.38 S&W for Defense?

[LouisianaMan]

No argument here--as I stated, the full wadcutter cuts a far more effective wound channel. My point is simply that the .38 S&W is not so much a completely misbegotten, underpowered round; rather, it is first & foremost a victim of its 19th century LRN bullet design, especially when loaded to velocities appropriate for the old lemon-squeezer topbreaks.

Simply substituting a 148g WC makes it almost a copy of the .38 SPL wadcutter. By substituting a wide-meplat 200g bullet, you'd get a wound channel similar to a wadcutter, with bone-smashing penetration to boot. Still somewhat limited in effects against soft tissue only, but devastating if it hits bone. In any event, certain to reach vitals.

Although we seem fairly comfortable in selling +P .38 SPL loads despite the existence of very old .38 SPL revolvers, the existence of weak top-break guns chambered in .38 S&W have kept .38 S&W load development essentially non-existent. Although they can't do anything a .38 SPL can't do at least as well, the solid-frame .38 S&W revolvers could be effective SD weapons IMO with 148g WC or 158g SWC at about 750fps, 200g SWC at about 650-700 fps, and perhaps a 125g LSWCHP at about 825 fps. Today's handloader can achieve these results easily in solid frame guns.

The only reasons I became a fan of this caliber were, (1) the British Army's conviction that the .380/200 blunt-nosed bullet was an effective combat round, and (2) the fact that I could equip my wife & daughters with a quality J-frame gun available in both 2" and 4" barrrels, by buying S&W 32-1 and 33-1 revolvers that have sat unused in dresser drawers for decades.

For that matter, I think S&W is missing a bet by not manufacturing current .38 SPL J-frames in 4" barrel length, which should be a great HD solution for many--especially women & men with small hands. My wife and girls have small hands and can't manage a K-frame, but can tear up targets with a J-frame.

 

[dogngun]

It could kill someone a hundred years ago...I don't see where

we are that much tougher now. They said that stuff about tha "obsolete" .30-30, too...

The big problem with it from what I read is overpenetration-the LRN tends to go through and through. PRACTICE with it and it will be fine-the little J frames are very accurate when you take time to practice with them.

Years ago, I handloaded the .38 S&W using a hollow base wadcutter in
.357, base in the case but seated as a regular bullet. It was a nice round then, and I am sure it would be effective today. I used a little Unique, but I don't reacall how many grains.

mark

 

[Casehardn]

In my opinion, if that is the gun you feel most comfortable carrying and the most accurate shooting in the heat of the moment, then yes, it is adequate.
The gun you leave at home is the gun that will not work when the situation in need arises.
Enjoy the terrier. It's a sweet piece of history.

 

[LouisianaMan]

Mark,
Good points--I guess the .30-30 really can't kill deer anymore, since we have 7mm Mags and .300 Mags, right?

And that was exactly the British Army's point, in that they were specifically looking for something easier for hastily-trained soldiers to shoot than their big .455 revolvers. Personally, I like big-bore sidearms, but my own "lyin' eyes" have witnessed that .38-anything seems to be much easier for most people to shoot well. Since a box of ammo seems to last a lot of people for a very, very long time, that tells me a lot about how intensively most people (don't) train with their HD/SD sidearms, and that puts them squarely into the category of shooter the British Army had in mind when they switched to .380/200 aka .38 S&W in lieu of the .455. Such citizens are probably better served, in general, by the .32 or .38 they feel able to handle, than the big-bore weapon they are hesitant to handle.

As I've written in other threads, it's striking to me that police and citizens made do with .32's and .38's of various sorts for many decades, yet these classics are now derided as useless, worse than useless, or even irreponsible choices for modern SD/HD!! Granted, many BGs today are bigger, more likely to be drug-crazed, and they're also numerous and well-armed.

And although opinions differ re. penetration, I think the main complaint about the old .38SPL 158g LRN was that it did relatively little tissue damage as it traversed the BG's body, not that it penetrated thru-and-thru. Granted, some then & now subscribe to the energy dump theory, which posits that a T&T wastes the bullet's energy. Personally, I much prefer a bullet that passes through--all things being equal, I believe that leads to quicker BP drop & thus incapacitation. Without doubt, it ensures that the bullet reaches any vitals it happens to be pointed at!

 

[ddixie884]

dogngun, a friend used to load the .38 S&W as you describe, but with the hollow base foreward. It seemed like a good idea to me, so I loaded some that way in .38spl. Imagine my surprise when they would not chamber. I had to seat them to the last cannelure instead of the middle one for the spl. Its a good idea, and as you said it gives a lot more case capacity to the .38S&W.

 

[Horseless Trooper]

38S&W satisfies the first rule of gunfighting ie. have a gun. It would not be my first choise if deliberately going in harms way but in that situation my first choise would be a rifle. I sometimes carry my 4in. Webley MKIV when in the mood and the Webley and my Enfield do home defence duty stashed in a couple of rooms in my house. A 2in. Terrier is on my list of must have guns when funds become available and will serve CCW duty on occassion.

 

[walnutred]

Remember Federal and Charter Arms tried to update the 38 S&W in the late '70s, they called it the 9mm Federal. It was basically a 38 S&W case loaded to 9x19 +p specs with a hollow point jacketed bullet. Great idea in theory, but it was too close to 38 S&W. Imagine someone pulling the trigger on a 9x19 in an old, loose topbreak revolver. Or even an I frame. Terrier.

I loved mine and seriously regret selling it. I used 38 S&W for plinking loads and full power 9mm+P type loads when I wanted those.

 

[LouisianaMan]

Horseless,
Like me, you apparently enjoy having classics do double-duty as eye candy & concealed carry. No reason they can't fulfill the same function they originally did, right? And I also intend to get another Terrier for my personal use--am about to post ads for some of my classic pocket autos to generate funds, hopefully.

Walnutred, I certainly remember hearing about that cartridge, but know nothing whatsoever about it. Guess I need to study up on it. Was it rimmed, and did Federal advertise it as interchangeable with .38 S&W in modern solid-framed guns?

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I just love building and shooting 38/200 ammo. I have a Enfield revolver that will shoot that ammo, even loaded a little hot all day long. It's fun to shoot the "old stuff" every once and a while!

 

[Oyeboteb]

Bearing in mind, most of the 'Terriers' were very short Barrels revolvers.

The .38-200 was intended for a five inch Barrel, and, likely would not really do very well out of a 2 inch...and, was not the same as the .38 S & W Cartridge as far as it's ingerent Ballistics, or the Revolvers it was intended to be used in.

None the less, I have asked around also in seeking insight about the .38 S&W when it is to be used in Hand ejector Model S & Ws ( whether those be the K-Frame or smaller Frame Models ) or in the Colt Police Positives.

What I am told, by intelligent and experienced people who have done this, is, that they very carefully calculate loading Densities for the .38 S & W Cartridge to approximately upper end .38 Special Loadings, where, with 140-odd or 150-odd Grain Lead Wadcutters or other Lead Bullets, they enjoy 800-900 FPS out of a 2 inch Terrier, or, of course, some ways more if out of a 4 or 5 inch Colt Police Positive.


Essentially then duplicating the Ballistics one would have if one had an S & W Chief's Special, in .38 Special...or, something which is getting close to 9mm Ballistics if using lighter Bullets.


This of course would be no good for any of the 'Break Top' Models of any make, since it would be too strong a loading for their design and or Alloy as well, but, according to some anyway, it is alright as an occasional thing, for a much stronger Terrier, or, even more so, for a Colt PP Snubby of the early 1930s on up...as SD Rounds, or some occasional and limited practice.

A steady diet of it would likely not be the best for the Revolver, but, who knows, maybe it would not make much difference one way or the other.


The calculations and care in arriving at a correct Loading density for the .38 S & W Cartridge, for it to equal .38 Special in performance, is a fairly sophisticated task, and, best not undertaken by anyone who does not have a lot of technical experience with intentional re-loading, and, the use of various Powders, and a clear and practical grasp of Loading Density issues.


I recently got a Terrior in .38 S & W which dates to 1946.


I would not feel shy to Carry it for CCW, using plain old Garden Variety .38 S & W Cartridges.

If I had the sophistication to correctly duplicate the Ballistic performance of .38 Special in my .38 S & W Hand Loads, I would also have a pretty nasty recoil experience, I am sure! Or, about what a Chief's Special would do, anyway.

Lol...


I have not Chronographed it yet with the plain old .38 S & W Cartridges, but, I will get around to it one of these days, and, see what the readings are.

Please understand, in case it needs to be said - Loading Density is the consideration of the volume within a Cartridge, where-in the amount of Powder used, will conflagrate...and that this also has to respect the Bullet type and weight, and, the Arm it is to be used in.

One can not simply use a loading for one Cartridge kind, and apply it to another smaller volume Cartridge, or one would over-pressure.


The relationship of how much Powder, to how much Volume beneath the Bullet, and the weight and type of Bullet, and the particulars of the Revolver ( or other Arm ) in question, all must harmonize, or one can easily create an over-pressure condition, perhaps catastrophically.

So please do not mis-understand, and, imagine that one could simply use a .38 Special Loading Table, for .38 S & W, because if you do, you would likely blow your Revolver up!


It has to be worked out correctly by someone of expert knowledge and experience, and even then, it is probably best thought of as a calculated risk, suited only to those who are comfortabler with it.

 

[LouisianaMan]

Oyeboteb,

Sage advice for one and all. .38 SPL load data stuffed into a .38 S&W case makes as much (non-)sense as using .357 data in a .38 SPL case. They're two different animals, albeit with some common features. In fact, even the British .380 Rimmed service ammo for Webleys and Enfields was/is higher pressure stuff, not suitable for .38 S&W top-breaks and weaker guns.

Although originally developed with a 146g bullet, the .38 S&W was later loaded commercially with the 200g bullet as the .38 Super Police. MV was somewhere around 600 fps, IIRC. I doubt it was considered suitable for top-breaks, either, although I don't know that for a fact. It's unclear to me whether the .38 Super Police was the inspiration for the British .38/200 service ammo, or vice versa, or whether the two developments were coincidental. In any event, the published velocities for US commercial ammo and British service .38/200 ammo were essentially identical. Britain's subsequent modification to a 178g FMJ bullet was a different proposition, and wasn't commercially available in the USA as far as I know.

 

[Col Defender]

There are some great responses on this thread already. I think it comes down to whether you have something else more powerful, say .38 Special or better, that you can conceal to your satisfaction.

If you do not, then the .38 S&W is what you should carry. Practice and use the best ammo you can come up with. If a TRUSTED friend can reload something better than factory ammo, that may be a help.

(Beware of reloaded ammunition from anyone you do not know and trust.)

 

[Oyeboteb]

Hi LouisannaMan,


Good to hear from you again!


when I posted that, I thought I was on page 1 with only a few posts above me.

I have no idea how I missed noticing so many posts being already there.


I do have that 'Terrier' now, and, also, a 4 Inch Police Positive ( if maybe a somewhat early one of the latter ).

So...once I get back into re-Loading again, I will be brooding on the .38 S & W Cartridge for Hand Ejecters and Police Positives...and, likely trying some various Bullet weights, electing maybe, 'Unique'.

I really like that 'Terrier'.


For my .38 S & W Break-Tops, I will go with 3 F BP, and, likely 'Swiss' at that, and, see what those do with their normal weight Bullets...except maybe electing a flat front Wadcutter in lieu of the RNL.

 

[dogngun]

Since this came out, I bought 2 old Smiths-one is still in transit, a New Departure 3 1/2" .38 S&W 4th model.
The other which I got a few weeks ago, a .32 S&W Long Hand Ejector...I am amazed how nice the .32 is...Probably 90% or better.
The topbreak .38 S&W is not so pretty, but is near perfect mechanical condition and might see some pocket time after I clean and shoot it a bit.

mark