.38 Ammo question

[Clyde K.]

Oyeboten. That is similar to mine except mine has plated trigger guard, hammer and barrel release thingy. Also, I have one small area at the end of the barrel where the finish has burned otherwise its nearly a perfect finish. Now that you mention it, I do see the indexing notch difference and have experienced some of the pecularities you described. The IJ in parfticular seems to be a superior weapon. You aren't taking anything away from the Thames, just speaking the truth. The Thames history is extremely sketchy. As best as I can ascertain, they farmed out their entire production (1905-1910) to H&R (most likely) or Hopkins & Allen (least likely). I have it now, and it works, so I'll use it for now. If it weren't in such good shape I'd use my .45 auto until I could find something physically smaller. I am in no hurry though. Not much crime way up here and I probably won't travel anymore until spring.

Thank you for the continuious information. Semper Fi, Clyde

P.S. That was good grouping for a first effort. Looks like you were working them in.

 

[Oyeboten]

Lol...my vision is poor...and, at 10 Yards, all I see is a rough 'blurr'...so...Target Wise, I fire at the center of 'that', and, once done, walk up to see how things had printed...and, turned out they'd printed to one side there on that Target, probably from me 'heeling'.

It's a tiny Revolver...not easy to hold right for me.


Oddly maybe, I am best with an old S&W 'M&P' .38 Special Snubby I have, or, any plain, regular M1911, Colt .45 Auto, far as getting nice 'good' concise groups.


I used to Target shoot a lot years ago, Pistols...always one handed, and, could not see for squat then either, but, I fared well in competitions, no matter, using old Guns with tiny plain sights, against modern Target Sighted and Custom Pistols and every one else shooing two-handed.

I never 'won', but I was often second or third...or fourth...

I'd line up the front Sight with the distal 'blurr', and, seemed like things always worked out alright.

Anyway, it'd been about 20 years since any shooting other than a couple CCW qualifyings, when I did the little Break Top try-out...and, it was semi-rapid fire, likely all five rounds, of each string, in three seconds or less.


If I had any time for practice, I could probably reclaim some lost ground, but, as it is, if on-the-ready, I can draw and deliver fairly forthrightly and in a reasonably alright 'grouping' with just about anything I have...though some I had never tried out before.


You know, your 'Thames' WOULD be happy with Black Powder Loads, and, with a simple single-stage old-style Press or 'Lee' or 'Ideal' or 'Lyman' Field kit, you could re-load easily...and, not be into the doing-so for much dough, either...well, I dunno, 3f Powder, Primers, Lead, Mould, Press or Kit...dies...with patience and some luck, maybe $200.00 and you are 'set' for a long long while.


These, Full-Charge Black Powder Loadings, would almost certainly have superior Ballistics over present day Factory Loadings, and, would not likely ever strain your Revolver one bit.


If you ever have to use it, the doubtless resutling HUGE Smoke Cloud could be a 'plus' too...

 

[BornLoser]

I think that's a neat little gun. I would definitely carry one.

You can carry a .22 LR effectively for self defense.... it doesn't take much to stop a fight, or kill someone.

 

[David E]

potentially spark a I can handle a harder kicking caliber than you p****ing contest

You're taking this waaaay to personally.

The general answer to: "What's the best handgun for defense?" is, "The biggest one you can control."

The gun may end up being a .22, 380, 9mm, .40 or a .45 acp and all of them are "right" for the person in question.

But it is puzzling when someone can handle a larger caliber, but willingly chooses a wimpy load in an antiquated gun.

I hope it works well for you.

 

[Jim K]

In my experience, the big problem for accuracy in most of the old time guns is that the rear sight is a small notch and the front sight is a narrow blade. Both tend to disappear in almost any light condition. Aside from that, the accuracy of most of those old guns is quite good, equal to most modern equivalents.

FWIW, I shoot modern ammo in all my .32 S&W, .32 S&W Long, and .38 S&W revolvers. It is loaded to BP pressure levels and I have never had any problem. A number of old time guns would certainly take higher pressures, but I won't load above factory specs.

Jim

 

[Clyde K.]

My eyesight is also not what it used to be also, so I put a slim piece of safety tape (orange or red) on the back edge of the sight blade. I haven't tried it on the Thames yet, but it works great on my .45, .32, and my rifles. It's funny to think that back in the "good old days" in Marine Recon and in the Red Eye (Scout/Sniper) platoon I used to blacken my front sight blade (rifle or pistol) to aid with sight picture, now I have to doctor them up just to see 'em.

 

[Clyde K.]

I am curious to find out, how many of you have had encounters requiring use of your ccw. Is there a thread/subthread I should address this to?

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Clyde K.,
Since you said this particular weapon will be used up close and personal I'm guessing a .38 S&W "Cowboy Load" will be perfectly safe in your revolver and still serve the intended purpose. Most of the Cowboy loads are lighter and usually only generate the velocities associate with Black Powder loads. I'm guessing the pressures will still be a little higher with smokeless powder but not by much. Ten-X has a 150gr HBFP .38 S&W round. Another option could be the 160gr load from Old Western Scrounger. (but they are currently backordered)

Just another idea to think about that might fit your needs...

 

[1911Tuner]

The old .38 Short&Weak was actually a pretty nasty little cartridge, and perfectly capable of sendin' ya on to glory. It acted a lot like .22 rimfire. It'd get in and wallow around a while before stoppin' who knows where.

There were a few Iver Johnson Owl's Head revolvers in that caliber used by the Edwards and Allen clan to shoot up the Hillsville, Virginia courthouse back in 1912. People fell and died on the spot. Google Hillsville Courthouse Tragedy for an interesting read.

Beware.


If the story is intriguing enough to convince you to make a pligrimage and go see the bullet holes that are still in the walls of the courthouse and get some of the insider skinny from the families of people who were there...you can get a fight started today, depending on which faction you happen to side with. So, listen...but keep your opinions to yourself. Hill people live by the feud...and this one ain't dead yet.

 

[calaverasslim]

Again, I'm with RC on this. The 38 S&W is for sure a great CC weapon. I often carry my 1922 Regulation Police with hand loads or factory. Plenty good enuf for SD.

This old top break? I think I would put it away except for the occasional trip to the range. TOOOOO old and a BP gun at that.

 

[Old Fuff]

Dave E.

In a handgun, I don't think that kinetic energy makes any difference. It’s a meaningless number and nothing more. Ask any surgeon with bullet wound experience and they’ll tell you that they don’t find any evidence of it. Rifles are another matter.

I occasionally carry a Smith & Wesson Safety Hammerless .38 revolver (top-break/5 shot) chambered in .38 S&W, and it isn’t because I lack any other choices. The cartridge was introduced around 1876, and since then a lot of individuals have been planted in the ground because of it. If a bullet hits a vital spot it will more then do the job, and if it doesn’t the most modern of high performance ammunition won’t.

That said, the revolver in question had a cast iron frame and barrel, and neither they nor the cylinder were heat-treated. The best-of-the-breed Smith & Wesson’s had forged steel construction, and the .38 was made as late as 1940, which indicates its popularity.

As for the .380 ACP, it’s a very popular round, and for good reason. But notice that it’s usually loaded with bullets in the 80 to 90+ grain weight range. If you drop the slug usually found in the .38 S&W (146 grains) to .380 weights you can increase velocity without increasing pressure. Personally I wouldn’t bother.

If the Thames proved to be accurate (something I doubt, as they weren’t renowned for that) I wouldn’t hesitate to carry it on rare occasion if I didn’t have something better. I would understand its limitations though.

 

[David E]

Judging from some of these posts, the anemic .38 S&W and even the .22 rimfire is "more than enough" for personal defense. IE; stopping someone, perhaps a 300 pound drug-crazed psycho, who is in the act of trying to kill you BEFORE they accomplish the task.

Could those cartridges do it? Of course, but so could a knitting needle. That doesn't mean they're the best choice, or even a good choice.

If these rounds were so effective, then why does no Law Enforcement agencies issue the .38 S&W or .22 rimfire for duty?

If all I had was a .38 S&W, I certainly wouldn't give up, but I'd also go for face/neck shots only. This requires a level of skill that is not achieved firing only 10 rds, then never firing it again, per the OP.

But that's me.

 

[zxcvbob]

I'm currently looking for a S&W 4th model Hammerless Safety (that will be about 100 years old) and I plan on shooting it and maybe even carrying it. What I haven't decided is whether I'll need to reload for it using black powder or 777, or moderate loads of a slow-burning shotgun powder like Herco or WSF. The conventional wisdom is very light loads of Bullseye. Conventional wisdom is wrong sometimes...

 

[1911Tuner]

Judging from some of these posts, the anemic .38 S&W and even the .22 rimfire is "more than enough"

Didn't see anybody state that...

Any more than anybody stating that all personal atttacks come from a 300-pound drug crazed psycho...


Only that, just because a cartridge isn't capable of knocking King Kong on his keister means that it's completely useless...

And that there have been a lotta graves filled with anemic cartridges...

Yes. We're all aware that lethal often isn't enough to halt an attack in time...

But sometimes it is...

 

[Clyde K.]

You guys are great, full of useful experience based information, a bit of history and, some humor too! I have a new friend (that makes 2 now) who is a local gunnie. He has given my weapon an A+ for condition and range worthiness. Further, if I am not happy with conventional loads or cowboys, we can work on a load for it. I am intrigued by some of your suggestions. Please, let's keep this thread going. It's been very informative.

David E. I did the OP and did NOT ask for a GUN recommendation. I asked about AMMO. You decided to inject an irrelivant comment, then proceeded to eviscerate any following posts that disagreed with your edict. In post #5, in trying to perhaps change the tone of things, I did ask: "What would the preferred caliber for CCW be?", again, not asking for your analysis of my weapon of choice. In post #11 I blithly allowed: "...if it doesn't disintegrate after 10 rounds of .38 S&W I can carry it" ..... "and probably never fire it again.". GET REAL. The entire last sentence, including above citation, was ment in JEST. As to the ability of the weapon, and my ability to handle said weapon in an adversarial situation I must reiteriate "Been there, done that", albeit never against a 300# drug-crazed psycho. Have you? Rant over with.

Gentlemen, I do truely apologize if I have breached THR etiquete, and will try not to do so again.

I highly value and strongly consider any and all data provided by fellow members, and appreciate the time you take to answer my questions. Clyde

 

[zxcvbob]

The British determined that the .38 S&W loaded with 200 grain bullets created tissue damage totally out of proportion to its size and energy. About like a hit with a .45. The theory was that the bullets were only minimally stabilized in the air and started tumbling as soon as they hit a soft target. This may be useless information because:

1. Their old Webley's and S&W Victory models were a lot beefier than an I-frame top-break.
2. The twist rates might be different.

 

[Clyde K.]

I think the effect of looking at the business end of a revolver and seeing that the bullets in the cylinder are much bigger than .22 might deter a number of people. As I stated in post #15, recognizing and respecting a weapons limitations should play a part in selecting a CCW. Also, recognizing and respecting ones physical capabilities should also come in to play (i.e., can I drop the 300# drug-crazed psycho with my pea shooter, or do I run like hell?). Maybe I should carry my .45 1911 model, with FJM wadcutters (alternating with plain lead wadcutters and hollow points).

 

[Old Fuff]

Dave E.

You're missing my point and Tuner's too. We are not saying that bigger isn't better, or that a mid-bore bullet going at low velocity is the ideal cartridge for personal combat. What we are saying is that these older cartridges can still get the job done.

Why, you must wonder, would someone with well over a half century of experience carry a relic? The answer is, because I feel comfortable with it and am sure it will do what's ever required under the circumstances. On those occasions when I believe otherwise (which is most of the time) I carry something else.

What makes you think that one of the new super-performance cartridges, in and of themselves, will put down a "300 pound drug-crazed psycho, who is in the act of trying to kill you BEFORE they accomplish the task." To do what you need to do, you still have to hit a limited number of vital organs. Otherwise this 300-pound drug-crazed psycho, who is in the act of trying to kill you, is just going to be annoyed.

In and of itself, high performance ammunition is no guarantee of success, but too many people use it as a crutch or security blanket to avoid the reality of understanding the prime importance of marksmanship and bullet placement.

All we are saying is that if these older cartridges worked before they will still do so now, if the shooter does his part. If the bullet is well placed it doesn’t matter how big, drugged up, or crazy the other guy is, and if the bullet is not well placed it won’t insure your survival no matter what kind it is.

If you believe otherwise explain how anyone was ever seriously wounded or killed by a handgun prior to the 1960’s – especially with a smaller caliber one.

 

[Clyde K.]

zxcvbob. Seems to me that the only (relevant) information that is useless is that which is not considered. JMHO.

 

[Clyde K.]

Old Fuff, Old Fuff, Old Fuff!!! Your last post was a MASTERPIECE.

I would like to ad that going to the range, even every other day, does not "proficiency" make. Being another person with well over half a century of experience, some of which in combat, I am confident that that my competence with firearms will stand me in good stead.

 

[Oyeboten]

Far as I recall reading, many Police Department's Uniformed personel did used to carry 5-shot Top Break Revolvers chambered in .38 S&W, and also .32.

As did various Guard, Seurity personel and so on.

US made Top Break Revolvers chambering the .38 S&W also found a good welcome overseas, and, many were exported or purchased by Foreign Agencies or Governments.


I am confident that their original Black Powder Loadings would be more powerful than present Factory loadings, unless out of a very short Barrel.

Probably, a long Barrel Break-Top, shooting original BP .38 S&W Loadings, would equal the terminal Ballistics of a modern short Barreled .38 Special shooting Standard 158 grn RNL Loads.


The Short Barrel 'Snubby', Swing-out-cylinder S&W five-shot revolvers, such as the 'Terrier' or it's predecessors, and, also, the very similar Colt 'Bankers Special' were chambered for the .38 S&W Cartridge, and, were popular Arms even up into the 1950s, possibly even 1960s.

Similarly the Colt 'Police Positive' was usually a .38 S&W Chambering, though they were not available as 'Snubby' versions usually...and their four-inch version was a very common Police Revolver in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, even 1950s.


One thing also, in all this...generally, people were smaller 80 or a 100 years ago.

The average War-Between-the-States or WWI Uniform would barely fit most 11 year olds now.


People, and hence, possible assailants, now, are likely to be bigger/thicker people than was the case when these small Break Tops were in their Hay Day.

 

[rcmodel]

In those pre-antibiotic & penicillin days, getting shot with one in the belly was almost sure to result in a slow painful death from infection.

Even a hit to a limb might result in amputation if it got infected.

I have read that experienced gunmen would rather take a through & through wound from a larger caliber then to have a dirty outside lubricated bullet stuck in their craw.

rc

 

[Oyeboten]

Hi rcmodel,


Yes...


Although any able Surgeon of the day, if making a large-enough opening incision, finding the perforations/lacerations in the Intestines, suturing these...and, removing any foreign debris the Bullet carried in...washing out the abdominal cavity and the Intestines with any of various simple Herbal infusions, simple dilute Peroxide, dilute Carbolic Acid or other disinfectant...the Patient would be fine and have an excellent prognosis.

Intestines are really quite strong and elastic, so, usually, if a low or medium power Handgun wound, there might not even be very many perforations, or, might not even be any, if the person had a strongly developed musular abdomon wall.


Disinfectants/Antibacterials were poo-poo'd by mainstream Medicine, dismissed as 'Quackery', and those who favored the use had to be pretty quiet/discrete about it or face ridicule or being fired or other hardship.


Sad...the knowledge was there, and readily demonstrable, but, not believed very widely...

It was a long hard uphill battle.

 

[David E]

David E: Judging from some of these posts, the anemic .38 S&W and even the .22 rimfire is "more than enough"

1911 Tuner: Didn't see anybody state that...

BornLoser said this: You can carry a .22 LR effectively for self defense.... it doesn't take much to stop a fight, or kill someone.

1911 Tuner said this: The old .38 Short&Weak was actually a pretty nasty little cartridge,

Maybe I'm misinterpreting those statements.

Any more than anybody stating that all personal atttacks come from a 300-pound drug crazed psycho...

I didn't say, "all." Oh, wait, now I get it..... we get to pick our assailant? Cool !!!

Yes, placement is king, but it might be hard to place shots with the required surgical precision under stress. Especially for someone that only expects to fire 10 shots, but maybe he's unusually gifted or lucky.

Old Fluff, how do you know the .38 S&W "worked before?" Have any stats or citations to that effect?

Granted, from five feet, a .22 LR thru the eye is just as deadly as a .500 magnum thru the eye. I never argued otherwise. But the smaller you go in caliber or power, then the more precise you need to be.

I'm sure most here acknowledge that "stopping" and "killing" are not necessarily the same thing. If we're citing "the old days," then let's remember that many "killings" were the result of infection days or weeks after getting shot.

I've stated twice before that I hope the OP's choice works for him. Wait, make that three times!

 

[1911Tuner]

Fluff, how do you know the .38 S&W "worked before?"

Google the Hillsville Courthouse Massacre. The most prevalent gun in that fracas was the Iver Johnson Owl Head revolver in .38 S&W, and several people who were shot that day fell to the shot...and died where they fell.

It might be interesting to note that Floyd was shot several times by Dexter Goad, who had a Colt .38 Auto, along with one of the court officers who had one as well...and he made it out of the courthouse, and was nearly into the saddle of his Quarter Horse when he collapsed.

The reason for the choice of weapons was simple. Economics, availability, and concealability.

Floyd Allen sold'em at his general store in Fancy Gap for about 3 or 4 bucks...and everybody and his brother had one...including all of the Allen-Edwards clan who were in attendance.

And it's Fuff...not Fluff.