.38 Ammo question

[David E]

Ok, I did.

Seems like at least 4 people were shooting, probably from arm's length away. No caliber mention of the other 3 guns. (couldn't find one ID'ing Allen's as a .38 S&W, but I presume it was, since you cite the case) This interesting anecdotal "evidence" doesn't change anything, tho.

Hey, if you want to risk your life on that gun and cartridge, that's cool with me.

 

[Old Fuff]

Hey, if you want to risk your life on that gun and cartridge, that's cool with me.

I don't want to risk my life on anything smaller then what gets pulled around on wheels, but then.....

Between 1876 when it was introduced and the beginning of World War Two, the .38 S&W cartridge was "the" most popular round used in pocket revolvers, and extensively issued by urban police departments. Up unti the middle 1920's it was standard issue within the New York City Police Department - the largest in the country. One of the Safety Hammerless revolvers I mentioned as a CCW was also carried by Teddy Roosevelt - who I understand knew something about guns...

Now with such a wide distribution for so long a time it must have worked. If it had developed a wide reputation for failure it wouldn't have lasted for so long. In fact, Smith & Wesson didn't get around to offering their mainline .38 M&P (pre-model 10) with a 2" barrel until 1936.

Last but not least, it was adopted as the standard military service revolver round of the entire British Empire and Commonwealth between 1927 and about 1952 - and that included use in both World War Two and the Korean War.

It would seem that if I'm risking my neck I'm in pretty good company...

Do understand though that I do this risking business as seldom as I can...

 

[1911Tuner]

David, you'll have to get the whole story...more than Wiki tells. Books are available. Since I grew up in the neighboring county...Surry County, NC...I know some of the extended families...so I've heard a lot from them. The fight started in the courtroom, and spilled out onto the yard and in the street, and it wasn't all at arm's length...and because it happened in March, and still pretty cold weather in the mountains...the clothing worn by the participants was fairly heavy. Not even the courthouse had central heat in 1912.

And...Most self-defense shootings do occur at arm's length or not much more than that.

And for about the fourth time...nobody is arguing that the .38 S&W is a top choice...only that it's a...bit better than the paper ballistics suggest. Having fired several, I'd place it above the .36 Colt Navy using conical bullets and a full powder charge.

 

[David E]

I followed several links about that story. I don't think any of them were Wikipedia. At least 4 people were shooting, probably more. Allen himself was wounded. It proves any caliber CAN kill, but little else.

I do recall an old article detailing how to load the target wadcutter backwards in that caliber, as opposed to the .38 Special where that practice probably originated. If I only had that caliber and could reload for it for defense (perish the thought!) then I'd prefer soft lead hollowpoints over the RNL it comes loaded with.

As for the NYPD, if it worked so well, why did they change?

I happen to have two old H&R revolvers in .32 S&W Short and .32 S&W Long. Fun guns, but for me, they're for novelty use only. Plus it bothers me that the cylinder doesn't stay locked in alignment with the barrel until the trigger is pulled.

As for the OP wanting to carry this gun, I'm happy when anyone exercises their gun rights.

 

[Oyeboten]

Oooops...doublepost

 

[Oyeboten]

By the way...


An "HKS36" Speed loader will work for just about any .38 S&W chambered Break-Top, regardless of make.

Or...

Any Speed loader intended for a .38 Special J-Frame Smith and Wesson, should work fine for any five-shot .38 S&W C'tg chambering Top-Break.

I just happen to like the old small knurled Aluminum Knob "HKS" ones...


If one intends to carry an old Top-Break...may as well have a charged Speed loader in your Pocket also...

 

[Oyeboten]

Hi David E


You'd asked-

As for the NYPD, if it worked so well, why did they change?

Given that the Top-Break S&W in .38 S&W, or, emulation of it's design by others, was very popular as a Police or other LEO related Arm as well as being popular with the public, from the mid 1870s through the 1930s...and various Swing-Out-Cylinder Revolvers chambered for the .38 S&W being popular as Police and other LEO/Guard/Security-personel related use from the early 1900s till around WWII and even well into the 1950s and '60s...


The question may be more nearly one of 'Why did so many stay with it so long?'

Or, 'Why was it felt to be satisfactory by so many, for over 70 years, or even almost 90 years, in practice, and in actual choice and use?'



I do not have an answer.


Clearly, the Cavalry had found to their own satisfaction, by experience and conord, that .44 Cap and Ball, then, .45 Long Colt, then .45 ACP, and nothing less, would suit the exercise of their responsibilities.


When .38 Long Colt was forced upon them, the Cavalry was not happy, and, (of course,) found the Cartridge wanting.

 

[medmo]

Clyde K., Once a Marine always a Marine. Semper Fi, than I'm still a Marine also. P.I., not the Hollywood version. There is a boat load of options I would rather stake my life on other than your revolver and this round. I own a Iver Johnson in this caliber and use it only for range fun. It's in pretty good shape and think it will last awhile. If it is what I needed to use for defensive purposes I would experiment with hand loaded 200 grain lead loads. From what I remember reading about ballistics is that the 200 grain loads go slower but penetrate deeper.

 

[Old Fuff]

medmo:

I know that your intentions are good, but the use of 200-grain bullets is not recommended in any American-made top-break revolvers, including the superior quality Smith & Wesson's.

The only exceptions I know of are Webley and Enfield revolvers used by the British as military service revolvers. Also 200-grain loads are O.K. in Colt or Smith & Wesson hand ejectors. This is especially so in Smith & Wesson Military & Police (Victory Model's) and Colt Official Police revolvers made during, and for a time after World War Two.

Smith & Wesson invented the top-break revolver as it was made in the United States, and controlled the market until their patents ran out. Thereafter the market was flooded with inexpensive and much lower quality copies. These were attractively priced and literally made by the hundreds of thousands. Most of them were intended to be used with black powder cartridges. One flaw in many is that while the trigger is held back the cylinder will be locked rock solid - but usually with the chamber not concentric with the bore. This causes the bullet to shave lead on one side, spit lead out of the cylinder/barrel gap, and have relatively poor accuracy. The principal exceptions are later production, post-1900 guns made by Iver Johnson and Harrington & Richardson.

While there are better cartridges for personal defense today, it is also true that the .38 S&W cartridge was used in this role for many decades, and some of those that carried it did indeed save their necks. In quality revolvers - especially a hand ejector - it is still viable for it's intended purpose. Later developments do not necessarily erase previous history. A member of the U.K.’s famed S.A.S. once remarked to me that “Americans are far too obsessed with bullet design, while ignorant about more important considerations.” He was in a position, and had the experience to know.

 

[1911Tuner]

Fuff...I've come to the conclusion that the .38 S&W is inadequate for anything larger than an irate Daschund.

 

[zxcvbob]

This causes the bullet to shave lead on one side, spit lead out of the cylinder/barrel gap, and have relatively poor accuracy. The principal exceptions are later production, post-1900 guns made by Iver Johnson and Harrington & Richardson.

So an H&R or Iver Johnson is likely to be a better shooter than a S&W? I didn't expect that.

The only example I've seen and held (but not shot) was a really old S&W, before I knew what they were so I'm not sure which model. It was a Hammerless Safety, with a lot of ornate scrollwork engraved all over it.

 

[David E]

.38 S&W: ---------Weight: 146 grains----Velocity: 685 fps-----Foot Lbs: 150

.38 Long Colt:-----Weight: 150 grains----Velocity: 777 fps-----Foot Lbs: 201


The anemic .38 Long Colt had more power than the .38 S&W yet, inexplicably, was found wanting on the battlefield and was replaced.

 

[zxcvbob]

Maybe more power is sometimes a bad thing? It actually makes sense if the slower bullet destabilized and does loopy-loops in you gut while the faster one has enough energy to keep going straight and punch a clean hole.

Just speculatin'

 

[woad_yurt]

David E:
The .38 S&W was more powerful, maybe 33% more, back in the day. That 150 ft lbs rating is for modern, weaker ammo. I don't know about the .38 LC

 

[Old Fuff]

Fuff...I've come to the conclusion that the .38 S&W is inadequate for anything larger than an irate Daschund.

Well there was this time I was charged by an aggressive grasshopper...

They have BIG grasshoppers in Arizona...

 

[Old Fuff]

.38 S&W: ---------Weight: 146 grains----Velocity: 685 fps-----Foot Lbs: 150

.38 Long Colt:-----Weight: 150 grains----Velocity: 777 fps-----Foot Lbs: 201
The anemic .38 Long Colt had more power than the .38 S&W yet, inexplicably, was found wanting on the battlefield and was replaced.

Ballistic data on the .38 S&W was usually compiled using a 3 ½ or 4 inch barrel. The .38 Long Colt with a 6-inch one. You are making an apples-to-oranges comparison.

“Back when,” handgun ammunition performance was determined by firing bullets through clear pine wood baffles mounted one inch apart. This is rather meaningless except as a method of comparison. At any rate, both the .38 Long Colt and .38 S&W were rated at 4 boards. In my 1951 reference, picked because the data was collected before ammunition makers became worried about lawsuits, the .38 S&W is rated at 179 ft/lbs, where the .38 Colt at 205 – a relatively meaningless spread.

The .38 Long Colt is often maligned as a worthless man stopper, but the Navy adopted the cartridge in converted Colt 1851 Navy cap & ball revolvers, and still used it in other revolvers into the 19th century. As for the Army, they adopted it in 1892, and were still issuing them in the First World War. The only time the cartridge got into trouble was in the Philippine Islands when it proved to be ineffective against Maro tribesmen. Uncle Sam then shipped Colt Single Actions, Followed by the Colt New Service (Model 1909) .45's. Admittedly they did the job, but few people ever considered the New Service to be a pocket pistol, John FitzGerald not withstanding.

Again I will point out that without question there are better cartridges then the .38 S&W in a personal defense handgun. However, this does not mean that one who is armed with a revolver chambered to use it is hopelessly lost in a fight, any more then it is dead certain that someone will survive simply because they are using the latest fad in high performance ammunition.

The issue will be determined by whichever shooter makes the first hit where it counts and disables an opponent so they cannot continue to attack. Doing this does not necessitate using a particular cartridge so long as the bullet has enough velocity to penetrate to where it has to get.

If this weren’t true no one would have ever been disabled or killed by a bullet prior to the time our so-called high performance ammunition became available.

 

[Oyeboten]

The latter period production Smith and Wesson Top-Break Revolvers in .38 S&W and 3rd Model Iver Johnson Revolvers ditto, having positive Indexing Slots to register the Cylinder-Bore align for each shot, when in good mechanical condition, would not shave lead.

Revolvers not having the Indexing slots, relying on the Hand and maybe an up-rising over-travel stop-lug alone to hold the Cylinder in alignment with the Barrel, are likely to have alignment issues and to be Lead Shavers, especially once the Hand is worn from however much prior use.


The 200 Grain Bullet -as Old Fuff reminds - unless in a British/UK Top-Break or US WWII period Swing-out Cylinder Revolver or other Revolver made with the anticipation of shooting it, in my opinion also, would probably over-stress a 'regular' Style (light weight) Top-Break.


Again...if one wishes for optimum performance, definitely exceeding present day off the shelf Ammo...consider to simply duplicate the original Black Powder Loadings.


This will be safe for any of these old "in-good-enough-condition" Revolvers, and, allow them far superior Ballistics than otherwise.


A pure Lead, 156grn, .361 diameter, hollow-base Wadcutter would be a very good close-range defensive-situation Bullet for these, if such were obtainable.



Possibly, some of the smaller, friendlier, more creative Companies who offer Bullets of their own make, could be petitioned to make and offer such a Bullet for those people wishing to be Hand Loading the .38 S&W Cartridge.


In fact...I will contact a few and ask them.

 

[zxcvbob]

A pure Lead, 156grn, .361 diameter, hollow-base Wadcutter would be a very good close-range defensive-situation Bullet for these, if such were obtainable.

I'm pretty sure a 148 grain HBWC at .358" will work just fine if you seat it with half of the bullet hanging out the case to normal .38 S&W overall length. That's what I intend to use, with a case full of 777. Then maybe try to find a Herco or Blue Dot load that duplicates it.

 

[Old Fuff]

zxcvbob:

So an H&R or Iver Johnson is likely to be a better shooter than a S&W? I didn't expect that.

I wouldn't expect that either...

You misunderstood. I was refering to the various copies of S&W top-breaks, none of which equaled the original.

But of the bunch (excluding S&W) the best were made by Iver Johnson and Harrington & Richardson. Of their guns, those that were made with coil mainsprings and positive cylinder latches were the best. Workmanship was close to that of S&W, but the materials they used were very inferior.

David R. Chicoine, who has an excellent reputation as a gunsmith who repairs and restores antique firearms -top-break revolvers in particular - takes the position that of the pocket model top-breaks, the later Smith & Wessons are the only ones to consider for shooting. Part of that evaluation is based on quality, and partly on the degree of accuracy that can be expected.

If seated out in the case, 148-grain/hollow base wadcutters work fine, although they don't have a round nose to help center the bullet if the chambers and bore are not concentric. If you take regular flat-base cast wadcutters (or for that matter other .38 bullets as they come out of the mold and not sized), you'll find them to be close to the .361 diameter you're looking for. If not, the mold can be lapped to produce a bigger bullet.

 

[zxcvbob]

I have 2 boxes of Remington 158 grain SWC bullets that have a round nose (little ridge at the base of the ogive is why they call 'em SWC) and a hollow base. I think those should be perfect. I've loaded a few in .38 Special cases cut off to .38SW length and they shot very well in my Model 15. I used 9mm dies with a .38 Special shellholder to load them. That might work in a .38SW, or the cases might split because they fit too loose. I'll find out when I find me a shooter But I'm also going to try the 148 HBWC's because they are a lot easier to find and closer to the right weight. The 158's will probably shoot high.

I have real .38SW brass on order from Cabela's but they keep delaying the backorder...

 

[1911Tuner]

of the pocket model top-breaks, the later Smith & Wessons are the only ones to consider for shooting. Part of that evaluation is based on quality, and partly on the degree of accuracy that can be expected.

Which brings up a point that I've made a few times...

These little revolvers weren't very accurate, even at their best. At least, none that I've fired have been...not even the ones that were in near pristine shape.

They didn't have to be. They were never intended to be used for target or even plinking...so they didn't really have to be all that durable, either. They were small, portable revolvers meant to be dropped into a pocket, and their role was strictly business rather than recreation. That being the business of providing a means of self defense at powder burning distances. Much easier to carry than a heavier revolver like the Colt SAA, they filled a real need. A tool to be used for personal protection that was both portable and affordable. No tellin' how many rode along with doctors, lawyers, judges, town constables, and merchants during their daily routines...or served as "hideouts" and backup weapons for law dogs of the day. There's also no way of knowing how many lives they've saved...or taken...because they were there instead of being left at home...and they're just as capable of doing the same thing today. Compare the 146-grain bullet at 650 fps to a standard .38 Special 158 grain bullet at a little over 700 from a 1.9-inch Chief's Special, and like the old .38 loading...it's capable of better effectiveness than its paper ballistics suggest. As one poster observed...lacking the power to punch straight through...wandering around in the gut for a while would produce some pretty frightful wounding...not to mention extremely painful.

I know that there are many people who feel that if a sidearm doesn't belch fire and brimstone, with muzzle energies reckoned in the hundreds of foot pounds, it's more useless than a swagger stick...but as Jim Keenan observed...try gettin' shot with one.

 

[David E]

Ballistic data on the .38 S&W was usually compiled using a 3 ½ or 4 inch barrel. The .38 Long Colt with a 6-inch one. You are making an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Not really, since most .38 S&W's (and certainly the one in question) had the shorter barrel. There may have been some 6" barreled .38 S&W's out there, but most were the shorter, pocketable guns.

So the comparison is valid concerning "performance on target."

If the more powerful .38 Long Colt was seriously found wanting, then I'm puzzled how a cartridge of lesser power would be more effective.

Even if they loaded the .38 S&W hotter "back then," it's a moot point, since that's not what's available now.

Placement, as I previously agreed, is king. But you can't always place them exactly where you want to under stress.

 

[Old Fuff]

But you can't always place them exactly where you want to under stress.

But a "misplaced" hit is... well... misplaced. It leaves the attacker still able to continue. Your super-tactical, high-energy bullet, in and of itself doesn't buy you anything. Bigger is of course usually better, but this doesn't always work either. Also the better, bigger cartridge doesn't fit in smaller platforms. "Get a bigger gun," is often good advise, but may not fit the situation or circumstances.

There are many instances of individuals who were hit by several "misplaced" hits made by high performance ammunition, were not incapacited, and survived to talk about it.

Again, we come to the ultimate truth when it comes to a shooting:

The issue will be determined by whichever shooter makes the first hit where it counts and disables an opponent so they cannot continue to attack. Doing this does not necessitate using a particular cartridge so long as the bullet has enough velocity to penetrate to where it has to get.

 

[1911Tuner]

I often wonder where the notion came from...that a deadly encounter will always involve a gunfight...with both sides cranking off rounds at one another across a parking lot. Many of them...if not most...will be defending against a knife or bludgeon, or even a bare-handed assault with a disparity of force issue in play.

Most private citizen deadly force events occur in low light, at arm's length, and in very short time frames. In such situations, precise placement is mostly a matter of luck as the shots are often delivered with one hand...gun at waist level while backpedaling in the attempt to avoid being cut, clubbed, or beaten down by a larger, stronger opponent. There are a good many seasoned street fighters who are capable of crippling or killing you with no weapon at all...in less time than it took me to type that.

Snub-nosed .38s and other guns in the same class were dubbed "Belly Guns" not because they were carried tucked into waistbands...but because they were most often deployed by pressing the barrel against the attacker's belly and pulling the trigger until the gun ran dry. Low mass, low recoil double-action revolvers excel in such situations...for older folks with arthritic hands...women who lack the hand strength to control a more powerful weapon and/or the unwillingness to tote a large-caliber handgun around...and the average Joe who doesn't really have a need to carry a gun, but wants to carry one anyway for that just-in-case scenario that will probably never happen...but could.

Is the belly gun ideal for all possible situations? No...but then again, nothing is...short of a Browning .50 caliber machine gun. Does everybody need to go armed to the teeth with a hi-cap autopistol, draped with spare magazines and a backup piece? No. If I really felt the need to walk around like that, I think I'd stay home.

For the private citizen, the purpose of the carry gun is to get you home alive in the event that somebody attempts to keep you from that. Engaging in a running gunfight with one or more adversaries is a very good way to get killed, and...if you stand your ground longer than is reasonably necessary to extract yourself from the scene...you run the risk of a vacation, courtesy of the state penal system for being a willing combatant.

So, the belly gun doesn't need to possess wrecking ball/knock'em down and stomp on'em power...and in a hand-to-hand fight for life...it can even be counterproductive.

 

[Clyde K.]

Old Fuff & 1911Tuner: You have both stated my position incredibally better than I could ever hope to. I have a .45 that I could (and do) carry but, short of using a shoulder harness, is to hard for me to conceal and still be able to reach. My wife has a 7 shop .32 long, revolver loaded with 98gr Colt New Police. It conceals well, but I'm not totally comfortable with the caliber. Given that the thoughts/rationale expressed by the two of you, (and partially reinforced by others of your esteemed group) so closely mirror mine I am sure you will understand my preference for my Thames. I have been made aware of the mechanical short comings of that type of pistol however, the pistol is in MY hand and I am very confident of it's condition and choose to carry it regardless. I will insure a copy of my obituary is posted on THR in the event I have to use it and it fails.