Bad Load? The .38 Special 158 gr. RNL

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I often use 158RN as they load into cylinder pretty good with the 8 hole moon clip in the 627 ICORE events.

I prefer the 130 conical flat nose but the real difference is moot for ICORE purposes.

Currently I can reload 50 38 special in a variety of cast bullets for less than I can find 22LR available.

The last few years I've even developed an appreciation for 147WC laods I had never used much.
 
The tales of what works and what fails in ammunition could easily be titled "Firearm Fables."
 
Whoa boy, I am going to make some folks mad but,I have thick skin and an aluminium hat so, here goes.
First,there are a lot of posters in this thread that are trying very hard to educate people with good information. Well founded ,well thought out, and based in common sense and historical data.
Then, there are a lot here that refuse to listen because they know more than the people that know where of they speak.
You can throw all of the baseless opinion, bovine scat, and condensed apple pie into this discussion and it will amount to exactly what you put in to it.. a pile of garbage in, garbage out.
Folks that have taught force on force classes for LE departments, have been the "thin blue line"[or brown], that have packed their mandated .38 SPL. pieces for 10, 20 ,30 + years, would ,you think be in the know,HUH?
For those who think the .38 SPL. is the "cats meow" let me suggest you read a number of books and articles by people who have "seen the elephant".Two books listed below pretty much establish that it is not a .38 SPL. issue so much as a bullet shape and construction issue.Other books by well known handgunners, Elmer Keith, Skeeter Skelton,Bill Jordon & others, make passing observations, but Cirillo's research and applications of deadly force pretty much say it for me.
"Guns, Bullets, and Gunfights" by Jim Cirillo and"Jim Cirillo's Tales of the Stakeout Squad" by Paul Kirchner are a great place to start.
My military combat and LEO experiences lead me to feeling under gunned and inadequate without a .45 Auto tucked in my britches but there are times when that just won't work.When I find it desirable to carry a snubbie .38, I use 148 gr.target loads in the alloy framed guns and + P hollow points in guns that will stand the beating.
My mother lived about 7 miles out in the country for about 18 years toward the end of her life. She was not a big woman nor was she an accomplished pistol shot. My solution for her house defense weapon was a Ruger Security Six [.357 Mag.] loaded with handloads of "slightly warm" 148 gr. wadcutters loaded hollow base forward and in.38 SPL. cases too long to chamber in .38 Spl. revolvers.
Disclaimer: There is no intent here to talk down or belittle anyone, everyone is entitled to his opinion. However, when the final outcome is survival or..not, don't you think opinions provide little in "bullet proofing" and experience and research by those who have been there are a more reliable basis to plan for your survival?
The internet provides foxhole defilade for much mis-information, instant experts abound.The best advice I can offer is, listen to the poeple with experience ,not mall ninjas and wannabes. Nick
 
OK, somebody help me with this one. . .who in this thread is demanding the return to front-line LE duty of the .38 SPL with 158g LRN bullet? Fess up.

The mall ninjas are so well camouflaged that I can't spot 'em.

I spent 24 years on active duty, and would not even begin to claim that soldiers necessarily know more about weapons and ammo than everybody else. How many times have you heard soldiers say something about a ".60 caliber" when they were trying to talk about an M-60 MG? How many said that the Communists in Vietnam were really smart because they used 7.62 ammo, so they could use our ammo or our weapons?

OTOH, we all realize that some of those same people are experts in operating the M-60, maybe even successful or decorated in combat. Other people might be able to discuss every historical, industrial, and commercial aspect of the M-60, but have personally never seen one and are too weak and geeky to ever carry or use one. I'd want the former machinegunner who still thinks his gun was a .60 caliber with me in combat, the geek to write a book on the M-60. If either guy tried to speak about something he could not know anything about, I'd have problems with it.

I try to evaluate posts on their own merit, which may or may not be a matter of their direct personal experience. Nobody in his right mind rejects the value of experience, but if we limit any and all discussion on that basis, I guess the only people who can participate are those who have shot people with the .38 Spl/158g RNL bullet, for the purposes of this thread.

Since I personally haven't, I'm hereby shutting up. Everybody who has, please speak up. And God help us if one says it worked OK for him, and another says it didn't.
 
The standard 38 Special 158 grain LRN is better than nothing, but no matter how you slice it, it "stops" only 50% of the time with one shot to the chest. If it were the best, it would be used. Unfortunately, no one who has looked into the matter even a little uses this load. It is accurate, but not even the best for target shooting as the round ogive makes determination of whether it "broke the line" on the target difficult without a gauge. The wadcutter and semi-wadcutter are better paper punchers. Would I use it for defense? If that is all there was, yes. Given anything better, no. I am amused at the people who say, "I am carrying a 38 right now" or words to that effect, as if the "launcher" has anything to do with stopping power as opposed to the "missile." That is like saying you are carrying a .357. So what. Unless it is loaded with effective ammo, it makes no difference. A .357 loaded with 38 RNL is no better at stopping just because it is fired from a .357. Oh well, everyone has a right to an opinion, and ammo arguments always come down to shot placement. The best combo is shot placement plus an effective load.
 
Just like some of the previous posters said it is all about shot placement. I have seen one shot stops with .32 acp's and .38 special with 130 gr. FMJ loads. I have also seen minor non-incapacasitating injuries with .357 magnum, 9mm, and .40's. That being said my 637 and my SP101 are loaded with the Speer 135 gr. +P or the 158 gr. SWCHP +P loads.
 
i really like the 38 spl and use 158 gr lrn almost exclusively for CAS i can shoot it FAST and accurately. its my favorite load, this is what i know about it;
at my range we use 1/2 " plywood for target backers, these 2'x4' pieces of plywood are screwed onto a 2x4 with the aid of fender washers and 1 3/4 deck screws .
a 38 spl 158 gr lrn with 4 gr of 231 will flatten itself against the washer , but a 240gr.lrn/6.8 231 44mag(light) will almost push it out the other side .
i once had an extra copy of stephen king's hard cover novel "nightmares and dreamscapes" 158 gr lrn made it to about page 300 ? 357 mag made confetti out the other side , a 22 lr went about 150 pages further than the 38 . granted the 22 is faster. i have never taken game with a handgun so i cannot comment but would sure like to hear some first hand experience
 
LouisianaMan said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

I think we really agree on most things, right down the line. The one thing we may not (I'm not exactly sure of your position yet) is that there is (or isn't) much difference between the RNL & SWC-HP. That's why, in my post (probably didn't explain it well) I advocate for carrying a 10mm or 45. Orders of magnitude difference between ANY 38 load and those calibers vs. the difference between the 158 LRN & 158 SWC-HP. That said, if I know I'm walking into a killing situation, forget the handguns! I'll take my Benelli loaded with Buckshot. ;) i get the impression you're trying to split things too fine. NO handgun load is a "great" stopper, not the 45 Long Colt or even the 50 A.E. (Well, maybe the 460 S&W and 500 S&W.) Just as our 380s are trade-offs for convenience, a 10mm or 45 or 38 are trade-offs, because it's inconvenient to carry the Benelli everywhere you go... Trying to draw significant conclusions between the RNL and SWC-HP is liking describing the difference between the 308 and 30-06: They're there, but you have to look in the details.
 
I took a small whitetail buck here in Texas once with a .38 Special and a round nose lead bullet however it was a 200 grain bullet, handloaded to "enhanced" velocities, and flung out of a long-barreled .38 Special revolver. The buck took a few wobbly steps and collapsed. The 200 grain bullet got the top of his heart and ended up on the off hand side stuck in a rib. A large smear of lead about the size of a dime was present on one side of the bullet.

This is the revolver that was used. A Model 14-4 I've had since it was new.


This was the bullet used, loaded over the maximum listed charge of 2400 as published in the Lyman 46th manual.



 
Last edited:
This has turned into....

This has turned into a very interesting thread, more about SD ammo than LRNs. Lots of info and just plain arguing points. Things that I learned:

LRNs still have a place in shooting.

Nothing stops 100% of the time, We are really playing percentages with concealability, portability and shootability.

They have been studying 'stopping power' for over 100 years. Improvements have been made, but there is no perfect answer. Nothing stops 100% of the time, We are really playing percentages with concealability, portability and shootability. An 8" cannonball would pretty much be lethal with a COM hit, but carrying and aiming that sucker in a surprise SD situation would probably be a total fail.:D:D:D
 
Great looking revolver you got there.........that 8 3/4" looks like a 12" to me after shooting a year with my snub nose.

That thing come with a Harris bi-pod ?? :D

I can see why deer drop dead in their tracks with that monster !

Sweet.
 
The answer to all of this has been with us since the Civil War. Elmer Keith wrote in "Sixguns" of CW veterans telling him that the round ball in a Colt Navy was a better manstopper than conicals. Elmer notes this himself in modern ctgs. in that RN bullets merely zipped through flesh and rarely caused much damage unless something vital was hit. His favorite example being the old Remington .45 Colt blackpowder load that would penetrate a bull from butthole to tongue but never expanded. We also know from primary historical sources that this was the case with the Moros even after the Military went back to the SAA in . 45 Colt. RN projectiles are hellacious penetrators and worthless for anything else. Jim Cirillo even wrote of this exact same issue as well.

Today, we have more knowledge (if we choose to use it) and know that tissue disruption is far better in stopping someone. Naturally, shot placement is important as well. The more damage a bullet does internally the greater chance of stopping the attacker. One not need be a Ph.D. from MIT to know that a .357 Mag. 125 gr. JHP does far more damage than the same bullet at .38 Spcl. velocities. Simple physics.

Speer, after dumping a boatload of money through R&D, came up with the .38 Spcl. 135 gr. +p originally for the NYPD that bridges the gap without losing anything other than 23 gr. in mass. I hear that NYPD has had hundreds of shootings with it and I have never heard of an out & out failure on a well placed shot. Someone from NYPD please correct me if wrong.

FWIW, I heard a rumor the other day that the FBI just dropped the Win. .40 S&W 180 gr. Win. load and went back to a 165 gr. load, possibly the gold Dot, due to problems.
 
Clearly the 38 special 158 RNL terminal ballistics are less than other better choices in SD loads. Also the lack of sharply defined edges for 'breaking the line' are obvious.

In the ICORE steel target game, none of that matters.
Steel clangs/clacks/clatters/ and 'touching' the A/B/C zone cardboard markers are the indicators for scoring.

I've read numerous articles over the decades that provided ample demonstration of field-results from LEO & SD to convince far better choices abound in such circumstances. Certainly I'd want a better choice in a SD situation. Still, a ton of practice with such load has significant benefit.

One of the most accurate handguns I ever had was a 14-2 8 3/8" that made amazingly tiny groups with both 158 RN and 147 WC loads.

A buddy once took the head off a grouse at 75' with such a load, almost to his surprise, as that was his POA.
 
38 spcl RN

1) the .38 special was not used by the U.S. military during the Phillipine insurrection. The cartridge in question was the .38 long Colt. This has been discussed on this forum before.

2) The NYPD has published extensive, long term results of police-perp shootings. These can be accessed on the web. When they looked at factors associated with stopping the encounter, the caliber was not relevant. The single most significant factor was, unsurprisingly, shot placement.
 
There realy is a diference between a bad load... and a bad SD load.Like any other tool, you need the right tool for the job. The 38 RNL is not a bad load at all.... but not great at SD. Just becouse it does not do all great, does not make it bad. CCi SV 22lr is a terrable SD load.... but its a great load in my target pistols. Afforadable, accurate, consistent... its a great round for its use. So ya... they are not the best thing for stopping a bag guy.. but franky we do much more with our firearms then SD. God willing we hope never to have to fire on anyone... but we will fire many hundreds of rounds down range at targets, and small game.
 
I never tried the LRN ammo until a few months ago. I had purchased quite some time before that, as in about a year or two. Much to my delight the Magtech ammo performed flawlessly in my M10. I had some reservations about using it as I remember hearing something about bad primers with this ammo not to long ago. The ammo shot very well for me and was much cleaner than I expected, I think it would be a good field load for squirrel and grouse.

I have also taken to using the Lyman #358665 RNFP with some W231 it shots about the same as does the magtech although the bullet is slightly heavier. While it is true that the LRN has been surpassed as a SD it is accurate and I'd certainly use it if it were all I had.
 
MMA10mm said:
I think we really agree on most things, right down the line. The one thing we may not (I'm not exactly sure of your position yet) is that there is (or isn't) much difference between the RNL & SWC-HP. That's why, in my post (probably didn't explain it well) I advocate for carrying a 10mm or 45. Orders of magnitude difference between ANY 38 load and those calibers vs. the difference between the 158 LRN & 158 SWC-HP. That said, if I know I'm walking into a killing situation, forget the handguns! I'll take my Benelli loaded with Buckshot. ;) i get the impression you're trying to split things too fine. NO handgun load is a "great" stopper, not the 45 Long Colt or even the 50 A.E. (Well, maybe the 460 S&W and 500 S&W.) Just as our 380s are trade-offs for convenience, a 10mm or 45 or 38 are trade-offs, because it's inconvenient to carry the Benelli everywhere you go... Trying to draw significant conclusions between the RNL and SWC-HP is liking describing the difference between the 308 and 30-06: They're there, but you have to look in the details.
Click to expand...
Hello MMA10 and others,
Just clarifying my opinion on comparing the "FBI Load" with the .38 SPL 158g LRN. My understanding was/is that the former was a major improvement on the RNL, that users considered that the change had turned a bad proposition into a good one, night into day. Maybe not as good as a 10mm or .45, but closer akin to them in effectiveness than to the .38 RNL it replaced. If I had to designate every load as simply GOOD or NOT GOOD, I have long thought the RNL would be "NOT GOOD" and the FBI Load would be "GOOD." Thoughts?
 
"If I had to designate every load as simply GOOD or NOT GOOD, I have long thought the RNL would be "NOT GOOD" and the FBI Load would be "GOOD." Thoughts?"

That effectively sums it up for me. I'm enthusiastic to load with +P 158 grain lead SWCs for serious social purposes. I'd certainly use 158 grain LRN if nothing else was available and wouldn't feel particularly ill-armed but it wouldn't be a first choice.
 
Hi Bryan,

I ran across a couple of boxes of factory Federal .38 +P LSWC (not HPs) when I was digging around in the ammo stores today, and I thought of you and this thread - as well as the general appreciation you have brought to the humble-yet-effective .38 Special over the years. I saw those boxes and thought, "A person could use these for defensive use with absolutely no worries." Funny how we always chase that dragon of the last 5% of performance, when gun/ammo combos that are perfectly fine languish unloved on the shelves.

That said, I agree that the bullet shape of the LSWC is clearly preferable to that of the RNL. And I agree that I wouldn't sweat too badly if all I had was the RNL.

Shot-placement and adequate penetration are what's needed . . . the tiny dancing angels are good for discussion with friends, but are probably not too important in the real world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
38 Spl., 145 gr. Hitek lead RN bullet with Titegroup, load information
Replies
29
Views
794
Hugo Stiglitz
Hugo Stiglitz
mojave30cal
Appropriate ammo for a 1962 S&W 36 no dash
Replies
6
Views
239
DWalt
DWalt
M
Cowboy .38 special ammo
Replies
1
Views
924
Valmet
Valmet
A
Smith & Wesson M&P 1926/1927 Mint unfired condition question?
Replies
5
Views
406
AC Man
A
Dump1567
.38 Special Ammo Velocity Comparisons: Historical vs. Modern
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
38SPL HV
38SPL HV

Latest posts

Back
Top