Time for a debate or "Can of Worms" 38's in a 357

[BigO01]

Well one reason to buy a snubby magnum and only shoot 38's in it is recoil control .

Many shops now have snubbys in both calibers but the 38's often have lighter weight frames , even hot 38's are a handful in combination with such frames .

 

[Logos]

OP, it's good that you ask these questions. How else can you learn?

The person you describe is very rare except in your own mind.

Everybody has versatility in mind when they buy a .357 Magnum (if they have ANY gun knowledge at all).

And MOST people shoot far more .38s that .357s in their .357. That's part of the versatility.

I wouldn't fault anyone for using .38s for home defense. At the range of 6 to 10 feet it's going to do the job. Versatility again.

I would never buy a .38 unless it were something special like a K38 or a snubbie or a Cold Diamondback.......but for most purchases--why give up that versatility?

I might even buy a snubbie in .357 instead of .38 just so I could use .357s in a pinch if I had to.....versatility again.

I also have a .44 Magnum. The .44 Magnum was designed as a hunting gun. It has little practical application in self-defense (meaning you would normally choose something else for self-defense) although it can certainly function in that capacity.

If downloaded to stout .44 Special levels, it is a good self-defense round in regards to power, but the weapon is still heavier than optimal for self-defense.

I hope you've learned a lot from all the good responses you have gotten here.

 

[Iggy]

*

 

[gibbon]

I may be one of the hypothetical people you're wondering about. I just bought my only handgun: S&W .357. It will be a home defense gun for my wife and me.

My wife is small, and has already had 2 ear surgeries, so it is not clear that she will be able to comfortably handle .357s. So it makes perfect sense to buy a single gun that allows her to start with .38s, and move up in power if she is comfortable.

If it never shoots .357s I'm still happy with my choice.

 

[Logos]

I have been in a situation where a .38 snubby didn't have the poop to do the job. I shot a BG at muzzle contact range. The bullet broke a rib and that was about it.. He was a muscle building ex-con. He backed off, and said "MF you shot me, you F*** shot me!" and sat down.
I think the powder burn hurt him more than the bullet.

Aren't you glad you were using that extra special +Powder+ in your .38?



Sure, all of us have had .38s bounce off those darn pesky muscle-building ex-cons before.....but hey.....you could have broken four more ribs with your four remaining rounds, right?



That would have REALLY slowed him down.

I suppose he knew that and didn't want to sacrifice any more ribs.

And, at "contact" range......he was probably thinking you'd shoot him in the eye next, and he didn't want to get a powder burn on his eye or even take a chance on that puny bullet penetrating the pupil and blinding him in one eye.

 

[Iggy]

Logos

*

 

[baz]

I wanted a small frame CCW revolver.
I wanted a revolver that i could feed a steady diet of .38 +P without wearing it out.
I also wanted the flexibility to develop moderately warm .357 mag loads.
I wanted revolver that I could use a very wide range of loads in from cowboy .38 Spl's to full house .357 mag's.
A small frame .357 filled the bill quite nicely.

Well said

My sentiments too.

 

[MCgunner]

I understand the question and agree for self defense. I won't buy a titanium .357 because I KNOW I would shoot .38s in it. I have an ultralite .38 instead, alloy frame, much more in my budget than Titanium.

But, I shoot a lot of .38 in my .357s. They make great small game loads, are accurate, make the gun more versatile in the field. But, I don't carry .38 in my SP101 for defense. If I couldn't handle full power .357s out of it, I'd sell it and keep my Taurus UL .38 for defense. But, the SP101 is quite manageable with the more powerful rounds.

 

[highrider]

I might be mistaken but I seem to recall awhile back reading an article that said that feeding a .357 a steady diet of only .357 mags is really hard on the gun. I'm trying like hell :banghead: to remember the reasoning behind this statement. Maybe some of the older revolvers were stressed - I can't remember. Please correct me if I am way out in left field with this one.

 

[Logos]

Oh, that would be the older K frames like the Model 19 and 66 Smith.

I think it would depend on how many .357s total were IN that steady diet. The myth outgrew the reality.

Even the K frames could handle quite a few before they loosened up.

 

[fletcher]

A .357 revolver is good because of availability and versatility. I also notice that a number of .38 revolvers are 5-shot, while getting a .357 almost guarantees you will have at least 6. Even if someone did decide to shoot .38s, they have the option of .357 for fun.

 

[Kimber1911_06238]

It's all about options. You can do either. Say you want to shoot .38's to get used to the gun and then .357's to see if that's what you want? Or for resale....it gives the next buyer more options....

 

[CU74]

1) I like shooting .38 Special ammunition.
2) I like shooting "N" frame Smith & Wessons
3) The "N" frame Smith & Wesson is .357 Magnum revolver.
4) I shoot .38 Specials out of a .357 revolver.

You may find it ironic. I don't. Moreover, it's my money, my revolvers and my ammunition - I get to do what I like..........

 

[Risasi]

I have a firearms training class this weekend.

Well, I went shopping at one of the local gun shops last night. 158gr Winchester Super-X is now up to $41 a box...


I ended up buying 125gr +p .38's for this reason. They were half price.

 

[MP5]

"I find it so ironic that people load 38 specials and/or 38 special +P in their 357 magnum revolver. If they wanted to shoot 38 specials, then why didn't they buy a 38 special."

Because I wanted a S&W 686P. Only available in .357. I just choose mainly to shoot .38's through it, for the reasons others have enumerated.

 

[MCgunner]

I might be mistaken but I seem to recall awhile back reading an article that said that feeding a .357 a steady diet of only .357 mags is really hard on the gun.

That depends on the gun. You could fire full power buffalo bore exclusively in a GP100 and it'd last three lifetimes, heck, the SP101 for that matter. The 125 grainers had a rep for eating forcing cones and flame cutting K frames, but I've always suspected it was a LOT of shooting in police arsenal guns, because I never had a problem with a K frame.

You can always do most of your practice with .38s. You don't need to CARRY wimp loads in a .357. I shoot a lot of .38 wadcutter at the range in mine. I just enjoy shooting it, accurate and I can shoot longer without fatigue. But, I carry magnums in the guns and I shoot some in it most range trips just for the boom .

I could have bought a 12 ounce J frame in .357 and carried it with .38s, but why? You can get a 642 down here for around 350 bucks, save a lot of money if you're going to carry +P .38. Personally, I like my Taurus 85UL, carries light, shoots +P. The lightest gun I'll carry .357 in is my SP101, quite controllable.

 

[baz]

158gr Winchester Super-X is now up to $41 a box...

Ouch! Now I know why I took up reloading.

Really.

I got my CHL about 18 months ago, and carry a Taurus 605. For practice, I shoot 125 grain UMC +P hollow points, and for carry 125 grain Speer +P GDHP. Every time I priced 357, it was about twice the cost of 38 +P.

Recently I started reloading. I stocked up on 357 once fired brass off ebay. Bullets and primers are the same, whether I'm shooting 38 +P or 357. So now the only real cost factor is powder. I figure my incremental cost -- powder, primers, and bullets -- for 100 357 loaded with 125 grain Speer GDHP to be about $20 per 100. To buy the same thing commercially is about $90 per hundred. And for practice, if I substitute the Winchester hollow points of the same weight, my cost drops to about $13 per hundred.

So now I can take up practicing, and carrying, some pretty good 357 loads for 15-20 percent of the cost of the commercial equivalent.

38 spl +P is certainly an attractive alternative to 357 from a cost point of view. In fact, I cannot understand why commercial 357 is so much more expensive than 38 spl +P for the same bullet/weight. The only real cost difference is the slightly larger case, and the additional powder. I cannot imagine that adds more than $4-5 per hundred (and that's generous). Yet in a "cheap" brand -- I'm thinking here Remington UMC -- the difference is more like $12 per hundred. That difference is not cost justified. It has to be an indication of price elasticity (a willingness of users to pay more for 357, for whatever reason).

The cost attractiveness of 38 spl +P over 357 is much less if you reload.

 

[Haywood]

just cuz i can

 

[MCgunner]

.38s or .357s cost me under 2 bucks a box. Bullets are free, brass is recycled, 2.50 max for primers per hundred, actually about 2.25 last I bought 'em. Oh, gas checks cost me around 12 dollars a thousand, use those on the .357.

2.7 grains bullseye in the .38 lasts forever. 14.5 grains of 2400 in the .357 not so much. But, still, can shoot quite a few on a pound of powder.

 

[Feanaro]

I cannot understand why commercial 357 is so much more expensive than 38 spl +P for the same bullet/weight. The only real cost difference is the slightly larger case, and the additional powder.

They don't push nearly as much .357 Magnum. So even if the cost to produce was exactly the same, they would have to charge more to make it profitable.

 

[JimmyN]

Use of the word "magnum", just like "limited", "custom", and "tactical" usually raises the price at least 10%, regardless of the true value.

 

[baz]

They don't push nearly as much .357 Magnum. So even if the cost to produce was exactly the same, they would have to charge more to make it profitable.

I understand what you are trying to say, but what you actually said doesn't really make sense. Either it costs less, or it doesn't. What you are trying to say is that it doesn't really cost less, because the volume isn't there. I don't know enough about the capital equipment involved to know where this is true or not. The only real difference between the two is the case. Can it really cost that much more to manufacture the 357 magnum case? I seriously doubt it.

Use of the word "magnum", just like "limited", "custom", and "tactical" usually raises the price at least 10%, regardless of the true value.

This makes more sense. I'm willing to bet -- say a box of store bought 357 -- that the profit margin is higher on 357 than on 38 spl +P, ceterus paribus. (A little bit of economics humor here in using Latin.)

 

[RustyHammer]

:banghead:

 

[Cosmoline]

why would you NOT buy a gun that could shoot either 38s or .357 in favor of one that shot only .38 Specials?

Plenty of reasons. The .357 J frames are way too small to be practical with magnums, and people end up loading them with +P specials nine times out of ten. But a real two digit J frame, or better yet a Colt D.S, will be considerably more accurate with the specials. They're the right gun for the cartridge.

Conversely, I don't shoot specials out of my Speed Six. .357 practice ammo is only a few dollars more than .38 special practice ammo, and keeping it clear of specials makes extraction cleaner. More importantly, it makes me used to the recoil and feel of the magnums out of that revolver.

Each tool for its job, each cartridge for its revolver. After many years of messing around I've come around to this philosophy.

I cannot understand why commercial 357 is so much more expensive than 38 spl +P

Where are you buying your ammo? I can get Fiocchi .357 for $15 per box of fifty, even with the AK ammo inflation. I paid $30 a box for LSWCHP +P's!

 

[Cosmoline]

I'm talking about a 2-3 inch revolver that pretty much only has two purposes in life. To shoot people and to Practice to shoot people.

I would never say that a revolver has a life, let alone a purpose. But the sentiment is accurate. In most, if not all, situations, a shooter using a 2-3 inch revolver is practicing to shoot people. That's generally correct, save in the small number of cases where the shooter intends to go hunting with such a revolver. I suppose you could with this Ruger Alaskan. And when I practice with it, I am in fact thinking "BEAR!" Literally, I'll set the revolver down on the bench, wait a moment, and think "BEAR!," then see how fast I can bring the revolver to bear (ha ha) on the target. But that practice would work just as well for a man.

I truly hope you DO NOT have a permit to carry a handgun because that way of thinking is way off and totally wrong. I agree there are two purposes for having the gun you are talking about but those two reasons are:
1.) To protect myself and my family.
2.) To stop an attack.

Drop the word games. If you're not prepared to shoot a man, I hope YOU do not have a permit to carry a handgun. That's what deadly force is all about, no matter how you dress it up. Seriously, if you really won't shoot a man I respect your position but it's not the best idea to go around packing in hopes that you can bluff your way out trouble.

As for the effectiveness of both calibers being used to shoot someone; (Or to be used in self defense; for the politically correct readers), both the 38 and 357 are equally effective.

Well, I wouldn't say that. The .38 *is* underrated by most people, but the .357 cooked up is going to hit about twice as hard, and that certainly can make a difference. It may or may not in real life, but it *can.* With either one, hit location is critical of course.