Ballistics of .38/.357 & Reconsideration of .45 Colt

Mr. Mosin said:

Home defense, open carry, hiking gun, and whatever else may occur to me

Click to expand...

Ever consider a single action like a Blackhawk? They carry nice, are very durable and you can get convertibles in 45 colt/acp.

Mr. Mosin said:

SA for home defense ?

Click to expand...

Sure. Once you get real familiar with one, it will be easy to shoot quickly if need be.

Mr. Mosin said:

SA for home defense ?

Click to expand...

Yea, tbh you're better off with a long gun than a handgun anyways for home defense. Yes I have a 9mm/357 in my nightstand. But still go would for the shotgun if I can.

MaxP said:

Sure. Once you get real familiar with one, it will be easy to shoot quickly if need be.

Click to expand...

It also gives you an excuse to buy a hi cap 9mm in The future aswell! The more the merrier!

CraigC said:

Because what handguns have going for them are diameter and mass, not velocity. To improve terminal effect, increases in diameter and mass are going to yield FAR greater improvements than velocity, which is the most limited and the least important. Kinetic energy can be left out of the equation altogether.

Click to expand...

MaxP said:

Diameter is most definitely important and significant. Bullet construction is very important as well. Kinetic energy as a measure of lethality is useless. That said, I believe velocity also plays a significant role as more velocity will create more damage.

Click to expand...

The idea that kinetic energy is not a measure of the potential effectiveness of a pistol bullet takes me by surprise. It seems to go against the way the understanding of pistol bullet effectiveness has evolved over the last 45 years. However, all my knowledge of this subject is third-hand at best, and my opinion is certainly not better than others who have written here. Also, I do not want to start a controversy that cannot be resolved because it is not possible to shoot statistically significant numbers of people under controlled scientific conditions. I hope I have not already done so.

Monac said:

The idea that kinetic energy is not a measure of the potential effectiveness of a pistol bullet takes me by surprise. It seems to go against the way the understanding of pistol bullet effectiveness has evolved over the last 45 years. However, all my knowledge of this subject is third-hand at best, and my opinion is certainly not better than others who have written here. Also, I do not want to start a controversy that cannot be resolved because it is not possible to shoot statistically significant numbers of people under controlled scientific conditions. I hope I have not already done so.

Click to expand...

It's calculated and not measurable and doesn't factor in variables that are significant like bullet type, bullet composition, etc.

You can shoot/hunt animals, however...

In terms of ending a fight or bringing down game, momentum is a better measure than energy.

Dave

Dave T said:

In terms of ending a fight or bringing down game, momentum is a better measure than energy.

Dave

Click to expand...

It's not that simple momentum and kinetic energy are inseparable values. Terminal ballistics can't be reduced to one number, independent of what that number is.

A Ruger Blackhawk .45 should work nicely for you,but so would a .357 (or ,44) All of these have expensive appetites and require practice which in turn requires ammunition.which in turn makes hand loading very attractive if not a necessity.

A 357 Blackhawk would permit you to load .38 range ammo for both your snub and your .357 with the same dies, but dies aren't terribly expensive so you'll save a little $$$ but not much.(Lee carbides are what--- $30 or 40 now?)

OTOH a Model 10 with a 4" barrel is a great general purpose tool if in good condition and can even be substitute for your snub if needed.

mcb said:

It's not that simple momentum and kinetic energy are inseparable values. Terminal ballistics can't be reduced to one number, independent of what that number is.

Click to expand...

It is very simple.

Bigger holes = more deader

My 2 cents regarding a woods revolver

I have shot a swinging steel target with a hot 158gr or 170gr 357, then shot the same target with 45 auto factory ammo say a 230@900fps the difference is shocking (pun intended) the 45 is lame compared to the 357 in this situation. This is about 400ft lbs 45 auto and about 650ft lbs 357. The target hit by 45 just rings and swings back and forth. The target hit by the 357 got whacked so hard it did many Revolutions around the bar it was mounted to. It's hard to explain but it was something you should really try yourself and witness it.

Moral of the story is 45 colt loads that are safe through a SAA sized frame (similar ballistics to 45 auto) could have as little as HALF the energy of a mean 357 load.

I would not buy a 45 colt unless it was in a redhawk frame or similar capable of the higher pressure loads. I do not own a 45LC but would like to. I'm waiting for a 5 shot 41 mag GP100 though. While Redhawks are available in weights close to a 357 (4" or less redhawks) I feel the much added cylinder width, weight when loaded, and weight/bulk of ammo you carry WILL be NOTICEABLY not as handy as a medium frame gun.

You could get a freedom arms 97 in 45 colt 5 shot, expensive though.
Or a taurus tracker 5 shot, but their quality/reputation is kind of sketchy.

mcb said:

It's not that simple momentum and kinetic energy are inseparable values. Terminal ballistics can't be reduced to one number, independent of what that number is.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it was that simple, I said it was a better measure.

Dave

Dave T said:

I didn't say it was that simple, I said it was a better measure.

Dave

Click to expand...

Not that simple. A 100 mph (146 fps) baseball has ~50% more momentum than a 45 cal 250gr bullet going 900 fps and I think we all know which is more lethal. Momentum (or kinetic energy) in the absence of all other data is useless for lethality assessment.

ontarget said:

That's not a bad price. If you can see your way to picking up a M10 I promise you will not be disappointed. I'm not a big fan of the factory Magna grips but Amazon sells literally hundreds of aftermarket grips for very low prices.
You can not go wrong with a 38 Spl 4 inch revolver.

Click to expand...

Except a 38 would totally miss his stated objectives. Starting with a 38 would be great, but it is not what he is asking.

Mr Mosin have you come to any conclusions with the information you've got from all the responses? I'm wondering what your thinking now.

Mr. Mosin said:

Not necessarily what I want, but a $300 Smith beats no $800 Ruger, for most of my applications, at least.

Click to expand...

But it does blow gun money that could have been a savings base for something you really wanted. If, in the end, it is "I want it now!", then you will be vulnerable to whatever "good deal" comes along and matches the money in your pocket. I expect that few of us are immune to this.

"Home defense, open carry, hiking gun, and whatever else may occur to me..."

I grew up shooting a 22 revolver and was a halfway decent shooter by the time I went off to college. My first "real" handgun was a medium-framed 4" 357. If I could only have one handgun, that would probably still be my choice. Second would be a 22 for practice.

357 capability is nice, but if the OP lucked onto a great deal on a 38 special, that would be fine, too. I shoot 38's out of my 357 revolvers most of the time anyway. 38 special is reasonably affordable, moreso than any other centerfire revolver round that I know of.

I have three Model 10's and I like them. My experience with police-trade-ins has been positive. They are typically carried a lot and not shot much.

My favorite Model 10 is this 2" version. It was a police trade-in that I got for something like $300 OTD. It was made in 1961 or so. I wouldn't expect to find a newer one with such a good trigger. The picture is poor. It definitely has some finish wear, but looks better in person.

View media item 1782

RealGun said:

Except a 38 would totally miss his stated objectives. Starting with a 38 would be great, but it is not what he is asking.

Click to expand...

Not entirely depending on what you feed it.
A 4" barrel should develop enough velocity to reliably expand modern hollow points.
A steel K frame is light enough for hiking.
While marginal on hogs and blackies, six hard cast Keiths sure beats using your fists if you do your part!
Rattlers, wild dogs, no problemo!
For HD it's a good choice especially with hollow points like the venerable FBI +p lswchp

I think the OP would be happy with about anything he can get his hands on right now. I know his situation a little better and he is on a tight budget. Way tighter than most of us. But doing the best he can and keeping his options open. And he doesn't have many options but is taking every recommendation under consideration. So keep them coming.

98s1lightning said:

It's hard to explain but it was something you should really try yourself and witness it.

Click to expand...

Try shooting a couple dozen critters with each and then report back. Steel and flesh are entirely different. The .357 requires velocity and expansion to be effective. The .44 or .45 do not.

Monac said:

The idea that kinetic energy is not a measure of the potential effectiveness of a pistol bullet takes me by surprise. It seems to go against the way the understanding of pistol bullet effectiveness has evolved over the last 45 years. However, all my knowledge of this subject is third-hand at best, and my opinion is certainly not better than others who have written here. Also, I do not want to start a controversy that cannot be resolved because it is not possible to shoot statistically significant numbers of people under controlled scientific conditions. I hope I have not already done so.

Click to expand...

Energy is most useful as a marketing tool for selling velocity.

CraigC said:

Energy is most useful as a marketing tool for selling velocity.

Click to expand...

So, does expansion of the bullet after impact matter?