Wadcutters as SD round?

[Ray Ray 3,566]

http://www.ammoland.com/2010/03/31/handguns-tv-show-on-sportsman-channel/#axzz1qATPcz8Z

 

Is that kid in the pic Jim Cirillo's son?

[Qel Hoth 33]

A wadcutter is a very good SD bullet for the following reasons:

 

1. The bullet is already in an efficient shape. A hollowpoint needs to expand a bit before it gets in the shape of a wadcutter.

2. Even at target velocities (725-750 fps) it will penetrate more than 14" of ballistic gel.

3. If you're using a lightweight J frame it is much easier to control than a +P round giving you greater accuracy and quick recovery for follow up shots. The same goes for someone who may be recoil sensitive in a larger revolver.

 

The problem with a wadcutter is not the shape but a higher velocity would make it much better. Back in the 70s I remember manufacturers offered a target load at about 750 fps and a standard load at 850 fps or so with a wadcutter bullet. If you want to crank up the velocity you need to use a flat base wadcutter as a HBWC can blow out the base leaving a ring of lead in your barrel.

 

Reversing a HBWC for massive expansion (moreso with a swaged bullet) can work. When it works it works well as Old School related. The problem is if one side of the nose of the bullet hits something hard (button, belt buckle, bone etc) on the way in, it can collapse that big hollowpoint. At the very least you wind up making the bullet a solid and at the worst cause the bullet to tumble early limiting penetration. These are some of the results I got when I tested reversed HBWC back in the 70s and mirrored results Jim Cirillo got.

 

Jim was always looking for the "magic bullet". Most of the designs he came up with looked like...a wadcutter. Some of these had a cup point to give a bit of expansion. He tried (at least once that I know of) a flat nosed wadcutter in a 45 ACP in a 1911 single loaded directly into the chamber backed up by IIRC Super Vel hollowpoints in the magazine while working in NYPD's Stakeout Squad.

 

I'll use factory wadcutters in a J frame as a SD round. Are there better things out there? Maybe, maybe not.

 

While I can see a wadcutter being better than FMJ for self defense, I think that a hollowpoint would have a number of advantages, at least for factory ammo.

 

Every wadcutter I've seen (maybe I'm wrong) has been loaded relatively light. Typical muzzle energy for .38 Special is only 150-170 ft-lb. Most hollowpoints seem to have 200-250 ft-lb of muzzle energy. This is anywhere from 15% to 40% less energy. Also, if a wadcutter delivering 170 ft-lb penetrates 14" and a hollowpoint delivering 250 ft-lb penetrates 14", the hollowpoint delivers more energy over the same distance, and the rate that energy is transferred is more important than the amount of energy transferred when it comes to causing trauma.

 

Also, I wouldn't expect a normal wadcutter to expand that much, so the bullet, and thus the amount of tissue that the bullet physically impacts will be smaller than a hollowpoint.

 

I would also think that the petals from an expanded hollowpoint would cause significantly more trauma to the tissue because they will cut/tear their way through more tissue than a wadcutter would.

[GRIZ 3,369]

http://www.ammoland.com/2010/03/31/handguns-tv-show-on-sportsman-channel/#axzz1qATPcz8Z Is that kid in the pic Jim Cirillo's son?

Ray the guy in the photo may be his grandson as Jim Jr is old enough to have a son in his 20s.

While I can see a wadcutter being better than FMJ for self defense, I think that a hollowpoint would have a number of advantages, at least for factory ammo. Every wadcutter I've seen (maybe I'm wrong) has been loaded relatively light. Typical muzzle energy for .38 Special is only 150-170 ft-lb. Most hollowpoints seem to have 200-250 ft-lb of muzzle energy. This is anywhere from 15% to 40% less energy. Also, if a wadcutter delivering 170 ft-lb penetrates 14" and a hollowpoint delivering 250 ft-lb penetrates 14", the hollowpoint delivers more energy over the same distance, and the rate that energy is transferred is more important than the amount of energy transferred when it comes to causing trauma. Also, I wouldn't expect a normal wadcutter to expand that much, so the bullet, and thus the amount of tissue that the bullet physically impacts will be smaller than a hollowpoint. I would also think that the petals from an expanded hollowpoint would cause significantly more trauma to the tissue because they will cut/tear their way through more tissue than a wadcutter would.

 

If you're talking factory ammo I agree a JHP would be better in a 4" or longer barrel. I prefer the wadcutter in a J frame size gun with a 2" barrel. I know they make JHP loads for short barrels but in any case the efficiency of the JHP depends on expansion. If you don't have enough velocity you won't get the expansion and if you have too much, too quick the expansion will limit penetration. I've said the wadcutter is already in an efficient shape when it hits the target.

 

You said "the rate that energy is transferred is more important than the amount of energy transferred when it comes to causing trauma". That may be so but what is more important than that is shot placement. Shooting a J frame revolver is hard enough and adding the muzzle blast and recoil of a +P JHP load doesn't help anyone shoot it better. The lighter recoil and virtually non-existent muzzle blast of a factory wadcutter make that J frame easier to recover for follow up shots whether they are an experienced pistolero or a novice.

[pepsi71ocean 2]

I heard that soldiers in world war two used a hack saw to cut the tips off of their ammunition. Although this is only heard of on the eastern front. I have never been abke to disprove or prove it, but it puts some through into the valitidty of the websites test i guess?

 

I however have heard that our snipers in ww2 also used AP rounds since it was more accurate out of the 03's.

[Parker 213]

A wadcutter is a very good SD bullet for the following reasons:

 

1. The bullet is already in an efficient shape. A hollowpoint needs to expand a bit before it gets in the shape of a wadcutter.

2. Even at target velocities (725-750 fps) it will penetrate more than 14" of ballistic gel.

3. If you're using a lightweight J frame it is much easier to control than a +P round giving you greater accuracy and quick recovery for follow up shots. The same goes for someone who may be recoil sensitive in a larger revolver.

 

The problem with a wadcutter is not the shape but a higher velocity would make it much better. Back in the 70s I remember manufacturers offered a target load at about 750 fps and a standard load at 850 fps or so with a wadcutter bullet. If you want to crank up the velocity you need to use a flat base wadcutter as a HBWC can blow out the base leaving a ring of lead in your barrel.

 

Reversing a HBWC for massive expansion (moreso with a swaged bullet) can work. When it works it works well as Old School related. The problem is if one side of the nose of the bullet hits something hard (button, belt buckle, bone etc) on the way in, it can collapse that big hollowpoint. At the very least you wind up making the bullet a solid and at the worst cause the bullet to tumble early limiting penetration. These are some of the results I got when I tested reversed HBWC back in the 70s and mirrored results Jim Cirillo got.

 

Jim was always looking for the "magic bullet". Most of the designs he came up with looked like...a wadcutter. Some of these had a cup point to give a bit of expansion. He tried (at least once that I know of) a flat nosed wadcutter in a 45 ACP in a 1911 single loaded directly into the chamber backed up by IIRC Super Vel hollowpoints in the magazine while working in NYPD's Stakeout Squad.

 

I'll use factory wadcutters in a J frame as a SD round. Are there better things out there? Maybe, maybe not.

When I was young summers use to find me heading south to my uncle's farm to help cut his fields and cultivate them for the next planting. Often we would ride the tractors with a handgun for any opportunities woodchucks would present for us. Woodchucks would be so used to seeing tractors around the place they never scurried away. One load I too was fond of was the 148 gr. HBWC loaded backwards to a "mid-level velocity." 'Chucks would fold when hit with a center-mass hit, none made it back to their hole, and each one hit was telegraphed with a resounding distinctive "whomp." It proved to be a very effective load for those critters without resorting to ear-splitting magnum 110 gr.JHP handloads which would also work well, and shot a bit flatter. Farthest shot made was about 50 yds. with iron sights in my M19. Another load that was a favorite of mine for woodchucks was the 158 gr. lead SWC, loaded to about 1,050 fps. Mild and easy to shoot, very accurate in my particular gun, always got complete penetration on a woodchuck at any distance. None of this has anything to do with their use in self-defense, but it was interesting to see what worked and didn't work in "game" situations. Shot placement was always the key factor to any round's effectiveness.

 

PS - One of Jim Cirillo's favorite stake-out weapons was an M1 carbine.

[LorenzoS 100]

I don't understand this thread at all. A bias ply tire is better than an old fashioned wooded wagon wheel, but why would you want to use it when you have modern radials available? So who cares if a backwards wadcutter beats a plain FMJ it will still never come close to the effectiveness of a modern hollowpoint. Even if you are one of the FEW people who can legally carry and are prohibited from HP's a modern alternative like Federal EFMJ will still surpass what Jim Cirillo had to choose from 40 years ago.

[Qel Hoth 33]

Even if you are one of the FEW people who can legally carry and are prohibited from HP's a modern alternative like Federal EFMJ will still surpass what Jim Cirillo had to choose from 40 years ago.

 

Given the Aitken ruling, EFMJ, soft point, and any other bullet designed to expand also falls under the restriction of 2C:39-3 f (1)...

[LorenzoS 100]

Given the Aitken ruling, EFMJ, soft point, and any other bullet designed to expand also falls under the restriction of 2C:39-3 f (1)...

 

Wow, I did not hear this. Can you point me to some type of citation? Godamit New Jersey. Not that it really matters to me, since I cannot carry in NJ.

[Krdshrk 3,877]

Given the Aitken ruling, EFMJ, soft point, and any other bullet designed to expand also falls under the restriction of 2C:39-3 f (1)...

 

Where's your proof behind this?

[Qel Hoth 33]

 

 

Where's your proof behind this?

 

Will quote when I get home, but the judges ruled that the meaning of "dum-dum" is plain, and Webster's defines a "dum-dum" bullet as anything meant to.expand. dum-dum and HP are.both restricted under 2C-39-3f

[Krdshrk 3,877]

That's ridiculous. A FMJ bullet will expand (Not as much but still will expand).

[Qel Hoth 33]

That's ridiculous. A FMJ bullet will expand (Not as much but still will expand).

 

Dude, its NJ...

 

 

Give me 30 mins and ill quote stuff.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

Where's your proof behind this?

 

From the Aitken Ruling, found here...

 

http://www.njlawarchive.com/2012/03/30/201203301100141480682567/

 

In Mortimer, supra, 135 N.J. at 532, the Supreme Court analyzed the challenged statute In by referencing Ninth Webster’s New New N.J.S.A.CollegiateDictionary.Webster’sCollegiateDictionary 388 (1985), “dum-dum” is defined as “a bullet (as one with a hollow point) that expands more than usual upon hitting an object.” or “a Webster’s defines “hollow” as “an unfilled space” or low part of a surface,” and “nose,” indepressedrelevant part, as “the forward end or projection of something.” Id. at 576, 807. We are satisfied that the statutory language at issue is not unconstitutionally vague and cannot be interpreted toinclude a bullet that has been dented after it has been dropped,37A-0467-10T4 as Brian argues.The language is sufficient to notify “a personof ordinary intelligence . . . what conduct is prohibited so that he or she may act in conformity with the law.”

 

This is the actual ruling, absent the judges remarks, which pretty much says that any bullet that expands "more than usual" falls under the statute. I have to agree that there is definitely an element of vagueness in the use of the term "usual", but that did not seem to be a problem for the appellate court.

 

In reading the decision, another element that I found interesting - and relevant to another thread here on the board - was why the high capacity mag charges were overturned. The arresting officer unloaded them at the scene and counted 16 rounds while so doing. In court, he demonstrated that they held 16 rounds by actually loading one in front of the jury. It was overturned because the magazines were not dynamically tested by an expert to see if they actually functioned. The statute says that they must be capable of feeding ammunition continuously and directly into a semi-automatic firearm. Since they weren't actually function checked, the charge was overturned. Makes me wonder what would have happened had they tested them and had a FTF or FTE at somepoint before the mag was empty.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[Qel Hoth 33]

Beat me to it, I was still trying to find the court's opinion because it has been removed from the NJ DoJ site but apparently not added to the Rutgers site yet...

 

"Usual" expansion is probably going to be interpreted as how much a FMJ would expand under similar circumstances. Anything specifically designed to expand, yet not a hollowpoint (EFMJ, Pow'r Ball, Critical Defense/Duty...) still falls under the statute then.