walnut1704
Member
How much more effective? The .44 is 15.78947368421053% more effective.
Kind of hard to measure, as there is no standard scale.
Kind of hard to measure, as there is no standard scale.
.38 Special vs. .44 Special
- Thread starter peacebutready
- Start date
- Status
Legionnaire
Contributing Member
Pulling data from Federal's site:
38 spl, 158gr LRN at 770 fps = 201 ft/lbs of energy at 25 yards
44 spl, 200gr SWC at 870 fps = 319 ft/lbs of energy at 25 yards
38 spl, 158gr LRN at 770 fps = 201 ft/lbs of energy at 25 yards
44 spl, 200gr SWC at 870 fps = 319 ft/lbs of energy at 25 yards
Deaf Smith
Member
Somewhat more effective. But if both are placed in the noggen, they will have the same effect. And of both just "wing 'em" both will have the same effect. It's only if they hit COM (center of mass), but no CNS, that the .44 will have somewhat of an edge.
Deaf
Dog Soldier
member
I like .44 caliber anything. But the various .38 Caliber handguns have been popular since the Civil War .36 Navy. Police and Military have used these calibers with in a dimensional range of .35 to .40 caliber for over a Century. The 9MM Parabellum continuous to serve. 
Divide .429" (diameter of a 44 caliber bullet) by .357" (diameter) of a 38 caliber bullet and you get 1.201.
A 44 is 1.201 more effective than a 38.
Sistema1927
Member
Which one do you shoot better?
That is the one that is most effective.
That is the one that is most effective.
That assumes that "effectiveness" is directly proportional to diameter. Use the precise diameters, and you'll get a different number. Use area, and you'll get a difference.
But none of them are reasonable surrogates for "effectiveness". Neither has any meaning.
The purpose of a bullet is not to remove or displace material in a homogenous or monolithic structure. Rather, the purpose is to damage something vital within the target.
The only terminal ballistics measure that means a whole lot is penetration. You need a certain amount (and a margin for error would be nice), but there is a maximum in terms of utility.
The experts tell us that bigger holes are better; that the effect is not quantifiable; and that it is not high on the list of determinants. As Deaf Smith said, "the .44 will have somewhat of an edge".
More holes are better, too, and that is much higher on the priority list.
Last edited:
No difference.
One slightly more effective than the other.
One much more effective that the other.
All of those answers are demonstrably true based upon actual events.......and which is more effective in whatever degree can be shown to be either one! We all seem to love these discussions and mostly conclude that bigger must be better...... but the enormous number of variables leave us with inconclusive data. Or at least data that can support whatever conclusion we wish to reach.
One slightly more effective than the other.
One much more effective that the other.
All of those answers are demonstrably true based upon actual events.......and which is more effective in whatever degree can be shown to be either one! We all seem to love these discussions and mostly conclude that bigger must be better...... but the enormous number of variables leave us with inconclusive data. Or at least data that can support whatever conclusion we wish to reach.
The problem with a .44 Special is that unless you're carrying Buffalo Bore or other hot ammo, the ammo selection is poor and the gun is not noted for being especially powerful in relation to bore size. It's much easier to find good ammo in .38 Special Plus P loadings, and the smaller .38 is more likely to be with you, unless you're on a trail in grizzly country.
On paper, the .44 seems not too far from some GI .45 ammo that was loaded a little on the light side at times. But in reality, you're probably getting no more than about 700 FPS. But you do have a 246 grain lead bullet. That isn't too far from the 265 grains of a .455 Webley, and unless you have .455 Colt or MK. I .455 military ammo, the MK. II gave more like 600-620 FPS.
That was the load that led Dum-Dum Arsenal in India to load both full wadcutter .455 ammo and the MK III with a hollow point. Yeah, a wide hollow, to allow expansion at those low velocities. These were the so-called Manstopper or Dum-Dum loads, and seem to have worked well even against fanatical tribesmen fueled on dope and on religious fervor, as were the Moros in the Phillipines.
This ammo was sometimes labeled, "Not For Use Against Europeans", so maybe the normal MK II load sufficed against Germans? I'd rather have had normal .45 ACP or .45 Colt loads. A Keith bullet of 250 grains at some 900 FPS in a .45 Colt is still a very formidable round.
But most basic .44 Special ammo is probably not as potent as it should be. Federal's 200 grain lead SWC-HP would probably be my choice if I couldn't find or afford Buffalo Bore. I don't handload. I think a defense gun shouldn't have to rely on handloaded ammo, anyway. (There goes my preferred .45 Colt load.) But some factory .45 Colt ammo is still pretty effective, and the basic load is still more potent than a .455.
I'd like to hear from those who've actually shot coyotes, cougars, pigs, men, whatever with std. .44 Special ammo, the old 246 grain RN lead bullet at very modest velocity.
The bullet does have enough mass that it should reach vital organs on men, at average combat distances.
Oh: in many stores, you can't find any .44 Special ammo at all, whereas most still carry .38 Special.
On paper, the .44 seems not too far from some GI .45 ammo that was loaded a little on the light side at times. But in reality, you're probably getting no more than about 700 FPS. But you do have a 246 grain lead bullet. That isn't too far from the 265 grains of a .455 Webley, and unless you have .455 Colt or MK. I .455 military ammo, the MK. II gave more like 600-620 FPS.
That was the load that led Dum-Dum Arsenal in India to load both full wadcutter .455 ammo and the MK III with a hollow point. Yeah, a wide hollow, to allow expansion at those low velocities. These were the so-called Manstopper or Dum-Dum loads, and seem to have worked well even against fanatical tribesmen fueled on dope and on religious fervor, as were the Moros in the Phillipines.
This ammo was sometimes labeled, "Not For Use Against Europeans", so maybe the normal MK II load sufficed against Germans? I'd rather have had normal .45 ACP or .45 Colt loads. A Keith bullet of 250 grains at some 900 FPS in a .45 Colt is still a very formidable round.
But most basic .44 Special ammo is probably not as potent as it should be. Federal's 200 grain lead SWC-HP would probably be my choice if I couldn't find or afford Buffalo Bore. I don't handload. I think a defense gun shouldn't have to rely on handloaded ammo, anyway. (There goes my preferred .45 Colt load.) But some factory .45 Colt ammo is still pretty effective, and the basic load is still more potent than a .455.
I'd like to hear from those who've actually shot coyotes, cougars, pigs, men, whatever with std. .44 Special ammo, the old 246 grain RN lead bullet at very modest velocity.
The bullet does have enough mass that it should reach vital organs on men, at average combat distances.
Oh: in many stores, you can't find any .44 Special ammo at all, whereas most still carry .38 Special.
Last edited:
peacebutready
Member
@Lone Star: Perhaps it's unfortunate .44 Special ammo isn't more available.
The .44 from Ruger and S&W are large and heavy but the Charter Arms model isn't bad. It is listed as being 20 oz.
If I'm not mistaken, not many people carry .357 mag loads in short-barrel .357 mag. revolvers. Muzzle blast should be less with the .44 Special. I'm not sure about recoil with the Charter Arms, though.
The .44 from Ruger and S&W are large and heavy but the Charter Arms model isn't bad. It is listed as being 20 oz.
If I'm not mistaken, not many people carry .357 mag loads in short-barrel .357 mag. revolvers. Muzzle blast should be less with the .44 Special. I'm not sure about recoil with the Charter Arms, though.
With the rubber grips on the newer Bulldogs the recoil is not bad at all, I prefer the Pachmayr compact grip for the Bulldog.
Cocked & Locked
Member
I also like the Pachmayr better than the factory rubber.
However the Herrett's Shooting Ace grips are my favorite.
Federal 200 grain lead SWC-HP riding in the wheel...
However the Herrett's Shooting Ace grips are my favorite.
Federal 200 grain lead SWC-HP riding in the wheel...
Michael Tinker Pearce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,575
The OP specified a single shot, so my answer would be, "Who shoots them once?"
Legionnaire
Contributing Member
Agree with you completely, which is why, in my opinion, the .44 Spl is a reloader's cartridge. There's plenty of potential there, but not much factory ammo taking advantage of it.
I agree with Hanshi
Peace,
This is one of those questions that will get you a great deal of opinion and a lot less information.
The standard pressure .44 Special is a little better than the standard pressure .38 Special ammo, but not as good or no better than the .38 Special +P ammo has been for police use. If you are hunting, it is a completely different question and you will not want to use standard pressure loads in either caliber.
The .38 Special had a lousy reputation as a police round when it was used with the original standard pressure, round nose lead load. The .44 Special was popular with some LEO'S, gun writers as it offered a bigger bullet at the same or even lower velocity.
Here is the catch, if you are going target shooting or hunting, then a semi wadcutter is a good choice. The .38 Special was saved by the introduction of the higher velocity +P loads which used increased pressure loads with hollow point semi wadcutter bullets. This was THE POLICE LOAD for a decade or more before the 9m.m. replaced it.
It worked well in police experience where the hollow point meant it would not over penetrate like the non-hollow point semi-wadcutter.
The .44 Special was used predominantly in large frame guns like the S&W N-frame, so it was not very popular outside a small niche group. As a result, very little development of ammo has been done compared to the .38 Special.
You can get some specialist ammo makers who produce much more powerful ammo in either caliber, but they are not standard pressure and may be more than the +P pressure loads. Note, their is no +P pressure standard for the .44 Special.
If you are looking for an answer to your question, you need to specify what you will be using it for.
Jim
This is one of those questions that will get you a great deal of opinion and a lot less information.
The standard pressure .44 Special is a little better than the standard pressure .38 Special ammo, but not as good or no better than the .38 Special +P ammo has been for police use. If you are hunting, it is a completely different question and you will not want to use standard pressure loads in either caliber.
The .38 Special had a lousy reputation as a police round when it was used with the original standard pressure, round nose lead load. The .44 Special was popular with some LEO'S, gun writers as it offered a bigger bullet at the same or even lower velocity.
Here is the catch, if you are going target shooting or hunting, then a semi wadcutter is a good choice. The .38 Special was saved by the introduction of the higher velocity +P loads which used increased pressure loads with hollow point semi wadcutter bullets. This was THE POLICE LOAD for a decade or more before the 9m.m. replaced it.
It worked well in police experience where the hollow point meant it would not over penetrate like the non-hollow point semi-wadcutter.
The .44 Special was used predominantly in large frame guns like the S&W N-frame, so it was not very popular outside a small niche group. As a result, very little development of ammo has been done compared to the .38 Special.
You can get some specialist ammo makers who produce much more powerful ammo in either caliber, but they are not standard pressure and may be more than the +P pressure loads. Note, their is no +P pressure standard for the .44 Special.
If you are looking for an answer to your question, you need to specify what you will be using it for.
Jim
walnut1704
Member
I totally agree. I was being snarky....
I would ask why the military moved away from 38 SPL to 45 ACP over a hundred year ago.
I know this has been mentioned, but I think it should be better understood.
Michael Tinker Pearce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,575
The Army's .38 revolvers proved ineffective against berserk natives, so .45 SAA revolvers were re issued, as well as new revolvers procured from Colt and S&W. This is fairly well known in the gun community; what is less well known is that the 45's did not prove to be noticeably more effective. .30-40 Krag rifles were not actually very effective, come to that. It turns out if you give a fanatic enough drugs they don't go down fast unless you hit the central nervous system.
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
3 times more effective!
Maybe 5.3 times more effective!
There is no measurement of how much more effective a single bullet of one caliber over another is in ending the threat. Even with "all else being equal". Marshall and Sanow tried figuring that for a number of years but their data didn't stand up to close examination.
Experience though indicates that the bullet that makes a bigger hole, that hits harder, that has the potential to penetrate deeper and that has more energy at it's disposal to work with, well that round potentially can be a better stopper than another that doesn't have all that in the same quantities. So more energy, more momentum, hits harder, bigger hole that bullet will be more reliable than one with less of that. But there is no scale to measure how much.
tipoc
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
They did not have 38 Spl. They were using the 38 Colt. The S&W 38 Spl. had not been developed yet.
The 38 Colt was a round that did about 100 fps less than the 38 Spl. from their revolvers.
tipoc
- Status
