Bad Load? The .38 Special 158 gr. RNL

[358156hp]

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.

 

[Nevada Ed]

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.........

 

[andyo5]

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.

 

[358156hp]

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.

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.

 

[HKSmith]

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...........

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.

 

[CoMF]

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.

 

[Pigirondan]

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

 

[Will Carry]

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.

 

[rromeo]

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.........

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

 

[358156hp]

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.

 

[Nevada Ed]

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.

 

[358156hp]

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

 

[LouisianaMan]

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.

 

[MMA10mm]

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.

 

[LouisianaMan]

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.

 

[badge]

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.

 

[LouisianaMan]

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.

 

[bmcgilvray]

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.

 

[badge]

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.

 

[LouisianaMan]

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.