Guess this is in the category of "ho-hum" by modern standards. I've noticed a dearth of ballistic testing using .38 Special defensive loads and 4" (or even 3") barrels. I understand snubbies are the more common carry gun, but there are boat-loads of 4" guns resting on night stands. I occasionally carry a 4" Model 10 or 15 or even 64 as a self-defense tool as well.

Almost all the ballistic testing videos I can find use short-barreled guns. I'd love to see some more work with common 4" guns as well. Or maybe my "Google-fu" is inadequate?

PC

Interesting. Technology is moving at light speed . New polymer copper loadings by ARX Ruger are speedy, light recoil , and terminal ballistics impressive. Believe Feb 16 or perhaps Nov 15 in NRA Rifleman had good article on these loadings. Fluted bullets. Perhaps a down side hits hard object shatters reducing ricochets but makes one think about going up against other barriers. Future awaits us.

I would also like to see more testing from 4" barrels in 38spl.
My Model 15-3 is a nightstand mainstay, and I also carry it sometimes...

The biggest lie ever told by the firearm industry is that the future holds new technology. What a damn joke. 9mm Luger, 45 ACP, 38 Special, 45 Colt, 45-70 Government, 375 H&H, 30-06, 7.92mm Mauser, Unique gun powder, ect., all over 100 years old, yet are not only with us, but still dominate the shooting world. Have we made improvements? Yes. Has new technology really revolutionized shooting. Not really. AR15's aren't a modern 21st century super weapon, they are a product of the 1950's, when Cadillac's had cast iron grills and carbed motors. The "modern" 7.62 and 5.56 NATO are recent additions, certainly, clocking in at a young 60 some years. Bolt action rifles are often times still using the 1898 Mauser action, which is still considered top notch. The modern revolver is still little different than the first side ejector's from the 1890's.

What makes this ARX worthy? After looking at various tests, its not much better than any other non expanding bullet. What makes it any better than a dumb old lead wadcutter or semi wadcutter? Even with modern hollow points, the old 158 SWCHP is still a front runner in .38 Special, and old SJHP for the .357 Magnum perform quite well with modern choices. If one wants a low load for a snubby, why is this ARX any better than a 148 lead bullet that's been around forever? Light speed advancement?

As for Mr. Cartwright, I sympathize greatly, and lament the lack of data myself. I suppose the only answer is to consider getting some material and doing the tests yourself, there are many how to's on how to make gel and calibrate it. I think if this year is slow enough, its time for me to work the camera and some gel myself, and fill in the large gap of information on the internet.

Quite right Duckford. I'm glad we still have all this old stuff, it works. Kinda like black fingerprint powder is still in use in crime labs. Very old, basic, technology that still produces results.....

BTW, I can't help but think of the new technology hype when Remington and Winchester introduced all those stubby super short magnum rifle cartridges years ago. They were new, but did they do anything any better than more conventional cartridges that had been around for years?

__________________
NRA Life, COTEP 640

I've chronographed number of loads from 4" guns....it's a labor of love to some degree getting a chronograph and actually finding out what stuff does from your own firearms. I'm always most curious about 2.5 to 3" bbl revolvers, and what difference would I find between .357 and .38sp chambered guns.
My next job out with the chrono will be std pressure defensive ammo from 2,4,5 and 6" colt DA revolvers. Maybe even throw in the 1.4" Taurus View and 2.5" model 242.

As part of shooting 4" revolvers in IDPA/Revolver for 20 years, I've benched my range ammo, and of course chronographed it myself and had it chronographed at dozens of matches. One thing I have learned is that one of my 2 "identical" 4" Model 66s always is 30 fps faster with my IDPA loads. So I always chrono MY loads in MY guns, and won't depend on anyone else's "definitive tests."

Compared to all the chasing my tail with some of the semi autos to take care of problems, it has been boring as heck to load 158gr .38 for IDPA.
Lead bullets, plated bullets, and now coated, load them up with HP38, chrono and adjust to make sure the power factor is above IDPA requirements, and go shoot. From a bench, your coffee cup is in mortal danger at 35 yards. More than good enough for IDPA, where seldom you have time to rest or even use single action. I've tried maybe a couple dozen powders, but keep coming back to HP38.

Until Speer made the 135gr Short barrel bullet, my standard walking around load for .357 was a max load of HP38 under a 125gr JHP. I have a hunting .357 158gr over WIN296 that I don't routinely use in a 4" barrel; they are for the 8" 686. They shoot fine in a 4" barrel, I just don't like being blind and deaf for another 150fps.

__________________
Science plus Art

Thanks. Your experience and advice rings true. I finally picked up a chronograph last year, but I haven't yet set it up. The weather will eventually warm, even in the U.P. Getting chronograph readings won't be difficult. I'd especially be interested in seeing regular 4" guns used for terminal ballistic results as well.

PC

The Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel 135 grain +P load is fantastic from both 2" and 4" barrels:


NYPD uses this load for all their .38 special needs, not only for backup guns, but also for the officers left rocking Model 10s and 64s. I believe LAPD does the same.

I've always used the Remington 158gn SWCHP +P as my 38spl SD load, but I did get some of the 135gn short barrel load to try. I'm looking forward to seeing how it shoots in my 4" Model 15.
I'll probably give it a try in my 3" GP100, too...though I usually never shoot anything but 357mag in that gun, and find it easy to handle.

For those who have not had the experience, the MV for any particular load is more than barrel length alone. Go out and chronograph a single load using two or three different revolvers having the same barrel length and see for yourself. You will be surprised at the spread of average MVs obtained from each revolver. My theory is that the chamber-barrel gap measurement is very influential to MV, therefore, every revolver makes up its own MV rules.

Groo here
You will also see that modern barrels seem to be faster than the older ones.

Being a ballistically curious guy, I have done a bunch of chronographing since the late '70s. DWalt is correct. Guns with the same barrel length will show different velocities with the same ammo on the same day. I have a 5" S&W revolver that often gives less velocity than some of my 4" S&Ws. Same with semi-auto pistols.....ymmv

__________________
NRA Life, COTEP 640

I too would love to see more testing of .38 special rounds from 4 inch barrels. However, I figure that the bullets that perform well in snubbies should do at least as well with two more inches of barrel.

One of these days, I'd love to have a chronograph, a bunch of gel, and a bunch of ammo to run through my 67-1. But for now, I have to rely on what I can find online.

Here is some vintage ballistics porn, showing loads from a 4" 586, compared to some other non-4" barrels. BBTI - Ballistics by the Inch :: Cylinder Gap EDIT-both 38 and 357 are included, and all faster from the 4" 586 than the 6" Python, giving credence to previous posts-stuff varies.

Wow! Some of those numbers are eye-popping! I'd love to know what the cylinder gap measured on that Python! In any case, that data certainly corroborates earlier comments on this thread. Thanks!

PC

I've heard the Pythons faster twist rate and tighter bore can yield slower numbers.....but especially revolvers are simply individuals. I have a tight 14-3 with a 6" bbl that chronos numbers similar to my 2.5" model 242. I do agree the newer guns tend to be faster IME.

Cylinder-barrel gaps can be all over the place. Even in relatively new and little-used revolvers, I have measured gaps (using a feeler gauge) up to 0.012". The tightest revolver I personally own is a 1959 Colt 3-5-7 with a 6" barrel for which the gap measures a tight 0.003". Not coincidentally, it always gives the highest measured average MV for any given load vs. several other of my .357/.38 Special revolvers having 6" barrels (two S&Ws and two other Colts). I always use a 10-shot MV average.

Really no need to test............
EVEYTHING works with a long 4" barrel.

Plenty of speed for the bullets to mushroom and penetrate correctly.
That's why the 4 and 6" were issued............ but there are test out there
if you want to look them up.

there is a member here who has an LCR 1 7/8 barrel that clocks consistently higher with various rounds than his and my J-frame 1-7/8 barrel. Twist rate, more lands, gap, etc?

From what I've seen, newer ruger revolvers tend to have faster barrels than S&W, all other stuff being equal.
Between my 442-2 and .357 LCR, the ruger is within the range of -/+ 20fps from the Smith using .38sp loads. For example, it's doing right at 855-860fps with the 135gr Gold Dot .38+p where the 442 does 840-850fps...although chrono'd at different times/conditions, to be fair. I'm used to seeing .357 chambered guns lose some vel compared to similar bbl .38sp guns, but the LCR retains and gains slightly over my 2" J frames with .38sp loads most of the time.

And that Gold Dot goes avg 826 FPS from my SW 340PD 357. waddya know.

Yep....

Groo here
The python was built with a tight tapered bore.
Early on , there were no light hp jacketed bullets for the 38/357.
The python with its tight bore could shoot 9mm
sp/hp bullets [ in the old pictures some have crimp grooves]
and the python did this with out loss in accuracy
and they expanded [ blowded up] real good.

I too would like to see data that corresponds with the real world. The .38 from a 4" barrel is an interesting one, too. Data books seem to avoid using real life examples. I hate to look for the barrel used in testing and get "10" test barrel". The is only help to me if I were shooting a Thomson Center Contender.

They have many years of old testing of loads using CUP, that don't relate to anything. And the Chronographs got less expensive and easier to use. And they started introducing those into reloading manuals in about the 1980s. Well, by then the .38 was getting passe'.

I still consider the .38 special and the plus P version to be valuable defense tools and accumulating new data for it should not be put aside.

Of course now the data has to be blessed by lawyers so we aren't to get more complete data, just a slice of it to show what range we can work in to keep somebody from getting sued.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

"They have many years of old testing of loads using CUP, that don't relate to anything."

That is true, but at the time, modern pressure measurement electronics did not exist. I made the comparison once between chamber pressure measurements made using the copper crusher method vs. modern piezoelectric pressure gauges is about like telling time by using a sundial vs. using an atomic clock. However, the old pre-electronic methods of measuring bullet velocity were nearly as precise as new methods - except the new methods are far, far easier and faster to use.

I used a late sixties 4" Colt Police Positive (special) today, 4" bbl.



Atomic reverse wadcutter 148gr +p
955
917
933
905
925fps

Buffalo Bore std pressure 158gr lswchp
996
973
973
992
964fps

Remington +p Golden Saber 125gr jhp
1050
1018
1024
1031
1002fps

FWIW, pretty good accuracy at 50ft.

Years ago, I ran across some work done on Correlating PSI and CUP by Denton Bramwell. His work was meticulous and in my mind, accurate. The chart simplifies the data and provides many valuable arguments that support the idea that CUP and PSI can be correlated. https://www.shootingsoftware.com/ftp/psicuparticle2.pdf

Now on to another question? Don't most 4" barrels shoot the same load faster than most 2" barrels? Isn't that all you need to know?? I wonder if the bad guy will be able to tell what gun he was shot with?? (Sorry, but I could not resist)

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

There is more here-more guns, and just 357 rounds, with a Korth that bests the Python in every case in 357
BBTI - Ballistics by the Inch :: .357 Mag Results
and 38 here
BBTI - Ballistics by the Inch :: .38 Special Results

The question isn't simply velocity/energy but rather terminal ballistics testing in today's standard medium, 10% ballistics gel or equivalent. In fact, there is absolutely no shortage whatsoever of actual chrono numbers, from all the good fellows here who have contributed for many years, as well as that of others. The question is, how does the change in barrel affect the performance of the bullet in gel? What does the difference in velocity/energy do to the final results of a potential self defense, or even hunting situation?

The main issue lies in the fact most Youtubers who have made gel videos have tended to make .38 Special videos almost entirely with snub nosed revolvers, considering they are the most carried, and are the only ones peace officers consider 1st rate for their respective purpose for anymore. It seems like every time you want to see a video for a self defense .38, its always snub, or in other cases .357 Magnum chambered guns and if you carry different you are left wondering. I'm willing to guess there are quite a few people carrying Model 10 police surplus out there, and it seems none of these tests are for them.

Fear not, good friends, for last night I put away my Norwegian penny pinching philosophy for a minute and ordered a couple of Clear Ballistics blocks, and along with my camera and chrono, will make some feeble attempt to fill in the gaps, and see if there is much, of any, terminal ballistic difference.

Thanks. That 'll be one of the best bits of info published in this forum this year.

I wonder what their actual point of aim is from their 4 inch barrels.

Agreed. I see loads perform mediocre from 2 inch barrels that Seem they would do great from a 3 inch but can't find any 3 inch barrel tests

That's super! Thanks bunches! I'll look forward to your findings.

PC

For 4" I stick to the old standby. The 158gr +P lswchp tested on the mean streets for many years and proven out of 4" or larger barrels. Just not good barrier penetration but you can go bonded and switch to the speer 158gr gold dots for that.

The snubs I go with the 135gr Speer Gold Dots with great expansion at 900+ fps. NYPD and LAPD issues it and it is proven. But when it gets colder and the velocity drops around 850 or below, there has been reports of no expansion in actual shootings.

If that wasn't available I would go with the 148gr wc round. Proven. Accurate. Low Recoil.

Many good threads about that here:

https://www.google.com/search?q=38+s...w=1280&bih=928

I don't believe speer makes a 158 grain 38 special

I am a reloader. They make a 158gr gold dot. If they make it, you can load it.

My comments on correlating PSI to CUP were pretty universally scoffed at here. Nobody wants to hear it because there is no perfect correlation. Me myself, I like having SOME idea of what a published CUP means and the work you reference is of value to me.

If barrels were all perfect in every way, a 4" barrel produces more velocity than a 2" barrel. But they are far from perfect and have quite a lot of variations that skew the results. i.e. A tight 2" barrel might get more velocity than in a loose 4" barrel.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Speer insists that 158 gr. .38 bullets don't stabilize. I've seen a little keyholing with those out of a 2" barrel. But the 158 grain is vital to some people when talking .38 caliber.

I don't have to worry about it because I shoot medium weight bullets in .38.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Do not worry the 4" has been turning bad guys into fertilizer for over 100 years. I use the 158 hard cast swc over 4.5 of 231. Kills deer fine inside 50 yards lung shots. 900+ fps. Penetrates car doors fine to.

Groo here
The lower speeds of the Python is NOT due to the cylinder gap but the barrel
Python barrels are tighter, tapering down to .354 +-.
Pythons were always slower but shot tighter.

I do not own a python but have read where some folks reloading for them use 9mm bullets as they are .355 .356 in diameter fitting the python barrel better .

I've only recently heard the claim that the Python was choke bored. Frankly, I doubt it. The process would be a production nightmare and money pit given the technology of the day. I think the truth lies elsewhere: with different barrel specifications. If someone shows up with a Python and a set of pin gauges we can use, I'll change my mind.

I've got an old set of published specs for Colt and S&W rifling. Old enough that there's no spec for .357 Magnum for Colt, or mention of the Python (Not going to be any caliber associated with that other name on our product!). I expect their mood changed after they saw the success of the .357-but you still don't see those other initials on the caliber marking.

S&W shows groove diameters of 0.356-0.357" for .38 Spl, 0.357-0.358 for .357 Magnum. Since barrel makers today generally state that 0.356-0.358 is the acceptable range for .38/.357 barrel production, I think we can assume that's true for S&W and was at the time the spec sheet was done. A lot of gun writers were/are technically illiterate.

Colt shows 0.353-0.354 for groove diameter of the .38 Spl, the Officers Model Match had a 1-14 in rifling twist that carried over to the Python. General machining practice suggests that 0.353-0.355 would be the actual acceptable groove diameter range for the OMM and Python barrels. Several older references have cited that range for the Python.

So, I think the rumor about "choke bored barrels" has a factual basis so far as tighter bore specifications in Colts are concerned, the actual cause is far different.

Notice how much a mushroomed bullet looks like a round nose bullet.

I prefer the square shoulders of wadcutters for self defense.

__________________
I've still got it made.

"Colt shows 0.353-0.354 for groove diameter of the .38 Spl, the Officers Model Match had a 1-14 in rifling twist that carried over to the Python. General machining practice suggests that 0.353-0.355 would be the actual acceptable groove diameter range for the OMM and Python barrels. Several older references have cited that range for the Python."

SAAMI diameter specs for the .38 Spl/.357 barrels are Land (bore): 0.346" + 0.004" (0.346-0.350) and Groove: 0.355" + 0.004" (0.355-0.359). For ballistics lab test barrels, the nominal diameters are the same but the tolerance is much tighter, + 0.0005" Manufacturers would not deviate from those specs, although there is no law against it.

I have never seen any substantiation that Colt bores are tapered. There is no advantage in doing so and it would be an expensive nightmare to manufacture such barrels. Whether Colt holds (held) to narrower diameter tolerances on the lower end is unknown.

This only 5 different rounds, but it does give some 4" barrel numbers....
BBTI - Ballistics by the Inch :: .38 Special Results