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

Mr. Mosin said:

Obvious rule violation ? This thread is about three comments away from an internet bar fight.

Click to expand...

Having been in numerous bar fights, both virtual and actual, I have to disagree with your assessment. This is typical spirited internet discussion. Folks feel strongly about their opinions, and are inclined to share them.

Ratshooter said:

He post over on the firingline forum if you want to correct his data.



Model 10 and M&Ps, the early name for a model 10 were the same size then as they are now. And yes the 38 Outdoorsman 38/44 was built on the N-Frame gun but I don't believe we are talking about those. The OP couldn't afford one of those anyway. The Colt 38s are A little bigger than the model 10 and so are the Taurus models 80 and 82. Excellent fixed sight 38s that can sometimes be found really cheap. I have owned both models and wish I still had them. Especially the model 82.

Click to expand...

Well, "size" does include the barrel.

Mr. Mosin said:

Obvious rule violation ? This thread is about three comments away from an internet bar fight.

Click to expand...

You lost me on that one. You've obviously never been in a "real" argument.

I'm done. All that I can say has already been said, have fun.

Just seems to be a spirited discussion to me.

@Mr. Mosin Refer back to what I said in post 54. The part about strong opinions. And again this thread is a perfect example of such.
Some of these guys have decades and hundreds of thousands of rounds under their belts. Let them hash it out and in the process try to absorb the knowledge they represent.
I do it every day.

What ontarget said. I'm one of those guys with decades of experiance and several hundred thousand rounds. But. 14 years as a member and 309 posts. Yep. I try not to say anything unless I think it adds to the conversation. But I have learned a lot, still do. This thread included. Good info here

ontarget said:

@Mr. Mosin Refer back to what I said in post 54. The part about strong opinions. And again this thread is a perfect example of such.
Some of these guys have decades and hundreds of thousands of rounds under their belts. Let them hash it out and in the process try to absorb the knowledge they represent.
I do it every day.

Click to expand...

I guess I missed the red-flag event.

Mr. Mosin said:

I've thrown down with the best of em, both in lively discussion and in fisticuffs. I am trying to avert stupidity such as this from happening. Alas, it did not work...

Click to expand...

personal attacks are one of the few restrictions listed in the "code of conduct" for this forum (attack the idea, not the person). you just violated that one by calling people "stupid".

I hope you found your answer and continue to contribute here.

murf

Mr. Mosin said:

I did attack the idea, the actions. Not the person.

Click to expand...

ideas don't have actions, people do.

personal insults are sometimes subtle (as a previous poster that took about 200 words to call you stupid). just giving my two cents here. it's worth as much as you paid for it.

again, hope you stay here,

murf

And just like that, another thread died.

MidRoad said:

It is very simple.

Bigger holes = more deader

Click to expand...

Or Bigger hole= more deader faster

mcb said:

I have heard that before on the internet and yet despite several years of searching I have never found proof that SAAMI changed anything related to 38 Special or 357 Magnum. The only change has been the introduction of 38 Special +P. If you have documented proof of your claim I would love to see it.

Are you sure you not mixing 38/44 sometimes called 38 Special High Velocity or 38 Special High Speed etc? This 38/44 was at least partial responsible for why SAAMI is what it is today. The 38/44 cartridges created dangerous combination since it was essentially a 38 Special loaded to much higher pressures and smaller older 38 Specials could not handle it.



My model 10 from the mid 1990's does not bear the +P stamp and yet I have no doubt it is +P rated. A 38 Special revolver built before 1974 can't possible have a +P stamp since the standard did not exist until then.

You also must live in a nastier part of the world than I do cause my woods gun is my Model 10 and I don't even carry +P in it. The regular 38 Special 158 gr JHP at 860 fps has kept me alive and killed a lot of varmints with it. You don't need some magic velocity to make the bullet expand you simply need a bullet designed to expand at the velocity you are shooting it.

Click to expand...

^ Well i'm betting a lot of that has to with shot placement too there mcb.

MidRoad said:

Valid point.I should really stop using a Flint lock pistol as my CCW than.

Click to expand...

^You should really upgrade to a cap and ball revolver there MidRoad.

Mr. Mosin said:

If I can find one (and scratch up $300). Everywhere is sold out of the surplus Mdl 10's

Click to expand...

I would go for a Charter Arms Undercover or a 357 Ruger or even a Charter Arms 357 there Mr. Mosin.

Mr. Mosin said:

I'd rather a surplus Mdl 10 then a Charter Arms that looks and feels like it was built and came from a child's playroom. The Ruger... the Ruger is top of my list, but $6-700 is a lot for me to scratch up.

Click to expand...

I was looking at 6" barreled Security Six Rugers on GB a couple of days ago and most were in the $400 range and most had no bidders on them. You should be able to find one for way less than $600.

I scored my Security Six stainless 4” for $450 total including FFL transfer fees about 3 years ago off of gunbroker, and have seen Security and Speed Six’s at gun shows recently for $475. Definitely doable if you keep yours eyes out for them.

Mr. Mosin said:

I'd rather a surplus Mdl 10 then a Charter Arms that looks and feels like it was built and came from a child's playroom. The Ruger... the Ruger is top of my list, but $6-700 is a lot for me to scratch up.

Click to expand...

You really shouldn't knock Charter until you handle one...like a lot. Yes they are a bit rougher, and yes you do have to maintain the screws a bit, but firearm maintenance is part of carrying and shooting.

Here's my somewhat unpopular opinion: Ruger toughness/tankness is overrated to the point that it's more of a myth than an actual thing. Dont get me wrong. I love my Rugers. My Blackhawk .357 is one of my never-sell guns. However, I have had to send 3 Rugers back for quality issues and zero Charter Arms.

What they lack in spit and polish, they make up for in general toughness if a bit of roughness. The trigger action on my Charters far surpasses what I would expect on a sub 400 dollar gun.

I carry a Charter every day. I have Rugers and Smiths in my cabinet at home. YMMV.

Mr. Mosin said:

Every new production Charter I've handled has been a step above Taurus (barely) and several steps under Ruger and S&W. The only concession I'll make is the Bulldog Classic. That's just what floats my boat.

Click to expand...

It what way besides finish are you talking about? What about in terms of handling and accuracy? I'm with you on Taurus revolvers, or at least those produced about 8 years ago. I purchased two of them. Both of them were duds. A .22 that was about 78% at igniting pretty much any round and a Public Defender that would seize up when you short stroke the trigger.

Still, my lowly Undercover is the most accurate .38 snub nose I have ever shot or owned. Using similar ammo it has shot circles around a model 36, 642, 442, and an LCR. The trigger doesn't tend to be as easily short stroked as the 3 LCRs I've owned, and the steel frame is just a bit heavier than the aluminum alloy found in the others (not including the 36) resulting a comfortable to carry gun that soaks up just a bit more recoil.
I would say that of all the revolvers I mentioned, the UC compares most to the LCR. Both have lightweight metal frames with polymer grips. Both have 2"/sub 2" barrels and similar lock ups. Both print about the same if you put a boot grip/minimalist grip on them.

I've got around 400 rounds of standard, +p, and AXR ammo through my Undercover. Still locks up tight, no loosening of the screws, and has not shown the cosmetic flame cutting issue my LCR had. I really liked my LCR. It was what I called my "tactical daddy gun" when my daughter was born. Light enough to fit in a pocket and not slow me down with all the other baby stuff I was to carry for the next 2 years.

I just don't see there to be a huge difference in build quality between the .38 LCR and the Charter Arms. Aesthetics/and style? Sure. However, in my recent experience within the last 4 or 5 years, Ruger seems to be going to more of a "crank 'em out" mentality with their deeper and deeper entry into budget friendly EDC pieces and letting their reputation for toughness sell the guns and their easy to deal with warranty service keep those with problems happy. Nothing wrong with Ruger. I have half a dozen of their guns. I have many, many more on my short to buy list. I just think the myth of their godlike strength and durability needs to be taken with a grain of salt and applied to certain guns in their catalog.

Charter Arms is still fighting the stigma of their old owner's business dealings. They ARE a budget gun. They DO have a rougher finish than higher end guns. However, they are accurate and reliable in my experience.

If I were buying a snub nose .357 for pocket carry, I would look hard at a Mag Pug. However, .357 is a woods walking round for me. I prefer .38 in a .38 and leave the. 357 to a gun that can make better use of the round for all the flash and thunder it spits out.

If I were getting a 4" double action .357 today, I would buy a 686. I had one and foolishly traded it off when I was downsizing my collection. A Charter Arms isn't up to a 686 in terms of quality, for sure
However, I dont think I would put comparable snubbies like the 642 or LCR much higher in terms of overall quality and value.

Just my experience limited to the last 10 or 11 years of shooting. I know there are a lot of more learned on this board who I would pay very close attention to.

@Fiv3r its almost like you have been reading my mind. I'm not a fanboy of any manufacturer but I do have more S&Ws than any other brand. I love my CA Undercover. It's from about 1972. That one has as good fit and finish as the bigger names did at the time. The newer models while not as nicely finished are very good guns for the money.
I have a Bulldog from I think the mid 1970s that is NIB and currently unfired. I plan to remedy that soon. It will likely become my EDC if it proves to be reliable.
I think there is way too much internet bashing of less expensive guns by folks who have never even fired them.

I had an undercover in 1972. The operative word in that sentence being 'had". The next 5-shot I owned was a M-60.

Dave