American Rifleman: Testing the 38 Special

Here's a broad selection of 38 special gel tests:

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/revolver-ballistics-test/

Looking at both sets of results mentioned, it seems like .38 Special +P jacketed hollowpoints when fired from a 2" or shorter barrel have penetration that is inadequate with regard to most commonly accepted standards.

The solutions appear to be to use cartridges with non-expanding bullets, or with jacketed hollow points loaded to .357 magnum pressures. An alternative would be to accept a lower penetration round.

Luckygunner has it nailed except for their use of the 2” kimber rather than 1.87” LCR or J frame. But I really don’t expect that small difference to make any significant penetration change.

labnoti said:

Looking at both sets of results mentioned, it seems like .38 Special +P jacketed hollowpoints when fired from a 2" or shorter barrel have penetration that is inadequate with regard to most commonly accepted standards.

The solutions appear to be to use cartridges with non-expanding bullets, or with jacketed hollow points loaded to .357 magnum pressures. An alternative would be to accept a lower penetration round.

Click to expand...

Or maybe not choose a 2" barrel. What do you suppose 9mm looks like from one?

One simply can't have it all. I'm not sure I would do more in a legitimate self-defense scenario than hurt my wrist and blind myself with a 2" .357. If you want to get that small/light performance compromises are inherent.

Many say that a 3 inch barrel makes a significant difference in 38 special performance. With the exception of pocket carry, a 3 inch barrel revolver shouldn’t be difficult to carry. Ruger seems to be the only company that has a good selection of 3 inch barrel revolvers these days.

This is why I've been carrying Underwood Xtreme Defender when I carry a .38spl..

Wonder why they didn't try any 158 grain loads at all?

Non-expanding .38 special 148 grain wadcutters have an excellent reputation as a defensive cartridge with low recoil and deep penetration from snubbies.

RON in PA said:

Non-expanding .38 special 148 grain wadcutters have an excellent reputation as a defensive cartridge with low recoil and deep penetration from snubbies.

Click to expand...

The luckygunner.com tests show factory wadcutters have 14" of penetration. The hollow base helps keep them from tumbling and they're easy on you and your gun. The bullet is already in a shape that takes a bit for a hollow point to achieve.

I've carried them in J frame size revolvers for years.

Carry a gun with a longer barrel. Carry a 357. Carry a cartridge with a heavier bullet loaded or a non expanding bullet. All of these options help mitigate poor penetration issues, but have tradeoffs. ALL cartridges will suffer from a shorter barrel. It's just a matter of accepting that a small carry gun is a tradeoff.

Personally, I feel pretty comfortable with 38 Special in the right loading.

460Shooter said:

Carry a gun with a longer barrel. Carry a 357. Carry a cartridge with a heavier bullet loaded or a non expanding bullet. All of these options help mitigate poor penetration issues, but have tradeoffs. ALL cartridges will suffer from a shorter barrel. It's just a matter of accepting that a small carry gun is a tradeoff.

Personally, I feel pretty comfortable with 38 Special in the right loading.

Click to expand...

I agree, Personally if your going to carry a .38 in a snub, I prefer semi wadcutters 158 gr in a plus p loading, theyre out there or load your own, Had to shoot a rottweiler coming at me once with my Taurus 85, I dont want to get graphic but if you study dog shootings theyre kinda like humans in a respect to "hard to put down, easy to kill, the .38 SWC tore into the mutt something fierce with one shot.

USBP379 said:

I find it interesting that the full wadcutter is so well regarded when ER doctors and trauma surgeons supposedly can't tell the difference between a wound caused by 9mm and a wound caused by 45 ACP. If these two disparate cartridges don't "outdo" one another I fail to see how an anemic flat faced target load is going to really be that effective. Or at least more effective than anything else that penetrates well.

Click to expand...

Read my post above. The factory target wad cutter penetrates 14" in gel. The forward weight keeps the bullet from tumbling and is already in efficient shape.

Once you've made an entry and an exit wound any other penetration is wasted. That bullet that penetrates 30" of gel doesn't go through 14" of gel any better. That bullet would present overpenetration issues.

Jim Cirillo, who knew more about gunfighting than many, did a lot of research on the "perfect bullet". His final designs were full wadcutters with a cup point. One of his favorite guns to use while assigned to stakeouts was a 1911. The round in the chamber was a full wadcutter with hollow points in the magazine. He obviously had more faith in that wadcutter doing the job so he didn't need those hollow points. I'm sure he would have loaded the magazine with all wadcutters if there was a way to make them feed.

Elmer Keith liked the semiwadcutter for what he did. He wanted good penetration on larger game. He also needed a better ballistic coefficient as he was taking shots at much longer ranges than a SD situation. The bc of a 38 148 gr wadcutter is about .050 (worse than a brick?). A 38 158 SWC has a bc of .140-.150.

GRIZ22 said:

Read my post above. The factory target wad cutter penetrates 14" in gel. The forward weight keeps the bullet from tumbling and is already in efficient shape.

Once you've made an entry and an exit wound any other penetration is wasted. That bullet that penetrates 30" of gel doesn't go through 14" of gel any better. That bullet would present overpenetration issues.

Jim Cirillo, who knew more about gunfighting than many, did a lot of research on the "perfect bullet". His final designs were full wadcutters with a cup point. One of his favorite guns to use while assigned to stakeouts was a 1911. The round in the chamber was a full wadcutter with hollow points in the magazine. He obviously had more faith in that wadcutter doing the job so he didn't need those hollow points. I'm sure he would have loaded the magazine with all wadcutters if there was a way to make them feed.

Elmer Keith liked the semiwadcutter for what he did. He wanted good penetration on larger game. He also needed a better ballistic coefficient as he was taking shots at much longer ranges than a SD situation. The bc of a 38 148 gr wadcutter is about .050 (worse than a brick?). A 38 158 SWC has a bc of .140-.150.

Click to expand...

Having read many books on Cirillo, There hasnt been a single time where I saw his use of a 1911, in fact he stated he preferred higher velocity light bullets. He carried 4 handguns, a colt cobra, 2 smith model 10's, and a walther ppk, other than that they had long guns to that he used like the Ithaca 37 and M1 Carbine, his main partner Bill Allard preferred the 1911 and it worked well for him a Colt Gold Cup.

GRIZ22 said:

Once you've made an entry and an exit wound any other penetration is wasted. That bullet that penetrates 30" of gel doesn't go through 14" of gel any better. That bullet would present overpenetration issues.

Click to expand...

The FBI published a report that dismisses concerns about overpenetration. The reasoning was that since the overwhelming majority of bullets fired miss the target entirely, it isn't reasonable to be more concerned about overpenetration of the few that actually hit. On the other hand, there is good reason to be concerned about underpenetration. 12"-18" in calibrated gel is a semi-arbitrary standard of penetration the FBI established. It's a significant standard because ammo makers changed their product offerings to address it (from 1989 onward), and the Luckygunner results you referenced were intended to evaluate using that specific standard. Testing in any number of inches of gel is questionably relevant to an actual scenario, but the FBI described looking for penetration up to 18" to address issues where the extremities of a target (for example an outstretched arm) were hit first and yet sufficient penetration of the torso was still desired. Their standard was based on the actual event with agent Jerry Dove shooting suspect Michael Platt. Besides bodily extremities creating a demand for greater penetration, other objects and vehicle parts can also present the need for more penetration than what low-velocity hollowpoints will provide.

The 148 gr. wadcutters appear to have superior penetration to expanding bullets at similar velocities, but the wadcutters are limited to lower velocities because their deep-seating limits case volume and increases chamber pressure. Projectiles with similar or greater mass that are not seated as deeply and allow for greater velocities offer more penetration. While expanding hollowpoint wound channels offer something considerable in comparison to non-expanding projectiles, it doesn't appear to be worth it if it costs sufficient penetration. The difference in wound channel between a wadcutter, SWC, LRN or any of the CNC designs like Lehigh and Underwood don't seem to be observable. BC might be significant at long ranges, but irrespective of that, I don't see how any of these are more compelling than another. 158 gr. LRN penetrate well. I don't see any reason to choose 148 gr. wadcutters instead, or the costly CNC machined bullets.

Zendude

Many say that a 3 inch barrel makes a significant difference in 38 special performance. With the exception of pocket carry, a 3 inch barrel revolver shouldn’t be difficult to carry. Ruger seems to be the only company that has a good selection of 3 inch barrel revolvers these days.

Click to expand...

Back in the day I use to carry a S&W Model 36 with a 3" barrel. They were easier and less expensive to come by than their snubnose brethren. Add a Tyler T-Grip adapter, some 148 gr. wadcutter handloads, a Bianchi IWB holster, and a couple of Bianchi Speed Strips and I was good to go!

I don't think I would carry full wad cutters if only because the reload so poorly. I want a bullet I can reload with quickly given the low capacity of a J-frame. I currently carry 130gr PDX1 in my 442 Moonclip. I don't feel under-gunned.

460Shooter said:

Carry a gun with a longer barrel.

Click to expand...

Longer barrels are certainly capable of developing higher velocity, but snubnosed revolvers are overwhelmingly more significant today. For Colt, it's all they make. Kimber is the same. Ruger and S&W still make long revolvers, but very few still carry them in lieu of an automatic. Whereas snubnosed revolvers like the j frame and LCR are more popular for concealed carry in the US than any other gun. At a recent CCW class, 9 out of 11 had them. The other guys had a Glock and a 1911 which it's doubtful they will actually carry. Let's face it, probably only 1 out of those 11 will actually carry, but if they do it will be a small snubnose.

ray15 said:

I'm not sure I would do more in a legitimate self-defense scenario than hurt my wrist and blind myself with a 2" .357.

Click to expand...

I can't feel the difference between a .38 Special +P and one loaded to 10,000 psi higher pressure. I can tell a difference between a light .38 Special and a full .357 magnum, but there's a vast spectrum of energy in-between. .38 Special has a very, very low pressure limit from its 1898 origins, and +P only extends it a little bit. But the specification for .357 magnum goes from there all the way to doubling it.

.38 Special - 17,000 psi
.38 Special +P - 20,000 psi
.357 Magnum (SAAMI) - 35,000 psi
.357 Magnum (CIP) - 43,511 psi

Whereas .38 Special +P rounds which are typically loaded to around 18,000 psi have proven to be lacking when evaluated against standards, there is more than 15,000 psi additional pressure available with .357 magnum. It doesn't all have to be used. Because .38 +P is "borderline" effective, just a little more velocity can make hollowpoint expansion reliable, and increase penetration.

Considering other contemporary handgun cartridges (9mm, .40 S&W) operate at greater than 35,000 psi, why would it seem prudent to avoid the 35,000 psi pressures of .357 magnum, but not those other cartridges?

9mm SAAMI is 35,000psi, but nobody talks about it being a blinding wrist-breaker in their little LC9's or Bodyguards. Admittedly, those guns have slides and springs to absorb some recoil, but I think the recoil and flash issues of .357 magnum are overblown except for some specific loadings.

I have a Model 10 that was customized for carry. It was cut to 3", and the gap between the forcing cone and the cylinder was tightened up considerably. The chambers were chamfered for faster reloads, and the chambers were bored to accept .357 ammo, should the need ever arise. This revolver is one of my best shooters, but after a day at the range, it can lock up on me until I clean the cylinder face off. When I carry this revolver, I carry it with 158 gr LSWCs, loaded a little hot, but not so hot to harm the firearm with a steady diet of them.

I carry a Ruger LCRx in .38 spl. at times. I carry 110gr Semi Jacketed Hollow Points in a +P loading that, by the book, should be over 1000 FPS. I have never achieved that velocity over my chronograph. They average ~950 FPS. They are PAINFUL to shoot without a glove, even with the Hogue rubber grips the LCR comes with. I figure that won't matter too much in a fight. I've done some 'redneck testing' of these loads. They do impressive things to milk jugs of water and fruit. Remarkably, they group very well at 15 yards, which is WAY further than I'm ever likely to use them.

labnoti said:

I can't feel the difference between a .38 Special +P and one loaded to 10,000 psi higher pressure. I can tell a difference between a light .38 Special and a full .357 magnum, but there's a vast spectrum of energy in-between. .38 Special has a very, very low pressure limit from its 1898 origins, and +P only extends it a little bit. But the specification for .357 magnum goes from there all the way to doubling it.

.38 Special - 17,000 psi
.38 Special +P - 20,000 psi
.357 Magnum (SAAMI) - 35,000 psi
.357 Magnum (CIP) - 43,511 psi

Whereas .38 Special +P rounds which are typically loaded to around 18,000 psi have proven to be lacking when evaluated against standards, there is more than 15,000 psi additional pressure available with .357 magnum. It doesn't all have to be used. Because .38 +P is "borderline" effective, just a little more velocity can make hollowpoint expansion reliable, and increase penetration.

Considering other contemporary handgun cartridges (9mm, .40 S&W) operate at greater than 35,000 psi, why would it seem prudent to avoid the 35,000 psi pressures of .357 magnum, but not those other cartridges?

9mm SAAMI is 35,000psi, but nobody talks about it being a blinding wrist-breaker in their little LC9's or Bodyguards. Admittedly, those guns have slides and springs to absorb some recoil, but I think the recoil and flash issues of .357 magnum are overblown except for some specific loadings.

Click to expand...

Respectfully if you can't feel the difference between 38 Special +P and full house 357 Magnum I would argue you are shooting them in either a very heavy revolver or have nerve damage. In a snubby, especially the aluminum alloy versions, the recoil comparison between the two is stark. I can shoot a lot of 38 Special in my 15oz 442 without any discomfort. Step up to my +P carry load and the recoil gets your attention but I can still shoot a box or two without difficulty or pain. I shot one cylinder of Speer Gold Dot 125gr 357 Magnum in a 11.4oz S&W 340PD and after I finish cursing the gun I handed it back to the owner and cursed him too just for good measure. I am fairly certain I would have had great difficulty reloading that revolver due to the partial numbness in my right hand that lasted minutes after shooting it. No thank you I want to be able to still use my hand after shooting the gun.

I would argue that if you fired SAAMI MAP 9mm or 40S&W in an ~12oz revolver it would piss you off as much as the Gold Dot did me in the 340PD. A Ruger LCP is a 17.4 oz handgun (52% heavier than a 340PD) and the S&W Sheild weighs 18.3oz (60% heavier) and both have the advantage of a recoiling slide to spread that recoil impulse out over time that you do not get with a revolver.

IMHO I will stick with 38 Special +P in light weigh snubbies and snubbies with 38 chambers not 357 Magnum. You get a bit more velocity out of the 38 Special when fired in the shorter chamber and save a lot of money buying the 38 Special Revolver compared to a comparably made 357 Magnum. YMMV

GRIZ22 said:

Jim Cirillo, who knew more about gunfighting than many, did a lot of research on the "perfect bullet". His final designs were full wadcutters with a cup point. One of his favorite guns to use while assigned to stakeouts was a 1911. The round in the chamber was a full wadcutter with hollow points in the magazine. He obviously had more faith in that wadcutter doing the job so he didn't need those hollow points. I'm sure he would have loaded the magazine with all wadcutters if there was a way to make them feed.

Click to expand...

Jim Cirillo was having problems with bullets not penetrating skulls. The bullets were going through the scalp then skidding along the bone. Sharp edged wadcutter type slugs performed a whole lot better, but they didn't feed worth a hoot.

mcb said:

I shot one cylinder of Speer Gold Dot 125gr 357 Magnum in a 11.4oz S&W 340PD and after I finish cursing the gun I handed it back to the owner and cursed him too just for good measure.

Click to expand...

Now try some .357/158s. You won't make it through a cylinder full. At least I can't with my 340PD. I reserve those for range guests who say they like hard recoiling guns.