Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Power

There's probably a reason that a wadcutter makes a good defensive bullet in a 38 snub.

I'm no terminal ballistics expert, but a big flat fronted bullet will have to displace tissue in an almost perpendicular sidespray from the bullet, at nearly the same velocity the bullet is traveling.

That high velocity displacement of tissue, bone, blood, etc, at an exteme angle, has to cause some serious trauma to soft tissue, separate from the damage inflicted by the bullet proper.

Eremicus, on the first question: yes, these deer were shot in the chest and ribs were hit on the way in. Bullets were not recovered, as you might gather from my stating that the exit wounds were 3+ inches in diameter. The bullets used in that case were/are my more or less standard range lead WFN bullets, which have a BHN of about 8-9. Shot into wet newsprint or gelatin, they do tend to sprawl or slump a bit.

I dunno anything about jjhack's "results". In my humble experience, memory is a fickle servant unless I look at the written records I made at the time and do some actual statistical analysis of the findings. It takes some time.

For the same reasons we, and countless others shoot our beef or pork behind the ear with a 22.

The 22 is dead nuts lethal in such fashion (IMO "radically" better than a 9mm, 44 or 45 hollow point through the lungs at the same range on hogs), but we never demand it to go beyond its limitations or put it in a worse case scenario.

He wasn't a member of the first church of holy hardcast - mainly. Some folks think they need to be able to drill a 1/2" hole from nose to prostate on a Cape Buffalo - hardcast is the solution. But JJHack demonstrated that you can kill black bear faster with a bigger hole that doesn't penetrate as far. Of course this riles the high priests of the church.






1/2" hole - nothing more.

What calibers did JJ use? For the calibers he used that was his results. Unless he used all calibers a blanket statement that jacketed bullets showed better results is limited. What hardness and profile was his hardcast? Velocity?Distances? There are way to many variables. More facts are needed. JJ has a lot of experience I just think like many others he is taken out of context.

The entire top of the heart is missing. That should have been obvious.

Based on your vast testing? Or conjecture? Why do you avoid answering?

My experience with cast bullets on game are Keith style bullets. I�ve never hunted truly LARGE game with a handgun. The biggest thing I�ve hunted with a handgun is a black bear. With my limited experience, my observations were spot on the same as JJ Hacks. With a .357 or a .44 mag using a Keith style bullet, the bear was killed, but there was much less noticeable impact, and it was clear the bear had some fight in him after being hit. A Keith 429421 .44 bullet weighs about 261 grains when I cast it with wheel weights. When pushed at 1200 fps out of my .44 my observation was that there was no difference between that Keith .44 than a stout 158 grain JHP out of an 8� .357 magnum (again, my personal observation). When I switched to a 240 grain JHP (Remington to be exact, but I�ve used Winchester & Federal), the difference in immediate effect was very telling. Before the hit, the bear is in a flight or fight stance and his fur is standing on end. Once hit, the fight option is sucked right out of the bear and you can see the fur become flaccid as the bear loses muscle tone (observed opinion, not medical fact).

Now the LBT bullets became common after my bear hunting days so I�ve never had the chance to give them a try. I�ve seen wounds that were impressive, so I�m sure they do a great job. Here�s the thing�with the performance I�ve had with JHP�s on medium sized game, I�m not left wanting in any way. Were I hunting larger game, perhaps I would re-consider.

When we talk about LBT bullets are we talking about the LBT bullets cast in Lead Bullet Technology molds or generic LBT bullets?

On the risk of repeating myslef and re writing things that Jim Hackewicz has posted here and in print in various outdoor magazines over the years....

Jim Hackewicz had, as his day to day job, the task of remving - if it were possible - every single living bear form an immense tract of tree farms in the extreme NW corner of our fine state. In addition, he guided many bear hunts in Alaska. On this tree farm he was not limited by time, seasons or rules and could shoot bears that were ni a trap, which is a wonderful and safe way to find out what works in regards to armament. On top of this, he was priveliged to guide many ploice officers and Sherrifs deputies who were just SURE that thier new department issued wondergun with the new ammo the department was so high on would slam any bear on his keister with nary a wiggle. Such was very much not the case but the hunts were conducted in a very controlled setting with Jim backing up these LEO hunters heavy rifle in hand.

Jims personal number of bears killed is in the realm of 430 +/- a few. Adding in the numbers of bears he observed being shot under his close guidance and scrutiny and the nuber tops 900 bears. I know Jim very well and hunt with him often. This is NOT an inflated number by any stretch. I have seen the records and the photos.

Now, ya'll can lean upon whatever 'expert opinion' you want to. It is your money and your hunt. As for me, I choose to learn from Jim. In his vast experience, the only service auto round that is a reliable and quick bear killer is the 10mm Auto. The 'SUPER' 45's were and are not common service rounds so his experience with those is none and they are probably just great as they replicate the power of known revolver rounds that work wonderfully. His experiments with live bears over bait or in traps show the 9mm, 40 S&W and plain vanilla 45 Auto to be wanting as bear stoppers. His vast experience, including many, any bullet types including LBT and other semi and full wadcutter type bullets indicate to him that a medium heavy (210 in 41 mag and 240gr in 44 Mag) full power HP in 41 or 44 MAgnum to be pretty good bear kilers. Other rounds perhaps capable, but not as good.

As I type this and we all strain over the ballistic gack, Jim and our Good mutual freind Pastor Owen Frost are out this very morning checking bear stand sites for bear sign. On thier hips are 44 MAgnum revolvers stuffed with 240gr HP's. Learn from this immense amount of real hard data and experience if you choose to, or not. ME? I have changed my ways and gave away all of my CBT 44 bullets to a freind and my Cimmaron Arms Single action 43/4 inch 44 Mag (just stole it from a pawn shop for UNDER $300.00! ) is stocked with 240gr Gold Dots.

Rock on and good hunting!

I was with you until you said "capable but not as good". The 45 colt,454,475,& the 500s are more than capable and in some instances better. His experience as you stated is limited to the medium to smaller bores. I still say the test and results are limited to what was used and not what's available.

What must be stressed when discussing cast or hardcast bullets is what bullet design is being used. There are a tremendous number of cast bullet designs, round nose, truncated cone, semi wadcutters, full wadcutters, ogival wadcutters (aka LBT WFN and LFN's) etc. A meplat, and it's dia has a huge impact on what type of wound channel a bullet creates.

There is also a point, I'm not sure exactly where but the 357 seems to be right on the cusp where you really don't have a large enough meplat to create a big enough wound for quickly dispatching an animal. If you have a 40 or 44 with a small meplat, suddenly you find yourself in the 357 territory and performance on game is iffy.

Re read my post. I was reffering to the bullet types and not the calibers. Certainly the big 45's and 50's are more capable than any 44 caliber gun and no one was arguing that point. The issue under discussion was WFN and other hard cast bullets VS a Hollow point on BLACK BEARS in Magnum type high velocity guns. Slow the bullets down to original 45LC or 44 Special velocites and the game changes, with a hardcast flat nose most likely winning out due to now needing all of the penetration one can get and no extra energy to spare on a mushrooming bullet. Throw a big brownie into the mix and the game and preffered bullet changes as well, with penetration now being the premium and yardstick.

Back to the original topic, many hunters and handgun users as well as Dangerous game rifle hunters feel they need more power than they really do. Once we get past the heavy 45LC/454 Casull level loads in handguns and a 458 Lott or properly handloaded 458 Win it is all just extra unnecesary noise and bluster IMO. And cartridges of quite a bit less power do the jobs at hand quite nicely AKA a good 44 Magnum in the handgun realm for most big game, say from black Bear on down and the 9.3's, 375 and 416's being more than enough even on dangerous BIG game animals including elephant.

On the other hand, it is all about FUN. And fun is defined by each and for some of us the noise and recoil and bluster add to the hunting experience and the fun factor. I, for example, load up my 416 Rigby to near 416 WBY ballistics and love it, but have no practical reason to do so as plain old 416 Rigby's have been squishing the heck out of elephants for about 100 years now. In the handguns world, my recoil tolerance ends much lower on the food chain. Probably due mosltly to far less expereince and time with handguns as I am primarily a (happy) rifle nut.

There is no such thing as generic LBT. If they come out of LBT molds, then they are LBT. If not, then you can't really call them LBTs

I get what your saying there safariman but there are still a lot of variables. As you know all bullets whether jacketed or cast are not created equal.
From what JJ said in a post a year or so ago they shot for vitals looking for reaction. Not everyone chooses that set of perameters. I,myself am a CNS shot type of person.I would be interested to know what all calibers were used,velocities of the different variety of loads used,and hardness of the cast loads and the average distances of those shots.
I have my opinion but it would be interesting to compare his results with my observations. Is there some where a statistic sheet of loads used?
I have seen several and taken several myself,almost exclusively at close distances with 38,357,41,44,440,45acp and colt,and a few bigger calibers in handguns,multitudes of rifle calibers and a few shotguns. Just would like to compare notes.

That would be a fun conversation and comparison to have. We have to figure out a way to get all of us together for a yakking and gakking session. I vote for this meeting to take place in South Africa in 2013 or, second choice Alaska you in?

It would be clearer if we used the term ogival wadcutter and specified the meplat dia as a perentage of bullet dia.

While Veral did a trmendous job enlightening us as to what is possible with cast bullets, his molds are anything but the nee plus ultra. I sold my last LBT mold a couple weeks back and doubt I'll ever get another. Ogival wadcutters are my favorite cast bullet design for revolvers, but there are lots of options for mold makers besides LBT.

Thanks. I was out to LBT's web site and they were saying that many try to copy the LBT but the only true LBT had to come out of their molds. I just wanted to make sure I was on the same page.

Yup. go back far enough to remember when the .44 mag with a 240 grain soft point bullet was THE round and THE bullet for big game. In a pistol there was nothing else. I guess I'm just old because I figure if I can't kill it with .44 mag using a .240 grain soft point I'm getting a rifle.

Derby Dude,

That is kinda where I am as well. If it cannot be done with my 10mm or 44 RemMag, I am reaching for a long gun. Part of that is that I just don't like shooting anything more powerful than those two in a handgun. To me, handguns cease being handguns when they weigh as much as a Winchester Model 92 or some other carbine that would be far more effective than any handgun including the 500 Smith or when they require two hands or worse yet a rest to be fired accurately, comfortably or effectively.