I've finally exhausted my stash of 38 Special carry ammo from 1997. I had put away 1,000 rounds of Winchester 158gr SWCHP +P which at the time was the duty ammo of FBI and several large city PD including the local PD. This ammo was about the best 38 Special available for self-defense and carry ammo at the time. I carried this ammo in all my 38 Special revolvers from 442 to model 15. Now I'm down to the last box of 50 rounds so I 'm looking for the current "best" 38 Special carry ammo for use in revolvers from 2" to 4" barrels available on the market.

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/rev...llistics-test/

Based on their findings I am carrying the Federal HST Micro 130gr, the recessed "flying ashtray" style. I can't wait until they do a .44 Special load the same way, though I fear it'll be pretty light so those with a Bulldog can safely use it.

__________________
Psalm 27:2

My 642 has 135 grain Gold Dots. My 4 inch Model 67 Bull Barrel has Buffalo Bore +p 158 grain LSWCHP.

I carried a model 36 for backup to my BHP for over 40 years. I am not very familiar with the new modern 38 Spl loads. I carried mostly 158 grain standard loads in the 36. When I could find them I would use the old Super Police load which was 200 grains at a low velocity of somewhere between 600 and 700 fps---this was a highly effective loading. Based on my experience and that of a late friend carry loads are used at very close distances and what matters most is bullet placement and weight which gives good penetration. I did dabble for a while with Glasers but they were too expensive for my monthly 50 round practice routine with my backup gun.
Now that I retired I pocket carry a 649-2 and it is usually filled with the 158 standards--mainly because I get the best deal on them and I can practice a lot with them. In any event I will always choose a heavier bullet in preference to a lighter one.

While no doubt that there are ammo which are optimal in 2" barrel and others that are optimal in 4" barrels, I want to stick with just one ammo for both 2" and 4" barrels. Only exception is my handload of 152gr full wadcutter cast bullet loaded to average velocity of 730 fps out of 2" barrel and 800 fps out of 4" barrel for recoil sensitive person. I still have about 500 rounds of this wadcutter in stock.

Paul Harrell did some videos on this, and concluded that 158 gr round nose lead was optimal, especially for snubbies. JHP doesn't reliably expand out of snubbies. "Grandpa's" .38SP ammo is easy to find and more economical than "boutique" ammo.

If you are confident with it (and you might be after 950 rounds), nothing wrong with another batch of 158 gr +P. The Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel is well-regarded and was the standard NYPD load with a good record of effectiveness.

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

I'll try not to argue, but with all the great options out there, the old LRN is only better than the very light, low recoil loads that simply don't expand. I encourage you and everyone else to check out the Luckygunner tests. They test from 2" and 4" barrels, shoot through fabric, and show what the expanded bullets look like.

__________________
Psalm 27:2

That would be the Remington Golden Saber or Winchester PDX1 to meet your criteria for 2" and 4" bbls.

I like Speer Gold Dot .38 +P and Remington Golden Saber +P for short barrels.

My EDC is the no lock 340PD and I carry the old FBI 158 grain +P hollow point b/c when I had to use it one the street it worked. There may be something better but I see no reason to change from what I know works.

__________________
Old Cop
LEO (Ret.)

Remingtom .38 SPL.+P 125 gr.

__________________
Life is short,live it fully.

I use 130 gr Fed HST micro in my M442, because it shoots close to POA in that fixed sight gun.
I use the 158 gr FBI load in my 3 inch M60, since it has adjustable sights.
The 158 gr ammo shoots very high in my M442. Don't like!
What I do like about the heavier ammo is the good penetration it gives, especially when it doesn't over expand. Penetration over expansion. At least until I get to 16 inches. Accuracy trumps both.

Best,
Rick

The ones that are in my gun on that fateful day.

kci-mia,

I'm probably (still) in the minority about this, but what I carry in my snubby revolvers first up are the .38 Special 150 grain hardcast full wadcutters sold by Buffalo Bore. These will generate in the 800 to 900 fps velocity from my 2 1/8"/2 1/2" revolvers and more from a longer barrel. They are also standard pressure loads and are OK to fire in any snubby I own. I also like and carry the Speer Gold dot 135 grain loads for my reloads since they are easier and usually quicker to reload than the full wadcutter bullets. I also like and own the 158 grain LSWCHP loads that used to be my preference. They are still OK. I don't much worry about whether a .38 Special load expands or not. If they do, great! But that full diameter hole made by the full wads with more than adequate penetration will definitely do the job if I do mine and land them where they need to be landed.

I started carrying .38 Specials and later .357 magnum loads back in the 60's. That was before there was much choice about bullets in these loads. I have never personally cared much for the lighter weight bullets in these calibers. For me, adequate penetration is high on my list of priorities. Without it, nothing gets the job done quickly. I would much rather have over penetration than under penetration. I found out that even the 148 grain soft lead wadcutters loaded for target practice were more likely to do what I needed them to do compared to the old round nose lead slugs. A lot of (then) old LEO's carried full wadcutters by choice, especially when they could find a brand that loaded them to a bit higher velocity than was adequate for target practice and competitions that were active in those days.

The reasons for my choices are mine alone. I don't expect anyone to agree with them, but I am very satisfied with my choices listed above. Each of us has to decide for themselves what we are comfortable with. FWIW, I am very comfortable with my choice!

__________________
So long ... Ken

JMO if I were picking ammo for both 4" and 2" , I would stay with 158grain offrings. Because even if they don't expand much (or at all) from the short tube, they won't get any lighter than 158 grains. If I were going with +p I would also try to help myself out by using a variation of the FBI LSWCHC. I like BB, but there are other less expensive options. I use the standard pressure BB 150 grain LWC and my reload is 158 grain LSWC (they load faster) and accept the fact that even LSWCHC is not going to expand to a useful degee out of 1.875".

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

+1 on post #10 for a 38 snub nose.

With a huge long 4" barrel any ammo will work.
Just find some the print at POA and tickles your fancy.

I have a 2" Colt Detective Special and use Speer Gold Dot 135gr Short Barrel +P. Check out the .38 Special ballistic test results on a variety of ammo using 2" and 4" barrel revolvers here:

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/rev...cs-test/#38spl

My next box of .38 Special ammo will be Federal 130gr HST Micro after seeing the expanded bullets in the ballistics test above.

I am most likely to have Remington 125gr +p in my snub. Decent round and easily sourced. Affordable enough to train with.

I am familiar with Paul Harrel's video and agree with him on most points. Hollow points are unlikely to expand out of a snub, so the drop off to the old 158gr. RNL is not all that great. It beats a sharp stick all day. It is all about shot placement, like everything else.

I carry Buffalo Bore standard pressure 158 grain LSWCHP-GC in my EDC snubby, and have used it in a four-inch K-frame as well. From a two-inch barrel it clocks virtually identically to the older versions of the +P FBI load. That's fine with me, and I prefer a heavier bullet.

It also has a gas check, and uses reduced-flash powder.

Years ago I carried Remington Golden Saber 125 grain +P for a while. It or a good wadcutter load would probably be my second choice today. Color me old fashioned.

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

Why not buy more of the FBI Load you have been carrying for 20+ years now? Remington, Winchester and Federal are still selling it. Just a warning, the price has gone up quite a bit since you retired.

I still carry the FBI Load in my 4" M10 and 2" M36 . I feel it's a good round that will still do the job if need be.

38 Special Lead Semi-Wadcutter Hollow Point(LSWCHP) Ammo for Sale by Federal - 50 Rounds

38 Special Ammo - 50 Rounds of 158 Grain Lead Semi-Wadcutter Hollow Point(LSWCHP) by Winchester

50 round box - 38 Special +P 158 Grain Lead Hollow Point Remington HTP Ammo - RTP38S12 | SGAmmo.com
500 round case - 38 Special +P 158 Grain Lead Hollow Point Remington HTP Ammo - RTP38S12 | SGAmmo.com

I like the Remington ammo and it seems to cost the least right now too.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

Underwood 125 grain or any 125 handload or fact

I like how Underwood performs (the phillips head screwdriver bullets), but I shot two boxes of them and had three failures to fire. One round took three primer hits before it went off. The rest went bang on the second strike.

A 125 grain that gets 1200 fps

I saw that test. Paul Harrell's tests seem a lot more realistic to me than the various jello tests. I find it strange that after all complaints I have heard regarding the 158 grain round nose lead load over the last three decades, it comes out on top. There is a retired local detective who occasionally works at the gun store I frequent. He swears by the 158 grain round nose lead load. He carries it in his Model 66 and Model 649. I asked why. He said regardless of what you are shooting you have to place the shot and 158 usually gives enough penetration. He carries a speed loader or two in his pocket and sure enough they carry 158s. Why? Real easy to load into a revolver.

Newbies don't live long enough to be old fashioned geezers by being stupid.

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

Smith and Wesson 158 gr. HP. KTW in the old blue and white box. Have plenty. Will make a very bad sore on a perp and mess his whole day up. Carry anything you can hit with.

__________________
SSG Ret.
TN & TX ARNG 66-06

I think you can't go wrong with Remington green & white box of either the 125gr +P or just the basic 158 gr LRN...

Buffalo Bore 158 grain SWCHP traveling 1,000 fps from a 1 7/8" barrel.

Attached Images

IMG_0742.jpg (90.6 KB, 35 views)

The gun writers of the last 50 years led us to believe what was effective and ineffective. The .38 158gr RNL was declared to be the worst and the .45 230gr FMJ was declared to be the best, without any scientific proof.

It was incorrectly assumed that the effectiveness of expanding high velocity rifle bullets could be duplicated by expanding low velocity pistol bullets. That resulted in the current crop of hollow point pistol bullets and their assumed superiority. Advances in ballistics testing, high speed photography, affordable chronographs and video of actual shootings etc., seems to indicate that there isn't much difference in incapacitation times between the service calibers, .38 through .45, when penetration is adequate and vital structures are hit.

The Buffalo Bore #20A +P LSWCHP-GC is my personal favorite for many years now. It will do an honest 1020 fps from my 2" M60-7 in my actual Chronograph testings. I have found this round to also be the most consistent load I've ever shot! Not only consistent, but quite accurate!

My second choice is Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel 135 grain GDHP. While I am usually not a fan of bullet weights less than 158 grains (in .38 Spl.) the Speer has a good track record.

My third choice (actually sort of tied with the NON +P BB load) would be Buffalo Bore #20C NON +P 158 grain LSWCHP which in my actual Chronograph testing (avg. 850 - 860 fps) performed more consistently and better than the modern day Remington, Federal and Winchester +P "FBI" loads do. Will do about 850+ fps from a 2" Chief's Special.

From what I have personally tested and Choreographed over the last 15 years I stay away from the Big 3 Company's version of the old +P FBI load that was once "the standard" but are now watered down anemic offerings.

Quite possibly there may be a similarity between fishing lures and handgun ammo? Some feel that the fishing lures are designed to catch the appeal of the fisherman and not necessarily appeal to the fish. When you look at the real world results of handgun shooting as to disabling, stoppage etc., it seems that there is not much difference between any caliber round with the exception of .22 and .32 calibers. There are many factors involved in stoppage effectiveness.

I've always found the Lucky Gunner tests to be very informative. I do carry the 130gr HST Micro ammo in my snubbies. I wonder why they used the same pictures of the fired 130gr Micros for both the 2" barrel test and the 4" barrel test? Maybe the results were boringly similar?

Bill

For all the fellas who do not own a Chronograph and are truly interested in ballistics for their carry ammo (and more) spend $150 bucks, maybe share the expense with a friend or two and get a descent Chronograph. You will not only be amazed at what you see, but will quickly find out that with the exception of Buffalo Bore and maybe 1 or 2 others, most of the spec's are published by manufacturers are Hog-wash!

Watching Youtube videos only tells a part of the story. I take very little credence in Ballistic Gel tests - since there are no bones, cartilage, muscle, belt buckles, pens, badges, and real life stuff in the bullets path. About the only good those type of tests do is to compare relative results on a consistent media - they don't really demonstrate real life performance.

I usually opt for the heavier bullet weight that the gun was designed around and consistent performance. To me a heavier bullet moving faster with a descent amount of expansion is what I'm looking for. Expansion alone will not be the answer if the bullet does not have adequate penetration. There is also something to be said about shocking power.

I am by no means an expert or a Ballistic Engineer however I have just used common sense and all the info I can gather first hand to make my personal decisions on what to use for SD. YMMV.

Look closer Bill, they are indeed different results. Very similar, but different.

You are absolutely right! I'm a bonehead and looked at the bullets fired from the 2" Kimber both times.

For some reason when you select the ammo choice from the Ballistic Test Results table, (gray column on the left) whether the 2" Kimber or the 4" Ruger the default photos that pop up are for the 2" Kimber. But once on that page for that particular ammo you can select either the 2" or the 4" results, then it'll show photos for each.

Either way it looks like the 130gr HST Micro will do it's intended job from a 2", 3", or 4".

Bill