What SD rnds in your .38 spl snub-nosed revolver?
- Thread starter AStone
- Start date
- Status
denfoote
Member
It comes 25 rounds to the box.
That way I get four speed loaders full!!!
125gr Rem GS!!!
That way I get four speed loaders full!!!
125gr Rem GS!!!
Never thought much about the .38 Special round until I started pocket carrying occasionally with the recent purchase of a S&W 642 . . . Since then though I have been researching these loads - like a lot of folks it seems.
Part of the reason I bought a 642 versus a .380 (other than revolver reliability) was the ability to shoot heavier bullets. What I was looking for was significant enough improvement in energy over the best .380 ACP ammo which makes about 200 ft/lbs. Also I think lighter bullets can be deflected more easily rather than punching through things like bone.
That led me to settle (for now at least) on the Remington FBI load. The new +P Buff Bore version is IMHO, the hottest .38 Special +P load commercially available, but also too hot in an airweight for fast follow up shots, not to mention unpleasant to shoot in general from a 15 oz gun.
Problem being the Remmie FBI loads cause leading. The solution I found is to use Magtech's 158 gr. SJHP for practice. This load is identical to the Remmie FBI load in velocity and energy. It's also cheap at $17.50/50. I don't think they would be great for defense as the HP cavity is really small, shallow and has thick walls. The LSWCHP's and GDHP's have wide, deep HP cavities and I don't think that's a coincidence as to helping their performance.
The Speer 135 GDHP-SB is also an excellent round. I just wish they had a 158 grain version at about 900 fps.
Someone had also mentioned the old Speer 4205 half-jacketed SWCHP in another thread. . . .
Wonder how this bullet would perform if pushed about 900-950 fps? Well I would think.
The more I learn about the "humble" .38 Special, the more I am impressed with it's ability to get the job done for self-defense. That's been quite a journey for a guy who thought anything short of a 10mm or .357 magnum was inadequate not long ago.
Part of the reason I bought a 642 versus a .380 (other than revolver reliability) was the ability to shoot heavier bullets. What I was looking for was significant enough improvement in energy over the best .380 ACP ammo which makes about 200 ft/lbs. Also I think lighter bullets can be deflected more easily rather than punching through things like bone.
That led me to settle (for now at least) on the Remington FBI load. The new +P Buff Bore version is IMHO, the hottest .38 Special +P load commercially available, but also too hot in an airweight for fast follow up shots, not to mention unpleasant to shoot in general from a 15 oz gun.
Problem being the Remmie FBI loads cause leading. The solution I found is to use Magtech's 158 gr. SJHP for practice. This load is identical to the Remmie FBI load in velocity and energy. It's also cheap at $17.50/50. I don't think they would be great for defense as the HP cavity is really small, shallow and has thick walls. The LSWCHP's and GDHP's have wide, deep HP cavities and I don't think that's a coincidence as to helping their performance.
The Speer 135 GDHP-SB is also an excellent round. I just wish they had a 158 grain version at about 900 fps.
Someone had also mentioned the old Speer 4205 half-jacketed SWCHP in another thread. . . .
Wonder how this bullet would perform if pushed about 900-950 fps? Well I would think.
The more I learn about the "humble" .38 Special, the more I am impressed with it's ability to get the job done for self-defense. That's been quite a journey for a guy who thought anything short of a 10mm or .357 magnum was inadequate not long ago.
Jim March
Member
The 38Snubbie gets a lot done out of all proportion to it's paper ballistics, because the slugs don't need any compromise for feed ramp reliability.
People talk about the hottest 380s matching the 38Spl in snubs. Don't you believe it. The rounds discussed in this thread as being among the best wouldn't work AT ALL in semi-autos.
People talk about the hottest 380s matching the 38Spl in snubs. Don't you believe it. The rounds discussed in this thread as being among the best wouldn't work AT ALL in semi-autos.
AStone
Member
Tiger,
Imagine an airweight with a set of full Hogue Monogrips that allows a LOT more control.
(Like those on mine. No, I don't pocket carry it.)
Would those BuffBore's be more appealing to you then?
AStone
Member
Jim, would you mind explaining the phrase "feed ramp reliability"? That's a new one for me.
Nem
Jim March
Member
What I mean is, the bullet shapes we take for granted in wheelguns would cause most semi-autos to choke hard unless they've had major gunsmithing and feed ramp polishing done. And some would be impossible regardless.
There is no 9mm semi-auto round that I'm aware of that has a huge gaping JHP cavity the size of the Speer 135. And there's a reason for that: they would hang up on the feed ramps of most slideguns if it was tried.
S&W did successfully make a semi-auto in 38Spl years ago that would feed target wadcutters. But that's ALL it would eat - it was specially tuned for that bullet shape.
Ammo for semi-autos needs to be as close to "ball nose profile" as possible even if it's hollowpoint, so as to cause as few jams as possible.
We need no such compromises for our wheelguns, so the ammo makers brew up projectile shapes meant to work at the target rather than inside the gun.
There is no 9mm semi-auto round that I'm aware of that has a huge gaping JHP cavity the size of the Speer 135. And there's a reason for that: they would hang up on the feed ramps of most slideguns if it was tried.
S&W did successfully make a semi-auto in 38Spl years ago that would feed target wadcutters. But that's ALL it would eat - it was specially tuned for that bullet shape.
Ammo for semi-autos needs to be as close to "ball nose profile" as possible even if it's hollowpoint, so as to cause as few jams as possible.
We need no such compromises for our wheelguns, so the ammo makers brew up projectile shapes meant to work at the target rather than inside the gun.
Yes, they probably would be a bit more controllable with a full monogrip, but my 642 is purely a pocket dweller - Actually just went the other direction with grips - Hogue Bantams. That bigger full monogrip just wouldn't work well for me there I believe.
If I'm going to belt carry concealed (IWB or OWB) for now, it's usually a compact semi-auto (Glock 29). Going with my new "less is more" strategy with carry calibers, the G29 is probably going to make way soon for a compact semi auto in 9mm . . . or maybe something like a 640 or Model 60
AStone
Member
Stainz
Member
I looked over that Speer technical paper. It stated that the 135gr +P GDHP would hit steel and penetrate 12" - and displayed the same 'splat' look we find littering the ground in front of steel rebounding plates at the range. It must mean gelatin penetration with that shape... else, the round could have serious use against armor... Ah, statistics!
I went with the Rem 'FBI' load after reading Marshall & Sanow's stats on 'one shot stops' several years back. They, from a snubby, were found to be better fight 'stoppers' than .45ACP 230gr ball ammo from a 1911 - by several percentage points - from data taken from 'real' events. Leading isn't a problem here - a 'Lewis Lead Remover' (Brownell's) - or the Hoppes equivalent - will remove that easily - and should be in everyone's cleaning kit. Lead won't wear your barrel as quickly as copper clad, either. Of course, there is that lead and lead vapor problem - and resultant exclusion from many indoor ranges. The heavy lube smoke is a problem, too. Of course, these are 'doomsday rounds', and generally not shot from plinkers - or used as bullseye ammo. There are far better - and more affordable - rounds for those purposes.
Stainz
I went with the Rem 'FBI' load after reading Marshall & Sanow's stats on 'one shot stops' several years back. They, from a snubby, were found to be better fight 'stoppers' than .45ACP 230gr ball ammo from a 1911 - by several percentage points - from data taken from 'real' events. Leading isn't a problem here - a 'Lewis Lead Remover' (Brownell's) - or the Hoppes equivalent - will remove that easily - and should be in everyone's cleaning kit. Lead won't wear your barrel as quickly as copper clad, either. Of course, there is that lead and lead vapor problem - and resultant exclusion from many indoor ranges. The heavy lube smoke is a problem, too. Of course, these are 'doomsday rounds', and generally not shot from plinkers - or used as bullseye ammo. There are far better - and more affordable - rounds for those purposes.
Stainz
kmrcstintn
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2006
- Messages
- 1,236
I voted 'FBI' and 'other'
out of production Federal Premium Nyclad 158 gr lead semiwadcutter hollowpoint .38 spl +p; basically the FBI load with a nylon coating to reduce/eliminate lead fouling; I have a decent stash and I use this load in 3 different revolvers;
the other load that I use from time to time is the Winchester WWB Personal Defense 125gr semijacketed hollowpoint .38 spl +p; lower muzzle flash and felt recoil than the Remington equivalent of the same load;
out of production Federal Premium Nyclad 158 gr lead semiwadcutter hollowpoint .38 spl +p; basically the FBI load with a nylon coating to reduce/eliminate lead fouling; I have a decent stash and I use this load in 3 different revolvers;
the other load that I use from time to time is the Winchester WWB Personal Defense 125gr semijacketed hollowpoint .38 spl +p; lower muzzle flash and felt recoil than the Remington equivalent of the same load;
nitesite
Member
And don't forget or rule out the heavily-muscled thugs who have pecs of steel. I have no faith or confidence in 110-gr bullets. Sure, they get up to speed quickly out of a short barrel. The problem is that they also decelerate more quickly than heavier bullets because they lack mass and therefore inertia. So even if a light bullet hits, say, a spine... it might not smash its way thru.
Gelatin is homogenous and doesn't contain gristle or bone or varying densities of tissue. So I choose a load that will drive thru all of them.
If I have to shoot, I hope that my bullet will cut and smash thru the fat or armor and still strike hard against the deep organs or CNS.
158-gr SWC all the way, baby.
Gelatin is homogenous and doesn't contain gristle or bone or varying densities of tissue. So I choose a load that will drive thru all of them.
If I have to shoot, I hope that my bullet will cut and smash thru the fat or armor and still strike hard against the deep organs or CNS.
158-gr SWC all the way, baby.
sm
member
- post #48
I seem to be another member of this minority.
I also suspect Old Fuff also takes into account folks and physical limits, be it age, injury or just nagging old Arthritis.
BullfrogKen mentioned a old Colt Cobra, well another great point, some folks have a Older snub and don't want to shoot anything more potent - I do not out of a 1928 Detective Special, or Old Model 36 or 37.
POA/POI on some of these guns, were just set up / regulated for 158 gr load.
I like the old "FBI Load", have used it. I also know a person, retired, hands not what they used to be, and just a 158 gr standard LSWC , allows him to hit what aiming at, and allows quality practice.
FBI Load he just cannot do anymore, and at one time he carried that load on duty.
His wife cannot either, she is not able to do handguns much, except .22.
Her home gun is a Lever action rifle in .357.
Gun fit to shooter for task as they say...
Sometimes age, injury, sickness changes one over time as well...
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
Yep, most sights on any fixed sighted revolver you'll come across were regulated with that weight and velocity bullet. More recent ones might not, recent being a relative term . . .
I've got no desire to start a revolver vs. semi auto battle, specially since I own many revolvers and pocket carry one also. But your comments don't properly reflect modern autoloaders or modern ammo.
Large open cavity hollow points have been available for autoloaders for a long time. One that comes to mind that's been around about 20 years or longer is the CCI/Speer 200 grain .45 caliber "flying ashtray". The cavity was huge and both my Sig P220 and my Glock 21 fed them with 100% reliability. That bullet has been far surpassed by more modern bullet designs but they're still available in the Blazer line. There have been similar large cavity bullets for other autoloading calibers as well.
But the real reason you don't see many large cavity hollow point bullets for autoloaders isn't that the guns can't chamber them, no the real reason is that such huge hollow cavities are no longer required to make the bullet expand and perform properly just as high velocity isn't required any longer either.
Bullets like the Ranger, Gold Dot, Golden Saber and Silvertip rely on bullet design, scored jackets and computer shaped cavities more than they rely on cavity size or velocity to expand. The cavity no longer needs to be huge, making it smaller and shaping it properly not only aids reliability but also aids in ballistics and expansion. And they expand quite reliably, testing, both real world and gelatin, shows that they expand to nearly double their starting size, almost every time. Why continue to make huge cavities when it's not necessary and would be more reliable in questionable guns without them?
I love revolvers too, but let's not kid ourselves as to the functionality of autoloaders or the efficiency of their ammo. It's every bit as good as a revolver in most cases.
Where autoloaders begin to have reliability problems is with the very small, very light guns. I've yet to find an autoloader that's smaller and lighter than a Glock 26 that's reliable and powerful enough to bet my life on. And bullet design seems to have little to do with it, with the sole exception of a .32 Kel-Tec I had my tiny autos aren't totally reliable even with FMJ ammo. And I ain't betting my live on a .32. Very small, very light autos just aren't extremely reliable, at least that's been my experience and I've had a bunch of them. There are several I'm still working with, but I don't get my hopes too high.
Which is why my pocket gun is a J frame revolver.
3rdPig > Good points and you may well be correct. However, why would Speer open up the frontal section of their revolver caliber GDHP's if they could just use the more tapered narrower cavity GDHP's seen in their autoloader rounds of similar caliber/bullet weights/velocities? No concern with feeding in more various makes of pistol perhaps?
jad0110
Member
I currently carry the 135 Speer GDHP +P, but I am tempted by the new 158 grain std pressure Buffalo Bore load. Maybe I'll order some of the std pressure ammo for my 642 and the +P for my 686 sometime.
- Status
