I see we are now debating the merits of which gun can fire the respective cartridge. Apparently modern .38 Special revolvers are off limits, because "It's just not fair to bring a modern .38 Special into the equation!"

I think the intention of the original post was to compare the .38 Special IN A REVOLVER to the .38 Super IN A REVOLVER. I owned one of the first "modern" .38 Super revolvers. It was a first run Performance Center 627-4 eight shooter, the 88th one made according to the serial number. Well, that revolver was an embarassment that proves S&W has no shame. It was utterly useless without moonclips (a trend which seems to be creeping into their modern .45 ACP revolvers as well). And apparently the vaunted PC put .357" barrels on these revolvers. Combine that with a .355" cylinder throat and that just might explain why my revolver couldn't hit a man size target at 10 yards with a cast bullet, no matter what the sizing diameter. So why would anybody want such a thing?

The only justification for any .38 Super revolver is ICORE match use, and then mine worked only with jacketed or plated bullets. S&W did make a six shot .38 Super (I believe it was a K Frame) that was intended for IDPA competition, but then shortly thereafter IDPA split the Revolver division and raised the power factor to 165 for the moonclip guns. This decision made demand for that revolver disappear literally overnight. S&W has re-introduced the 8x.38 Super 627 but the hardcore competition shooters suddenly aren't interested. Why is that? Well, at a recent ICORE match I shot side by side with a shooter who was using a 627 Pro .357 Magnum eight shooter with moonclipped .38 Short Colt. That revolver gave excellent accuracy and lightning fast reloads at a fraction of a cost of a Super. Oh, and it works without moonclips! And it works with cast bullets too! S&W's bean counters might be pretty stupid, but competitive shooters who spend their hard earned dollars are not.

Pocket guns? There was a recent thread debating the merits of the 940 chambered in 9mm vs. .38 Super and 9x23. Nobody was able to exceed the velocities I obtained with handloaded 9mm using either the Super or 9x23. In fact, experience has shown me that in a 2" barrel, the 9mm and .38 Special will produce the same velocities with top end loads. Put a longer barrel into the equation and the .38 Special wins every time.

Some shooters want a .38 Super revolver to compliment their Open autos. But guess what? Most of the brass that has been shot out of the Open autos doesn't fit into the Super revolver chambers even after resizing. Why? Because the Open shooters are running at very high pressures in order to make power factor and warping the brass. I never experienced this problem with top end .38 Special handloads in ANY modern revolver.

As far as I see it, the .38 Super has no redeeming value in a revolver. At least not until S&W decides to make their Super revolvers properly. They could start by headspacing the cartridge on the case mouth so that the moonclips wouldn't be necessary for reliable ignition. The semi-rim of the Super cartridge should allow reliable extraction too, meaning that moonclips would be necessary only for fast reloads. And a proper .355" barrel just might be a good idea too. At the moment these minor considerations seem to be too much trouble.

So... what does a .38 Super revolver do that a .38 Special revolver can NOT do, other than cause headaches? I would certainly like to hear from any shooters who have Super revolvers that DO shoot cast bullets well or function properly without moonclips.

Dave Sinko