Ammo for the Snub: Wadcutters or Hollow Points?

The ballistic effectiveness of the snub revolver is particularly influenced by ammunition selection. The short barrel length of the snub, which is generally two-inches or less, drastically reduces the velocity of even the hotter loads in 38 Special, 32 H&R Magnum, and any other common revolver cartridges.    Essentially, even hollow point bullets from 38+P loads are very inconsistent in performance due to the velocity loss in the short barrel; from two-inch barrels they often fail to expand when going through clothing layers into ballistic gel, and when they do expand they usually under penetrate.

38 Special is still the dominant cartridge used for defensive revolvers.  Despite the growing trend to embrace the 32 calibers, as well as rimfire 22 caliber rounds, 38 Special is still more common and is ballistically superior to these smaller cartridges.  The argument, however, for the smaller rounds remains that they provide much less recoil and more capacity in similar sized revolvers.  The recoil consideration is significant. 

The most common defensive revolvers are small-framed, light weight options typified by the Airweight J Frame Smith and Wessons and the Ruger LCR.  Both guns are rather brutal to shoot even with standard pressure 38 Special loads.  The anticipation of such unpleasant recoil leads to difficulty in making hits, period. 

For these reasons, many snub aficionados use wadcutter rounds in their 38 Special snubs.  Wadcutters are usually loaded at a modest velocity, making the recoil less than hotter defensive loads.  Further, wadcutters, with their flat surface, prove better, ballistically, than round nose ball ammunition.  Why not use modern defensive hollow points?  Well, due to the limited velocity from short barrels, even the best hollow point designs often fail to expand, thus turning the premium bullet into a ball round.  The wadcutter will do more damage. 

When looking at the many tests being done in ballistic gel all over YouTube, bear in mind that much of this is conducted by hobbyists who are not using correctly calibrated gel blocks.  Even conditions such as the temperature can affect the velocities of these rounds just enough to limit performance.

Two hollow point loads that appear to expand well from a snub are the Speer Gold Dot +P short barrel load, and the Hornady Critical Defense +P load.  Many tests show good expansion from these rounds, but plenty show inconsistent opening, or no opening at all.  Therefore, will these loads expand in a human adversary on any given day?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Combine this inconsistency with the harsh recoil produced by +P cartridges as compared to wadcutters, and we start seeing a compelling case for wadcutter loads in self-defense. 

It is probably fair to say that, if the bullet expands, these hollow points will be better than a wadcutter, if they also adequately penetrate. The Speer load, with a 135-grain bullet, averages about 820-850 FPS (feet per second) from a two-inch barrel.  The Hornady load, with a 110-grain bullet, averages about 950-980 FPS from a two-inch barrel.  Both of these loads are well over 200 FPE (foot pounds of energy) from a two-inch barrel.  That is solid energy for 38 loads from this barrel length.  Comparatively, wadcutter loads, with a standard 148-grain flat nosed bullet, are moving anywhere between 550-700 FPS, with energy levels around 150 FPE and less.

Therefore, it is reasonable to ask, why would one use the significantly weaker round?  Again, it is about the lack of consistency.  If the hollow point does not open, it will act similar to a ball round, whereas the wadcutter crushes tissue more effectively, despite the lower velocity and energy.  Likewise, if the hollow point does open, it might not penetrate to the adequate depth. Combine this with the less recoil offered by the wadcutter.  Convincing. 

Another reason that many like wadcutters is that they hit to the sights on a lot of snubs. If you have a gun that shoots dead on with a wadcutter, but hits several inches high or low at ten yards with a seemingly better hollow point, then the wadcutter is the way to go. Similarly, if a modern hollow point hits to the sights and wadcutters don’t, then that would be the obvious choice, as hitting to the sights is the first priority. If your gun likes heavier bullets, wadcutters probably make sense. If it likes light bullets, the 110 grain Hornady loads may be a good choice. Snub revolver accuracy is extremely sensitive to bullet weight.

I would submit that wadcutters are a good defensive option for small snub revolvers, but I would seek out those on the hotter side, pushing around 700 FPS rather than lower.  I would also submit that, if the recoil is not an issue, either of the afore mentioned hollow point loads referenced are probably good to go, but understand that you will not get the consistent expansion and penetration that you can get from these bullet designs in 9mm or other service calibers.  Pick your poison.

Ultimately, choose from the best modern defensive hollow points available, or use wadcutters.  If you place the rounds where they need to go, it does not seem to matter that much.  Similarly, if you don’t make solid hits, it also does not matter that much.  Funny how that works. 

I use the Hornady Critical Defense +P load in my LCR because, for some reason, that gun, combined with the XS sight I have on it, hits dead on with that 110 grain load. Odd, because most LCR users report closer point of impact with heavy bullets. Go figure. 148 grain wadcutters hit a couple inches high for me at 10 yards. The recoil is more punishing than are wadcutters, obviously, but I find it manageable for a plus +P load. The 158 grain +P FBI load, for example, is much more punishing than the Critical Defense. That matters.

But, if wadcutters hit to your sights and the reduced recoil helps, the answer should be obvious. While a +P hollow point may be ballistically superior, if it actually works as intended, wadcutters consistently work.