38 special revolver

I start as a LEO in 1972, so I saw all the evolutions in side arms.
Shot placement is king!
That said, I'm equally at ease with a 4'' or snub nose revolver or a full size or compact 9mm.
My favorite is a full size or Officers model 1911.

Ya, I know I'm a dinosaur!

Folks want light recoil and light guns for carry. Police are no different. I think it all comes down to practical odds of actually needing to fire in self defense or in the line of duty (offensively). I suspect that the odds are much higher for LEO's then most regular civilians. As a result, I think agencies want their officers better armed. Also they may face other weapons such as a rifle where as other than a home defense situation, civilians aren't generally facing rifles. So, for civilians, if you choose a revolver, the 38spl is a very good choice in a hollow point.

If you want a higher shot capability without a reload, go with a semi-auto pistol. Those 17 round semi's do have some weight to them.

Kleiner riese said:

Thanks. Again I was curious about LEO opinions as the 38 special was used for quite a while.

Click to expand...

I doubt many LEOs today are going to have much of an opinion about the 38 Special’s effectiveness for law enforcement. That hasn’t been a thing for a long time. There are more effective cartridges and much higher capacity guns that make it pretty irrelevant in LE today. It’s still an effective round though if you hit the target.

If you really just want the history, Google is your friend.

38 Special can get the job done and is certainly still effective for self defense. I choose to carry a 9mm for several reasons, but I still load and shoot lots of 38s.

Have only ever carried 38 special+P . I'm comfortable with it.

I started as a LEO in 1969 and we were issued S&W 38/44 4in and 158 gr. RN ball ammo. Sometime in the 70s we went to S&W Mod. 27 4in. and issued SJHP ammo. I Was in plain clothes when the Semi- Autos were issued probably early 90s and I continued to carry a S&W Mod. 19 until I retired in 1998. I still carry a Mod. 19. There are probably not many LEOs today that have ever even fired a revolver let alone a 38 Cal. revolver.

Probably the best way to find out what a law enforcement officer thinks of a 38 special is to ask about the death scenes they have been on where the dead guy was killed by a 38 special. My uncle I mentioned earlier after leaving street patrol joined the detective squad and spent a lot of time as a homicide detective. And I quizzed him all the time about what guns were most effective. He had a lot of respect for all rounds because he has seen most of them used. Even the 22lr. He called them "bad mothers". They either killed you out right or you spent months in the hospital and died of pneumonia. Or if gut shot on a colostomy bag for a year or two.

He liked the 45 auto. When he worked as a warrant officer he carried a S&W 645. Shotguns were devastating. Even shot like #4 or #6. He saw those used because people duck hunted and had them on hand. Shots were just across the room with tight choked bird guns. He liked the 38 and 357 with good bullets. He told me a gruesome story about a guy shot in the knee with a 44 mag. Bye bye leg.

I think the biggest advantage of the auto over the revolver is just capacity. Most cops today would quit before they carried a revolver. I don't think they would have the confidence in themselves to save their own lives if they had only 6 quick shots before a reload. I guess thats why I still like my revolver. I have faith in it and in myself.

NIGHTLORD40K said:

The 1986 FBI/Miami gunfight was probably the tipping point for many agencies

Click to expand...

That definitely caused the ripple.
After that incident many LE agencies moved away from revolvers.
If I remember correctly, atleast 1 officer was found dead & it was obvious that he was reloading his revolver.

When I started as a LEO in 1969, we were carrying 4" .38Spl. with 158g round nose. Later a 5 shot Chief Spl., same ammo. I never felt the 2" gun was effective. A coiled garden hose in a hardware store stopped a brother officers shot one time. We finally went over to 158g. +P ammo, somewhat better.

I was thrilled to transition over to an 11 shot Glock 26 in the 90's, even with mandated 147g. +P 9mm ammo., which I carried until I retired in 2009.

In the era of the law enforcement revolver, the .38 was the standard go to for most police departments. They were easy to carry, easy to shoot, effective enough to make them better than a comparable .44 Special or .45 Colt and if a more rural department had some who carried a .357 in the event they had to euthanize a deer or other animal, the .38 would still be used for standard carrying.

But, the .38 was not superior in every way and writers back in the 50s and 60s theorized that an in between .38 and .44/.45 caliber in the same size revolver as a .38 with a 200 grain bullet going 950-1000 fps would be more effective than .38, yet smaller than a .44/.45, so .41 Mag was created and nobody ever used it because S&W decided not to bother trying to put the .41 in a medium frame and slapped it in the N frame, probably because what ended up happening was instead of getting that 1000 fps load, the rage at the time was high power magnums, so what was delivered was a load going 1500 fps.

Going from a .38 to that was ridiculous and the major reason .41 never took off. Once semi auto's came about, the .41 all but died outside of dedicated hunters.

Point being that while .38 was the standard, there were people at the time who realized it wasn't the quintessence of a defensive or police caliber, but given the limitations of bullet technology of the day, it was better than anything else around outside of a semi auto, but outside of the faster reload, most semi autos of the day held maybe an extra 2 rounds, 4 if it was a .32 ACP in something like the Savage. When the capacities are that low, it's not necessary your gun holds more than 6 rounds and were a reliable 6 rounds vs potential failures in a semi auto.

That was decades ago, it's 2019 now and 2020 is weeks away. The revolver market is relegated to conceal carriers, home defense, and hunting. The .38 has been popular because it's been around a long time, but there are better options coming out specifically .32 Mag and .327 Mag as well as 9mm revolvers. The .32's have less recoil, an extra round, and enough power to stop an attacker while the 9mm's have more power than .38 and the ammo costs almost half as much.

I don't see the .38 retaining its status as the top revolver caliber much longer. That doesn't mean it'll be dead like morons who say .40 is, it just means its popularity is going to be waning.

Ok, to specifically address the OP: Flaws in the use of the .38. The overwhelming major flaw was its very poor performance with the near exclusively issued lead round nose bullets. When it was a duty cartridge, nobody was shooting Remington Golden Sabers, Speer Gold Dot, or Federal HST Micros. They were shooting lead round nose. It sucked.

Next flaw is the insufficient velocity was the heavy-weight bullets commonly used. This has mostly to do with the cartridge's black-powder era pressure limit under SAAMI specification. While the case has plenty of space for powder, the mostly arbitrarily low pressure limit does not allow for sufficient velocity with a bullet weight that will both penetrate and expand to popularly accepted standards. I cannot advocate shooting guns marked .38 Special at higher pressures, but the .38 Special cartridge can be and has been loaded to higher pressures and there delivers excellent performance. SAAMI .38 Special pressure limit is 17,000 psi, and .38 Special +P is only 20,000 psi. Compare this to 9x19mm at 35,000 psi. Are .38 Special guns really so weak they cannot safely contain the pressure of 9mm? Well, some of them, especially from the black-powder era are. The safest way to ensure the one you shoot is not so weak is to make sure it's marked ".357 Magnum."

.38 Special has been loaded to high pressures (similar to 9mm) since at least 1930. S&W produced guns for it from 1930 to 1966. They used their large frame (what later became known as the N frame) and called it .38/44 (due to that frame size originally being created for the .44 Hand Ejector) .357 Magnum, introduced in 1935 is a 35,000 psi cartridge, same as 9x19mm. The reason it and .38/44 can deliver much greater velocity and with heavier bullets compared to 9mm is the larger case capacity that allows longer bullets and bulkier, slower-burning powders. The greater case length of the .357 Magnum is primarily of benefit to allow longer bullets and more bulky, slow-burning powder. Most people believe the onus for the longer case was to prevent the .357 cartridge from being used in .38 Special guns, but this does not appear to have been a concern for the nearly four decades of factory production .38/44 . It also was not the practice when the .38 ACP became the .38 "Super" simply by loading it to a much higher pressure and nothing else. The .357 Magnum was lengthened to get greater performance than the .38/44 -- the same reason the .357 Maximum was lengthened even further. But this performance is most markedly gained with a long barrel. Even with a 3" barrel, only half the bulky magnum powder of a .357 is burned before the bullet exits. It still results in more area under the pressure/time curve and higher velocities than a faster powder at the same maximum pressure, but it is very inefficient.

Staying focused on the .38 Special, because it has the case capacity for them, it similarly performs best with slower burning powders and with longer barrels. .38 Special +P in a 6" barrel with a slower powder like Longshot or BE-86 is going to deliver good performance. But this is rarely how it is used today. Instead, people seem to favor everything that conspires against .38 Special performance. They load it to no more than +P pressure. They use fast powders like HP-38, Universal or Unique. Then they shoot it out of compact, snub-nosed revolvers with barrels 2" or less. It comes out going 7 or 8 hundred fps. Under those circumstances, it's only advantage on .380 ACP is the heavier bullet.

So the two major flaws, the poor effectiveness of lead round nose bullets and the irrational black-powder era pressure limit resulted in .38 Special being replaced not by the automatic, but by the .357 Magnum. In spite of this, many officers, maybe even most, continued to use the .38 Special +P in their .357 guns. The reason for this is they preferred lighter guns (like short-barreled 19's) and light recoil.

22-rimfire said:

Folks want light recoil and light guns for carry. Police are no different. I think it all comes down to practical odds of actually needing to fire in self defense or in the line of duty (offensively). I suspect that the odds are much higher for LEO's then most regular civilians. As a result, I think agencies want their officers better armed. Also they may face other weapons such as a rifle where as other than a home defense situation, civilians aren't generally facing rifles. So, for civilians, if you choose a revolver, the 38spl is a very good choice in a hollow point.

Click to expand...

This is all true and the lower recoil for faster, accurate shots is what's driven me to the .32 caliber the past couple years, both revolver and semi auto. I'm not LEO, my goal in any situation is to live, not kill an attacker or serve a warrant in a drug gang's hideout. It's been said many times if you expect trouble, don't go, but police don't have that choice.

I don't want to touch the third rail of gun forums, but police wanting their officers better armed is a reason .40 was chosen over 9mm and I think in the appropriate gun and loading, .40 is a superior choice for LEO's vs 9mm, but that doesn't mean it's the right choice for EVERY LEO.

Hondo 60 said:

That definitely caused the ripple.
After that incident many LE agencies moved away from revolvers.
If I remember correctly, atleast 1 officer was found dead & it was obvious that he was reloading his revolver.

Click to expand...

No. Two agents were killed in Miami. Miami was actually the incident that resulted in a focus being put on the ineffectiveness of 9x19mm and ultimately resulted in the adoption of the .40 S&W -- because a 9mm shot fell short of fight-ending penetration. Whether that was a good conclusion or not has been debated since. But Miami did not reproove the revolver. In fact, the Miami incident was ultimately ended by agent Ed Mireles with a S&W 686, shooting .38 Special +P. He shot both suspects dead, ending the fight. For the record though, Ed went on to greatly prefer a semi-automatic in .45 ACP, but adopted a .40 when his job required it. So despite his heroism with a wheelgun, he wasn't a fan of it.

It was Newhall in 1970 that called the revolver reload into question. CHP Officer James Pence was caught reloading his revolver and was shot dead (along with three other highway patrolmen.) There were a lot of critical procedural take-aways from Newhall. As far as equipment was concerned, the big takeaway was officers that carried .357 Magnum needed to train, practice, and qualify with .357 Magnum and not .38 Special. However, I think the CHP actually standardized on the .38 Special instead -- but afterward they trained, practiced, qualified, and carried the same ammo. Pence emptied his revolver without making any hits on two suspects. Officers Roger Gore and George Alleyn were also ineffective with their Magnums, making no hits.

I really encourage anyone to load up a Model 19 with .357 Magnum and try point-shooting (shoot from the 3/4 hip position, no sights) at a man-sized target 10 yards away. I've seen highly-trained experts totally flub it. But this is what the CHP was expecting Gore, Alleyn and Pence to do.

A once popular misconception about Newhall was that Pence was wasting time pocketing brass during his reload. This has proven to be untrue, but was a misunderstanding based on a subsequent directive for trainees not to pocket their brass in practice. There is no evidence that James Pence's reload was not excellent. Some have argued that he could have completed a partial reload more quickly. But he had already failed to make a hit with the first six. A speedloader almost certainly would have helped him, but they were not issued in 1970. Personally, I think he should have been issued a 1911. There was plenty of evidence as early as the 1920's that minimally-trained recruits performed significantly better with it than they did a double-action revolver. Pence was a very minimally-trained, 24 year-old rookie whose little training had involved a strict insistence that he must not use the gun sights.

This cockamamie idea was a result of the bastardization of Fairbairn and Sykes doctrine by Rex Applegate who imported it into the US for the OSS and ultimately the FBI. Fairbairn and Sykes never espoused what the FBI adopted from Applegate, but the FBI's totally perverted version of "point shooting" influenced police agencies across the US. No evaluation of the effectiveness of the service revolver in the 20th century can be made without considering the effect of this doctrine.

The height of stupidity was when we changed to 357, but our butt head Chief was such a hero ( code of conduct will not let me call him what he really was) he insisted we continue to use 38 ammo. I was very vocal and didn't make Sgt. Until he retired.

Is this an LEO, exclusive thread??

No

bikerdoc said:

No

Click to expand...

TL;DR

For LE the switch to an auto was almost a foregone conclusion. Jan Libourel of Guns And Ammo once made the statement that the biggest incentive for cops to switch to the auto was was that Sonny Crocket in Miami Vice used a Bren Ten in 10mm. Maybe so.

I have always wondered why someone didn't add a rim to the 40S&W or the 10mm and load it with 180gr bullets and make a revolver for it that didn't need the stupid moon clips. An L frame sized gun should have been able to hold 6 of those and while the recoil would have been stiffer than the 38 special it should have been less than a full bore 357 with a lot less blast. And we already have the load data.

If I were a cop and had to carry an auto I would rather have the 40 S&W than a 9mm if I were given the choice. And the 40 S&W is not dead. My BIL just got his LE endorsement and the agency he is going to work for had him buy a Glock 22 Gen 5 for a duty gun. So much for internet rumors.

labnoti said:

Ok, to specifically address the OP: Flaws in the use of the .38. The overwhelming major flaw was its very poor performance with the near exclusively issued lead round nose bullets. When it was a duty cartridge, nobody was shooting Remington Golden Sabers, Speer Gold Dot, or Federal HST Micros. They were shooting lead round nose. It sucked.

Click to expand...

No. By the early 1970s departments were starting to issue 110gr Super Vel hollow points rated at 1095fps from a 4" barrel. And those are real speeds by the way. The bullets were made for Super Vel by Sierra bullet company. As soon as the big name ammo makers saw police switching ammo to the new high performance loads they started making their own lightweight high speed loads. The ineffectiveness of the old RN bullets was known and a jump in performance could be had with just the purchase of a box of bullets.

I have a Smith and Wesson Model 10 that I keep for home defense loaded with pretty good +P self defense ammo. I have other options available to me, some rifles, a shotgun, 9mm Beretta with 15 round mags. In the middle of the night, is something is going down - I get the Model 10 .38 special. It was good for law enforcement for many decades and technology of hollow points has improved, so - I anticipate it would perform better than the firearms carried by police all those years, even fired out of the same standard 4" barrel - the projectile is just better today. Personally, for me - I also prefer the revolver, shock, grogginess, whatever - I don't have to muck around with a safety, or racking a slide in the dark - and because it has a double action pull, unlikely to pull the trigger unless I mean it - and 100% confident if I do pull the trigger it will go bang.

I've read a little about Miami and Newhall, both a very interesting. IMHO there are many more aspect to those events than the choice of handgun - the caliber handgun was one piece of a very elaborate set of circumstances, but seems to get most of the attention for some reason.

Ratshooter said:

I have always wondered why someone didn't add a rim to the 40S&W or the 10mm and load it with 180gr bullets and make a revolver for it that didn't need the stupid moon clips. An L frame sized gun should have been able to hold 6 of those and while the recoil would have been stiffer than the 38 special it should have been less than a full bore 357 with a lot less blast. And we already have the load data.

Click to expand...

I've thought of something similar, but it would basically be a 10mm Magnum case with a rim. Why 10mm Magnum is made as a rimless cartridge when no semi auto pistols are currently made (in large production quantities) makes no sense, but when revolvers with cylinders long enough to accommodate 10mm Magnum, manufacturers would probably be more inclined to make 10mm Mag revolvers if they were rimmed.

Between .41 Mag and 10mm Mag, the ability to shoot cheap .40 or 10mm Auto makes a 10mm Mag revolver a lot more versatile. The .41 is pretty much a reloaders only cartridge, but .40/10mm... you can get away with shooting only factory ammo with that.

My grandfather carried a 5 shot snub nose revolver since before I was born. If it was good enough for him it's good enough for me. I know times have changed. I'm comfortable carrying one. If I ever do need it. I have faith it will stop who ever is trying to harm me or mine.

film495 said:

I have a Smith and Wesson Model 10 that I keep for home defense loaded with pretty good +P self defense ammo. I have other options available to me, some rifles, a shotgun, 9mm Beretta with 15 round mags. In the middle of the night, is something is going down - I get the Model 10 .38 special. It was good for law enforcement for many decades and technology of hollow points has improved, so - I anticipate it would perform better than the firearms carried by police all those years, even fired out of the same standard 4" barrel - the projectile is just better today. Personally, for me - I also prefer the revolver, shock, grogginess, whatever - I don't have to muck around with a safety, or racking a slide in the dark - and because it has a double action pull, unlikely to pull the trigger unless I mean it - and 100% confident if I do pull the trigger it will go bang.

I've read a little about Miami and Newhall, both a very interesting. IMHO there are many more aspect to those events than the choice of handgun - the caliber handgun was one piece of a very elaborate set of circumstances, but seems to get most of the attention for some reason.

Click to expand...

Because caliber is a lot easier and enjoyable to debate than tactics.

I want to say that hollow point technology has improved with .38, but even modern bullets still have trouble expanding. Some do better than others and it's up to people doing research to make sure they're getting a projectile that works. For me that's Hornady Critical Defense, no matter the load, the CD stuff always expands.

TTv2 said:

I've thought of something similar, but it would basically be a 10mm Magnum case with a rim. Why 10mm Magnum is made as a rimless cartridge when no semi auto pistols are currently made (in large production quantities) makes no sense, but when revolvers with cylinders long enough to accommodate 10mm Magnum, manufacturers would probably be more inclined to make 10mm Mag revolvers if they were rimmed.

Between .41 Mag and 10mm Mag, the ability to shoot cheap .40 or 10mm Auto makes a 10mm Mag revolver a lot more versatile. The .41 is pretty much a reloaders only cartridge, but .40/10mm... you can get away with shooting only factory ammo with that.

Click to expand...

Moonclips for rimless cartridges are thicker, more robust, and less finicky about brass than rimmed cartridges. Since you already have good moonclips for 40/10 you might as well use them for 10mm Mag.

You can also make 10mm Mag with the same set of drawing dies and rim cutters you use to make 40/10 brass just change final trim length. To make a rimmed 10mm Mag would require a new set of drawing dies and rim cutters.

WestKentucky said:

The 32s were effective enough for a long time, but then car doors became shields and people became bulletproof... 38s were more effective but at the cost of carrying more weight with the same capacity. Semi autos only became popular when people quit shooting as kids meaning green LEOs had to learn everything about shooting in the academy, and the hit ratio of 6 shots was not acceptable... so they tried to hit with 17 shots and still didn’t fare well.

Click to expand...

Policemen were dying everyday running out of their six and the thug would rush him fumbling for his loader and pump him full of HP's. LE is always or was always behind the curve when it came to what should be in their holsters. It was a shame for a bit.

cfullgraf said:

Personally, I do not feel under gunned with an S&W K frame 38 Special revolver, a Model 14 or Model 15. But, I'll admit that there are some semi-auto pistols that are more compact than revolvers and have similar or slightly better ballistics than the 38 Special.

You have to remember the capabilities of the round you are shooting and act accordingly.

I'd rather shoot a 38 Special S&W J-frame as opposed to a 357 Magnum S&W J-frame. The recoil of the 38 Special is more manageable than 357 Magnum. Remember, a hit with a 38 Special trumps a miss with 357 Magnum.

Click to expand...

I trained in 1969 with a .357 and when licensed in 1970 did what all others did and bought a .357. That's when I found out no one used them as provided and saw all cops buying .38 spc. for their .357's.