THINK .38 SPECIAL (NOT .357)

[Offhand McFlan]

OK, OK, OK I'll get into this caliber war even though
that was never my intention.

Back in the day, yeah way back in the day, the .38
S&W Special meant a 158 grain round nose lead
bullet. Its major standard rival was the .45 ACP
which meant 230 grains round nose jacketed
bullet.

Studies showed the .38---back in the day--was
50 percent effective as a one-shot stop round.
And the .45---back in the day---was 65 percent
effective as a one-shot stop round.

That meant knowledgeable shootists of the day
knew that to stop the average man it took TWO
.38s. And those same knowledgeable shootists
knew it took ONE AND ONE-THIRD .45s to
achieve a stop.

Maybe we can consolidate that to mean between 1 and 2 forty-fives would do the job...and 38S&W took AT LEAST two...maybe more. I know which one I'd take!

 

[UncleEd]

Maybe we can consolidate that to mean between 1 and 2 forty-fives would do the job...and 38S&W took AT LEAST two...maybe more. I know which one I'd take!

You're just being wasteful of ammunition.

 

[Kleanbore]

Studies showed the .38---back in the day--was
50 percent effective as a one-shot stop round.
And the .45---back in the day---was 65 percent
effective as a one-shot stop round.

For reasons discussed here on THR and in books and articles over a number of years, the "conclusions" of those "studies" are extremely unreliable, for a number of reasons.

That meant knowledgeable shootists of the day
knew that[/....QUOTE]No it didn't.

 

[Offhand McFlan]

It may have also been in part because of the new firearms designed around 45ACP.

 

[Offhand McFlan]

You're just being wasteful of ammunition.

Settle for half a 45?
That'd be roughly a 5.7Herstal...but those boys would all be dead by the time that came around.

 

[Kleanbore]

The following is an excerpt from a Sticky thread in ST&T on the subject of statistical analysis.

**********************
**********************

The question of which handgun calibers might serve a defender best is one that cannot be addressed by analyzing data from actual events.

There have been a few studies that have attempted to answer the question of which calibers are the most effective for defense. Unfortunately, because the data are devoid of information regarding the may different things that determine how quickly a person struck by bullets is stopped, they do not provide meaningful answers.

The Impact of Important Causal Correlations on Handgun Effectiveness

One main problem is that there are many, many factors that go into the making of an immediate physical stop. Stopping a human aggressor with bullets is not at all like knocking over a steel plate or blasting a water jug. The human body is not a homogenous mass. It is a very complex collection of interrelated cardiovascular systems, respiratory organs, central and distributed nervous systems, tendons, bones, and other things,

Immediately stopping a violent criminal aggressor is a function of what specific tissue within the body is destroyed by how many bullets, and with a moving target that's largely a matter of luck. Other factors include the predisposition of a person to fall, chemical influences (drugs and adrenalin), size and fitness, etc.

That depends upon a lot more than terminal ballistics.

Post-mortem forensic evaluation will describe body damage, but there are no databases of detailed information for stops effected in violent attacks.

Limitations Imposed by Sample Size

Even if we had insight into what has taken place in actual shooting incidents, we would not be able to make any sense of it. Special Agent Urey Patrick of the FBI Training Academy at Quantico, VA, who is an expert in the field of handgun wounding mechanics, tells us that, due to the complexity or the human body and what it takes to disable it, data from even a hundred shootings would neither provide much in the way of information regarding causal correlations or give us a basis for prediction.

Special Agent Patrick goes on to illustrate the uncertainties of statistical data by discussing the simplest of all possible examples.

We all know that when we flip a coin, the probability of it landing heads up is 50%--on average.

But there is a lot of variation around that average, Patrick describes having flipped some coins.

In one twenty-flip trial, the coin came up heads five times. In another, the coin came up heads eight times

Was there something wrong? No. That's just the nature of statistical uncertainty.

Again, that's the simplest possible example. There's only one variable. When we consider all of the variables involved in human wounding, we see that trying to use actual data to draw meaningful conclusions would be folly.

No, we cannot rely on actual statistics to assess handgun effectiveness in the real world.

**********

That leaves us with the question of how we can make decisions reasonably.

Having realized that statistics from actual incidents won't help much, the concealed carrier is faced with the question of how to make informed decisions on firearm selection.

We'll try to suggest some pointers.

Regarding Caliber

Many people tend to really overthink this subject. In reality, if a cartridge is good enough, that's what really counts. Experts in the field of handgun wounding mechanics have concluded that an additional few thousandths of an inch in bullet diameter, or a few extra foot-pounds of kinetic energy, will not make any meaningful difference. Bullets do not "knock down" people. The only things that really count when it comes to terminal ballistics are penetration and a reasonable expanded diameter.

Realistically, any of the standard service calibers--.38 Special, 9MM, .40 or .45, will, when loaded with premium defensive ammunition, "do the job" if the bullets hit in the right places timely.

As a matter of fact, cartridge effectiveness is among the least important factors in self defense.

Choose one and don't worry about it.

 

[Kleanbore]

But to suggest that velocity DOES not matter is silly at best.

No one has done so.

Velocity is a determinant of both energy and momentum, which influence penetration.

 

[UncleEd]

Gents, in my recent posting, #200 .38 versus
.45, I thought it was obvious I was funning
with your caliber debate.

But posting #206 says exactly
what I said earlier in posting #183 but I
used a heck of a lot fewer words.

And now back to an appreciation of
.38 revolvers.

 

[Kleanbore]

And now back to an appreciation of
.38 revolvers

Back to the OP:

If I were buying a K-frame , I would by a .38.

I have a few .357 revolvers ranging from a K6a to an L-frame. I use only .38 Specials in them.

I do not want more sound pressure, and I do not expect to need more penetration.

I carry a 9mm. It's loud enough.

 

[Dave T]

I was getting pretty tired of this argument until I saw that video on the previous page. I have learned something here. The next time I'm attacked by a herd of pumpkins I'm using my trusty and cherished 45 ACP to defend myself and my home. No roving squash will be allowed inside. (smile)

Dave

 

[Mosin77]

To me, the thing about .357 and self defense is, where is it practical? I have no doubt it’s up to the job. That’s not the issue at stake. In a full sized revolver with a 4-6” barrel, the .357 is a loud but lethal round, and is very well suited for things like handgun hunting..... or duty carry by an officer who expects he may see combat and need to reliably shoot through barriers, and who, by the requirements of his organization, is obliged to carry a revolver. This was the exact use-case for which the round was designed, and it was therefore extensively used in American law enforcement between the 1930s and 1980s. (Also, a time before there was a lot of awareness of the very real and permanent hearing damage caused by high pressure handgun round discharge.)

But if you’re a civilian, you’re not locked into revolver open-carry. And in court, it would be difficult to justify the necessity of shooting through barriers in a self defense scenario. Therefore the vast majority of civilians choose smaller guns for concealed carry. And in a smaller gun, the .357 becomes problematic, both because of excessive recoil and excessive muzzle blast (compared to a full size revolver) but also because there’s just not that much gain in a short barrel between a hot .38spl round and a 357. The .357 is still “better” but is it enough better to justify the drawbacks?

A lot of folks used to claim that the .357 was dramatically more effective due to those extra few hundred feet per second causing “hydrostatic shock,” variously and vaguely defined as mental shutdown and/or a lot of tissue damage not directly in the path of the bullet. Ballisticians smarter than I, have studied the matter in great detail, and say that the magic number where the low end of this phenomenon may start is around 2100fps. Which pretty much tells us that no handgun is powerful enough for this type of wounding to be a factor, leaving us with the basic criteria of expansion and penetration to cause the maximum amount of direct tissue damage. Which in turn tells us that there’s no practical need for the extra noise and recoil of a magnum cartridge for self-defense, when a 9mm or .38 will get the same job done just fine.

 

[Kleanbore]

Very well reasoned post, Mosin.

 

[Stophel]

I don't go for the popular ideas of hydrostatic shock, "dumping all its energy in the target", energy, energy, energy, etc. What is necessary is putting the bullet where it needs to go, of course, and it has to have enough oomph to penetrate sufficiently, busting through bone or even light barriers to get to vital organs (yes, it does have to have "energy" to do that, but the numbers don't always correlate exactly), and the bullet has to do some damage when it gets there. Cut, smash, tear, something.

I'm old fashioned, and in my .38 M&P, which is on my hip right now, I have some Buffalo Bore 158gr. SWCHP's. Plenty fast, but not magnum fast, but magnum fast isn't necessary, at least not for me. Lack of penetration don't seem to be a problem. If the HP opens up, great, you have a bullet over a half inch wide pounding its way through. If it doesn't open up, you still have a big flat nose, square shouldered SWC hammering and cutting its way through. Hammering and cutting causes damage and blood loss. Round nose bullets (and jacketed hollowpoints that don't open...) just tend to needle their way through, and the holes close up behind them.

Today, we have new bullet designs. Hollowpoints that seem to work quite well, penetrate sufficiently (given enough speed) and do what they're supposed to do without clogging up and failing to open (as much). These bullets seem to have leveled the playing field, I think, when it comes to "which caliber?". Why, after a hundred years, they've finally even made 9mm into a viable defensive caliber! My opinion is that "caliber wars" are pretty much moot today. 20+ years ago, it really did matter, but not so much anymore.


For me, personally, the .38 is good. Performance, power level, accuracy are good. Without the blast of the full power .357. The guns suit me. They handle well, they point well, they are natural to me. A Glock... not so much.

 

[Stophel]

A lot of folks used to claim that the .357 was dramatically more effective due to those extra few hundred feet per second causing “hydrostatic shock,” .

I think the reason that .357 was so much more effective than most anything else, particularly in the late 60's through the 80's, is that the .357 had enough velocity to make the standard type jacketed hollowpoints work reliably. They need LOTS of speed to work well. A .38 couldn't generally push a 158gr jacketed hollowpoint fast enough to make it work. So they started lowering the weights, and bumping up the speed. 125 grains, then 110, and even 95..... with not reliably super spectacular results. The .357 seemed to have the right combo, though. 125 grains and fast, fast, fast. Newer hollowpoints don't need this much speed to work, though, so even the .357 doesn't have to be such a fire-breather as it used to be.

 

[UncleEd]

Just an anecdote about caliber, specifically the .38 Special.

In the 1980s, a Chicago police officer related how the
department was being issued the FBI load, the 158 grain
lead hollow point semi wadcutter. The officers were
told this round would open up and not pass through
a suspect like their old round nose lead 158 grainers.
This meant the round wouldn't endanger anyone behind
the suspect.

Not long afterward, the officer said, a bad guy was
cornered in an alley and he decided to fight. He was
hit with two of the FBI wonder loads. As he crumpled
to the ground, the brick wall behind him had his blood
and possibly two pock marks.

So much for the hollow point opening up or not. That
heavy slug at close range still went right through the
guy.

 

[LAH]

I love the 38.

 

[Offhand McFlan]

I was getting pretty tired of this argument until I saw that video on the previous page. I have learned something here. The next time I'm attacked by a herd of pumpkins I'm using my trusty and cherished 45 ACP to defend myself and my home. No roving squash will be allowed inside. (smile)

Dave

That's cute...but one CAN see the difference in bite between 357 and the others there, and in living tissue the differences would still be relative....and a 357 passing say 1.5 inches from a major nerve, arterie or heart would definitely tear up more tissue around it.

With that said, in spite of the fact that all my revolvers are 357, I'll repeat a 3rd time for some people who seem to think that I believe 357 is some kind of doomsday ammo in the handgun world....that I carry 38's in my 357's most of the time. I also usually carry one speed loader of 357 as well because it would give me a clear advantage in some situations. If I reached that level of adrenaline I doubt the extra kick and blast of a 357 would bother me. I am used to shooting that Bulldog I posted photo of earlier one-handed, regardless of the load.

 

[Kleanbore]

and a 357 passing say 1.5 inches from a major nerve, arterie or heart would definitely tear up more tissue around it.

The FBI report on handgun wounding says otherwise.

 

[Offhand McFlan]

You can go by that. I'll go by what I see when I shoot stuff.

 

[UncleEd]

The FBI report on handgun wounding says otherwise.

You can go by that. I'll go by what I see when I shoot stuff.

I'd hope the FBI has wider and more reliable
findings from across-the-country shootings than
what an individual might have.

True though, the FBI's flip flopping while looking
for the perfect caliber or calibers since the 1990s
has not been totally inspiring.

But I suspect the FBI was right in its choice of the
plus P .38 SWC hollowpoint 158 grainer and it's
right now in its return to the 9mm.

 

[Offhand McFlan]

I'd hope the FBI has wider and more reliable
findings from across-the-country shootings than
what an individual might have.

True though, the FBI's flip flopping while looking
for the perfect caliber or calibers since the 1990s
has not been totally inspiring.

But I suspect the FBI was right in its choice of the
plus P .38 SWC hollowpoint 158 grainer and it's
right now in its return to the 9mm.

I think 9mm is a fine choice for them for EDC sidearms these days. The FBI usually has a well-planned agenda when they actually make arrests and sting operations, and they have the help of local depts and SWAT teams. Usually such operations are premeditated and planned after considerable research, and if they believe they need more than that they'll bring more than that. But for the average agent simply going around collecting data, 9mm is fine.

Local depts are more likely to carry more potent sidearms because they stop cars and answer calls all the the time as peace officers. Even though such routine calls usually dont,they CAN potentially turn ugly at any time without warning. Their responses are far more spontaneous than what the FBI does, so being ready for serious trouble is part of what they prepare for as first responders.

 

[Kleanbore]

I think 9mm is a fine choice for them [the FBI] for EDC sidearms these days... for the average agent simply going around collecting data, 9mm is fine.

The FBI recommendations are for "agents and our law enforcement partners".

Most Federal, state, and local law enforcement organizations rely on the FBI findings, their recommendations, and their training scripts.

 

[Offhand McFlan]

I honestly think most P.D.'s would be better off with 9mm's these days too. In today's street wars with today's firearms, more ammo is the paradigm. They have to follow suit. This has nothing to do with my believing a single 357 is bit more likely to put someone down than a single 9mm.

 

[Offhand McFlan]

The FBI recommendations are for "agents and our law enforcement partners".

Most Federal, state, and local law enforcement organizations rely on the FBI findings, their recommendations, and their training scripts.

Interesting, a huge number of state and local LEO's seem to carry 40's though, not 9mm's. Maybe experience tells them differently than the FBI's bureaucratic compilings.

 

[mcb]

Interesting, a huge number of state and local LEO's seem to carry 40's though, not 9mm's. Maybe experience tells them differently than the FBI's bureaucratic compilings.

That might have been true in the late 90's and early 00's but it is no longer true, 40 S&W is fading fast in LEO use and in general. USPSA is single handedly trying to keep it afloat.