No friend, it does not. It is a good load but generally a poor STOPPER, unless the spine or brain is hit and that's if it gets into the brainpan. If it's all I had I'd be happy but there are far better projectiles out there in the .38 special to use to STOP people.

The 158gr LRN .38 spl was standard issue for many police departments for 1/2 a century when revolvers where the primary LEO sidearm. There where lots of shootings using it that where documented thoroughly. When Marshall and Sannow did their stopping power study in the 1980's they found statistically the 158gr LRN standard pressure .38 spl load to stop further aggression from assailants shot center mass once 48% to 51% of the time depending upon barrel length (2" or 4") used. FWIW 158gr LSWC with its flat nose only proved to be 1% better at 52%. All other HP loadings in the .38 spl did better by at least 12% and up to 32%.

While there are detractors of the M/S study, so far no one has yet produced a statistical study that disproves M/S conclusions. IMO most of the studies detractors simply got one or more of their "sacred cows" gored and are unwilling to shift their paradigms so they attack the message and messenger.

It should also be noted that "stopping power" defined as a secession of aggression does not require the termination of the assailant.

The 158gr LRN was a powerful cartridge in a relatively light weight handgun when developed in the late 19th and early 20th century. A great improvement over the identical caliber .36 cap and ball as well as other .32 and .38 cartridges of its time. It is an accurate bullet and provides ease of loading into revolvers either as singles or with speed loader which is the reason it is still in use. Time and technology has passed the old cartridge by and few people would choose it over the more effective JHP's for defense of themselves or their families.

First, my preferred defensive loading for a .38 is a LSWC-HP. I hope it will expand but at least it will cut a nice hole if it doesn't. LRN is mostly for practice.

Second, I guess I would be one of those detractors of Marshall and Sanow. Mainly because if you look at there research, they looked ONLY AT ONE SHOT STOPS. If a suspect was hit 2 or more times it was disregarded. PROBLEM: As a police officer I was trained to shoot shoot a controlled pair as fast as I could. So a successful shoot would have 2 hits center mass. M&S would disregard this! BS research!

__________________
Support your Police, & NRA

Marshall and Sanow make it clear that the 'One Shot Stop' is a unit of measure for their research, not a tactical goal. Nowhere do they advocate that, by using their information, are you going to be able to pick a bullet/gun/caliber combination that will be 'magic' in a confrontation. The OSS is simply the criteria for comparing real street results from certain loads. Also, in their discussion of their research, they make it clear that not all OSS are necessarily physical stops. Sometimes [I'd hate to guess the percentage] a person being shot simply decided he doesn't want to be shot anymore, and quits the fight. Heck, if I get involved in a social situation, I want the kind of bad guy that realizes I plan to shoot him, and quits before I have to pull the trigger. Makes for an easier report.

Gotta read it for what it is. If somebody wanted to take the time, I'm sure they could do just as extensive a study on Two Shot Stops, or Three..... Acebow

Actually Ed, if you check your history, it wasn't the 38 Special. It was actually the 38 Long Colt that had the stopping power problem with the Philippine Moros.

Fun thread.......


I think the .38 special being king of the hill in Law Enforcement for about 60 years had more to do with the size of the gun (K-frame) than the effectiveness of the round. By 1930 Agencies recognized the need for more "power"/ effective ammo..... we got the .38/44 and then the .357 magnum......

In the early part of the 20th century more stopping power meant going to a larger heavier..... N-Frame or New Service...... and a round nose bullet in the .44-45 caliber range..... then and now "most" would rather lug around a 4" K-frame than a 4-6" N-Frame or New Service for 8 hours.

The ammo revolution that started in the 60s with Super Vel.... has changed the world.... I'm old enough to remember then these new magic bullets were "Law Enforcement Only" including the FBI load.

We have a lot better more effective .38 special ammo today than ever before........so given a choice.......

Round nose lead ammo makes great inexpensive practice ammo......but it and light target wadcutter loads would be last on my preference list for self defense ammo.......... but

NO I won't stand in front of it and laugh!!!

Was friends with a much older officer at my old agency. He's long retired. Enjoyed tales he told about coming on the job in the early 60's.
Revolver was from a grab-bag collection of S&W Victory's and Colt OP's.
Ammo issued was the standard 158 gr. RNL.

He said, it you really were wanting to cut a wide wake, you went to a downtown pawn shop where they would sell you a pair of imitation stag grips for your revolver, and sell you twelve (12) rounds of the 200 gr. 'Super Police' cartridges, Six for the gun, and six for the loops on the belt.
Since the number '200' was a bigger number than '158', it just HAD to be 'more powerful' was the going thought process.

Remember an article by Dean Grinnell (?) in a Gun Digest many years ago. The 200 gr. RNL barely dented a car door or got through auto glass in testing.

__________________
Ret'd LEO
SWCA #2275

Any reason? Well, in my neck of the woods finding a box of 38 special ammo that isn't jacketed is rare. Finding a box of Hollow points that isn't jacketed is extinct. The only way I can get the round that all the old guys faint over (158 LSWCHP) is to order it online. And when there are jacketed cartridges that perform better (any weight of gold dot hollow point, golden saber, etc) why would I spend more money (they seem to cost more online) for a round that has been surpassed? Good enough reason? I'm not opposed to the round, I like reloading lead in my 38's, but I'm not gonna bend over backwards when something better is out there.

And for crying out loud folks, stop correcting Nevada Ed! That was over 2 years ago. I think he's got the point.

Nope. Not good enough. I don't stoke my .38s with round nose lead but I also don't choose to stoke them with jacketed bullet loads of any flavor. Maybe it's because I'm one of the fainting old guys. Maybe its because that this "performing better" business becomes awfully subjective when the marketing and internet hype over jacketed bullet .38 Special loads is removed. In my admittedly subjective opinion I view all those "gold"... "golden"... whatever, as distinctly inferior to +P 158 grain lead SWCs or its handloaded equivalent. So, that's what is carried in my favorite totin' .38 Special revolvers and I'm happy.

Well, I gave you several reasons, if you choose not to see them then....

I'm suppose to "see" these reasons, and to accept them based on what was given in a forum post? Your post, any posts, are more valid than my lifetime of personal observations with the cartridge and loads or the sources for suitable ammunition I might have available to me?

Really?

You seem to be trying to turn this into an argument. I don't care enough to argue. You stated you saw no reason, I gave several, none of those are good enough for you, yet they are still reason.

Take them for what they are worth, and walk away, because I'm walking the other direction.

Perhaps we could take a thread here and "tell the tales" both pro and con, examining the standard velocity .38 Special 158 grain round nose lead load.

Back to where this thread started.
The 158 Round Nose will be around for a long time to come. It is a great plinking and casual target round.
It is not up to par with a 148 Wadd Cutter for serious target work. It is also not a best choice for self defense ammunition.

As I said 2 years ago I shoot a couple pistol matchs a month. I shoot ICORE Revolver, Defensive Pistol and Reactive Steel with a revolver. I reload thousands of rounds of 158 round nose every year for range use. Why a 158-160 over a 125?? REACTIVE STEEL
Reactive Steel goes down more consistently with heavier bullets.

Anyone shooting a handgun match with a revolver where reloading on the clock is required will not be using a semiwaddcutter load. The Round Nose will be used for revolver matchs where reloading is required for years to come.

Betwen us match shooters, practice with a revolver, and just plain plinking. The round nose 158 grain 38 Special will be on the shelf for a long time to come.

They are like a lead pencil. Lots of better options to write with, however thay are cheap and get the job done just fine for most applications.

Bob

__________________
ICORE MO2908

The inconsistancies of the handgun effectiveness debate are puzzling.

The Colt .36 Navy caliber revolvers were considered effective during their service years. The .38 cartridge spin offs from the 51 Navy revolver were similar in power. The more powerful RNL .38 Long Colt was chosen by this country as its service cartridge until it was said to be a failure stopping tightly bound, drug crazed fanatical warriors.

The .38 Special RNL was the improvement that replaced the .38 Long Colt and was successful enough to become the number one police cartridge. After many years it was declared 'not enough' and the cycle continued. Very confusing to me.

Had some friends at a party throw down an M80 firecracker behind some folks. When it went off it propelled a rock that hit a girl in the calf, fully penetrated and struck the bone.

I don't care what your shootin' I don't want to get hit with anything in the 800+ FPS range.

Carry what you will, and be sure of your aim.

People used to die from getting shot. Getting shot was a serious life event. Not so much, now. Now, you have to put down assailants against their will, like Moro Tribesmen.

A couple thoughts to put that in context.

1. The greater number of officers involved in a shoot, the more shots fired by each officer, on average. A single officer will generally fire 2-3 rounds. Two or three officers will fire 4-5 rounds, and more than there officers will generally fire more than 5 rounds each on average.

2. If you score a CNS hit the assailant will go down quickly. However, if you score a fatal cardio vascular hit in the upper chambers of the heart or the large arteries above the heart, it will still take between 10 and 15 seconds for the assailant to lose consciousness.

3. When you put 1 and 2 together you have the potential for a large number of shots fired at or into an assailant, even if the very first round was a fatal hit.

4. Part of it is a change in firearms to high capacity semi-autos, and part of it is training officers to fire more rounds in less time, and part of it is the group dynamic that seems to have developed where if one officer shoots, multiple officers shoot and they shoot more than they would otherwise. The psychology behind that is interesting.

None of the above is a reflection on the lethality of the round being used, just the way police employ their firearms the last decade or two, as opposed to in the more distant past.

As noted somewhere above the M1892 revolvers used in the unpleasantness in the Philippines fired .38 Long Colt, not .38 Special.

In fact the .38 Special was a response to the not so effective .38 Long Colt. They share the same parent case, the .38 Special is just an 1/8 inch longer but held two more grains of black powder (the smokeless load did not come along until a year later).

The standard load back in the day of black powder and balloon head cases for the .38 Long Colt was a 150 gr bullet on top of 19 grains of FFg generating 770 fps out of a service length barrel. In comparison the .38 Special could develop 850 fps with 21 grains of FFg and a 158 grain bullet.

I think your point is well taken however as it arguable how much more effective the 38 Special was with 8 grains more lead and only 80 fps more velocity. Had the .38 Special been widely used as a service round in the Philippines, I doubt it would have been noticeably more effective.

It did not however take 3/4 of a century to improve the round. In 1930 S&W chambered their .44 Special hand ejector in .38 Special and called it the .38-44 Heavy Duty and a year later a couple companies were producing high pressure ".38-44" and .38 Special High Speed" loads for it. These were on par with modern "+P+" loads and the press surrounding these loads led to the development of the .357 Magnum in 1935 - which could be regarded as yet another improvement on the .38 Special as it was 1/8" longer and operating at 35,000 psi.

The higher than standard pressure .38 Special "law enforcement only" rounds remained popular into the 1970s. The FBI load was developed in 1972 and propelled a 158 gr LCWHP at 1000 fps from a 4" barrel.

SAAMI standardized the ".38 Special +P" specification in 1974 at 20,000 psi max.

The irony here is that the old guys fainting over the original "FBI Load" are not actually getting the load they think they are getting today. Modern commercial "FBI Load" copies are limited to the SAAMI +P pressure and only generate about 900 fps with a 158 gr LSWCHP, as the old FBI load generated closer to 23,000 psi and even with modern powders, 1000 fps is a bit too much to ask for at 20,000 psi. Even more alarming is that the lead used in many of these modern rounds is often significantly harder than the pure lead used in the old FBI Load and the end result is that through the reduction in velocity and harder lead, the bullet won't expand as much as the old FBI Load.

That was a clear improvement over the .36 Navy caliber Colts which were considered effective during and after the Civil War..


At that time, the .38 Special was considered enough of an improvement to become acceptable for a lot of users. I have my doubts that any service handgun, in any caliber, could immediately incapacitate drugged up Philippines Moros, absent a hit to the central nervous system.


The .38-44 was developed to provide better penetration of automobiles that were increasingly used by criminals of the period.

LEADING: In my opinion, .38 special standard lead loads and +P lead loads get a bum wrap for leading in the bore. The same is true of .357 magnum loads, according to Richard Lee (and my personal experience). In "Modern Reloading" Lee says that leading is not based on caliber or velocity. Instead, it is a negative feature of mismatched pressure and hardness.

Page 134 of Lee's "Modern Reloading, Second Edition," shows a chart of appropriate pressures (psi) for corresponding bullet hardness (bnh). According to Lee, standard .38 special loads with chamber pressures between 14k and 17k psi should be loaded with bullets of between 11 bnh and 13 bnh. Bullets that are softer or harder than that range have been proven to lead the bore more, and produce larger groups. Likewise, .38 special +P loads need to use bullets that range in hardness from about 13.1 bnh to 16 bnh. Before I was aware of these factors I was using bullets of 12 - 15 bnh in medium .357 magnum loads at pressures above 25k psi. No wonder I had to scrub lead after every session!

Chapter ten "Modern Reloading" includes a complete discussion of the subject. Lee also shows how to calculate (estimated) reduced pressures when only maximum pressure loads are listed in a manual. It is not exact, but it is a starting point for developing a good, solid, non-leading, accurate load. After reading and applying this information to my reloading I have nearly eliminated leading in my reloads.

It's not all that easy to develop a non-leading load. It takes time and careful tweaking, because you have to know the approximate bhn of each bullet you use, and you have to know the chamber pressure of each load. I had to consult several manuals and call bullet makers to get the info I needed to have as a starting point for developing each load. For me, it is worth the extra effort for the sake of better accuracy and less leading of the bore. But I am retired and have a lot of time on my hands!

Disclaimer: Of course, some "FBI" loads and others that use very soft lead are going to lead the bore after one or two cylinders of shooting. To me, that is acceptable, because nobody expects to fire more than a few of these rounds during an attack, so leading is not really an issue. I practice with bullets of the proper hardness, and save the good stuff for the "real thing."

__________________
>==|||==={|

I have an other thought on Why the RNL. Lead bullets are made by extruding them. They are not molded. It would seem to cost no more to extrude a SWC than a RNL. But at Walmart for example, I see Federal RNL .38 Special and maybe other brands, but no SWCL loads. In the 1980s and before, the San Diego, Cal police issued SWCL ammo and 6" model 10 revolvers. Bad guys shot by them, tended to stay shot.

__________________
A Snider squibbed n the Jungle

Yes, that info in Lee 2 be is very helpful, especially for anybody shooting high pressure magnum loads. I shoot low-pressure stuff normally, but have learned to pay attention to softening the wheelweight bullets I cast with softer lead. For 9mm, however, I had to empty the pot and refill with wheelweights to make them hard enough to hold the rifling and not keyhole.

A very important issue in revolvers, however, is the fit of bullet, chamber throat, and groove size. Lots of leading problems result from a mismatch there--sometimes modifying bullet alloy hardness can fix even that.

In the past, I have ordered Remington standard velocity 158gr SWC with nickle cases. Haven't looked for any lately. It is the carry load for my 2 inch Mod 60. I like the straight line, deep penetration of semi wadcutter bullets. I would have no problem carrying RNL if the SWC wasn't available.

Some People think if a Bullet wont go through a steel plate and leave a huge hole it is worthless.
Every Bullet has a purpose so You just need to find what it's good for.
Sure a 158grn,38spcl.RNL Bullet wont stop a Elephant but I would not want to be shot by one.