38 Spl 158 gr RNL adequate for S&W 442

[The_Truth]

Also i dont know why people keep referring to antiquated police rounds from 60 years ago. "They worked then" isn't good enough. Of course they worked. They had to work, because there weren't many other options. 38spl was also loaded a bit hotter in factory loads back then if I'm not mistaken. Now they are quite anemic in the cheap boxes meant for plinking, which is what I think of when I hear "lead round nose." That or cowboy action.

YMMV

 

[haywood]

158gr. RNL.= "The Widow Maker"

 

[Pigirondan]

As an aside, I'm currently practicing with a new Model 36*. I've been working it in with various .38 Special rounds I have for my K-frames. The first 100 rounds were with some Prvi Partizan 158 grain SWC. While not RNL, it certainly was fairly benign. Then I used the aforementioned Buffalo Bore 150 grain wadcutter.

Now we were getting somewhere. All things considered, there are much better choices than 158 grain RNL. A lot of the JHP's may or may not perform as advertised with the J-frames, but there are plenty that will, the Speer 135 grain Gold Dot for example. (A lot of the lead SWC-HP's aren't very good in a J-frame either, but the Buffalo Bore version is...)

If my signature is any indicator, I prefer wadcutters in my J-frames rather than any sort of JHP, and I really like the Buffalo Bore as my preferred carry ammunition. I can replicate it with my own handloads for practice. YMMV

*All I can say is that I have no idea why I've been using Airweight's all these years. The Model 36 is actually enjoyable to shoot, but I digress.

 

[38SPL HV]

Why?

To me, it sounds like he was just being an arrogant ***, full of the "guns are for me, and not for thee" pompitude.

I wouldn't lose sleep over carrying 158 gr LRN in my snub.

He wasn't arrogant, can't imagine what he saw and did down in the graffiti and crime ridden NYC subway during the 1970's...very tough times and even I, as a student, saw some very sad things. He probably never heard such a question from anyone...however, in my rural town in New England I could have this discussion with ease with our local constabulary.

 

[38SPL HV]

...I've also researched about non +P 38 Spl SD rounds, those Hornady 90 gr and 110 gr bullets are pretty impressive in ballistic tests, even in a short barrel snub. But I'm not yet convinced, they seem too light.

 

[ContinentalOp]

...I've also researched about non +P 38 Spl SD rounds, those Hornady 90 gr and 110 gr bullets are pretty impressive in ballistic tests, even in a short barrel snub. But I'm not yet convinced, they seem too light.

Just my personal preference, but I like medium-to-heavy-for-caliber bullet weights for SD purposes. For .38 Special, that'd be in the 125-158gr range.

At the same time, if you perform substantially better with the light loads than with heavier loads, they may be the better choice for you.

Either way, it's better than a mean stare...

 

[Culina]

There is quite a bit of data out there about various loads in .38 special, standard and +p and of course the .357 magnum all fired from short barrels, in the 2" range. Out of all of it the only thing that impressed me was .357 magnum expansion even from a snub nose.

The only J-frame I have right now is a 60-14 in .357 magnum and I have it loaded with Remington 140gr Semi Jacketed Hollow Points. I am not worried about the round performing, but I am concerned about the muzzle blast without hearing protection, but it only holds five shots so I want each one to count if it comes to that.

 

[badge 851]

I would probably buy some of Buffalo Bore's full wadcutter loads at full velocity. Not mid-range wadcutters. Velocity is about 850 FPS, and I bet it comes a lot closer to that spec than most factory RNL loads will. This is not Plus P ammo. I think BB is the only company now making full power wadcutter ammo in this caliber.

The load you mentioned is probably the absolute worst choice in .38 Special ammo and is what gave the cartridge a poor reputation for stopping power. I'm not being rude, but you asked and deserve an honest answer.

Same ballistics and much cheaper: Underwood Ammo | Superior High-Performance Ammunition

 

[Doug M.]

RNL is a load that should never be used for any serious purpose. In fact, the only use of which I can think is making empties that you can load with something appropriate. I have gone full reactionary in the traditional revolver calibers, and generally advocate a good wadcutter or semi-wadcutter. The shape of the nose is far too important.

I generally only use a hollow point in one of the auto-pistol service calibers in which they have been heavily tested; I have revolvers in 45ACP and 9mm in which I use such ammo. The only real exception is .357; if not loaded with .38 SWC, I load it with a quality JHP. In a stubby .38, a platform I admit I have gotten away from a find of limited utility at best, expansion is simply not reliable enough, so I stuck with WC/SWC when I had such a revolver.

 

[lrrifleman]

The only time that I use 158gr RN is when I am shooting an action-type pistol match where a rapid reload benefits completion of the course of fire.

 

[cowboy4evr]

In my 642 I found 110gr jacketed hollow points from Georgia - Arms shot to "POA " and they expanded nicely . I have seen the Hornady FTX ( plastic tip " expanded well with decent penetration . Good luck , regards Paul

 

[photoman]

I heard from old cops in the know (Metro police) that the 38 Spl 158 gr RNL is adequate for SD use in J frame 442. I understand that they have adequate penetration, and are sighted for the J frame. I've shot many 158 gr RNL reloads at factory velocity and I'm very accurate with the load. I intend to purchase Remington's 38 Spl 158 gr RNL cartridges (ones with nickel cases).

What is your opinions of the 158 gr RNL in the 442?

I do not want to use 38 Spl +P.

Oh... you mean the ammo the cops used to call widow makers? No thanks.

Use these instead...

Federal Gold Medal 38 Special Ammo 148 Grain Match Wadcutter

 

[jupiter1]

I don't think expansion or bullet diameter matters with large species. What a bullet hits is most important; witness WDM Bell taking hundreds of elephants with 7x57 Mauser FMJ. A .38 RNL is ok by me. I favor a SWC slightly more because of the straight track that flat nose bullets take.

However, fragile, quick expanding hollow points do work best on small animals such as woodchucks.

 

[JayFramer]

Get some jugs of water and shoot them and see if any standard pressure hollow points expand. If they do, carry them. That simple.

 

[rockquarry]

Threads like this seem to go on far past their useful life, assuming they had one to begin with. Lots of opinions, perhaps some with factual basis; many are nothing more than repeated comments that were of little or no worth even before they were repeated.

Maybe I missed something, but it seems like many of the advocates of +P, "FBI load", and other high-performance bullet destructiveness seldom mention good shooting skills. I guess they see them as quite secondary to the gimmicks.

 

[shouldazagged]

...Maybe I missed something, but it seems like many of the advocates of +P, "FBI load", and other high-performance bullet destructiveness seldom mention good shooting skills. I guess they see them as quite secondary to the gimmicks.

Speaking as a long-time fan and carrier of the FBI load, I beg to differ. Those of us who have looked at the record of the +P 158 grain LSWCHP, and have read Ed Lovette's book and others, are generally thoughtful types for whom the importance of shot placement goes without saying. We may be behind the times in terms of new wonder bullets, but we have thought our choices through.

In short, like most assumptions, yours is unsafe.

 

[rockquarry]

Speaking as a long-time fan and carrier of the FBI load, I beg to differ. Those of us who have looked at the record of the +P 158 grain LSWCHP, and have read Ed Lovette's book and others, are generally thoughtful types for whom the importance of shot placement goes without saying. We may be behind the times in terms of new wonder bullets, but we have thought our choices through.

In short, like most assumptions, yours is unsafe.

I didn't include everybody in my summation, as you wrongfully assumed. There are always exceptions.