The fact that finding a viable SD round in 38 remains a “dream” is a pretty damning indictment of the caliber.
‘Nuff said.
"Viable" is a word open to broad interpretation.
The development of magnum handgun ammunition is an ongoing story of slow-burning propellant powders that, by nature of the materials, require longer barrels to achieve the top performance levels. Those heavy charges typically result in far greater recoil, and the lighter handguns transfer much more of that force to the shooter.
Published testing utilizing ballistic gelatin is a useful method for comparisons between loads against each other or against an established metric. Such testing is not a direct indicator of actual performance in other target media.
I have owned and used a S&W Model 37 Airweight Chief Special .38 Spl. with nominal 2" barrel for over 40 years. About 15 oz. empty weight. I have also carried a 2.5" Model 19 .357 revolver for many years. About double the weight of the 37. The 37 is decidedly painful using standard pressure .38 Spl. ammo for extended range sessions, and recoil recovery for follow-up shots is a challenge. The Model 19 is even more painful and difficult to control when using any .357 ammo type.
I stick with standard-pressure ammo in the 37 and +P ammo in the 19, and I rely upon blunt, flat-nosed, and hollow-point soft lead bullets to achieve the maximum reliable and predictable performance of these handgun types. I limit .357 ammo to steel-framed medium or large-frame revolvers with ~4" or longer barrels, and I have no planned intention of ever firing those in a populated area.
Everything is a compromise. Weight (handgun, bullet, powder charge), predictable accuracy (including follow-up shots), recoil, muzzle blast, terminal ballistic performance.
YMMV. Plenty of retired cops and old timers like me have decades of experience guiding our choices.
