 135 gr Ammo Test - YouTube

I take it that you still have some learning to do. I certainly agree with bmcgilvray and the others. Maybe you are a new shooter, and that explains alot. Many people have fallen into the trap of YouTube bs and pictures of pretty flowery expanded bullets, and jello junk lab tests.
There is way more to it than they would lead you to believe. Gold Dot does make a good bullet. And it will probably work just fine. However, in order to sell 25 bullets for $20 , they must convince you if you dont have it, you are not well armed. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The lswc in the 158 weight loadings will do all that needs done, and do it with more reliability over a wider range of conditions.

[grouse]

I wouldn't use them in ANY alloy or aluminum frame pistol, but that's me.

Me either, don't own one. Was'ent that many years ago they warned against + p's in steel framed model 60's.
Now they say + p's are safe in airweights. What happend?
I'm Sure my Sp 101 will chew 'em up(the buffalo bore load) & spit 'em out & still be hungry!

[Majorlk]

Me either, don't own one. Was'ent that many years ago they warned against + p's in steel framed model 60's.
Now they say + p's are safe in airweights. What happend?
I'm Sure my Sp 101 will chew 'em up(the buffalo bore load) & spit 'em out & still be hungry!

I don't have one, either. I have an all-steel 3rd model Colt Detective Special - rated for +P (the 70's equivalent) the day it was made. :)

[bmcgilvray]

I ran some chronograph tests on the Buffalo Bore 158 grain lead semi-wadcutter hollow point ammunition last year. I didn't see the need to use my alloy-framed Smith & Wesson Model 642 to conduct the 2-inch barrel portion of the tests but used a Smith & Wesson Model 10 snub instead.

The SP 101 would shoot the Buffalo Bore +P loads indefinitely...more than a person would want to afford. I'd carry them in a steel Smith & Wesson J-Frame or post-war Detective Special but wouldn't want to shoot a lot of them out of those revolvers.

[Rock and Glock]

Those look pretty interesting for my wife's LCR. Any thoughts there, folks?

[bmcgilvray]

They'd core out a decent hole. There's not a lot of future in introducing your wife to the handful they will be in a lightweight .38 snub while she is practicing yet it would be wrong for there to be any surprises in store for her in a shooting confrontation with an assailant if the revolver was so loaded and she had no previous experience with shooting the load. My wife can handle and direct shots effectively with the Smith & Wesson Model 642 when the revolver is loaded with Remington +P 158 grain lead SWC ammunition but she doesn't claim to enjoy it much at all. Don't blame her as I don't enjoy it either. The Buffalo Bore ought to be noticeably more "energetic." I haven't fired any of it through an alloy-framed revolver and ought to try it ... once.

[a__l__a__n]

You guys are kidding right? if you want overpenetration any fmj practice round will do that. You are supposedly paying for expansion which translates into stopping power. That test was a FAIL for jhp ammuntion. BB seems to have shills on a lot of the boards.

Actually, it was a FAIL for LSWC-HP ammo, not jhp. It failed the FBI test because it did not expand. That doesn't necessarily mean it is inadequate on the street. But apparently the FBI wants both penetration and expansion, and they want it even when the bullet has to pass through clothing (which is pretty much all the time).

In real life, bullet performance is a game of chance. How far from the muzzle will the target be? What will be the angle of impact? Exactly where on the BG will the bullet land? What bone / cartilage / other structures will be hit? It's a crap shoot. Sometimes it will hit soft tissue and sometimes it will hit hard structures. A bullet optimized for penetrating hard structures would be expected to perform better when that scenario plays out. But when that bullet hits soft structures, it may pass right through leaving a slow bleed-out and leaving the BG capable of continuing to threaten your personal well-being. Which way will your encounter play out? You won't know until after the fact, if then. The FBI is looking for the best of both worlds - penetration and expansion - because they believe that improves the odds for the outcome they want. They are probably right.

[glockman10mm]

The 158 weight lswchp in fact was the authorized load of the FBI. And it was for a reason. It worked and met their specs. Hence it's name, the " FBI Load".

[a__l__a__n]

The 158 weight lswchp in fact was the authorized load of the FBI. And it was for a reason. It worked and met their specs. Hence it's name, the " FBI Load".

Operative word: "was"

[glockman10mm]

Operative word: "was"

Look partner, you can play with words all you want, and choose to carry what you want, got nothing against that. But, you will never sell that to people who know better, been there and done that.
If you are here to learn, then empty your head and learn.
You have nothing to validate what you are saying except the regurgitation of what you have read or heard some else say.

I would take the advice of people like bmcgilvray who has in fact tested these loads in flesh, and chronographed many, and has the knowledge and practical experience to apply it.
What testing have you done on your own? What real world application of the round have you experienced first hand?

[OD*]

Operative word: "was"

It wasn't because of an ineffective cartridge, it was because of their transition to semi-automatic pistols.

[Rock and Glock]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I haven't fired any of it through an alloy-framed revolver and ought to try it ... once.

Sound advice, Sir. We shall report back accordingly.

[a__l__a__n]

It wasn't because of an ineffective cartridge, it was because of their transition to semi-automatic pistols.

So, why does the current FBI test include expansion requirements? Please inform us.