Anyone use these as self-defense rounds? I've got a new snubnose that I have taken a real liking to and this will likely be my primary pocket piece in warmer months when my wardrobe may make my IWB a bit more distinguishable. I came across some locally that are available for not unreasonable prices and have heard the arguments both for and against in different places, but have yet to hear from anyone who has chosen to use them regularly as a self-defense round. Any thoughts for or against here?

I recently picked up 100 .32 long wadcutters (WC). I don't know if I will use them defensively since my snubby is 32 H&R magnum. But over the years I have met several people who carried WCs in their 38/357 snubby. As I understand it, with a regular round nose or hollow point, a shot that grazes the skull might leave a cut, but would not incapacitate the attacker. Where as the edge of the WC would grab onto bone and be more effective.
I welcome any comment that supports or refutes this.

I've carried wad cutters in the past but these days tend more towards ball.

If you are going to carry a JFrame you need to invest in ammo that performs out of such a short barrel. However, I would not load with hot loads that were “too much” at the typical intended, self defense, distances. I definitely don’t like to shoot more than a couple cylinders of +P out of my air weight, during a practice session - and I know the limit for me is about 5 yards - to reliably hit the target, in a rapid manner. What your threshold is may be greater or less than mine. There are many excellent videos on this. Factory Wadcutters vary quite considerably depending on brand:

I would probably feel better if I was loading my own to a +P Round and testing them.


https://youtu.be/P3VYlcjH8YI


And of course Paul Harrel:

https://youtu.be/BLPFPyg9r1k


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you plan on only headshots or you are recoil adverse, wadcutters. Otherwise, a good JHP +p round is going to serve you better.

Interesting points. My snubby is actually a 357 and I actually don't even find using 357 to be overly recoil heavy, and then of course less so with 38. I'm honestly a little afraid to carry with 357 in an urban setting, even JHP, just because of the risk of over-penetration. Nothing stopping me from carrying 38, I have jest heard that wadcutters can be a low penetration/high impact alternative. Can't say I'm stoked at the thought of going for headshots for about 10,000 reasons, but also would prefer my bullet not bounce off a jean jacket.

In my reading, the arguments in favor of wadcutters date back to the days of smaller caliber revolvers and unreliable expansion out of hollow points.

Hiker outlined one of those - the idea that wadcutters are less prone to ricochet with a grazing hit compared to FMJs. You'd expect a flat nose to turn in towards the edge that makes contact, rather than deflect away from it. But as senorgrand notes, that's only an issue if you're going for headshots. That use case speaks to the problem of low-power SD rounds in general.

Back before you saw extensive testing on terminal ballistics, JHPs had a spotty record for expansion, especially at low velocity. When they do expand, penetration is compromised - light, slow moving bullets don't have the momentum to sustain deep penetration. Expansion only slows it down and reduces penetration further. FMJ and wadcutters cut smaller holes, so you'd optimize penetration, but there's a longstanding notion that the sharp edges of wadcutters cause more trauma while the round nose will produce a smaller permanent wound channel. Without a background in wound trauma, all I've got is what I read.

I suppose there's a case to be made that the flat nose produces a greater amount of hydrodynamic shock, but I've seen nothing to convince me that those principles apply to pistol calibers. Maybe big-bore magnum-class rounds? Out of a rifle? The flat nose is the go-to round for bear defense. But out of a snubby? I doubt it.

I am old school and only carry wade cutters or semi wade cutters. I don't trust hollow points , I my carry is a ruger lcrx 38 with a 3 inch barrel, and I don't think I would get consistent expansion. WC and semi -wade cutters have adequate penetration and are not likely to be deflected by bone.

The best defensive round is not worth much if you can't reliably score hits with it. If you do your best shooting with WC, hard to argue with success.

From what I’ve gathered it was used in carry situations long ago. I would think it’s still adequate and good choice for small j-frame snubnose revolvers. The gun is not long range, it’s close. I’d carry it. Problem is finding some. Most 38 Special ammo is in short supply.

beto wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 7:11 pm I am old school and only carry wade cutters or semi wade cutters. I don't trust hollow points , I my carry is a ruger lcrx 38 with a 3 inch barrel, and I don't think I would get consistent expansion. WC and semi -wade cutters have adequate penetration and are not likely to be deflected by bone.

If I can get my hands on more Wadcutters that is what I’m intending to use in my S&W 49, less than 2” barrel.

sikacz wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 7:58 pm From what I’ve gathered it was used in carry situations long ago. I would think it’s still adequate and good choice for small j-frame snubnose revolvers. The gun is not long range, it’s close. I’d carry it. Problem is finding some. Most 38 Special ammo is in short supply.

It is a face to face deal combined with some 357 ammo. It’s only 100 rounds of wadcutters, I might just pick them up to see how they shoot.

I my short experience as a police officer I had to guard a corpse while waiting for the Medical Examiner to arrive. The body was shot by a plain clothes officer. He was very old school and carried a Chiefs special. Loaded with wad cutters (not turned around). The report stated that the very large perpetrator 300+ lbs. Was dropped with 2 shots center mass. The detective said he favored being able to hit something over making a lot of noise.

To this day I have carried a charter arms undercover with hollow base wad cutters.

YMMV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rickoshay wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:20 pm To this day I have carried a charter arms undercover with hollow base wad cutters.

Nice. Mine is a charter arms mag pug, only had it a bit but I am a very happy shooter with it.

I like the old school comments. Reinforces what I’ve heard and read.

Someday, I'd like to try 'em in .45 Colt. The modern industry has moved on towards high-capacity automatics, but there's a long and effective history of .38 Special wadcutters out of snubnose revolvers in self-defense applications. At least against humans.

Wadcutters do have an excellent reputation for accuracy. I suspect a spinning cylinder can maintain orientation better than JHPs if the bullet isn't balanced precisely.

I tend to use JHP's because they're the factory defense ammo. Got nothing wrong with wadcutters, per se...and I hope to never, EVER actually need to find out how effective either one is!

papajim2jordan wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 7:47 pm The best defensive round is not worth much if you can't reliably score hits with it. If you do your best shooting with WC, hard to argue with success.

That's why it's so important to get to the range with your carry firearm as much as possible. It's also important to use practice ammo that closely replicates at least the in-flight ballistics of your carry ammo. Handloading can make that actually affordable.

Instead of a wadcutter or a hollow point,. I would look at a Semi-wadcutter AKA a Keith style bullet. It has the best of the wadcutter with the cutting ring and the penetration of a ball ammo. It also is known for its destructive power. Elmer Keith did a great one with it. The hollow point in a SD situation can get clogged with clothing and not expand or it a heavy bone and just break apart. The wadcutter cuts its way and can crush bone. The Keith bullet can do the same but has more penetration power and can break bones. It has been used for decades in handgun hunting taking large game spending on how hot it is loaded. With 44 magnum it has taken down every big game animal in North America at one time or another including Alaskan Brown Bears.

TrueTexan wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 6:00 pm Instead of a wadcutter or a hollow point,. I would look at a Semi-wadcutter AKA a Keith style bullet. It has the best of the wadcutter with the cutting ring and the penetration of a ball ammo. It also is known for its destructive power. Elmer Keith did a great one with it. The hollow point in a SD situation can get clogged with clothing and not expand or it a heavy bone and just break apart. The wadcutter cuts its way and can crush bone. The Keith bullet can do the same but has more penetration power and can break bones. It has been used for decades in handgun hunting taking large game spending on how hot it is loaded. With 44 magnum it has taken down every big game animal in North America at one time or another including Alaskan Brown Bears.

Incidentally, over the past two weeks I’ve been able to secure quite a few trades, unloading some ammo that I have had stored in favor of a bunch of 357 ammo of all kinds: wadcutters, semi wadcutters, hollow point wadcutters (didn’t know those even existed), 180 grain bear loads, it has been quite nice. I will spend an exorbitant amount of time at the range shooting all of it and report back!

Over the last 50 years, law enforcement agencies, military organizations, and ammunition manufacturers have put a lot of time and money into research, development, and testing of handgun ammunition. I have read about tests done by cops in Texas, California, Georgia, New York, and Canada. There have been tests done by the US Army, Navy, and Air Force, the FBI, and the Treasury Department. I remember reading about something done in Italy, and another in England. Some of those groups, maybe all of them, track results in the field.
Every outfit that is free to choose, chooses JHP handgun ammo.

Rust wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:09 pm Over the last 50 years, law enforcement agencies, military organizations, and ammunition manufacturers have put a lot of time and money into research, development, and testing of handgun ammunition. I have read about tests done by cops in Texas, California, Georgia, New York, and Canada. There have been tests done by the US Army, Navy, and Air Force, the FBI, and the Treasury Department. I remember reading about something done in Italy, and another in England. Some of those groups, maybe all of them, track results in the field.
Every outfit that is free to choose, chooses JHP handgun ammo.

How much of that choice is driven by how the pistol reloads?

As I understand things (and I admit to being a novice, here), wadcutters won't work well in semi-auto pistols (there apparently needs to be some taper to the bullet for it to feed in the ramp from the magazine to the chamber), so agencies that rely heavily on semi-auto pistols instead of revolvers would tend toward JHP for the consistency of how the gun "runs," other things being equal.

I fully recognize that there may be significant differences in penetration, over-penetration, a bullet caroming off bone, and other factors that drive that decision.

BearPaws wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:08 pm

Rust wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:09 pm Over the last 50 years, law enforcement agencies, military organizations, and ammunition manufacturers have put a lot of time and money into research, development, and testing of handgun ammunition. I have read about tests done by cops in Texas, California, Georgia, New York, and Canada. There have been tests done by the US Army, Navy, and Air Force, the FBI, and the Treasury Department. I remember reading about something done in Italy, and another in England. Some of those groups, maybe all of them, track results in the field.
Every outfit that is free to choose, chooses JHP handgun ammo.

How much of that choice is driven by how the pistol reloads?

As I understand things (and I admit to being a novice, here), wadcutters won't work well in semi-auto pistols (there apparently needs to be some taper to the bullet for it to feed in the ramp from the magazine to the chamber), so agencies that rely heavily on semi-auto pistols instead of revolvers would tend toward JHP for the consistency of how the gun "runs," other things being equal.

I fully recognize that there may be significant differences in penetration, over-penetration, a bullet caroming off bone, and other factors that drive that decision.

That would be my thought as well. I would not see wadcutters as cycling very easily through a mag in a semi-auto.

keenanmj85 wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:13 pm

BearPaws wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:08 pm

Rust wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:09 pm Over the last 50 years, law enforcement agencies, military organizations, and ammunition manufacturers have put a lot of time and money into research, development, and testing of handgun ammunition. I have read about tests done by cops in Texas, California, Georgia, New York, and Canada. There have been tests done by the US Army, Navy, and Air Force, the FBI, and the Treasury Department. I remember reading about something done in Italy, and another in England. Some of those groups, maybe all of them, track results in the field.
Every outfit that is free to choose, chooses JHP handgun ammo.

How much of that choice is driven by how the pistol reloads?

As I understand things (and I admit to being a novice, here), wadcutters won't work well in semi-auto pistols (there apparently needs to be some taper to the bullet for it to feed in the ramp from the magazine to the chamber), so agencies that rely heavily on semi-auto pistols instead of revolvers would tend toward JHP for the consistency of how the gun "runs," other things being equal.

I fully recognize that there may be significant differences in penetration, over-penetration, a bullet caroming off bone, and other factors that drive that decision.

That would be my thought as well. I would not see wadcutters as cycling very easily through a mag in a semi-auto.

Not true, depends. A Smith&Wesson Model 52 is a semiautomatic handgun designed to use Wadcutters.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_% ... n_Model_52

It was one of the first semiautomatic pistols chambered in .38 Special with flush-seated, full wadcutter bullets.

sikacz wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:12 pm

keenanmj85 wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:13 pm

BearPaws wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:08 pm

Rust wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:09 pm Over the last 50 years, law enforcement agencies, military organizations, and ammunition manufacturers have put a lot of time and money into research, development, and testing of handgun ammunition. I have read about tests done by cops in Texas, California, Georgia, New York, and Canada. There have been tests done by the US Army, Navy, and Air Force, the FBI, and the Treasury Department. I remember reading about something done in Italy, and another in England. Some of those groups, maybe all of them, track results in the field.
Every outfit that is free to choose, chooses JHP handgun ammo.

How much of that choice is driven by how the pistol reloads?

As I understand things (and I admit to being a novice, here), wadcutters won't work well in semi-auto pistols (there apparently needs to be some taper to the bullet for it to feed in the ramp from the magazine to the chamber), so agencies that rely heavily on semi-auto pistols instead of revolvers would tend toward JHP for the consistency of how the gun "runs," other things being equal.

I fully recognize that there may be significant differences in penetration, over-penetration, a bullet caroming off bone, and other factors that drive that decision.

That would be my thought as well. I would not see wadcutters as cycling very easily through a mag in a semi-auto.

Not true, depends. A Smith&Wesson Model 52 is a semiautomatic handgun designed to use Wadcutters.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_% ... n_Model_52

It was one of the first semiautomatic pistols chambered in .38 Special with flush-seated, full wadcutter bullets.

Well that is pretty cool. I wonder how they would do out of a mag not specifically designed for them though. I could see the abrupt edge causing some failure to feed issues. Perhaps semis could cycle easier though in standard chambers.

keenanmj85 wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:27 pm

sikacz wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:12 pm

keenanmj85 wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:13 pm

BearPaws wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:08 pm

How much of that choice is driven by how the pistol reloads?

As I understand things (and I admit to being a novice, here), wadcutters won't work well in semi-auto pistols (there apparently needs to be some taper to the bullet for it to feed in the ramp from the magazine to the chamber), so agencies that rely heavily on semi-auto pistols instead of revolvers would tend toward JHP for the consistency of how the gun "runs," other things being equal.

I fully recognize that there may be significant differences in penetration, over-penetration, a bullet caroming off bone, and other factors that drive that decision.

That would be my thought as well. I would not see wadcutters as cycling very easily through a mag in a semi-auto.

Not true, depends. A Smith&Wesson Model 52 is a semiautomatic handgun designed to use Wadcutters.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_% ... n_Model_52

It was one of the first semiautomatic pistols chambered in .38 Special with flush-seated, full wadcutter bullets.

Well that is pretty cool. I wonder how they would do out of a mag not specifically designed for them though. I could see the abrupt edge causing some failure to feed issues. Perhaps semis could cycle easier though in standard chambers.

I wouldn’t try it. The point is a semiautomatic can be designed to use full Wadcutters. If they are not, don’t bother trying.