I carried a .357 loaded with .38's at the start of my law enforcement career. The old RNL round was known as the widow maker due to it's poor effectiveness in stopping the BG. The 158 grain LSWC HP and other improved loadings were much better. After a few years the agency I was with at the time allowed us to start using magnum loads. What I saw was that non-dedicated shooters scores dropped significantly with the magnums since they didn't practice or have the mental discipline to shoot the magnums well. The policy was changed to require that only those who shot expert could carry magnum loads, all others had to carry .38 Special.
A couple of years later we were allowed to go to 9mm semi-auto at personal expense. Within a couple of months the majority of officers had 9mm. 15+ rounds before reloading along with a faster, less fumble prone reload was the driving force.
I'm retired now but I don't personally know any officer that would willingly give up a 9mm/.40./.45
auto and go back to the .38.
The .38 can still do the task but there were and are better options when your life is on the line. If I were Chief for the day I would not equip my officers with a .38 revolver. I would issue a semi-auto in either single stack or double stack format (officers choice) and train the heck out of them.
If an individual wants to carry a .38, more power to them, it will probably serve them well. I still carry one on occasion.
38 special revolver
- Thread starter Kleiner riese
- Start date
- Status
22-rimfire
Member
To me this thread is (or should be) about civilian carry not what the police use. If you like revolvers, the 38spl does nicely especially more than likely you will NEVER have to fire a round defending yourself. That is the case with LEO's too for the most part, but I am comfortable with them carrying larger faster more destructive calibers as side arms. There are other choices available in revolvers like the 327 Federal. Personal carry is about the only reason I would consider the round (smaller but "enough").
Whether anyone likes it or not, there are still a lot of folks that carry 22LR for self defense. I for one am very interested in handling a NAA Ranger II which is available in 22LR and 22WMR. It is all about "being enough" to me.
Whether anyone likes it or not, there are still a lot of folks that carry 22LR for self defense. I for one am very interested in handling a NAA Ranger II which is available in 22LR and 22WMR. It is all about "being enough" to me.
I noticed the word "handling" in referring to the NAA, and in either caliber they are not easy to handle due to the small size, being single actions as well, unless you are on top of the predator-an attacker, placing a stop shot is going to be difficult and you truly won't get a re-load in an urgent situation. Needing to literally disassemble, load cylinder part, then reassemble. My wife took mine and put it in her night stand cup-quick access- after she saw me using my NAA upon receiving it from seller. She had been to the pistol range several times with me and saw, more like took extreme note of how I handled the derringer over and over and took it from me.
obiwan1
Member
I like revolvers and have a few of them with a couple in .38spl. My wife prefers a revolver and uses a .38 and one of our house guns is a .38. I’m comfortable with their effectiveness with modern ammo. Currently they have +p Honeybadgers in them which should work well.
I’m a believer in “size efficiency” with carry guns. Revolvers have mostly 5-6 shots and weigh 15-35 oz. The slightly more powerful and efficient 9mm is available in 14 oz 10 rounders (example: Kel Tec P11) and typical 15 rounders weigh about 23 oz (example: G19).
I enjoy and shoot both revolvers and autos. Revolvers are my home and woods guns. Autos are my daily carry in similarly powerful guns.
I’m a believer in “size efficiency” with carry guns. Revolvers have mostly 5-6 shots and weigh 15-35 oz. The slightly more powerful and efficient 9mm is available in 14 oz 10 rounders (example: Kel Tec P11) and typical 15 rounders weigh about 23 oz (example: G19).
I enjoy and shoot both revolvers and autos. Revolvers are my home and woods guns. Autos are my daily carry in similarly powerful guns.
This is a Georgia Department of Corrections 38 Special, and it was sold new in the mid 1990's
You can understand why something like this would be issued to Security Guards and Prison Officer's. No safeties, fixed sights, probably never had any maintenance till I got it, it is just simple and straightforward to operate. Hard to have an accident with the thing unless you really tried. Hardly any training needed and no big muzzle blast if these people ever made it to a range.
When did major LEO, or small LEO, organizations require regular qualification and training? Reading some of the vintage writers, I don't believe that LEO prior to WW2 were required to qualify and train with their firearms. So, if the organization is not going to spend the time and money making their employees shoot, issuing a revolver in a low recoiling round makes sense. I was squadded next to a Police Chief of a major city at Camp Perry one year, he had to account for every bullet shot by his men in an encounter. He personally had the riot guns removed and replaced with 9mm carbines, because there were 12 buckshot he had to account for in every buckshot round.
Issuing LEO high capacity guns has had a back lash. People don't like finding out the number of shots Cops use in wrongful shootings. The round count has gone up considerably since the issuing of high capacity pistols. I don't think they mind so much when Cops shoot a bunch of holes in bad guys, but when they blast innocent people into shreds, it hits the front of magazines.
This incident has long been forgotten, but NYC Cops blasted a man reaching for his wallet. Killed him dead, dead, dead. The unfortunate was not armed with anything more dangerous than his identification and the extremely bad luck to run into a bunch of trigger happy Cops with high capacity weapons.
You can understand why something like this would be issued to Security Guards and Prison Officer's. No safeties, fixed sights, probably never had any maintenance till I got it, it is just simple and straightforward to operate. Hard to have an accident with the thing unless you really tried. Hardly any training needed and no big muzzle blast if these people ever made it to a range.
When did major LEO, or small LEO, organizations require regular qualification and training? Reading some of the vintage writers, I don't believe that LEO prior to WW2 were required to qualify and train with their firearms. So, if the organization is not going to spend the time and money making their employees shoot, issuing a revolver in a low recoiling round makes sense. I was squadded next to a Police Chief of a major city at Camp Perry one year, he had to account for every bullet shot by his men in an encounter. He personally had the riot guns removed and replaced with 9mm carbines, because there were 12 buckshot he had to account for in every buckshot round.
Issuing LEO high capacity guns has had a back lash. People don't like finding out the number of shots Cops use in wrongful shootings. The round count has gone up considerably since the issuing of high capacity pistols. I don't think they mind so much when Cops shoot a bunch of holes in bad guys, but when they blast innocent people into shreds, it hits the front of magazines.
This incident has long been forgotten, but NYC Cops blasted a man reaching for his wallet. Killed him dead, dead, dead. The unfortunate was not armed with anything more dangerous than his identification and the extremely bad luck to run into a bunch of trigger happy Cops with high capacity weapons.
The Pennsylvania State Police carried a 6 inch Colt , Official Police, 38 special revolver from the time they were authorized to carry firearms (pre 1920's I believe) up until 1980 or 81. Then they went to a Ruger 357, but only for 2 or 3 years. From there they went to a .40 caliber Berretta model 92. Since then they have switched another 4 or 5 times and I don't know what they currently have
22-rimfire
Member
I honestly have never shot one of the NAA Mini Revolvers. Figure it will take a little time to get used to it at 5-7 yds. For info, the Sidewinder has a typical flip out cylinder opening design and the Ranger II is a top break. So, reloading would not require taking the cylinder off to reload. That is precisely why I never got one. They are a last ditch gun. I figure that I can probably shoot it about as well as a light snubbie revolver at across the room distances. There are times you simply don't want to carry a larger gun and carrying the mini would allow me more easily carry. Honestly, I have no intention of reloading anyway. They may make some sort of speed loader for it? Or will...
22-rimfire
Member
My understanding is that a lot of the police departments have been switching semi auto pistols fairly frequently. I was never a big fan of the 92 and would be too big for me anyway.
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 4,987
Sorry to say, but you're wrong about all this.
Adding a rim to 10mm Mag doesn't affect the dies, it just affects the shellholder. .45 Auto Rim is .45 ACP with a rim and it uses the same dies as .45 ACP, same applies to a rimmed 10mm Mag.
And no, moonclips are not more robust that a solid rim of a brass case and they are certainly not less finicky.
mcb
Member
I think you miss read me or I wrote it poorly or both.
I was talking about the dies to make the brass the first time from brass stock. It would take a different set of dies to make a rimed case where as making 10mm Auto brass into 10mm Mag requires only trimming it longer in one of the last steps of the manufacturing procces (and possibly starting with a slightly larger slug of brass). Trimming 10mm Auto long to make 10mm Mag is a small investment for a brass manufacture. Purchasing a complete new set of drawing dies and punches and taking up valuable press time for a very niche cartridge like a rimmed 10mm Mag would probably not be a wise investment of capital or press time for most manufactures.
To your second point I was trying to compare moonclips for rimless cartridge vs moonclips for rimmed cartridges. Moonclips for rimless cartridges like 9mm, 40S&w/10mm and 45 ACP are typically .035 thick where as moonclips for cartridges like 38/357, 44 Mag and 45 Colt at typical .020 - .025 inches thick. That extra thickness makes them much more robust and harder to bend.
Second the extractor grove of a rimless cartridge is actually part of the SAAMI spec and thus is fairly consistent across most manufactures. This makes moonclips for rimless brass very tolerant to various brass manufactures due to the consistency across manufactures. ie for my S&W 625 I run range pickup brass and never have an issue with brass being too tight or too loose in my moonclips. I have only one size moonclips for my 625 and similarly for my 610 I run one size moonclip for 40S&W and 10mm.
On the other hand the groove for the moonclip on rimmed cartridges has no spec, that feature is not even required to be there by SAAMI specs (ie Blazer aluminum 38/357/44 has no moonclip grove). The grove started out as an manufacturing artifact from the way some manufactures turned the rims to ensure proper head-space thickness on the rims and to leave no burr inside the corner. Each manufacture has their own take on how wide and deep that grove should be and thus you end up with needing different sizes and thickness of moonclips for cartridges like 38 Special and 357 mag depending on who's brass you are trying to use.
https://www.tkcustom.com/resources/faq-s
The table at the above web-page is an attempt to give someone and idea which moonclip from TK Custom will pair well with which brass for 38/357. You will find no similar table for 45 ACP as nearly all brass works with the standard one size fits all moonclip. For my own 627 (8-shot 357 Mag) I have tried 4 or 5 different sizes from three different moonclip manufacturers in an attempt to find a good pair for my competition ammo. I use one specific moonclip and one specific brass manufacture and that is it. The same pairing is not required with most rimless revolvers.
Hopefully I have made myself more clear in this post.
Last edited:
ThomasT
Member
I think you miss read me or I wrote it poorly or both.
I misunderstood what you meant also. I beleive I am the one that brought up the rimmed version of a 40S&W for a mid frame 6 shot revolver. The whole point of the rim was to get away from Moon clips. I never liked them. A 40 caliber gun would have been better than the heavy recoil of the 41 mag and the slightly smaller round than the 41 should let you get 6 in a smaller than N-Frame gun. I have a model 28 and would not want to wear that on my hip all day long.
That was one of the great things about the 38s issued to police like the popular model 10 with the original tapered barrel. They were light weight compared to most other revolvers. Add a good duty rig and you could forget they were there. Add in the relatively light recoil and it worked for many decades. There is still nothing wrong with the combo today except young guys think they have to have 15+ shots and 3 reloads before they are properly armed.
mcb
Member
Interesting that someone made rimmed 40 S&W brass. If they still have the equipment it would not take much to make rimmed 10mm Auto or Mag.
My second revolver I ever purchase and my first double action revolver was a S&W 610. I came to revolvers primary as a toy to play USPSA with and fell into a sweet deal on my 610 and fell in love with moonclip fed revolvers. Nothing is more satisfying then going to the local USPSA match being the only revolver shooter and yet still finish in the top 25% of the match. Nothing like beating the filthy bottom-feeders with the noble round-gun at the run-n-gun sports. I have since moved on to a 625 and then a 627 for the games. The 610 became my hunting revolver and I eventually added a 442 Moonclip to my collection for CCW. Moonclips make revolvers interesting to me.
Personally if I could have any revolve it would be a S&W L-frame with fixed sights 4-inch full under-lug barrel and chambered in 10mm Auto (on moonclips of course). That would be by far one of the finest combat/duty/woods revolvers going. As much as I like my 610 it is larger than 10mm Auto needs and probably should have been a 7-shooter.
Still my current woods carry is a Model 10 heavy barrel in the old 38 Special.
ThomasT
Member
I never said anyone made rimmed 40 S&W brass. In my post #42 I stated that I wondered why no one had ever made rimmed 40/10 mm brass for revolvers. Just like I wondered why no one ever made rimless 357 and 44 mag brass and then built a compact little carbine for it since you already have all the load data. A 357 from a carbine will out run the 30 carbine round and give more power for hunting.
mcb
Member
not true. the 38/44 loads developed no more than 28,000 cup, about half way between the pressures of the 9mm and 38 special.
not legally. the higher pressure round was the 38/44 round (stamped "38/44" on the case head). the commercial special loads have always been within pressure specs.
not by my reckoning. the 38/44 is about half way between the 357 magnum and the 38 special in this respect.
slower burning powders have nothing to do with "performance". a given load will always (with few exeptions) have more velocity in a longer barrel regardless the cartridge. nothing special about the 38 special in this regard.
this is just not true. all pistol powders are consumed either just before, or shortly after (fraction of an inch), the bullet exits the brass case. show me the unburned powder that escapes the cylinder gap and I may change my mind.
lesson learned back in the early 1900s. more than a few guns built for the 38 acp were destroyed when loaded with 38 super.
longer than the 200 grain bullet already used in the 38 special (sarcastic here)? the larger the bullet, the less powder used, so the latter reason is also not right. the primary reason for the 357 magnum cartridge is for the right of smith and Wesson to call the s&w revolver used by it the most powerful handgun in the world. a secondary reason for the longer cartridge is so it could not be loaded into a 38 special handgun.
nothing personal, but your post is not very accurate.
murf
ref: https://38-44heavyduty.com/
Last edited:
mcb
Member
H110 almost never burns completely in pistol length barrels, hence the obnoxious fireballs and muzzle blast it produces. I put my H110 44 Mag load in Quickloads and even from my 16 inch carbine QuickLoads only predicts 89% burn and only 78% from my 6.5 inch M29. A lot of the magnum loads will do similar in short barrels. If you look for super slow burning powders you can find some pretty inefficient load data. Hodgdon has data for 4227 under a 158gr in 38 Special and it will burn less than half the powder charge in a 4-inch barrel and only 62% in a 16-inch carbine.
unburned powder will be black, or grey. the fireball is hot powder gas before it cools down enough to become invisible to the eye. partially burned powder is yellow and brown.
I put no stock in the predictive capabilities of a computer model such as quickload. show me something real and i may change my mind.
luck,
murf
cheygriz
member
The .38 got a bad rep (widowmaker) with LE due mainly to the schidt ammo that was available. Round nosed 158 grain "pumpkin rollers."
With modern, high velocity hollowpoint ammo, it's very viable.
With modern, high velocity hollowpoint ammo, it's very viable.
mcb
Member
I have had 38 Special loads in the past that burned so poorly that they left partial burnt powder in the cylinder and barrel and resulted in enough grains in the cylinder that it made reloads difficult.
Go offer to sweep up the range floor, ahead of the shooting line, at the local indoor shooting range and you will be amazed at the amount of partial burnt powder grains you will find on the floor. I have half filled a five gallon bucket with partial burnt powder swept up from a larger indoor range after about 25,000 rds where fired since the previous sweeping. Handguns often do not burn all the powder and the shorter the barrel the worst it is. Hence one of the reasons ammunition is made specifically for short barreled handguns.
Everyone believes a wind-tunnel data except the engineer that did it, no one believes the CFD (Computation Fluid Dynamics) data except the engineer that did it...
I have had QuickLoads work too well for me on too many different loads to simply not believe it out of hand. I have used it to create safe loads for components that had no existing data to start from. The QuickLoad data was later confirmed with real world chronograph and pressure measurements. Can you screw QuickLoads up? Sure, like most computer programs garbage in, gets you garbage out. That said the mathematical models underlying QuickLoads is based on some of the latest internal ballistics models currently being use. If you have taken the time to understand the models the program is based on you can enter good data and get good data out.
Elmer Keith was loading it to about 41,000 psi. I believe he was shooting it in N frames and in Colt Single Action Armies. I don't know of a law he was breaking.
Since there was no authoritative specification for .38/44 such as from SAAMI, it's not easy to characterize all the possible loads for it. But I have loaded it and can certainly testify it can be loaded to similar velocities as .357 with some bullets and powders.
Slower burning powders certainly do increase velocity without exceeding pressure maximums. They result in more area under the pressure/time curve and higher velocities.
You're thinking about where the pressure peak occurs. Also, to clarify, I am not talking about the powder not burning. I am talking about the portion of powder that burns before the base of the bullet exits the muzzle. With powders like H110, W296, IMR4227, and Lil'Gun, a large portion of a maximum book load does not burn until after the bullet exits a short barrel (4" or less). It does burn, but it burns in the empty barrel or in the air around the muzzle. Again, the net result is still higher velocities than a faster burning powder, but very poor efficiency.
John Joseph
Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 1,441
Viable in revolvers with barrels long enough to gain velocities needed to expand. With snubs expansion is not a sure thing.
The advantage of the .38 is the revolver manual-of-arms. You can hand someone a 4" .38 and they are, more than likely, able to understand it and use it almost immediately. A semi-auto is more effective, no question, but for folks who want 'good enough' for minimal investment in time and energy, it works. Some of us can't get with that, in the same way that I can't understand why everybody doesn't change their own brake rotors, CV boots, and timing belts. But many folks just want something that 'works', without having to think about the details, and the .38 does that well.
While law enforcement goes back to ancient times, police are a relatively new concept. The first modern police were not equipped with firearms. As recently as the late 18th century, there was strong sentiment against even the idea of creating a "police" and in Britain a widely-held belief it was against the British constitution. Nevertheless, the concept won out on the favor of merchants who expected to benefit in reduced losses. A sort of precursor to modern policing originated in Paris shortly before the 18th century, but otherwise it's origins are popularly attributed to London in the 18th century. Throughout those centuries, the idea of equipping police with military equipment like firearms to be used against the people was inconceivable. The role of the firearm changed considerably in the 19th century, but even so, police with firearms were not widely accepted. It shouldn't be surprising then that training police to use firearms against citizens was not held in high regard. It would have been perceived something like providing warfighter training to constables to battle citizens in combat. By the end of the 19th century, Sheriffs and police in the US equipped with revolvers and shotguns had become widespread, probably because of the proliferation of the Colt pocket revolvers and belt-carried Colt Navy model among the people. Nevertheless, even into the 20th century, there remained a strong resistance to arming police with guns. Even as late as the 1930's, arming agents of the BOI (what became the FBI) with guns was strongly opposed. It was only by murder, conniving, lies, deceit, and scandal that J Edgar Hoover managed to push through equipping his federal police force with guns.
psi was never used in elmer keith's day, they used cup (copper units of pressure). regardless, the standard 38/44 load pushed a 158 grain bullet out the muzzle @ 1200 fps, or thereabouts. the 357 magnum pushes the same bullet @ 1500 fps, or thereabouts.
murf
- Status
