Would users of original .38/44 loads noticed enhanced "stopping power" over typical .38 Special rounds? Seems to me that a 300 or so fps jump, even with the lead round nose configuration, would significantly impact terminal performance.

But 300 fps would put the .38/44 into mid .357 magnum territory which is undoubtedly a 'stopper'.

Don't have any experience w/ the .38-44. However, I have loaded up a goodly amount of .38 Special ammo that was hot enough to peel the paint off the doors of the theological place of eternal torment. The vast majority of that hotted up .38 ammo was loaded w/ 158 gr. LSWC's. I can guarantee you that the on target results of the paint peeling .38 ammo was more impressive than what was obtained using standard service velocity .38 Special ammo! On a live target such ammunition would have to be more effective even with the less than ideal round nosed bullet. One need only consider the difference U.S. soldiers obtained when they stopped shooting the .30-40 Krag and went to the .30-03 (220gr. RN bullet) version of what would become the .30-06 Springfield.

__________________
<><

The original FBI load, adopted in 1933, was a 38/44 load with a 158 grain Keith semi-wadcutter bullet loaded to 1,150 fps. That was used by the Bureau in their issue 4 inch Colt Police Positive revolvers. That was two years before the original .357 Magnum, which had the 158 grain semi-wadcutter at 1,510 fps. The FBI's 1933 load was as hot as today's watered-down .357 Magnum loads. I think it is safe to say that the 38/44 would be far better than the standard velocity round nose 38 Special of the day.

The 38/44 was the gunfighter's gun of it's time, when those big ol' cars of the '30s needed to be shot-up and the gangsters inside stopped from their crime sprees.

Frank

The .38/44 cartridge is basically a "magnumized" 38Spl cartridge and loaded with the typical bullets of its time: LRN, Flat Points and Metal Capped. None of these bullets can be considered as "man stoppers" by any sense of the imagination no matter what their velocities are/were at the time.

Guaranteed to punch little holes through and through a human being.

All pistol rounds are inadequate, and are used only because that is what one has - if you have to go to a fight you can't avoid, you need to take a rifle. A good WC/SWC at 38/44 level should be as good as any modern service pistol; round nose and metal piercing are likely to be poor. Note that all the information available shows no performance difference between any good 9/40/45/357sig load that passes objective testing. Since most of the development has been in auto-pistol rounds since the late 80s, we have good information from Fackler and Roberts' work. All indications are that regardless of the round, one will have to deliver repeated good quality shots to stop a determined assailant. One should not fire one and assess - one needs to shoot until the assailant is disabled, aka "shoot 'em to the ground".

Placement is the biggest single variable. The training related to appropriate areas of the human anatomy to target has been poor until the last few years - look at the old targets. Most of them make the high score/aiming point far too low. The bottom of the "square" (not quite a real square, but close enough for our purposes) at which one should shoot is just above the split in the sternum. From the front: draw a horizontal line through the nipples, a vertical line through each, and top it with a horizontal line roughly through the clavicle notch. For a face shot, a triangle from the outside corner of the eyes to the bottom of the nose (so the point is down). A shot in the ear from the side, and the same thoughts as to the center of the vitals (roughly the armpit).

There has been some decent research done in LE over the last few years, starting from the primitive start of the FBI workshop in '88 or so. Doctor Roberts' last document is 33 pages as a I recall, and when one combines his ballistic research and resulting recommendations with sound tactics, cops do pretty well in shootings.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

The OP asked that question:
"What is the combat effectiveness of the .38/44?"
Ok, yeah, as an earlier revolver built to withstand heavy abuse, and heavy caliber loads, why not as a combat piece of choice? In it's time, it is more modern than say, a Colt SAA.

I'm doing fine, getting educated as to responses, when one person has to start with the, I guess, obligatory blah-blah about all handguns are for naught. In that 'obligatory piece', that same responder goes on to praise the cops for being so great at marksmanship!

I scratch my head at the respondent's writings, and come to the conclusion that they just might live in 'Rocky Mountain High Colorado'.

I wouldn't mind what was written, if the respondent had answered the question placed by the OP!

Short answer to original question is: Yes.

Regards,

Tam 3