.38 Special ballistics test with 4" barrel?

[PeterCartwright]

Guess this is in the category of "ho-hum" by modern standards. I've noticed a dearth of ballistic testing using .38 Special defensive loads and 4" (or even 3") barrels. I understand snubbies are the more common carry gun, but there are boat-loads of 4" guns resting on night stands. I occasionally carry a 4" Model 10 or 15 or even 64 as a self-defense tool as well.

Almost all the ballistic testing videos I can find use short-barreled guns. I'd love to see some more work with common 4" guns as well. Or maybe my "Google-fu" is inadequate?

PC

 

[caduceus]

Interesting. Technology is moving at light speed . New polymer copper loadings by ARX Ruger are speedy, light recoil , and terminal ballistics impressive. Believe Feb 16 or perhaps Nov 15 in NRA Rifleman had good article on these loadings. Fluted bullets. Perhaps a down side hits hard object shatters reducing ricochets but makes one think about going up against other barriers. Future awaits us.

 

[amd6547]

I would also like to see more testing from 4" barrels in 38spl.
My Model 15-3 is a nightstand mainstay, and I also carry it sometimes...

 

[Duckford]

Interesting. Technology is moving at light speed . New polymer copper loadings by ARX Ruger are speedy, light recoil , and terminal ballistics impressive. Believe Feb 16 or perhaps Nov 15 in NRA Rifleman had good article on these loadings. Fluted bullets. Perhaps a down side hits hard object shatters reducing ricochets but makes one think about going up against other barriers. Future awaits us.

The biggest lie ever told by the firearm industry is that the future holds new technology. What a damn joke. 9mm Luger, 45 ACP, 38 Special, 45 Colt, 45-70 Government, 375 H&H, 30-06, 7.92mm Mauser, Unique gun powder, ect., all over 100 years old, yet are not only with us, but still dominate the shooting world. Have we made improvements? Yes. Has new technology really revolutionized shooting. Not really. AR15's aren't a modern 21st century super weapon, they are a product of the 1950's, when Cadillac's had cast iron grills and carbed motors. The "modern" 7.62 and 5.56 NATO are recent additions, certainly, clocking in at a young 60 some years. Bolt action rifles are often times still using the 1898 Mauser action, which is still considered top notch. The modern revolver is still little different than the first side ejector's from the 1890's.

What makes this ARX worthy? After looking at various tests, its not much better than any other non expanding bullet. What makes it any better than a dumb old lead wadcutter or semi wadcutter? Even with modern hollow points, the old 158 SWCHP is still a front runner in .38 Special, and old SJHP for the .357 Magnum perform quite well with modern choices. If one wants a low load for a snubby, why is this ARX any better than a 148 lead bullet that's been around forever? Light speed advancement?

As for Mr. Cartwright, I sympathize greatly, and lament the lack of data myself. I suppose the only answer is to consider getting some material and doing the tests yourself, there are many how to's on how to make gel and calibrate it. I think if this year is slow enough, its time for me to work the camera and some gel myself, and fill in the large gap of information on the internet.

 

[Rock185]

Quite right Duckford. I'm glad we still have all this old stuff, it works. Kinda like black fingerprint powder is still in use in crime labs. Very old, basic, technology that still produces results.....

BTW, I can't help but think of the new technology hype when Remington and Winchester introduced all those stubby super short magnum rifle cartridges years ago. They were new, but did they do anything any better than more conventional cartridges that had been around for years?

 

[Otreb]

I've chronographed number of loads from 4" guns....it's a labor of love to some degree getting a chronograph and actually finding out what stuff does from your own firearms. I'm always most curious about 2.5 to 3" bbl revolvers, and what difference would I find between .357 and .38sp chambered guns.
My next job out with the chrono will be std pressure defensive ammo from 2,4,5 and 6" colt DA revolvers. Maybe even throw in the 1.4" Taurus View and 2.5" model 242.

 

[OKFC05]

As part of shooting 4" revolvers in IDPA/Revolver for 20 years, I've benched my range ammo, and of course chronographed it myself and had it chronographed at dozens of matches. One thing I have learned is that one of my 2 "identical" 4" Model 66s always is 30 fps faster with my IDPA loads. So I always chrono MY loads in MY guns, and won't depend on anyone else's "definitive tests."

Compared to all the chasing my tail with some of the semi autos to take care of problems, it has been boring as heck to load 158gr .38 for IDPA.
Lead bullets, plated bullets, and now coated, load them up with HP38, chrono and adjust to make sure the power factor is above IDPA requirements, and go shoot. From a bench, your coffee cup is in mortal danger at 35 yards. More than good enough for IDPA, where seldom you have time to rest or even use single action. I've tried maybe a couple dozen powders, but keep coming back to HP38.

Until Speer made the 135gr Short barrel bullet, my standard walking around load for .357 was a max load of HP38 under a 125gr JHP. I have a hunting .357 158gr over WIN296 that I don't routinely use in a 4" barrel; they are for the 8" 686. They shoot fine in a 4" barrel, I just don't like being blind and deaf for another 150fps.

 

[PeterCartwright]

As part of shooting 4" revolvers in IDPA/Revolver for 20 years, I've benched my range ammo, and of course chronographed it myself and had it chronographed at dozens of matches. One thing I have learned is that one of my 2 "identical" 4" Model 66s always is 30 fps faster with my IDPA loads. So I always chrono MY loads in MY guns, and won't depend on anyone else's "definitive tests."

Compared to all the chasing my tail with some of the semi autos to take care of problems, it has been boring as heck to load 158gr .38 for IDPA.
Lead bullets, plated bullets, and now coated, load them up with HP38, chrono and adjust to make sure the power factor is above IDPA requirements, and go shoot. From a bench, your coffee cup is in mortal danger at 35 yards. More than good enough for IDPA, where seldom you have time to rest or even use single action. I've tried maybe a couple dozen powders, but keep coming back to HP38.

Until Speer made the 135gr Short barrel bullet, my standard walking around load for .357 was a max load of HP38 under a 125gr JHP. I have a hunting .357 158gr over WIN296 that I don't routinely use in a 4" barrel; they are for the 8" 686. They shoot fine in a 4" barrel, I just don't like being blind and deaf for another 150fps.

Thanks. Your experience and advice rings true. I finally picked up a chronograph last year, but I haven't yet set it up. The weather will eventually warm, even in the U.P. Getting chronograph readings won't be difficult. I'd especially be interested in seeing regular 4" guns used for terminal ballistic results as well.

PC

 

[JayFramer]

The Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel 135 grain +P load is fantastic from both 2" and 4" barrels:

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnhjGPhvsIo[/ame]

NYPD uses this load for all their .38 special needs, not only for backup guns, but also for the officers left rocking Model 10s and 64s. I believe LAPD does the same.

 

[amd6547]

I've always used the Remington 158gn SWCHP +P as my 38spl SD load, but I did get some of the 135gn short barrel load to try. I'm looking forward to seeing how it shoots in my 4" Model 15.
I'll probably give it a try in my 3" GP100, too...though I usually never shoot anything but 357mag in that gun, and find it easy to handle.

 

[DWalt]

For those who have not had the experience, the MV for any particular load is more than barrel length alone. Go out and chronograph a single load using two or three different revolvers having the same barrel length and see for yourself. You will be surprised at the spread of average MVs obtained from each revolver. My theory is that the chamber-barrel gap measurement is very influential to MV, therefore, every revolver makes up its own MV rules.

 

[Groo01]

Groo here
You will also see that modern barrels seem to be faster than the older ones.

 

[Rock185]

Being a ballistically curious guy, I have done a bunch of chronographing since the late '70s. DWalt is correct. Guns with the same barrel length will show different velocities with the same ammo on the same day. I have a 5" S&W revolver that often gives less velocity than some of my 4" S&Ws. Same with semi-auto pistols.....ymmv

 

[Lufbery]

I too would love to see more testing of .38 special rounds from 4 inch barrels. However, I figure that the bullets that perform well in snubbies should do at least as well with two more inches of barrel.

One of these days, I'd love to have a chronograph, a bunch of gel, and a bunch of ammo to run through my 67-1. But for now, I have to rely on what I can find online.

 

[pittpa]

Here is some vintage ballistics porn, showing loads from a 4" 586, compared to some other non-4" barrels. BBTI - Ballistics by the Inch :: Cylinder Gap EDIT-both 38 and 357 are included, and all faster from the 4" 586 than the 6" Python, giving credence to previous posts-stuff varies.

 

[PeterCartwright]

Here is some vintage ballistics porn, showing loads from a 4" 586, compared to some other non-4" barrels. BBTI - Ballistics by the Inch :: Cylinder Gap EDIT-both 38 and 357 are included, and all faster from the 4" 586 than the 6" Python, giving credence to previous posts-stuff varies.

Wow! Some of those numbers are eye-popping! I'd love to know what the cylinder gap measured on that Python! In any case, that data certainly corroborates earlier comments on this thread. Thanks!

PC

 

[Otreb]

Wow! Some of those numbers are eye-popping! I'd love to know what the cylinder gap measured on that Python! In any case, that data certainly corroborates earlier comments on this thread. Thanks!

PC

I've heard the Pythons faster twist rate and tighter bore can yield slower numbers.....but especially revolvers are simply individuals. I have a tight 14-3 with a 6" bbl that chronos numbers similar to my 2.5" model 242. I do agree the newer guns tend to be faster IME.

 

[DWalt]

Cylinder-barrel gaps can be all over the place. Even in relatively new and little-used revolvers, I have measured gaps (using a feeler gauge) up to 0.012". The tightest revolver I personally own is a 1959 Colt 3-5-7 with a 6" barrel for which the gap measures a tight 0.003". Not coincidentally, it always gives the highest measured average MV for any given load vs. several other of my .357/.38 Special revolvers having 6" barrels (two S&Ws and two other Colts). I always use a 10-shot MV average.

 

[Nevada Ed]

Really no need to test............
EVEYTHING works with a long 4" barrel.

Plenty of speed for the bullets to mushroom and penetrate correctly.
That's why the 4 and 6" were issued............ but there are test out there
if you want to look them up.

 

[pittpa]

I've heard the Pythons faster twist rate and tighter bore can yield slower numbers.....but especially revolvers are simply individuals. I have a tight 14-3 with a 6" bbl that chronos numbers similar to my 2.5" model 242. I do agree the newer guns tend to be faster IME.

there is a member here who has an LCR 1 7/8 barrel that clocks consistently higher with various rounds than his and my J-frame 1-7/8 barrel. Twist rate, more lands, gap, etc?