American Rifleman: Testing the 38 Special

[labnoti]

To be clear, I mentioned the revolvers we already have that are rated for 35,000 psi: they're chambered in .357 and 9mm. The .38 Special loaded anywhere up to 35,000 psi is a better and more versatile cartridge than .38 Special +P or +P+, and it is better than .357 Magnum cartridges in short-barreled revolvers for the two reasons I mentioned. I haven't advocated anything. I just stated why it has been loaded that way for 88 years.

 

[labnoti]

That's so it does not fit in 38 special chambers.

That's what I used to believe, but so many years history of the .38/44 proves it is not so. The .357's case was extended by the work of Phillip Sharpe because the extra case capacity was needed for a greater volume of slow burning powder. They were already shooting loads in .38 Special as high as 42,000 psi and this has continued on since 1930. They did not need a longer case for safety. They needed a longer case to get even more velocity from a larger amount of slower burning powder while keeping peak pressure down. Those larger volumes of slower burning powders are only relevant to a gun with a long barrel.

 

[ray15]

That's what I used to believe, but so many years history of the .38/44 proves it is not so. The .357's case was extended by the work of Phillip Sharpe because the extra case capacity was needed for a greater volume of slow burning powder. They were already shooting loads in .38 Special as high as 42,000 psi and this has continued on since 1930. They did not need a longer case for safety.

The .38/44 is but a blip on the map of 38 special history. It was a natural evolution of the cartridge but a bad idea in practice because of its physical compatibility with arms not safe for its use. The introduction of the .357 magnum corrected this oversight. But however you look at physical compatability, once you load past the 17,000 psi pressure level, it ain't 38 special anymore. Obviously anything you do to a cartridge that produces greater velocity with the same bullet is going to make it more powerful..

They needed a longer case to get even more velocity from a larger amount of slower burning powder while keeping peak pressure down. Those larger volumes of slower burning powders are only relevant to a gun with a long barrel.

You can tell that's not the case just by looking at the relationship between the case length and the OAL. .38 special uses a 1.155" case with a max OAL of 1.550". This results in the bullet protruding from the case some .395". For .357 mag the case length is 1.290", with the max OAL just 1.59", producing a protrusion of .30". If increased case volume were the motivation you would not seat the bullet .095" deeper in the case, realizing less effective volume as a result. It is also instructive to remember that 2400 was the magnum pistol powder of choice in 1934. It doesn't need quite the case volume of H110/W296, which was introduced in the '60s.

But whether you load it with 2400 or H110, .357 magnum will indeed outperform anything in a 38-length case in all barrel lengths. I don't know where you get the idea it's a long barrel-only phenomenon. Magnum powders will gain more than with barrel length than faster powders, but if you have the case capacity to use them at design pressures the produce greater velocity regardless of the barrel length compared. .357 kicks like a mule in a snubbie, but it's still more powerful.

 

[labnoti]

But whether you load it with 2400 or H110, .357 magnum will indeed outperform anything in a 38-length case in all barrel lengths. I don't know where you get the idea it's a long barrel-only phenomenon. Magnum powders will gain more than with barrel length than faster powders, but if you have the case capacity to use them at design pressures the produce greater velocity regardless of the barrel length compared. .357 kicks like a mule in a snubbie, but it's still more powerful.

That is not my experience. While a .357 magnum loaded with a slow burning powder has the potential for high velocities from a short barrel, the greater the mean portion of powder that is unburnt when the bullet base exits the muzzle, the greater the potential for a low velocity shot. So while the highest velocities may be observed with slow powders in short barrels, the extreme spreads are also greater. If you look only at mean velocities of five shot groups, the .357 looks better in a short barrel than it really is, because you hit a target with the velocity of a bullet, not the mean velocity of a group.

Pressure should always be considered over time, and a powder's burn rate has to be considered in the pressure it's under. If we seat a bullet closer to the web and reduce the initial combustion cylinder volume, or if we use a faster burning powder, we move the pressure peak earlier on the time axis. That creates more area under the pressure curve on that early part of the time axis. But a fast burning powder is going to be consumed earlier on the time axis and the area under it's pressure curve later on the axis will be lower. This is also true for a powder with a slower burn rate that is burning under greater pressure. While the slower powder burning under earlier pressure will still have more area under the pressure curve later on the time axis than the faster powder, it is the slow burning powder with a later pressure peak that is going to have the most area under the pressure curve later on the time axis -- unless the bullet exits the barrel too soon.

I used to think the .38 Special had excess case capacity as a relic of it's black powder origin. I no longer think that. Instead, it's the SAAMI pressure rating that is the relic. If the bullet were seated deeper and closer to the web, there would be less initial combustion cylinder volume. That initial cylinder volume determines how much of any given powder can be loaded, not because of the physical space limit, but because of how much pressure the burning powder mass will create in that space. Larger cylinder volumes allow for more powder not only because there's more space to contain it, but because they result in peak pressure later on the time axis. Since the maximum pressure is occurring when the bullet is farther down the barrel, it takes the combustion of a greater mass of powder to reach peak pressure in that enlarged combustion cylinder. That greater mass of powder will continue to create a higher pressure level later on the time axis.

This is why .38 Super has more potential than 9x19mm. And the .38 Super Automatic uses the exact same case as the .38 ACP. The difference? The only difference is 36,500 psi instead of 26,500psi. Is .38 Super a bad idea because it can be chambered in .38 ACP guns?

This is also why .38 Special has more potential than 9x19 and .38 Super. Yes, you could say that .357 has more potential than the shorter brass cylinders of the same diameter, but at some point as you extend the cartridge longer and longer, you cannot get any more powder to burn within a pressure limit before the bullet exits. And as the mean portion of unburnt powder increases, so does the extreme spread and standard deviation of the percent powder burned before base exits muzzle, and consequently the ES and SD of the velocity of a set of bullets fired. That all happens sooner when the barrel is shorter.

 

[ray15]

There's no consistency issue with 357 mag in a 2" barrel. For the four loads I pulled from the lucky gunner tests I linked early in this thread, 2 showed better standard deviation (bolded) in the 2" gun than they did in the 4" gun. And all produced ballistics beyond any flavor of 38 load.

Buffalo Bore 125 Grain Barnes XPB HP
2" 4"
1403 1631
1426 1640
1426 1646
1432 1649
1437 1655
13.0 9.1
https://www.luckygunner.com/357-magnum-125-grain-barnes-xpb-hp-buffalo-bore-20-rounds#geltest

Corbon 110 Grain JHP
2" 4"
1234 1395
1234 1405
1241 1416
1270 1430
1277 1445
20.7 19.8
https://www.luckygunner.com/357-mag-110-grain-jhp-corbon-20-rounds#geltest

Hornady American Gunner 125 Grain JHP XTP
2" 4"
1108 1344
1114 1372
1124 1376
1134 1381
1147 1420
15.6 27.2
https://www.luckygunner.com/357-mag-125-gr-jhp-ftx-hornady-american-gunner-25-rounds#geltest

Federal 130gr. Hydra Shok
2" 4"
1145 1351
1151 1402
1183 1407
1191 1433
1207 1443
26.5 35.8
https://www.luckygunner.com/federal-357-mag-ammo-for-sale-357mag130jhpfed-20#geltest

 

[labnoti]

That wasn't the comparison though. Nobody is arguing that .357 is slower or less consistent than .38 Special in any barrel length. The comparison is with a short barrel, .38/44 rounds vs. .357 with the slower powder necessary to make them faster than .38/44.

 

[ray15]

That is not my experience. While a .357 magnum loaded with a slow burning powder has the potential for high velocities from a short barrel, the greater the mean portion of powder that is unburnt when the bullet base exits the muzzle, the greater the potential for a low velocity shot. So while the highest velocities may be observed with slow powders in short barrels, the extreme spreads are also greater. If you look only at mean velocities of five shot groups, the .357 looks better in a short barrel than it really is, because you hit a target with the velocity of a bullet, not the mean velocity of a group.

That wasn't the comparison though. Nobody is arguing that .357 is slower or less consistent than .38 Special in any barrel length. The comparison is with a short barrel, .38/44 rounds vs. .357 with the slower powder necessary to make them faster than .38/44.

You yourself, in the quote above, claimed that short barrels posed problems for .357 loads because the burn rate of the powder was too slow for short barrels, resulting in greater extreme spreads. This is simply not true. Full-power 357 is no less consistent in a 2" barrel than it is in a 4" one. And since the charge fills the case, it can be more consistent than 38 defensive loads where case fill and position sensitivity are substantial factors.

 

[pete950]

To answer a question, "why no one make Cirillo's Safe Stop Waductter".
The person who made the bullets for him Fuzzy Fletcher told me When Jim passed his son did not want
move forward with the project.

I am currently the owner of the press that make the bullets and I also have the load data.

 

[labnoti]

You yourself, in the quote above, claimed that short barrels posed problems for .357 loads ....

No, I did not. You chopped half my assertion off in restating it. Instead of repeating myself again, please consider the ballistics possible from .38 Special case loaded to 35,000 psi. Now consider for a given bullet, the .357's bullet base can be moved no more than 0.040" farther out. This creates 0.004 cubic inches (or 0.066 cc) more volume. To give an idea of how much space this is, this is just enough room for exactly 1 more grain of H110. Theoretically, you could load that extra 1 grain, but you don't need to in order to achieve the same velocity. All you need to do is seat the bullet deeper and burn the powder faster at a higher pressure and you will get the same velocity, and still within the peak pressure limit. So what good is the extra 0.066cc of space? It can only be used with a load of powder that will burn slow enough to generate the peak pressure late enough on the time axis that a velocity is generated which a tighter load cannot match without exceeding the maximum pressure. Utilizing that later peak pressure and additional powder mass can only be effective with a long barrel.

It is pointless to continue arguing this. I hear more opinion that .357 magnum produces too much recoil in the lightweight, short-barreled revolvers that continue to be popular. It's an academic point that the .38 Special loaded to 35,000 psi can match .357 ballistics in short-barreled guns. The .38 Special for these guns is not well-served by loading it to the level of recoil energy a .357 magnum produces. On the other hand, standard pressure .38 Special routinely comes up short on standardized testing for penetration and expansion. The simple solution is to not limit the loads to 17,000 or 20,000 psi.

If you carried .38 Special, why would you want to limit the cartridge you carry with it to a pressure level that is compatible with antique guns from the 1800's? At least come up to the technology of 1930 and the .38/44. (Note I did not assert that guns don't continue to be made having those low pressure limits, but asked why you would want that). Now you could say, a stronger gun cylinder and frame is capable of firing a more powerful cartridge and you don't want to possess the capability to safely fire a cartridge that might cause you to encounter more recoil, like a 9mm. Yes, some people can say, "9mm has too much recoil," and for them, there is .380 auto. The notion that .38 Special should be limited to those levels of energy in order to maintain compatibility with antique guns and replicas is absurd and people have ignored that notion for 88 years.

 

[USBP379]

If you carried .38 Special, why would you want to limit the cartridge you carry with it to a pressure level that is compatible with antique guns from the 1800's? At least come up to the technology of 1930 and the .38/44.

I don't disagree with you and think we've already seen companies produce "hot" 38 Special. But, rather than hotrod the 38, they've chosen to download the 357 to achieve the same result. Speer has a "short barrel" 357 load, Federal has a 130gr Hydra-Shok Low Recoil and Buffalo Bore has a couple different "short barrel low flash" loads. These loads are no doubt more effective, terminally, than 38SPL standard pressure or +P yet without being full-on obnoxious.

I tried to make a similar point about the 44 Special about a year ago. Why limit such a grand old cartridge to a pressure spec that's not even as high as 45 ACP? Colt and S&W revolvers worked fine with 45 ACP back in the day. Surely these same frames would easily handle a 44 Special loaded to the same pressure limit. I'm not talking about full-on 44 Magnum but rather a 44 Special +P that sets a pressure standard for loads like 7.5gr of Unique with a 240 or 250 gr bullet. Handloaders have been using loads like this for decades so they've been proven safe even if the industry doesn't acknowledge this.

 

[mcb]

Like it or not the pressure specs are there to make ammunition safe in as many firearms as is reasonably possible. Once SAAMI sets a spec they cannot change it without opening up a huge can of liability issues. Very few of the commercial ammunition manufactures are going to step outside of SAAMI again due to liability issues.

 

[Zendude]

I don’t know that limiting the pressure of 38 special is only because of antique guns. There are many revolvers made today that are unable to handle high pressure loads beyond 20k psi. The difference between a 38 revolver and 357 revolver is more than just the different cylinder length.

 

[mcb]

I don’t know that limiting the pressure of 38 special is only because of antique guns. There are many revolvers made today that are unable to handle high pressure loads beyond 20k psi. The difference between a 38 revolver and 357 revolver is more than just the different cylinder length.

Agreed, SAAMI set the pressure limit (and a bunch of other specification) when the cartridge is accepted as a SAAMI cartridge and then firearms manufacture use those specification when designing and testing a new firearm for that cartridge. You can cut a fair amount of weight and/or cost out of a revolver for the 38 Special vs 357 Magnum due to those pressure limits. Example: The more common place aluminum alloy of a 38 special J-frame is a lot cheaper than the aluminum with scandium alloy used in the 357 Mag J-frames.

 

[USBP379]

I do think the better option for personal defense is likely to be a light 357 Magnum vs a hot 38 Special. There are a few 357 loads tailored to the personal protection market but probably not enough. We have a couple offerings from Buffalo Bore and a few more from Speer but that's about it.

Given a 2" barrel, I think the best we can hope for is to duplicate 9mm 4" performance. As an example, it should be possible to take a Barnes 110gr TAC-XP and propel it at 1,200 FPS from the snubby Magnum. This should effectively provide terminal performance equal to the Barnes 115gr 9mm +P without being terribly obnoxious to shoot. The same should be possible with something like a 147gr Speer Gold Dot. I don't think it would be too big a task to push a 147 @ 1,000 FPS from a short barrel. This is only slightly heavier than the Speer 135gr "Short Barrel" load but the additional mass would likely improve the overall performance. The same should be true of the Federal HST. A 124gr HST could easily be pushed to 1,150 FPS from a short barrel 357 but we're probably not going to get there with a 38 +P or +P+

Given the renewed interest in concealed carry revolvers I'm hoping the ammo companies will give us a few more options...

 

[kidneyboy]

To answer a question, "why no one make Cirillo's Safe Stop Waductter".
The person who made the bullets for him Fuzzy Fletcher told me When Jim passed his son did not want
move forward with the project.

I am currently the owner of the press that make the bullets and I also have the load data.

Looks like your post is getting lost in the "somebody on the internet is wrong" discussion.

 

[roo_ster]

I do think the better option for personal defense is likely to be a light 357 Magnum vs a hot 38 Special. There are a few 357 loads tailored to the personal protection market but probably not enough. We have a couple offerings from Buffalo Bore and a few more from Speer but that's about it.

Given a 2" barrel, I think the best we can hope for is to duplicate 9mm 4" performance. As an example, it should be possible to take a Barnes 110gr TAC-XP and propel it at 1,200 FPS from the snubby Magnum. This should effectively provide terminal performance equal to the Barnes 115gr 9mm +P without being terribly obnoxious to shoot. The same should be possible with something like a 147gr Speer Gold Dot. I don't think it would be too big a task to push a 147 @ 1,000 FPS from a short barrel. This is only slightly heavier than the Speer 135gr "Short Barrel" load but the additional mass would likely improve the overall performance. The same should be true of the Federal HST. A 124gr HST could easily be pushed to 1,150 FPS from a short barrel 357 but we're probably not going to get there with a 38 +P or +P+

Given the renewed interest in concealed carry revolvers I'm hoping the ammo companies will give us a few more options...

How about 4" bbl .38spl +P perfromance? 158gr LSWCHP vs 147gr JHP at ~1000fps.

.38spl +P, as loaded by Underwood & Buffalo Bore, is enough to manage the task. Both their 158gr LSWCHP gas-checked offerings push their pills fast enough to reliably expand and penetrate satisfactorily out of a ~2" bbl revolver. Roughly similar to the canonical FBI load from Remington (.38spl +P 158gr LSWCHP) from a 4" bbl.

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/revolver-ballistics-test/
http://hipowersandhandguns.com/38 Special 158gr LSWCHP.htm

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=108
https://www.underwoodammo.com/colle...-hollow-point-gas-check?variant=7865929203769

 

[Gary A]

Re today’s pressure: when I became interested in handguns around 1994, I remember 38 spl std pressure was 17,000 psi and plus p was 18,500 psi. Today std pressure remains 17,000 but plus p is listed at 20,000 psi. I’m thinking a 158 grain lead swchp at 18,500 psi is easier on an older revolver than a jacketed 130 or 135 grain bullet at 20,000 psi.

 

[mcb]

Re today’s pressure: when I became interested in handguns around 1994, I remember 38 spl std pressure was 17,000 psi and plus p was 18,500 psi. Today std pressure remains 17,000 but plus p is listed at 20,000 psi. I’m thinking a 158 grain lead swchp at 18,500 psi is easier on an older revolver than a jacketed 130 or 135 grain bullet at 20,000 psi.

SAAMI has never changed its specification for 38 Special +P. Since the +P designation for 38 Special was accepted by SAAMI it has always been 20,000 PSI (coincidentally 20,000 CUP too in this case). The liability of changing such as specification is too large. Once SAAMI accepts a pressure specification it is all but set in stone.

 

[USBP379]

.38spl +P, as loaded by Underwood & Buffalo Bore...their 158gr LSWCHP gas-checked offerings push their pills fast enough to reliably expand and penetrate satisfactorily out of a ~2" bbl revolver.

Here's the bullet Buffalo Bore is using for that load. I wouldn't mind getting a box to mess with. Load them up fairly hot in 38 and fairly light in 357 and see how they perform:

https://rimrockbullets.com/xcart/g-ch-38-357-158-gr-swc-hp-per-100-in-a-plastic-ammo-box.html

Another option, although without the gas check, might be this bullet from Matt's Bullets:

http://www.mattsbullets.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=65&products_id=323

And one more, just for good measure (scroll towards the bottom):

https://www.andersonballistics.com/our-products.html

 

[RPZ]

From years of killing game I want my SD weapon to deposit as much of its energy into the BG and not wasted on over penetration. As a civilian in a self defense situation the idea I have to shoot through walls or car doors is absurd. I beg the powers of the universe from my knees I NEVER have to test my theory.

Ok, so you are not in the military. Car doors? How about glass? You think you could never encounter some badguys in a car? Could be in a parking lot at the local supermarket. A gas station, or a thousand other places. Badguys do drive cars.

 

[RPZ]

I'd like to eventually learn of its usage in some LE shooting incidents (either off-duty or when used in a Secondary weapon), if only to see how it does when encountering bony structures (sternum, ribs, humerus, shoulder capsule from an oblique angle, etc).

Since 110gr in a .38 S&W Spl is just a little bit heavier than a heavy .380ACP (102gr GS, for example), I'd be curious how it fares in difficult conditions when compared to either a middle weight JHP (125-135gr) or the more pedestrian velocity all-lead 148-158gr loads (but with more flat meplat surface).

Considering the intended retirement CCW role for which I use my snubs (formerly a common off-duty choice), I'm a bit less concerned about potential oblique angles, and more concerned about direct angles. I'm also not dissatisfied with 10"-11" penetration in gel testing for a role which doesn't involve a "duty" situation. Now that I'm retired I'm not going to be involved in on-view or dispatched situations anymore, invoking peace officer powers and actively inserting myself and intervening in situations which don't directly involve my personal daily activities. Trouble is going to have to actively seek me out.

Even so, I think it was back in 2015 some of the statistics for officer-involved shootings (as discussed in an armorer class in 2016) revealed that 88% of those shooting occurred between 3-7yds. In other words, up close, dynamic, rapidly evolving and chaotic (some of the words often heard in official descriptions of such things). This is where I still find my J-frames to perform well for me, when it comes to demanding training drills and quals. Handy and fast.

Needs to be tested on animals. Maybe some smaller feral pigs.

 

[ThomasT]

A .38 Special loaded to higher pressures than +P+ spec is properly called a .38/44 and the first guns made for it were called .38/44 Heavy Duty.

Didn't anyone read the "shootingwithhobie" link I posted in post #51?

 

[ATLDave]

I find it interesting that the full wadcutter is so well regarded when ER doctors and trauma surgeons supposedly can't tell the difference between a wound caused by 9mm and a wound caused by 45 ACP.

Of course, this assumes that the wound characteristics present ~30-90 minutes after a shooting are indicative of their effect at the time of the shooting. I think that's a very suspect assumption.