38 Super the .44 special of semi's

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the author was claiming that the two had the same accuracy potential.

Read both articles (parts 1 and 2). Taffin gives zero context for his comment on the 38 Super / 44 Special comparison. Zero. The only mention of 44 Special is the line quoted in post # 17. Don't know how you came up with the 'claiming that the two had the same accuracy potential.' I guess you made that up, because it's not in my copy of the magazine.

Since the comment was made without context, it doesn't mean much because he doesn't indicate what it means or could mean or doesn't mean. Apparently, readers make up whatever they feel it might mean in their mind if they are inclined to do that. But, again, there is zero context for the comment, so who knows what was on his mind when he wrote that.

It does not refer to anything he wrote in Part 1, Revolvers, because he only reports on 357 and 45 caliber guns in that article.
 
I said " I think the author was claiming that the two had the same accuracy potential." That was my take on it right or wrong . :p
 
Simple data with (always questionable) test methodology on .38 Super +P factory ammo.

https://www.gun-tests.com/ammo/38-super-loads-we-like-buffalo-bores-jacketed-hps-3/#.XSZNRy3MzUI

Note than instead of 9mm+P, a comparison made in this article is with 9mm+P+, that I've never owned a firearm specifically manufactured to use according to the manufacturer's documentation. I've enjoyed owning and shooting handguns in .38 Super +P and 9mm Largo for that matter, for decades. If I'd had access to a foreign milsurp 9mm Mauser Export 9X25mm handgun in sound mechanical condition at a reasonable price at a younger age I'd probably have one of those as well.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/9×25mm_Mauser

If .38 Super +P had been debugged for LE use as it was originally developed for, the .40 S&W may have been the more "niche" cartridge of thse two. But we have what we have because of the history we have.

I don't have and never have owned any handgun chambered for .44 Special (or .38 Special) so I can't speak from direct experience regarding someone who is paid to write magazine articles on firearms and ammunition comparing .38 Super +P as analogous to .44 Special, but I doubt that author has much real world experience with either of those two cartridges.

My Astra A-80 double stack in .38 Super +P is my most enjoyable range piece in that cartridge, and I do own some defensive ammo in .38 Super +P and 9mm Largo. Here's a source not mentioned nor tested in the magazine article link I posted.

https://shop.reedsammo.com/38-Super_c38.htm

https://shop.reedsammo.com/9x23-Largo_c12.htm
 
Last edited:
I had a 70's era Colt in 38 Super for a out 3 weeks. I sold it and made a good bit of coin on that one.

I shoot a lot of 9mm, and if I need more I step it up to 40 s&w. If I need more than that I grab a magnum revolver.

Niche cartridges have no appeal to me. I suppose I am a utilitarian in that respect.
 
The Super .38 as produced was not what John Browning had in mind when he designed it. The cartridge he designed would have had the same ballistics as the .357 Magnum and the 9x23.

TRX302;13080610 said:
JMB's original, preferred .38 cartridge design was rimless. However, Hercules had problems ramping up production of the powder they'd sampled to him, and in order to get the performance level to spec (125 grains, 1400 fps) Colt had to crimp the bullets so hard they would no longer headspace on the case mouths as intended. So Browning added the rim as a stop-gap so the gun could go into production.

Colt made some bad material and heat treat choices, and the .38 ACP was beating guns to death out in the hands of customers, so they backed *way* off on the performance, down from .357 Magnum to .38 Special ballistics, more or less. They later re-released the original loading, but still with the rim, as the .38 Super.

The 9x23 Winchester is, basically, the .38 Auto as JMB intended it to be.
 
I don't have and never have owned any handgun chambered for .44 Special (or .38 Special) so I can't speak from direct experience regarding someone who is paid to write magazine articles on firearms and ammunition comparing .38 Super +P as analogous to .44 Special, but I doubt that author has much real world experience with either of those two cartridges.

Yeah, Taffin doesn't know much about the 44 Special.;) Unless you count this book he wrote.
https://www.amazon.com/Gun-Digest-Book-44/dp/0896894169

He's has written quite a lot on both cartridges for many years.

For other readers, here is a quote and context from a previous article that John wrote, "The .38 Super is one of my all-time favorite cartridges, in fact in a semi-auto it’s (to me) what the .44 Special is in a sixguns. Both have always been the connoisseur’s cartridge." From: https://dailycaller.com/2013/02/21/gun-test-testing-four-kimbers-9mm-38-super-10mm-45/
 
Well dang, I'm a connoisseur and didn't know it. :)
Looks like me too, without ever being officially defined as one. But maybe I'm a discriminating connoisseur with eclectic tastes as I still have no desire to own any .44 Special handgun whatsoever and I doubt that's ever going to change. Unlike the author.o_O
 
Steve in Allentown quoted TRX302 saying: "JMB's original, preferred .38 cartridge design was rimless. However, Hercules had problems ramping up production of the powder they'd sampled to him, and in order to get the performance level to spec (125 grains, 1400 fps) Colt had to crimp the bullets so hard they would no longer headspace on the case mouths as intended. So Browning added the rim as a stop-gap so the gun could go into production.

Colt made some bad material and heat treat choices, and the .38 ACP was beating guns to death out in the hands of customers, so they backed *way* off on the performance, down from .357 Magnum to .38 Special ballistics, more or less. They later re-released the original loading, but still with the rim, as the .38 Super.

The 9x23 Winchester is, basically, the .38 Auto as JMB intended it to be."

I am not going to pretend I know the history involved here, but this sounds dubious to me. I don't think anybody was fooling around with pistol cartridges with 357 Magnum levels of power back then except that guy who designed the Webley Mars pistol, which was a huge gun built for maximum strength. Look at the lengths S&W went to when they introduced the 357 Magnum some 30+ years after the 38 ACP - putting it in a special, limited, registered edition of their biggest revolver, and selling it at a very high price. It was considered a gun for a limited audience, not something suitable for military issue, which is what Colt and Browning wanted back in 1899.

Nope, I can believe that the first version of 38 ACP developed about as much power as 9mm Luger (~350 foot/lbs) and that they then backed it off to about 310 foot/lbs, which is the standard for the 130 grain ACP load now. I cannot believe that it ever developed the 580 foot/lbs of the 9x23 Winchester, especially given the known problems of damaging 38 ACP automatics with 38 Super loads.

Standard velocity 38 Special loads are about 200 foot/lbs. If they were going for that, they missed badly.

As usual when I disagree with people, I stand ready to be schooled. :)

PS - When I refer to power, I mean kinetic energy. You may mean momentum. What we should really be talking about, probably, is max chamber pressure. 9x23 Winchester is a 55,000 psi cartridge. Both 38 Super and 357 Magnum are around 35,000. I really don't think Colt and JMB started out at 150% of that for 38 ACP.

PPS - a poster here at the High Ground (Driftwood Johnson, maybe?) has remarked that neither S&W nor Colt heat treated steel until the 1920's. 38 Super and 357 Magnum pressures may have become possible only after that.
 
Last edited:
Seems like a bizarre comparison to me. In many ways, these cartridges are the opposite of one another.
  • The 38 super allows increases in gun capacity in common platforms versus other cartridges offering similar overall terminal performance/power (compare ~10 rounds of 38 super to ~8 rounds of 45 ACP), while the 44 special typically offers less capacity than other cartridges in the power range from similar guns (compare 5 rounds of 44 spl to 6 of .357, or 6 rounds of 44 spl to 8 rounds of .357).
  • The 38 super is a light-bullet-driven-fast cartridge (for a pistol cartridge); the 44 is a heavy-bullet-driven-slow cartridge.
  • The 38 super started as a law enforcement cartridge for dealing with gangsters committing crimes in towns; the .44 special started as a woods/hunting/rural gun.
  • The 38 super is remains extremely relevant within a particular competitive shooting niche (USPSA/IPSC Open-division) where it is used for the absolute peak performance in the game; I don't know what gun game the 44 special is relevant in, and I'm pretty darn sure it's not the optimal/top choice in anything.
  • 38 supers are for "long action" semi-autos, and won't fit in many popular gun patterns with a shorter action (e.g., won't fit in guns built around 9mm or 40). 44 specials will fit in revolvers with a cylinder length shorter than that required for .41 and .44 magnums.
I would put them in the same category of availability/popularity - generally available in person in limited selections, available online for immediate ordering (barring temporary shortages) in a vast array of flavors, easily reloaded with a wide variety of readily available components. As such, they're not going to be many people's first or second gun. And neither is going to appeal much to the tacticool/operator type, since they don't have any meaningful level of current military or LE use. So there's going to be some overlap in owneship. But that's really about it that I can see.
 
See post # 31, blue text.

If that's his thinking, it's pretty silly. That's like saying coffee is beer for the morning because they're both of similar overall popularity - never mind that one is hot and the other cold, or that one contains a stimulant and one a depressant, or that one often has sugar or milk added and the other never has that but does sometimes have a slice of citrus (which the first never does).
 
If that's his thinking, it's pretty silly. That's like saying coffee is beer for the morning because they're both of similar overall popularity - never mind that one is hot and the other cold, or that one contains a stimulant and one a depressant, or that one often has sugar or milk added and the other never has that but does sometimes have a slice of citrus (which the first never does).

You're waaaaay overthinking this.
 
You're waaaaay overthinking this.

Or Taffin badly underthought it. When one makes an analogy, and the analogy doesn't hold up, expect criticism. If he just meant they're both "conniseur's calibers," he could have just said that. For an analogy to be interesting, it has to, you know, work.

Besides, it's quarantine. When it comes to overthinking: if not now, when?
 
It's in the latest issue of Guns magazine John Taffin's handloading article on Lipstick bullets.
Quote "For the .38 Super — which to me with semi-automatics is what the .44 Special is to sixguns ".
Never owned a .44Special but have had several 44 magnums which I always hand load to 44 special velocities in magnum brass.
One of the most accurate I reload for.;)
Come to think of it kind of funny no one ever invented a .44 caliber for semi-autos.

I think what he's getting at is that both are very good but under utilized rounds. That both have dedicated followers.
 
I like the connoisseur aspect because it rings true, as an avid handloader niche cartridges have a lot of appeal.
I am becoming increasingly impressed by the accuracy of the 38 super, will it replace the .45ACP as a self defense round, not a chance but I would chose it over the punybellum without batting an eye. I love this hobby.:D
 
Never owned a .44Special but have had several 44 magnums which I always hand load to 44 special velocities in magnum brass.
One of the most accurate I reload for.;)
Come to think of it kind of funny no one ever invented a .44 caliber for semi-autos.[/QUOTE]
Why would you want a 44 in a 1911 when the 45 approaches perfection in that particular platform?
 
mavracer
Had to check my safe lol, you sir have good taste.
index.php
As do you my friend! May I say we both have impeccable taste in .38 Supers and .44 Specials!
 
Why would you want a 44 in a 1911 when the 45 approaches perfection in that particular platform?
Never said I wanted one, good Lord I hope no one invents one, I can resist a 1911 in punybellum but one in .44 I don't know.:uhoh:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top