Thanks for the link. Always still of casual interest to read another one.
Why "casual" interest?
Well, because my years of working in LE and having been a firearms instructor has exposed me to enough experiences and information that I've developed enough of what I charitably like to think is an informed opinion about this subject.
The two-inch (give or take fractions of an inch) revolver is a predictable and known compromise in many ways when it comes to be serving as a dedicated defensive sidearm. The short barrel length is what it is, and the use of hot-rodded modern ammunition can only take you so far.
A lot of folks like to trot out the FBI's (or ammo manufacturer's) use of scientific gel/barrier testing for duty ammunition, which is all well and good, but when you're talking about significantly reduced revolver barrel lengths, do you really think they're going to produce the same velocities as the older 4"-6" service length barrels? Sure, some of the modern revisions of older JHP designs, and many of the newer designs, have helped offer us some options that have been tweaked and refined to wring more possible "performance" out of the stubby barreled wheelguns, but it's still not going to turn one into a "silk purse".
If someone's lightweight or ultra lightweight revolver can't use +P ... or the shooter can't tolerate or control the increased recoil of +P ... then they're likely left with the standard pressure options. That means from old style wadcutters and semi-wadcutters, to the standard pressure old-style JHP's (which sometimes demonstrated being "iffy' even when fired from service length barrels), to the JHP designs that have been created to offer a better chance of expanding at low velocities realized from short barrels.
The +P loads seem to usually fall between those which were originally designed around at least 4" barreled revolvers, and those specifically designed around the "two-inch" barrels of the popular snubs.
Personally, I've been fortunate enough to have seen the results (personally, and second-hand) of some of the more modern +P JHP loads, fired from snubs, that I've made my own choices over the years. I typically carry either W-W 130gr +P (RA38B in Ranger 50rd boxes, like the PDX1 in 20rd boxes), Speer 135gr +P GDHP, and Remington 125gr +P HPJ/BJHP (Golden Sabre) in the 25rd boxes.
I've also occasionally used the Speer 125gr +P GDHP, as it was available, but I try to only use it for range practice or quals nowadays, preferring the 135gr GDHP over the 125gr version, when it's available.
My existing supply of the venerable W-W 158gr LSWCHP +P and Remington 158gr LHP +P sit as "reserve" ammo in my cabinets (along with some unused remaining older W-W 147gr JHP +P and some Federal 158gr Nyclad LSWCHP +P I used to carry in older times).
In my 37-2 Airweight, which was made on the older short Airweight frame, I won't subject it to +P at all, but have used some different standard pressure JHP's, like the W-W 110gr STHP and the Federal 110gr Hydra-Shock. I picked up some American Gunner 125gr XTP, since the price was right, but I'm not exactly optimistic that it would consistently expand at 2" barrel velocities.
I recently started to change over to the Hornady standard 110gr FTX for my 37, and have thus far found it to offer a bit easier recoil than the other 110gr loads, and it shoots nicely accurately in my 37 Airweight. I haven't had any opportunity to observe any gel testing done using it, but the stuff I've seen available online makes me cautiously hopeful Hornady might've come up with a nicely balanced load that would reach the 10-12" range under normal conditions (yeah, "normal" being more than a little subjective
).
I can always fall back on 148gr target wadcutters and 158gr LSWC's in that Airweight. It's still likely to be about placement, first, last and always, when it comes down to the .38 Spl. as a small concealable defensive handgun, anyway.
The one thing I feel, personally, that I can probably safely opine when it comes to using one of my snub .38's as retirement weapons ... is that the bullet weights probably give a slight edge compared to the lighter bullets available from the major ammo makers for my LCP .380's. Breaking and "defeating" bony structures, at low handgun velocities, seems to be helped with bullet weight.
While I used to jump at the opportunity to buy the latest & greatest new "trick" ammo as a younger man and cop, usually at greater cost than regular ammo (and also typically involving harder effort to consistently find it), I no longer have the desire to try and boot-strap a marginal caliber diminutive handgun into something "more". I'd rather work to make sure my skillset remains reasonably adequate, and doesn't develop too much rust in my retirement years.
Just my own thoughts.
