Potent New Buffalo Bore .38 Special Loading

This is a discussion on Potent New Buffalo Bore .38 Special Loading within the Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by glockman10mm Look partner, you can play with words all you want, and choose to carry what you want, got nothing against that. ...

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 67
Like Tree24Likes

Thread: Potent New Buffalo Bore .38 Special Loading

  1. #31
    Member Array a__l__a__n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    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?
    I am not arguing with your experience. I'm arguing with your logic. You are drawing irrational conclusions from your experience. Just because non-expanding bullets have worked for you, that doesn't mean they are better than expanding bullets. All other things being equal, expansion is an advantage over non-expansion.

    Should I believe some guy named glockman10mm on some forum? Or does the name bmcgilvray prove he's right? I'm more inclined to believe the FBI knows what they are doing. How many police departments do you know of that are NOT using expanding bullets? Convince them you are right, and I'll be more inclined to believe you.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    OD*
    OD* is offline
    Moderator
    Array OD*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Coopersville
    Posts
    10,248
    Quote Originally Posted by a__l__a__n View Post
    So, why does the current FBI test include expansion requirements? Please inform us.
    Referance the April 11, 1986 FBI Miami shootout, expansion requirements weren't initiated because of the 158 LSWCHP poor performance.
    "The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper

    "Diligentia Vis Celeritas"

  4. #33
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    7,855
    A L A N, carry and be happy. I have no issue with you, but I will always take exception when I see someone make statements that are untrue and complete ignorance.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  5. #34
    Member Array a__l__a__n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    A L A N, carry and be happy. I have no issue with you, but I will always take exception when I see someone make statements that are untrue and complete ignorance.
    As will I. I know I'm not going to convince you. But for others who are reading these discussions, I want them to be aware that the FBI disagrees with you. If they choose a 158gr LSWC-HP over a comparable Speer GD, they might be making a sub-optimal choice. Certainly a lot of professionals think so.

  6. #35
    Member Array a__l__a__n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by OD* View Post
    Referance the April 11, 1986 FBI Miami shootout, expansion requirements weren't initiated because of the 158 LSWCHP poor performance.

    The Gun Zone -- FBI Miami Firefight aftermath

    Conclusion (quoting final paragraph at that link):

    Years ago it was common knowledge that hollowpoint often plugged up and did not expand when they passed through heavy clothing, plywood or wallboard. Since those barriers are part of the FBI test, engineers went to work and found ways to improve expansion and penetration. It truly revolutionized the way law enforcement and defensive ammunition is designed. And we have more reliable ammunition as a result.

  7. #36
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    7,855
    I am well versed in the specifically the ballistict study. But it is beyond my ability to reason how you or anyone could even make ametuer study of the incident and conclude what you are suggesting.

    The entire theory was based around a single, 9mm Winchester Silvertip HP, that in fact performed exactly as it was designed, but stopped just short of the heart. If, that bullet had been a swchp, it would have stopped Platt at that time.
    You are simply not understanding the full scope of the study and research.
    azchevy, bmcgilvray and OD* like this.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  8. #37
    Member Array a__l__a__n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    I am well versed in the specifically the ballistict study. But it is beyond my ability to reason how you or anyone could even make ametuer study of the incident and conclude what you are suggesting.

    The entire theory was based around a single, 9mm Winchester Silvertip HP, that in fact performed exactly as it was designed, but stopped just short of the heart. If, that bullet had been a swchp, it would have stopped Platt at that time.
    You are simply not understanding the full scope of the study and research.
    Are you denying that the current FBI test requires a bullet to expand in order to pass?

    Or are you saying the FBI is wrong to include that requirement?

  9. #38
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    7,855
    Neither. What I am saying is that the new ammo is very good, but it has limitations based on less than perfect shot oppurtunity. And, while these limitations are not normally a big deal, they can present themselves.

    The point is that penetration is the single most important factor. Ideally you want both penetration and expansion, but the one you absolutely have to have is adequate penetration.

    And, for a goverment with an unlimited budget, it is affordable to pay out the nose for the promise of both.
    But it's not necassary. A 50 round box of 38spl lswc ammo at half the price will work as well as any other bullet in the same caliber. But swc does not always work well for a semi auto handgun, and that's what the FBI uses. The lswchp is as good or better than anything you will spend twice the money on anyday of the week and twice on Sunday.
    grouse likes this.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  10. #39
    Member Array a__l__a__n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    Neither. What I am saying is that the new ammo is very good, but it has limitations based on less than perfect shot oppurtunity. And, while these limitations are not normally a big deal, they can present themselves.

    The point is that penetration is the single most important factor. Ideally you want both penetration and expansion, but the one you absolutely have to have is adequate penetration.
    Then we don't disagree. Amazing.

    Quoting from my first comment on this thread:

    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
    .

    I'm not sure why you objected to that comment when I first posted it, since you now acknowledge that "Ideally you want both penetration and expansion." Nobody's disputing that if you can't have both, you need at least to have penetration. But the point is, you CAN have both.

  11. #40
    Member Array Bear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Rochester, MI
    Posts
    28
    I will still continue to carry BB - 158 gr LSWCHP in my 642 for two reasons:
    1) I already have them, and 2) It is two to the chest and one to the head, per my CPL Class instructor, a few years ago.
    Also re the new "Woodsman" load, it maybe $26/box of 20, but it is also $14 for shipping ground FedEx. I will wait until I can get to Cabelas.

  12. #41
    OD*
    OD* is offline
    Moderator
    Array OD*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Coopersville
    Posts
    10,248
    Quote Originally Posted by a__l__a__n View Post
    The Gun Zone -- FBI Miami Firefight aftermath

    Conclusion (quoting final paragraph at that link):

    Years ago it was common knowledge that hollowpoint often plugged up and did not expand when they passed through heavy clothing, plywood or wallboard. Since those barriers are part of the FBI test, engineers went to work and found ways to improve expansion and penetration. It truly revolutionized the way law enforcement and defensive ammunition is designed. And we have more reliable ammunition as a result.
    Just so everyone knows what you are quoting, the paragraph is by the gun-writer Charles Petty and not the FBI. I never augured solid vs hollow-point, expansion vs penetration. The first post of yours I replied to, you seem to elude to the FBI no longer using the 158 LSWCHP because of poor performance, that simply is not the case.
    "The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper

    "Diligentia Vis Celeritas"

  13. #42
    Member Array a__l__a__n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by OD* View Post
    Just so everyone knows what you are quoting, the paragraph is by the gun-writer Charles Petty and not the FBI. I never augured solid vs hollow-point, expansion vs penetration. The first post of yours I replied to, you seem to elude to the FBI no longer using the 158 LSWCHP because of poor performance, that simply is not the case.
    My point was simply that the LSWC-HP is no longer the recommended ammunition of the FBI. And that doesn't pass their current tests. It's not very persuasive to point out that, once upon a time, it was their standard. The bar is higher today.

  14. #43
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    7,855
    You just are just not getting it. The bar is not higher, the priorities have changed. People are still
    made out of the same flesh and bone, not jello.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  15. #44
    Moderator
    Array bmcgilvray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,403
    "Years ago it was common knowledge that hollowpoint often plugged up and did not expand when they passed through heavy clothing, plywood or wallboard."

    Perhaps, but a hollow point isn't a requirement and a plugged hollow point bullet that still strikes the heart, severs the spinal cord, or centers the brain will still cause someone to have a really bad day.

    It is only a forum format, ALAN and you can't know the member posting or his experience and observations. But, "everybody else is doing it" really is not a good reason on which to base choices. Some of us are only offering our personal observations here because we enjoy the forum format and sharing what we've seen. Take it with a grain of salt but don't always discount it completely. A lot of the so-called "professionals" to whom you refer are laughably short of measuring up to that description. The notion of "expansion" and it's "stopping potential" took a flight of fancy long ago with all the associated myth, conjecture, and out right distortions that may be found. Unfortunately it's up to the individual shooter to sort it all out. Hint: Links to YouTube clips showing bullets fired into substances aren't where it's properly sorted out. Nor is the pat answer found in the "Miami Firefight."
    Rock and Glock likes this.
    “No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”

    Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893

  16. #45
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    7,855
    Quote Originally Posted by a__l__a__n View Post
    Then we don't disagree. Amazing.

    Quoting from my first comment on this thread:

    .

    I'm not sure why you objected to that comment when I first posted it, since you now acknowledge that "Ideally you want both penetration and expansion." Nobody's disputing that if you can't have both, you need at least to have penetration. But the point is, you CAN have both.
    Our disagreement is on the statement you made saying the 158 weight lswc-hp failed due to not expanding. We do not agree at all on these issues. My suggestion would be to read the autopsy and action report that reconstructs that incident, and you will better understand. A bullet does not fail because it doesnt expand, it fails because it misses something in the CNC that shuts the power immediatly off. Either thru inadequate penetration, deflection, or just completely missing something vital enough to trigger an immediate shut down of the body. If you read the report, you will see that Mattix was stopped early on and never made it out of the car, and if Im not mistaken, it was the 38 spl loads that did it here. Platt, although mortally wounded, continued his rampage. The bottom line here is the 115 weight Silvertip did not have quite enough ass behind it to complete its journey after going thru his arm and into the chest cavity.

    A heavier bullet, would have probably made the difference. It was this single shot that moved the FBI into a new direction, giving birth to the 10mm, which later became the 40 S&W. The move was away from revolvers to autoloaders, for the increased capacity and not because of any cartridge failure associated with the revolver or the 158 grn lswc-hp load.

    And as a point of interest, the move was one towards a heavier bullet. This is the point being made here by myself and others. The heavier loading of the keith style bullet in the 158-180 grn 38spl, does one thing that can be counted on, and thats penetration, regardless of imperfect angles or circumstances. No light weight HP can do this with such a degree of certainty, unless pushed to magnum velocities.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

38 spl p outdoorsman
,
buffalo bore
,

buffalo bore .38 special outdoorsman

,

buffalo bore 38 outdoorsman

,

buffalo bore 38 special

,

buffalo bore 38 special outdoorsman

,
buffalo bore 38 special outdoorsman review
,

buffalo bore 38 special review

,
buffalo bore 38 special wadcutter
,

buffalo bore ammo review

,
buffalo bore ammo reviews
,

buffalo bore outdoorsman

Click on a term to search for related topics.