I like the .38 super and have owned several. The one I now own has a custom Bar-Sto stainless barrel and adjustable sights. A 1911 set up as mine is represents an accurate and powerful weapon without the recoil of larger rounds. It's a handloader's dream.
Is the .38 Super worth it?
- Thread starter Josh45
- Start date
- Status
Vern Humphrey
Member
As I said, a properly set up .38 Super can give a .357 a run for its money.
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
Vern, I don't think those Taurus 1911's have ramped barrels. That's going to make pushing a 38 Super at it's maximum potential though the gun unsafe. He can still get respectable velocities, but not stompy Major Power Factor velocities with it.
I've found Hodgdon longshot to work very good for 38super efficient and accurate with nice velocity. As I stated earlier if you can find 150gr hard cast SWC they work beautifully for a general woods load. Some of the 147 JHPs would work vvery good too. I'm just cheap.
One_Jackal
member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 542
I don't see any .38 load being suitable for hunting. You have to find the deer after you shoot it. A .38 isn't going to create a large enough wound channel to create a blood trail you can follow without the aid of a dog. Most deer are shot during low light conditions. It's not like you can see a few drops of blood here and there. A .40 cal is the minimum load I would use for hunting.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Oh, I don't recommend going above loading manual maximums. But you can drive a 158 grain bullet to well over 1,000 fps without straining anything.
Would you consider the .357 adequate for deer?
Jim Watson
Member
Maximum potential here defined as "grossly overloaded."
If you can get your business done with a 124 gr bullet at 1383 fps (Lyman) you will be fine with a standard barrel.
The main advantage of .38 Super is its OAL tailored to the Colt action length. More reliable than 9mm but not enough more powerful for me to pick it on that alone.
My 1901 Sears reprint shows the .38 Colt Auto at 1300 fps, but with a 105 gr bullet.
Never saw that combination anywhere else.
Last edited:
Good to now I shouldn't worry about it but I will check if the barrel is ramped or not on it to see about the max stuff. Obviously I will start low and work my way up in this particular firearm.
As for the hunting part OneJackal, It will be a sidearm if I do take it with me
Not the primary. That is what my 30-06 is for.
As for the hunting part OneJackal, It will be a sidearm if I do take it with me
Not the primary. That is what my 30-06 is for.
SharpsDressedMan
member
The necessity for a ramped barrel is overrated and misunderstood. The 9x23 Colt was originally designed as a non-ramped barrel by Colt, and works safely at higher pressure than the .38 Super. The difference is a properly designed (aka "tight") chamber and brass (strengthened in the right places). It has been rumored that a stock type Bar-Sto barrel for the .38 Super can even be used with 9x23 ammo as is. If I had some 9x23 brass, I'd give it a test, as my gun has a Bar-Sto.
threefeathers
member
Interesting that the .357 Sig was developed to equal a cartridge we already had.
Jim Watson
Member
The .357 Sig was developed to match the .357 Magnum from a 4" or shorter revolver barrel.
It was also designed to fit the magazine and slide stroke of the .40 cal Sig Sauer P229 and pretty soon picked up in the same action length Glocks.
The .38 Super had two shortcomings there. It wouldn't fit the more common actions already in production and it wasn't NEW.
It was also designed to fit the magazine and slide stroke of the .40 cal Sig Sauer P229 and pretty soon picked up in the same action length Glocks.
The .38 Super had two shortcomings there. It wouldn't fit the more common actions already in production and it wasn't NEW.
One_Jackal
member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 542
@Vern Humphrey yes, I do hunt with a 357 magnum. But it shoots a 38 cal bullet much faster than a 38 spl does. The 38 super in a +P load does approach 357 energy. But you are stuck handloading your ammo. I try to avoid calibers for hunting that can't be found at walmart. Hunting is usually done in the sticks. I don't want to waste precious hunting time trying to chase down ammo. I retired a Browning I loved to hunt quail with because 16 ga shells are getting hard to find.
Last edited:
NO is the answer to your original question. You would be much better served with 10x25mm weapon. Last .38Super 1911 by Colt in box had asking price of $1400 which was a deal according to someone that examined it. No thanks.
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
SharpsDressedMan said:
It's not over-rated. Guys who ran IPSC race guns to make Major ramped the barrels because if they didn't, they ran the risk of blowing a case. They also loaded them with Small Rifle primers, which I do anytime I run a hot 38 Super or 9x23 load through mine.
You might get away with a Major 38 Super load in an unsupported barrel on the first loading of the brass. But the chances of a blown case increase substantially when you run them through a second loading. The conditions are much the same as a reloaded .40 S&W in a Glock, and the case fails for the same reasons.
The 9x23 is an entirely different beast. It doesn't need a supported barrel because the brass is much, much stronger. The outside dimensions are different than the 38 Super. The 38 Super is a straight walled case. The 9x23 is slightly tapered, larger at the web, just like a 9mm case is ever-so-slightly tapered. The extra brass thickness at the base gives it support.
The inside dimensions are also different. There is less internal case capacity in a 9x23 than the 38 Super because the brass is so much thicker. If I used the same powder charge that I use to load my 38 Super in a 9x23 case, I blow the primer completely out. A Small Rifle Primer. Pierced and in pieces.
So the 9x23 case can support itself.
The 38 Super case cannot, when we loaded it to Major Power Factor.
Additionally, it's not wise to assume you can mix & match 38 Supers in 9x23 barrels, and 9x23s in 38 Super barrels.
The 38 Super chamber is cut for a straight-walled case. Fire that 50 PSI-generating 9x23 Winchester in it, and it will expand to fill it. Maybe even enough to rupture. Not you might be OK in a tight-cut chamber. But because the rear case dimension of the 9x23 is larger than the 38 Super case by about .007, the 9x23 cartridge might not fully seat in a 38 Super chamber. Especially once it's dirty. But it might be seated just enough to let the hammer drop. Disaster.
Firing 38 Supers in a 9x23 chamber have similar problems, working in reverse. They'll go bang just fine. They just won't go bang just fine very long. Firing hot 38 Supers in an unsupported 9x23 barrel - you'll get one safe loading out of those. Maybe. Throw them away afterwards. You will get a kaboom if you reload them, just like an unsupported 40 S&W case. It's only a matter of throwing the dice before that weakend portion of the brass lines up with that unsupported portion of the chamber again.
And because the back end of the 9x23 chamber is about .007 larger than the case dimensions, you're simply exacerbating that condition of weaker brass in a larger-than-necessary rear chamber dimension.
If the 9x23 were around for IPSC in the 70's, the 38 Super would have met the same fate as other obsolete cartridges. When it was finally introduced, shortly thereafter the IPSC Major Power Factor was reduced from 175 to 165, and the 9x23 really didn't have a chance to take hold.
Actually, the 38 Super was developed to meet the requirements of one of the shooting games. At the time the .38 auto was popular and accurate, but it didn't meet the minimum power factor for the game. Sorry, I can't remember the name of the sport. Old age I guess.
It is a very accurate cartridge, suitable for targets and self-defense, but not for carrying for hunting. I would get a little bigger caliber for that.
Thanks BullfrogKen, I couldn't remember the name of the game.
It is a very accurate cartridge, suitable for targets and self-defense, but not for carrying for hunting. I would get a little bigger caliber for that.
Thanks BullfrogKen, I couldn't remember the name of the game.
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
jhco50 said:
No, that's completely wrong.
I'm not aware anyone was playing action pistol games back in the 1930's, which is when the round was released to the public.
It was marketed primarily to the policing community, who wanted a round capable of more penetration.
The only well-attended "shooting games" we had back then to speak of was the NRA rifle and pistol military matches. And they were dominated by military and the old militia/state guard units. It cost more than the average civilian could afford to be competitive in that sport at the time.
SharpsDressedMan
member
The information I was given about use of 9x23 in a BAR-STO .38 Super barrel was given to me by a somewhat well established and known gunsmith, who apparently regarded the dimensions on the Bar-Sto barrel to be suitable for use wit hthe 9x23 , at least on occasion. I never had any 9x23 brass or ammo, although it did intrigue me., should I want to soup it up sometime. BullfrogKen, thanks for all the tech info and specs. I certainly would not recommend trying 9x23 in any and all .38 Super guns or barrels, but there does exist the POSSIBLE use in some; the specs are that close in some intances and guns. And, hotrodding the Super beyond the books is asking for trouble, too. Is an animal REALLY going to know the difference from a top end Super load, or a .357 from a 4" barrel?
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Well...That depends on the animal and the required bullet mass. Up to 150 grains, there probably wouldn't be enough practical difference to be concerned with. For tough game animals that are willing to make a fight of it...the .357 still holds an edge in a frontal attack because you can ramp up the bullet mass. It's long been my belief...fostered through experience...that if you need more killing power, you need more bullet rather than more velocity...kinetic energy be damned.
F'rinstance...
In the brush with a provoked 300-pound pig that's decided to wreck my day on his way to piggy heaven...I want a heavy solid bullet that'll drive through his body lengthwise and smash bone on the way. The .357 Magnum will come a lot closer to doing that with a 180-grain cast bullet driven to the top end of sane limits than a Super or 9X23 will with a 150.
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
I'm with Tuner's thoughts on the matter.
My concern with a light, fast bullet is not enough penetration. I'd much rather have something heavier, that will penetrate through that tough bone and go deep. I'd rather have a 250 gr 45 Colt going 1100 fps than a 125 gr bullet going 1400 fps. Or even a 180 gr bullet going 1100 fps for that matter.
My concern with a light, fast bullet is not enough penetration. I'd much rather have something heavier, that will penetrate through that tough bone and go deep. I'd rather have a 250 gr 45 Colt going 1100 fps than a 125 gr bullet going 1400 fps. Or even a 180 gr bullet going 1100 fps for that matter.
While I agree with your mass theory, I've seen too many 300-pound pig's seemingly unaffected by body shots for your theory to be effective. You either need a head shot or figure a way to get out of the way. I have yet to see a adrenelin charged pig dropped in it's tracks from a body shot this includes a 300gr 45/70 front to rear and a 130gr 270 that turned the chest cavity to cherry jello. A 180gr 357 to the body of a pumped up pig, you'd better be prepared to jump if he's pointed your direction.
If i didn't think a 150gr bullet at 1100fps would get the job done a 180gr @ 1100fps isn't gonna make me feel warm and fuzzy.
Last edited:
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
And I've had a couple run me up a tree after taking a hit through both lungs with a 140-grain .357 at top-end velocities...and never exited. I gave up on the .357 and started using the .41 with 220-grain solids after that. On a frontal raking shot, they drop like a sack of wet laundry.
Vern Humphrey
Member
I like my .45s -- either a Ruger Blackhawk, or a Colt New Service with a 7 1/2" barrel. Pigs seem to respect them.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Speakin' of pigs...and takin' a side trip on this one...Several years ago, I had a friend who gave notice of his intent to hunt the black pig in the traditional way. He was gonna use a pike that he'd fashioned himself.
I told him: "Mah brother...you don't want a pig on a stick. You will lose that fight."
He did. 30 years and he still walks with a limp.
As you were. I'll be in the area all day.
I told him: "Mah brother...you don't want a pig on a stick. You will lose that fight."
He did. 30 years and he still walks with a limp.
As you were. I'll be in the area all day.
Vern Humphrey
Member
A pig spear needs a WIDE crossguard -- lest the pig come up the shaft and do the hunter in before expiring himself.
That, by the way, is the origin of the bayonet. Hunters in the Pyranees used matchlocks. A wounded boar or bear will not wait around while you reload your matchlock, so hunters carried huge knives.
Someone finally woke up and smelled the coffee, "If I'm close enough to him to use my knife, he's close enough to me . . . "
So this bright boy designed a knife with a wide crossguard and a tapered cylinderical handle. The idea was to jam that handle down the muzzle after you fired and use your matchlock like a spear.
Many of these knives were manufactured in Bayonne, France.
That, by the way, is the origin of the bayonet. Hunters in the Pyranees used matchlocks. A wounded boar or bear will not wait around while you reload your matchlock, so hunters carried huge knives.
Someone finally woke up and smelled the coffee, "If I'm close enough to him to use my knife, he's close enough to me . . . "
So this bright boy designed a knife with a wide crossguard and a tapered cylinderical handle. The idea was to jam that handle down the muzzle after you fired and use your matchlock like a spear.
Many of these knives were manufactured in Bayonne, France.
- Status
