Quick! What handgun cartridge is the most vilified, despised, and unloved of all? Has to be the standard velocity .38 Special 158 grain round-nose lead loading. 9mm FMJ ball gets more respect. Even the paltry .25 ACP is sometimes acknowledged to be occasionally deadly.

It's been roundly condemned in the firearms press since before I began reading the gun rags in about 1970. The rise of the internet firearms forum has heaped fuel to the fire.

I shot off the occasional box of factory 158 grain round-nose lead ammunition off for the first several years after I obtained a .38 Special revolver in the mid-1970s. There was also a time in the late 1970s and early 1980s when I purchased large quantities of cast lead 158 grain lead round nose component bullets for cheap. The 500-round bulk boxes of these bullets were rubber stamped: North Side Gun Shop Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. These bullets were lubed with a vile black stuff much like the old Remington component bullets and leaded like fiends if pushed to +P velocities in enthusiastic handloads. Oh, face it. They leaded like fiends when shot at standard factory velocities, especial if shot in great quantities on a single outing as I was wont to do in those days. However, if the bore was clean they were fairly accurate for hunting use.

During this time period I read of a Wyoming gun writer, who was known for his consuming fascination for the Thompson Center Contender, but who on an occasion bashed the 158 grain round nose lead .38 Special load and bullet in a published article. He claimed it was utterly worthless for stopping cottontail rabbits and that they were hopping off to their holes to get away after been shot with this load.

Wyoming rabbits must have been more tenacious of life than Texas rabbits for our rabbits keeled over readily and permanently to nothing more than the introduction of a Benjamin .177 pellet to the right place when I was a kid. The .22 Long Rifle was most efficient and the accurate .38 Special revolver was an embarrassment of riches. I snacked on a number of rabbits that succumbed to any reasonable hit from a .38 Special revolver loaded with round nose lead bullets.

For other Texas varmints and critters, even to larger sizes, these 158 grain round nose lead bullets served just as admirably as semi-wadcutter or wadcutter bullets driven to the same velocities in actual observation. All it took with any of them was a good hit.

Blessedly, I've never had need to commit a .38 Special revolver to a self-defense situation. One "hears of" failures of the .38 Special when loaded with plain ol' round nose lead bullets but I have to wonder if there is such a lot of substance to the accepted notion that the round nose lead bullet was a poor stopper. Good hits are golden and bad hits are just that, bad hits.

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.

.38/158@800 is worthless, huh? I guess that's why all S&W fixed-sight revolvers are regulated for it, and all the major ammo mfr's have produced it for over 100 yrs. Yeah, right.

Larry

38 spl RN, 9mm FMJ and 380 FMJ all have basically the same profile
and diameter. Any one of the three is capable of completely penetrating the upper torso of a human body and causing death with
a single shot.

Ya when I first got into the 38/357 I heard a lot of that also. Not as good as the "wissbang, "ex-10-do" special" that just hit the market.... or that its filthy, leaded bad, hard to score in target comps... etc etc... Franky I like shooting them. Great plinking bullet, very accurate, not dirty that Ive seen [no worse then my 22's anyways...] and if it leads bad... well i havent seen it yet... I like them just fine.

I guess I better go recycle that 400 rounds I have loaded up in the safe, seeing as how terrible they are...

I hand load 158gr LRN for both 38 and 357 for range play (sorry, I don;t hunt anymore). Love the round for it's accuracy and subtlety.

It is, what it is............. an old load developed when the 38 special first came out back in 1898, yes ... '98, 115 years ago.

It still serves as a target load, game load and yes a load that will penetrate for SD use. I do not know of any one in their right mind that would stand ten feet away and say..........
"Go ahead, shoot me............those are no good "

True the little round holes are harder to score in matches and they will not mushroom in soft tissue but most of the times this bullet will strike the rib cage, then continue on with a damaged tip, now anything can happen.

One thing I like about the LRN is that they do load easier than the Lswc and full wc designs when in a speed loader or one at a time and is one bullet that will actually put five bullets in a nice group at ten feet around one inch and at point of aim.
Did I mention that a standard 38 special load can be shot all day long without a sore hand and maybe blisters !!

More ammo...........

I have a .38 revolver in my pocket right now.

Despite it's bad rep it must have won more gunfights than it lost. It is what I started out with as a carry load back in the early 80s and I still use it as a field load. My old Colt Official Police loves it, accurate, soft shooting. Bunnies and racoons tell their little ones scary stories about it around here.

Lots of dead gangsters from the gangster era would have to agree on its effectiveness.

__________________
Ed45

Nevada Ed, as usual, really knows his stuff. I'm going to have to burst some bubbles in this 'love-in.'

The simple fact is that during the 60s, when LEOs were having to use their sidearms more frequently, that there were numerous instances of RNLs not stopping BGs. This includes instances with multiple hits. Note I said 'stopping,' not 'killing.' The LEO handgun is intended to stop a BG from continuing his predation, not to execute him. The fact that RNLs have fatally wounded suspects is not relevant, all projectiles can kill. We as individuals may not see failures to stop, but large municipal PDs with 100s or 1000s of officers and multiple shootings, have.

These were not the 'Uncle Ned' stories so prevalent when talking about the Old West, but actual shooting incidents with suspects not going down (being stopped) after multiple RNL hits. In one instance in 71 or 72 an NYPD officer hit his opponent with 6 RNL and was still shot dead by the BG. NYPD did transition to the lead SWC at service velocity after this incident: its effectiveness was moot. We all love, with good reason, the LHP 'FBI load.' People, there was justification for its development: failures to stop with RNL.

Some officers who were 'heavy hitters' did privately go to whatever loads they felt would be more effective, usually, pre- Super Vel, the .38-44 Hi-Velocity .38. The late 60s saw introduction of the +P SWC, the sister load to the LHP. Officers welcomed this too.

All the good points of the .38 RNL remain true. PDs kept using RNLs because it was easier to train with them, and they ARE easier for officers to shoot. But RNLs did not stop reliably, and their failures did endanger officers' lives.

Its also worth mentioning that back in the day the officer was using a gun with a 5 or 6 round capacity. For all the fancy ammo that has been developed I still see a preponderence of police shootings involving many more rounds than 6. In the recent LE shooting of that crazy driver in Ohio I believe, I counted 18 shots fired into the guy. Certainly not a one shot stop. So the equipemt and its capabilities has changed too.

__________________
Ed45

Having been mandated by our agency in 73 when I hired on to carry RN lead bullets...in a large metro department......we struggled for years to get our "brass hats" to let us use HP ammo.....no dice.....back then the media and "hug a thug" special interest groups called hollow point ammo "dum dums".....and our administrators and legal guru's would have nothing to do with it, due to public negativity concerns....same for the issue of anything that had "magnum" on it..eventually our union prevailed and we were allowed to carry HP's...RN lead bullets obviously have a lethal potential...as does anything that can penetrate vital organs, disrupt blood flow, nerve functions, or structural integrity.....we ( LEO'S nationwide) had a lot of instances where violent perp's soaked up RN projectiles and continued to be a threat.....the fact that HP ammo is more effective is borne out in decades of documented actual shootings where violent threats have been ended by good shot placement with reliable projectiles that expand, induce maximum trauma, create larger permanent wound channels, etc..The bottom line is that shot placement is critical....but having seen several post mortems of perp's shot with RN or FMJ bullets versus expanding hollow points......I know what I am going to carry.. During my 34 year career I was involved in this controversy with administrators several times since I was a use of force instructor, firearms instructor, and union rep.

An instance of 18 shots being fired at a baddie would seem to have more to do with a lack of bullet placement than it does what sort of bullets were employed.

This thread isn't a glorification of the 158 grain round-nose lead bullet as "the next big thing" in self-defense ammunition but a contemplative look at it's reputation.

I love to shoot the old standard 158 gr. LRN .38 Special, I buy the Federal red box stuff whenever I can. Its mild shooting, very accurate and deadly enough. Saying that it is not "deadly" is ridiculous, there is always something more powerful.....some people think that if you aren't carrying a .44 Magnum you're not carrying enough gun. 158 gr. LRN .38 is an excellent round for home defense if you are worried about over penetration through walls, excessive blast and concussion and recoil. My 63 year old mother carries a 36 snub loaded with 158 gr LRN and its perfect for her

Actually the number of rounds fired has a direct correlation to the number of rounds in the gun. In a high stress situation the tendency is to keep shooting until "something" causes you to stop. IE gun is empty, gun jams, threat disappears. Then training takes over and you respond to whatever caused you to stop. Not at all unusual to see a report of 30 plus rounds expended at spitting distance and only 4 to 6 hits (usually part of the first exchange). The real world bears little to no resemblance to ANY range activity or shooting sport. The 38 158RN@ 800 will hold it's own when properly placed and has for a long time.
Chip King

It is a good range load, easy to load and shoot all day. Like others have said, it drops into the chambers with ease and has light recoil. They are fun to use on popper plates. However, I would not bet my life on using the load for SD when there are other, modern choices that are more reliable stoppers. Shot placement is a priority with any SD load. With proper shot placement, a fight-stopping projectile is my choice over a 158/RNL. Shot placement being equal, why risk possible delayed incapacitation of an aggressor that may be the result of a solid hit with the RNL? But, I am not getting rid of any RNL I have on hand (well, one at a time I am) because of its SD ineffectiveness. It still gets range use.

__________________
Tony

I understand your intent, I agree that the RN has and does serves a purpose, as does a lead ball. I also agree with post # 15 / 16........having instructed hundred's of "force on force" classes over a period of decades using simunitions and having been involved in several "for real" after action reviews of actual shooting......when under duress, the shooter tends to shoot until something happens.....having been involved in the overall transition from 6 shot revolvers to hi cap pistols for duty weapons, a lot of officers took comfort in knowing that they had "more fire power", which IMO is a misnomer in law enforcement applications.....shot placement is king and every round you fire has an attorney attached to it (liability).....as an instructor I had to constantly impress upon my students to concentrate on effective shot placement, rather than just "hosing off" a burst of 9's or 40's or whatever.....knowing that they had a bunch of ammo to shoot b-4 a reload.
When I carried a revolver as a duty weapon I had a total of 18 rds on my person .....with a hi cap 9, I had that many in the gun, along with 2-4 complete reloads.
As far as utility of the RN, I also agree with those who cited it's advantages as a target round....having fired tens of thousands of lead RN in training, IPSC comp and having used them because of their feed qualities in speed loaders.....as far as the 38 spl RN being the most "maligned" bullet, I would say that the 9mm FMJ is right there with it, in that regards. But that is yet another story.

The answer to the question supposedly posed by old actress Mae West in one of her films. She was often very risque for her times of the '30's.and '40's , and posed the question to one of her leading men, "Is that a gun in your pocket or are you happy to see me?"

State of the bullet maker's art they are not. Neither is a round ball and cap pistol. But either one can be lethal at close range.

I was under the impression that 130 gr FMJ had a worse reputation.

I, for one, shoot a lot of 158 gr lead bullets in a variety of shapes, including RN and RNFP. I was going to use my Model 10 to put down a rabid skunk a few weeks ago. I think it would have done the task, But I appeased SWMBO and use a rifle from a little bit further back..

I'm still laughing at the words "love in"....
Seriously folks, while there is some utility in 38 Spl round nose bullets, it's pretty limited in practical applications. In Police circles, the 38 RN loading was called "The Widowmaker", and for good reason, stopping power was abysmal, unless you made perfect hits under stress, you may as well stab your assailant with a pencil. Semi-wadcutter ammo improved your odds of making it home safely at night, and quality hollowpoint ammo really improved your chances. Still, many departments required the lowly RNL bullet. Some officers would load their revolvers with RNL for inspection, and then reload with privately purchased hollowpoint ammo for the street. Others would load their revolvers with target wadcutter ammo, which actually had greater stopping power. If caught, they would claim that they must have forgotten (wink, wink) to change back to duty ammo after range practice. Some officers even cut X's in the noses of the bullets so they'd expand and fragment if they were involved in a shooting. When cops go to this much effort to turn the odds in their favor, you need to accept that the 38 Spl RNL is bot a manstopper, and shouldn't be considered for such use. As far as shooting cute little bunny wabbits, an Idaho cowboy whose name escapes me (Keef, or something like that), said the same thing, and more about the 38 Spl. His remarks about law enforcement use are especially scathing.

If you do some research you will find how "Good" the 38 special was at stopping attackers, in the 1900's, when the United States entered the Philippines American War.

That resulted in improvements to make the "Weak load" better but it never happened ......................
until the Lswc bullet was designed and higher velocities near the 900 fps mark were developed for the "FBI". (1972)

Why it took 3/4's of a century, I have no idea.........

I shoot competition with 158g RNL bullets because they speed load well. Speed loading SWC bullets is just a nightmare.
But I would never consider using them for personal protection. You assailant might bleed to death, 20 minutes after he hacked your head off. They are not manstopper bullets. I would choose a SWC or JHP bullet at high velocity for defense.

I originally started out with a much lengthier post starting with the 38 Long Colt in 1892, and running up to the 1960s. Just proof-reading it bored me to tears, so I cut it back to a couple of paragraphs.

I too load 38 Spl RNL for competition. I plan to use these loads in the next local Steel Challenge match, where they should be in their element. I also have a couple of Lyman molds for an obsolete full wadcutter that actually works okay (but not great) with speedloaders.

Just a minor correction - the .38 Special was introduced in 1899, not 1898. The first revolver chambered for the cartridge was the S&W Model of 1899.

Hm... Well, round nosed bullets in general are typically not as efficient at damaging tissue and creating permanent wound cavities compared to other designs, and while the venerable 158 gr. LRN wouldn't be my first choice, I wouldn't scoff at it either if it was all that I had access to. I'd just be grateful that the platform I was shooting it from wasn't yet rendered a glorified club.

The 158 grain RNL is second only to the 158 grain SWC for reloading IMO.

__________________
I believe in the wadcutter.

Baby Face Nelson was shot 17 times. 8 hits to the torso with 45acp fired from a Thompson sub-machine gun and 9 hits in the legs with 00 buck. He still managed to kill two FBI agents (G-Men), get into a car and be driven away where later died.

I shoot Horny Day Critical Defense red tips in my 38 special. 130 FMJs at the range.

__________________
Have Gun Will Carry

It was actually the .38 Long Colt that was used in the Philippines, that led to the development of the .38 Special.

The 38 Spl case is a lengthened 38 LC case, they were introduced about 7 years apart. The 38 Spl is only marginally faster than the LC. Interestingly, the introduction of the 38 Spl in 1898 predates the Phillipine-American War (1899-1902) by one year, so it wasn't really developed as a reaction to the 38 LCs poor performance.

I was just posting what Wikipedia said...................
over the years of looking up information:

"The .38 Special was introduced in 1898 as an improvement over the .38 Long Colt which, as a military service cartridge, was found to have inadequate stopping power against the frenzied charges of Moro warriors during the Philippine-American War.[9]............................"

Just depends on what book you read...............no big thing.

Or which website you use. Obviously, Wikipedia leaves a lot to be desired at times for accuracy:

Philippine?American War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philippine-American War (Filipino history) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Office of the Historian - Milestones - 1899-1913 - The Philippine-American War

Got really hooked on shooting in my early teens, c. 1972-73 was my first Gun Digest.b Everything written by the experts of that era convinced me that if I was stuck with .38 SPL 158g RNL, that I might as well shoot myself with it, as it was practically suicidal to use in a gunfight anyway :-)

IIRC, "Cooper on Handguns" gave it about a 50 on Jeff's Relative Stopping Power Index, i.e. a 50% chance of stopping a BG with a solid torso hit. The same criteria rated .45 ACP ball ammo about 90-95%, and Cooper supported those estimates. Pocket autos and their FMJ rounds rated somewhere south of pathetic.

In recent years, I have been amazed to see this "conventional wisdom" challenged, and not only have .32 Auto (NOT revolvers, except maybe Magnum versions) and .380 Auto regained a huge number of adherents, but some now eschew JHP and recommend FMJ, often in the exact configurations designed by Browning over a century ago! (Yes, some are now FP.) The subcompact 9mm has also made a dramatic entrance, often in forms even shorter and lighter than Browning's FN/Colt Pocket Automatics, although FMJ ammo in the 9mm remains practically anathema on the forums.

All of this in an environment in which the .38 RNL is tacitly accepted as DEAD and GONE, and much better FORGOTTEN as a horrid reminder of a pre-modern, pre-rational era in handgunnery.

Anyone besides me find any of this rather amusing? I mean, 71g/800+ from .32 and 90-95g/850+ from a .380 being considered adequate by people who recoil in horror at a .38 revolver--especially if it's loaded with anything other than a JHP +P?

Granted, the modern subcompact & micro autos have all kinds of improvements in ergonomics, sights--even lasers--reloading, metallurgy, polymer components, ambidextrous design, and they're light, compact, flat, etc. etc. And they may or *may not* be as easy to shoot well as Browning's pocket autos. And often are unreliable with any other ammo than his FMJ designs.

And SD gunfight distances are still considered to be inside 7 yards (or 5, or 3), and typically won or lost within several shots.

And anybody who does use a .38 anymore "has" to use modern scandium or titanium flyweights that are rated for +P, but not for lead bullets because the violent recoil will disassemble the durned ammo in the cylinder. And anyone who has compared these flyweights with a K-frame snub, or even J-frame or Colt D-frame steel guns KNOWS that one looks cutting edge, is easy to carry, and uses $1/shot ammo; and the other will look old-fashioned, but shoot faster and easier, thus usually straighter?

So, a century of improvements gives us. . .what, exactly? Tritium & laser sights, for SD scenarios in which few people apparently use sights. Quick reloads, when reloads rarely occur in SD. Compact lightweights that are easier to carry, but harder to shoot effectively. JHP's, often unreliable in autos; won't function, expand, or penetrate very predictably out of short barrels; and too expensive for practice. Or even back to original-spec FMJ ammo, just with slower velocity and snappier recoil from lightweight shorties.

Okay, many of the improvements count for many police, military, and even HD applications (in full-sized guns), but how much practical difference have they really made for civilian SD? Not as much as commonly accepted, IMO.

I'm not a *fan* of 158g RNL for SD/HD, and it's clearly obsolete for police use except possibly in a backup snubbie. I'd still consider myself better- and more practically armed for HD/SD with a 2" round butt Model 10 or steel snubnose loaded with 158g RNL, than with any .32 auto or revolver; any .380; any caliber subcompact; most bulky 9mm compacts; any .38 flyweight snubby. Pocket carry excepted, in some cases.

I'm glad the 158gr RNL bullet was standard issue for so long. You see, one of my dearest friends at work was shot 3 times in the chest at 2' range by his partner during an arrest in confined space one day, back in 1968.

This fellow stood about 5'4"-5'5" and weighed about 115 lbs. (Imagine Don Knotts - They were near identical in proportions.) He got a tip a wanted fugitive was in a bathroom at a downtown tavern. He and his partner went back there, and ordered him out, to which the bad guy said, "I've got a gun." My buddy and his partner drew down, and my friend said, "I'm counting to 3, and if you don't come out hands first and with them empty, we're gonna shoot you!" (This was a bluff, sort-of.) Well, when he got to "3," the door opened and the badguy started to say, "OK, I'm coming out," while simultaneously my friend's partner, who was apparently standing behind my friend and very, VERY nervous, started shooting at the doorway (through my friend).

My friend grabbed the badguy, spun him around, got him up on the wall in an arm lock, and turned to his partner and said, "will you PLEASE stop shooting!?!"

The badguy was hooked up. My friend took two 38 Spl. 158gr. RNL through the back, and one through his side. Two of the bullets penetrated his right lung, and it was touch-and-go in the hospital for quite awhile. He was off on medical for about a year and when he came back was in detectives and later Intelligence. I met him when he was working a retirement job, and it was a side job for me. He was about 40 years older than I, but he was a cop's cop, and I was (and am) in awe of him. He died last year in his 80s.

That's the thing about the LRN. It will kill you, if you don't get medical attention, and after some time, but it won't reliably stop someone, which is why I like either the 10mm or 45.

I do carry a 380, a lot, but that's under circumstances where I don't expect to need it (off duty), and I am knowingly trading off power for convenience. I don't feel better-armed with it than a 38, although I carry Hornady Critical Defense, which has reliable penetration and expansion. If I'm close enough, I plan to put the muzzle under the guy's chin before firing.


Edited to add:
I DO like casting, loading, and shooting the 158+gr RNL in the form of Lyman's 358311 bullet mould. They are easy to cast, feed well through speed loaders or 2x2x2 method, and they are remarkably accurate at ridiculous distances. Loaded over 4.0grs of W231, it's my #1 choice of range/plinking fodder. I also agree they're great small game boolits, but that's for a damning reason (in self-def.), because they don't damage as much meat.

MMA10mm,
1st, glad your friend made it through that lousy situation!

2nd, add me to the list of those who carry .380 from time to time, b/c my SIG P238 disappears in a pocket holster and sometimes dress code leads me to put one or both of my Remington Mod. 51's in IWB holsters. VERY slim guns at 0.8" width. Carry a 100g/900 fps hardcast LFP handload that feeds reliably.

3rd:
Your friend's experience is a perfect example of the varied ".38/158g RNL as Widowmaker" stories that were so numerous when it was in common use, and that eventually led to its demise as a police load. From everything I've heard then and since, the FBI Load 158g LHP +P earned a great rep in antipersonnel role as its initial replacement.

Here's the puzzling part: if "physical" instant stops only occur from (a) CNS hits or (b) massive & instantaneous blood loss, how did 100fps and an HP cavity turn a ball peen hammer (158 RNL) into a 9-pound sledgehammer (FBI Load)? Surely it wasn't an unexplained 50%+ increase in CNS and vena cava hits, right?

Nonetheless, everybody's eyes tell us that we can consider the RNL load dicey, the 158g SWC load better, and the FBI Load as pretty doggone reliable. Same when we look at .45 FMJ compared to .38 RNL or 9mm FMJ: experience indicates that there's something very significantly different about one versus the other two, that 9/100" difference in diameter doesn't seem adequate to explain. It especially muddies the water that the differences seem so unpredictable, as we've seen so many cases that deviate from the patterns we're trying to distinguish: failures with .45's, successes with .22's, etc. Fairbairn and Sykes saw the awesome destructive power and awe-inspiring reputation of the 7.63mm Mauser, but often saw it fail to have that effect.

Others such as Fackler have shown that the 5.56mm 55g ball ammo is an unreliable stopper at lower vels, but at approx. 2700 fps it tends to destabilize, turn sideways, break apart, and have catastrophic effects. . .except when it doesn't. Still others have observed that 2300-2400 fps range represents a similar threshold for other calibers. The Brits wanted their .38/200 at about 575-625, not faster, to help ensure that the long bullet destabilized inside the target, because that apparently turned a mediocre stopper into a good one.

Not only is every shooting unique because of a bazillion variables, but many loads seem to change drastically in effectiveness at various thresholds unique to that load or caliber.

This is easy,..... you like it? Carry it. I HAD to and as soon as I was not mandated I carried better .38 ammo. Will it kill you? Yes. Right away? Not always.

Sure, it's easy, because everybody is going to carry what he or she wants to carry, anyway.
I think OP's point was to discuss the load, not advocate it for reinstatement.

Pretty perceptive, LouisianaMan.

It's a topic that deserves some "sifting" of reputation. Is the 158 grain lead round nose to be considered a dud based on sound judgement or just because someone says so?

I carry the .38 Special most often and feel that the +P 158 grain lead SWC is the superior choice for personal defense above all others, 2-inch snub or 4-inch duty revolver.

I hope I did not give the impression of advocating for reissue or not. An opinion was requested. I hoped that's what was gleaned from my response.

I certainly understand that you have strong feelings about it, since you were required to carry it when you didn't have confidence in it. By the time I became aware of such things, the early '70's, it was becoming established that it needed to be replaced as a first-line cartridge for law enforcement. It was likewise clear to me that the voices raised against it were so passionate because many agencies still required it to be carried. It was also clear to me that it was intertwined with a broad controversy about replacing the revolver with automatics.

Back then, for reasons I don't fully understand, the 158 RNL had not even been replaced widely with a SWC or flatpoint of some kind, although hunters & others had long agreed that flatnosed bullets hit harder. Unfortunately, it was also clear that autos weren't yet reliable with anything but ball ammo, so for a while the primary choices available were the problematic .38 RNL, 9mm ball, and .45 ACP ball. Big-bore revolvers were rather widely advocated, as you doubtless recall, but everybody who felt the .45 auto was "too much" felt the same way about the .44 and .45 revolvers available.

I often use 158RN as they load into cylinder pretty good with the 8 hole moon clip in the 627 ICORE events.

I prefer the 130 conical flat nose but the real difference is moot for ICORE purposes.

Currently I can reload 50 38 special in a variety of cast bullets for less than I can find 22LR available.

The last few years I've even developed an appreciation for 147WC laods I had never used much.

__________________
Dum vivimus Vivamas

The tales of what works and what fails in ammunition could easily be titled "Firearm Fables."

Whoa boy, I am going to make some folks mad but,I have thick skin and an aluminium hat so, here goes.
First,there are a lot of posters in this thread that are trying very hard to educate people with good information. Well founded ,well thought out, and based in common sense and historical data.
Then, there are a lot here that refuse to listen because they know more than the people that know where of they speak.
You can throw all of the baseless opinion, bovine scat, and condensed apple pie into this discussion and it will amount to exactly what you put in to it.. a pile of garbage in, garbage out.
Folks that have taught force on force classes for LE departments, have been the "thin blue line"[or brown], that have packed their mandated .38 SPL. pieces for 10, 20 ,30 + years, would ,you think be in the know,HUH?
For those who think the .38 SPL. is the "cats meow" let me suggest you read a number of books and articles by people who have "seen the elephant".Two books listed below pretty much establish that it is not a .38 SPL. issue so much as a bullet shape and construction issue.Other books by well known handgunners, Elmer Keith, Skeeter Skelton,Bill Jordon & others, make passing observations, but Cirillo's research and applications of deadly force pretty much say it for me.
"Guns, Bullets, and Gunfights" by Jim Cirillo and"Jim Cirillo's Tales of the Stakeout Squad" by Paul Kirchner are a great place to start.
My military combat and LEO experiences lead me to feeling under gunned and inadequate without a .45 Auto tucked in my britches but there are times when that just won't work.When I find it desirable to carry a snubbie .38, I use 148 gr.target loads in the alloy framed guns and + P hollow points in guns that will stand the beating.
My mother lived about 7 miles out in the country for about 18 years toward the end of her life. She was not a big woman nor was she an accomplished pistol shot. My solution for her house defense weapon was a Ruger Security Six [.357 Mag.] loaded with handloads of "slightly warm" 148 gr. wadcutters loaded hollow base forward and in.38 SPL. cases too long to chamber in .38 Spl. revolvers.
Disclaimer: There is no intent here to talk down or belittle anyone, everyone is entitled to his opinion. However, when the final outcome is survival or..not, don't you think opinions provide little in "bullet proofing" and experience and research by those who have been there are a more reliable basis to plan for your survival?
The internet provides foxhole defilade for much mis-information, instant experts abound.The best advice I can offer is, listen to the poeple with experience ,not mall ninjas and wannabes. Nick

OK, somebody help me with this one. . .who in this thread is demanding the return to front-line LE duty of the .38 SPL with 158g LRN bullet? Fess up.

The mall ninjas are so well camouflaged that I can't spot 'em.

I spent 24 years on active duty, and would not even begin to claim that soldiers necessarily know more about weapons and ammo than everybody else. How many times have you heard soldiers say something about a ".60 caliber" when they were trying to talk about an M-60 MG? How many said that the Communists in Vietnam were really smart because they used 7.62 ammo, so they could use our ammo or our weapons?

OTOH, we all realize that some of those same people are experts in operating the M-60, maybe even successful or decorated in combat. Other people might be able to discuss every historical, industrial, and commercial aspect of the M-60, but have personally never seen one and are too weak and geeky to ever carry or use one. I'd want the former machinegunner who still thinks his gun was a .60 caliber with me in combat, the geek to write a book on the M-60. If either guy tried to speak about something he could not know anything about, I'd have problems with it.

I try to evaluate posts on their own merit, which may or may not be a matter of their direct personal experience. Nobody in his right mind rejects the value of experience, but if we limit any and all discussion on that basis, I guess the only people who can participate are those who have shot people with the .38 Spl/158g RNL bullet, for the purposes of this thread.

Since I personally haven't, I'm hereby shutting up. Everybody who has, please speak up. And God help us if one says it worked OK for him, and another says it didn't.

I've worked on a couple of DRT cases with the .38 Spl RNL . . . shot placement, shot placement, shot placement. (One was the only spinal cord hit I can recall seeing in a case.)

__________________
Now go make God proud...

The standard 38 Special 158 grain LRN is better than nothing, but no matter how you slice it, it "stops" only 50% of the time with one shot to the chest. If it were the best, it would be used. Unfortunately, no one who has looked into the matter even a little uses this load. It is accurate, but not even the best for target shooting as the round ogive makes determination of whether it "broke the line" on the target difficult without a gauge. The wadcutter and semi-wadcutter are better paper punchers. Would I use it for defense? If that is all there was, yes. Given anything better, no. I am amused at the people who say, "I am carrying a 38 right now" or words to that effect, as if the "launcher" has anything to do with stopping power as opposed to the "missile." That is like saying you are carrying a .357. So what. Unless it is loaded with effective ammo, it makes no difference. A .357 loaded with 38 RNL is no better at stopping just because it is fired from a .357. Oh well, everyone has a right to an opinion, and ammo arguments always come down to shot placement. The best combo is shot placement plus an effective load.

Just like some of the previous posters said it is all about shot placement. I have seen one shot stops with .32 acp's and .38 special with 130 gr. FMJ loads. I have also seen minor non-incapacasitating injuries with .357 magnum, 9mm, and .40's. That being said my 637 and my SP101 are loaded with the Speer 135 gr. +P or the 158 gr. SWCHP +P loads.

i really like the 38 spl and use 158 gr lrn almost exclusively for CAS i can shoot it FAST and accurately. its my favorite load, this is what i know about it;
at my range we use 1/2 " plywood for target backers, these 2'x4' pieces of plywood are screwed onto a 2x4 with the aid of fender washers and 1 3/4 deck screws .
a 38 spl 158 gr lrn with 4 gr of 231 will flatten itself against the washer , but a 240gr.lrn/6.8 231 44mag(light) will almost push it out the other side .
i once had an extra copy of stephen king's hard cover novel "nightmares and dreamscapes" 158 gr lrn made it to about page 300 ? 357 mag made confetti out the other side , a 22 lr went about 150 pages further than the 38 . granted the 22 is faster. i have never taken game with a handgun so i cannot comment but would sure like to hear some first hand experience

__________________
the rules? there are no rules

I think we really agree on most things, right down the line. The one thing we may not (I'm not exactly sure of your position yet) is that there is (or isn't) much difference between the RNL & SWC-HP. That's why, in my post (probably didn't explain it well) I advocate for carrying a 10mm or 45. Orders of magnitude difference between ANY 38 load and those calibers vs. the difference between the 158 LRN & 158 SWC-HP. That said, if I know I'm walking into a killing situation, forget the handguns! I'll take my Benelli loaded with Buckshot. i get the impression you're trying to split things too fine. NO handgun load is a "great" stopper, not the 45 Long Colt or even the 50 A.E. (Well, maybe the 460 S&W and 500 S&W.) Just as our 380s are trade-offs for convenience, a 10mm or 45 or 38 are trade-offs, because it's inconvenient to carry the Benelli everywhere you go... Trying to draw significant conclusions between the RNL and SWC-HP is liking describing the difference between the 308 and 30-06: They're there, but you have to look in the details.

I took a small whitetail buck here in Texas once with a .38 Special and a round nose lead bullet however it was a 200 grain bullet, handloaded to "enhanced" velocities, and flung out of a long-barreled .38 Special revolver. The buck took a few wobbly steps and collapsed. The 200 grain bullet got the top of his heart and ended up on the off hand side stuck in a rib. A large smear of lead about the size of a dime was present on one side of the bullet.

This is the revolver that was used. A Model 14-4 I've had since it was new.


This was the bullet used, loaded over the maximum listed charge of 2400 as published in the Lyman 46th manual.