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

[roscoe]

A lot of the considerations being debated can be addressed with the right ammo, even with a .38. Buffalo Bore hardcast .38+P for the woods, standard softpoints for home defense, fmj for plinking, etc. The OP wouldn't be unarmed even with a less expensive used Model 10. The main thing is to have one and know how to use it.

 

[Mr. Mosin]

A lot of the considerations being debated can be addressed with the right ammo, even with a .38. Buffalo Bore hardcast .38+P for the woods, standard softpoints for home defense, fmj for plinking, etc. The OP wouldn't be unarmed even with a less expensive used Model 10. The main thing is to have one and know how to use it.

Something to that effect, yes.

 

[RealGun]

I don't believe pre-lock Model 10s are rated +p, and just taking someone's word for dismissing that concern is unwise. I thought it useful to again read the OP #1. Also, the velocities needed for bullet performance in 38 Special will require a lighter bullet and longer barrel. That size gun will be more versatile if a model 19 in 357 Magnum shooting at least 140 gr. That said, I wouldn't suddenly start talking about high performance magnums with a model 19.

 

[Mr. Mosin]

I don't believe pre-lock Model 10s are rated +p, and just taking someone's word for dismissing that concern is unwise. I thought it useful to again read the OP #1. Also, the velocities needed for bullet performance in 38 Special will require a lighter bullet and longer barrel. That size gun will be more versatile if a model 19 in 357 Magnum shooting at least 140 gr. That said, I wouldn't suddenly start talking about high performance magnums with a model 19.

I'd hate to think a old Mdl 10 couldn't tolerate a lifetime of the same box of bullets that was bought w/ it when it left the gun store.

 

[RealGun]

I'd hate to think a old Mdl 10 couldn't tolerate a lifetime of the same box of bullets that was bought w/ it when it left the gun store.

Like the Model 19 represented as capable of only occasional use of magnums, the 10 was probably not meant for routine use of high powered 38s.

 

[mcb]

Like the Model 19 represented as capable of only occasional use of magnums, the 10 was probably not meant for routine use of high powered 38s.

Models 19/13 can handle 357 Magnums just fine. What did the K-frames in with 357 Mag was the hot high velocity 125gr and 110gr loads that were popular at the time for personal protection and LEO. These lighter bullet used greater amounts of faster burning propellant that generate more, higher temperature, gases that resulted in the flame cutting issues. If you fed a Model 19/13 heavier 148 gr and up 357 Magnum you could shot a fair amount of that with only minimal accelerate wear.

A model 10 build after 1960 will eat your body weight in 38 Special +P and never even blink.

 

[Mr. Mosin]

Models 19/13 can handle 357 Magnums just fine. What did the K-frames in with 357 Mag was the hot high velocity 125gr and 110gr loads that were popular at the time for personal protection and LEO. These lighter bullet used greater amounts of faster burning propellant that generate more, higher temperature, gases that resulted in the flame cutting issues. If you fed a Model 19/13 heavier 148 gr and up 357 Magnum you could shot a fair amount of that with only minimal accelerate wear.

A model 10 build after 1960 will eat your body weight in 38 Special +P and never even blink.

I meant SAAMI tampering with ammunition manufacturers in '72

 

[RealGun]

Models 19/13 can handle 357 Magnums just fine. What did the K-frames in with 357 Mag was the hot high velocity 125gr and 110gr loads that were popular at the time for personal protection and LEO. These lighter bullet used greater amounts of faster burning propellant that generate more, higher temperature, gases that resulted in the flame cutting issues. If you fed a Model 19/13 heavier 148 gr and up 357 Magnum you could shot a fair amount of that with only minimal accelerate wear.

A model 10 build after 1960 will eat your body weight in 38 Special +P and never even blink.

But the guns do not bear any +p stamp, so what they are capable of firing often is an assumption or our version of folklore, with all due respect. Keep in mind that, if wanting a woods creature gun, the 38 would need to be stretched to its limits. I concede though that such rounds would probably not be used to practice or for other purposes. Getting bullets to expand in SD loads is another case where such loads probably would not be good for the gun if fired a lot. That is where the lighter bullets and fast burning powders can present the same cautions as with the 357 Magnum.

 

[CraigC]

Any post ~1950 steel framed K-frame is factory rated for +P's. This is from S&W. Not to mention that modern +P is only 1500psi over standard, so the gun won't even notice.

Models 19/13 can handle 357 Magnums just fine. What did the K-frames in with 357 Mag was the hot high velocity 125gr and 110gr loads that were popular at the time for personal protection and LEO. These lighter bullet used greater amounts of faster burning propellant that generate more, higher temperature, gases that resulted in the flame cutting issues. If you fed a Model 19/13 heavier 148 gr and up 357 Magnum you could shot a fair amount of that with only minimal accelerate wear.

The .357 has NEVER been loaded with a "fast" powder. The problem arose from those light bullets hitting the thin forcing cone at warp 9 and eventually cracking them. This could've been alleviated with a shorter barrel shank/longer cylinder. Flame cutting is due to the short length of those light bullets and the gases they allow to escape around them as they transition from chamber to forcing cone. Coupled with the gas jet produced by copious amounts of slow burning spherical powder in a tall, relatively narrow column. Those factors combine in a perfect storm. Alter any one of them with heavier bullets or faster powders and the issues go away.

So, does expansion of the bullet after impact matter?

It matters but its effect cannot be quantified in foot pounds or any other metric.

 

[murf]

There are "Ruger only" loads in the .44Mag. The Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ is such a load and Brian Pearce has provided 50,000psi data in Handloader magazine.

note: this is for the redhawk only … not to be used in the ruger Blackhawk (per the pearce article).

murf

 

[Charlie98]

Open carry w/ a belt rig. Perfectly happy with a snub .38 for concealment (it beats any .380). Woods gun, hiking gun, and nightstand gun.

For a woods/hiking gun I'd take a .45 anything over a .38 anything... but as the cartridge size goes up, usually the handgun size... and weight... does, too. Having said that, I wouldn't feel undergunned with a .357 revolver loaded with full-house rounds... unless I'm in Alaska or something.

 

[mcb]

I meant SAAMI tampering with ammunition manufacturers in '72

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.

But the guns do not bear any +p stamp, so what they are capable of firing often is an assumption or our version of folklore, with all due respect. Keep in mind that, if wanting a woods creature gun, the 38 would need to be stretched to its limits. I concede though that such rounds would probably not be used to practice or for other purposes. Getting bullets to expand in SD loads is another case where such loads probably would not be good for the gun if fired a lot. That is where the lighter bullets and fast burning powders can present the same cautions as with the 357 Magnum.

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.

 

[murf]

weight should be a consideration if you are going to hunt/hike with this gun. my 45 cal. ruger Blackhawk, with the 4.625" barrel, weighs in @ 37 ounces. it carrys well on the hip.

luck,

murf

 

[Sistema1927]

When you think of the number of explorers who tackled the wilds of Asia, Africa, and South America with handguns less powerful than the "lowly" .38 Special, and lived to tell about it, one can see that a man could do far worse than a S&W M&P or Model 10 of any vintage.

 

[WrongHanded]

Buffalo Bore claims these velocities for their 158gr .38 Spl +p LSWC.

➤ 1255 fps -- Ruger GP 100, 6-inch barrel, 357 mag.
➤ 1186 fps -- S&W Combat Masterpiece 6-inch barrel, 38 SPL (circa 1958)
➤ 1146 fps -- S&W Mt. Gun, 4-inch barrel, 357 Mag.
➤ 1167 fps -- S&W Mod. 15, 4-inch barrel, 38 SPL (circa 1968)
➤ 1112 fps -- Ruger SP 101, 3-inch barrel, 38 SPL
➤ 1043 fps -- S&W Mod 66, 2.5-inch barrel, 357 mag.
➤ 989 fps -- S&W Mod 340PD, 1 & 7/8-inch barrel, 357 mag.
➤ 1027 fps -- S&W Mod 642 (pre dash), 1 & 7/8-inch barrel, 38 SPL

Seem like factory 158gr .357 Mag usually hits about 1250fps from a 4" barrel. So if the velocities are correct, that's very good performance for .38 Spl.

 

[RealGun]

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.

I am not a woods walker, but it is true that black bears have been seen in town, and I am near habitat. When going out with the little dog I always look around before stepping out, and of course I am always carrying but not with a bear gun per se. Maybe I will need to keep a shoulder rig handy for night time excursions. The Redhawk 45 Colt fits the Alaska shoulder rig I bought for when I owned a S&W 657, N-frame 41 Magnum. I guess I would have to think about what ammo to use, since I won't be wearing hearing protection.

 

[RealGun]

When you think of the number of explorers who tackled the wilds of Asia, Africa, and South America with handguns less powerful than the "lowly" .38 Special, and lived to tell about it, one can see that a man could do far worse than a S&W M&P or Model 10 of any vintage.

Maybe it's just the movies, but I am picturing the person also carrying a rifle.

 

[MaxP]

When you think of the number of explorers who tackled the wilds of Asia, Africa, and South America with handguns less powerful than the "lowly" .38 Special, and lived to tell about it, one can see that a man could do far worse than a S&W M&P or Model 10 of any vintage.

And bias ply tires used to be all the rage. No reason to saddle yourself with something inferior because it worked in the past. JMHO.

 

[MidRoad]

And bias ply tires used to be all the rage. No reason to saddle yourself with something inferior because it worked in the past. JMHO.

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

 

[Mr. Mosin]

Any post ~1950 steel framed K-frame is factory rated for +P's. This is from S&W. Not to mention that modern +P is only 1500psi over standard, so the gun won't even notice.



The .357 has NEVER been loaded with a "fast" powder. The problem arose from those light bullets hitting the thin forcing cone at warp 9 and eventually cracking them. This could've been alleviated with a shorter barrel shank/longer cylinder. Flame cutting is due to the short length of those light bullets and the gases they allow to escape around them as they transition from chamber to forcing cone. Coupled with the gas jet produced by copious amounts of slow burning spherical powder in a tall, relatively narrow column. Those factors combine in a perfect storm. Alter any one of them with heavier bullets or faster powders and the issues go away.



It matters but its effect cannot be quantified in foot pounds or any other metric.

What is defined as a "light bullet" for .38/.357 ?

 

[CraigC]

And bias ply tires used to be all the rage. No reason to saddle yourself with something inferior because it worked in the past. JMHO.

No kidding. They also used to hunt elephants with swords.

I find the statement that "it worked in the past" to be terribly devoid of rather critical details and in a discussion of terminal ballistics, utterly meaningless.

What is defined as a "light bullet" for .38/.357 ?

Anything under ~158gr. Usually characterized as 110-125gr.

 

[MidRoad]

What is defined as a "light bullet" for .38/.357 ?

110-125gr usually

 

[sabbfan]

What is defined as a "light bullet" for .38/.357 ?

158 grain is the standard, 110 or 125's are considered light

 

[reddog81]

I know. Also, .38/.357 is not "wimpy". Touched off a box of .357's through my cousins raggedy Taurus. Couldn't hit the target at ten paces. Fired off a box of .45 Colt's through my buddies Ruger and drove tacks, without beating my hand to pieces. Maybe it was the Ruger fitting me better. Not sure. But I enjoyed shooting the .45 Colt far better than the .357 Magnum.

Was the experience above the basis for your opinion of the 2 rounds? If so you'd probably have the opposite opinion of the rounds had you been shooting the 45 Colt rounds out of a raggedy old Taurus and Shooting the .357's out of the Ruger. How the gun fits your hand, the sights, the trigger and the size of the gun all play an important role on how well you shoot a gun. The .357 is always going to be louder but you can always go down to 38 Special rounds which are going to be much easier to shoot well.

 

[ThomasT]

What is defined as a "light bullet" for .38/.357 ?

Probably any bullet under 140grs. The standard for the 38 Special has always been a 158gr full power bullet and the 148gr target WC loading. But everything from round balls to light weight gallery loads have been loaded in 38 cases.

I have posted this several times when the talk of +P starts. Most factory +P from the big name ammo companies is at best what original 38 Specials were loaded to.

http://shootingwithhobie.blogspot.com/2009/01/p-phenomenon-by-saxonpig.html