I've got no argument about the 45 ACP, and why Cooper loved it, but I have to say this. The 45 has nothing on the 357 mag, and with round nose ammo, it only has a little over the 38 Special. Yeah, bore size is bigger, but my belief is that similar bullet shapes as similar velocities react similarly. Too me, it's more about bullet shape and performance. If the 38 Special had be loaded with semi-wadcutter bullets way back when, I believe the story would be different nowadays. That's way the 158 gr. SWCHP is still the "gold standard" for performance in 38 Special, today. The newer high tech bonded bullets of today are gaining in popularity, but they are a recent phenomenum. Unfortunately, the 1911s of the day required round nose bullets so they could feed reliably. Semi-wadcutters required feed ramp work on most 1911s back in the day, and that cost money that some of the officers back then couldn't afford, much less finding a proper gunsmith to perform the work. The Colonel preached one theory and one theory only, and in his eyes only his theory was correct, anything else was BS.
Remember when the term ".38 Special" mean't a serious service revolver?
- Thread starter Doug.38PR
- Start date
Cocked & Locked
Member
that right there
sac-gunslinger
Member
I have been carrying defensively for about 40 years. The selection of "performance ammo" is several orders of magnitude greater than what it was in 1975. With all due respect for the Colonel, you have to constantly re-evaluate information to determine if you need to update your opinions.
Two things have happened. One, we have learned more about actual performance than we knew years ago. Model 10/38 Special was never as bad as we thought it was. Two, new loads and bullet types have improved possible performance. The M10 is not just for grandma any more.
I have moved back to the M10 (well, M64) and the simplicity it offers.
Doug M.
Member
I started really getting interested in firearms in the mid 70s, and the .38 was reviled as a "widow maker", especially in the 158 grain RNL. I have little problem with a good SWC even at close to standard velocity as a .38 special carry/duty load, but the RNL was just a loser. The .41 magnum in SWC was considered a really cutting edge sidearm, and far better. Cooper touted the 1911 for lots of reasons, not the least of which was ergonomics. He also shot with two hands when that was not common.
The biggest single problem with the .38, other than the RNL load, was that the state of training in shooting handguns was somewhere on the wrong side of primitive; the knowledge of anatomy in terms of target areas was darned poor, and tactics of encounter were almost as bad as shooting skill training. There was also a failure to recognize that one carries a sidearm because they do not expect a problem - if you expect a problem and can't be elsewhere, you need a long gun, preferably a rifle, but at least a shotgun with slugs. Any cop who gets out of the car at a potentially serious call who is not taking his carbine darned well better have a carbine equipped partner, or expect some serious discipline.
Combine the typical sissified command officer who hides under his desk and sucks his thumb when there is political fallout over a clearly justified OIS with all that, and the world has lots of flaws. When is the last time you EVER heard a command officer tell people what they need to hear: cops don't shoot near as many offenders as they should, MAYBE 5% of them. There are a lot of command folks would rather cops die than spend money on training and equipment, or deal with the fallout over someone's little darling who was just getting his life together (we need a *barf* smiley) getting dumped when he pulled a knife on a cop than do the right thing.
Can the .38 special revolver do a decent job? Yes. Are there better choices in terms of ergonomics, etc, especially with modern ammo? Yup. Did I ever consider it a serious use sidearm? Nope. A J frame is a BUG only to me, and when I have to carry a revolver on my trip to a mag capacity limited state later this week, I'll carry my 296 and my 940. I could carry the 642 instead of the 940, but there are reasons for the choice which are not limited to ballistics.
The biggest single problem with the .38, other than the RNL load, was that the state of training in shooting handguns was somewhere on the wrong side of primitive; the knowledge of anatomy in terms of target areas was darned poor, and tactics of encounter were almost as bad as shooting skill training. There was also a failure to recognize that one carries a sidearm because they do not expect a problem - if you expect a problem and can't be elsewhere, you need a long gun, preferably a rifle, but at least a shotgun with slugs. Any cop who gets out of the car at a potentially serious call who is not taking his carbine darned well better have a carbine equipped partner, or expect some serious discipline.
Combine the typical sissified command officer who hides under his desk and sucks his thumb when there is political fallout over a clearly justified OIS with all that, and the world has lots of flaws. When is the last time you EVER heard a command officer tell people what they need to hear: cops don't shoot near as many offenders as they should, MAYBE 5% of them. There are a lot of command folks would rather cops die than spend money on training and equipment, or deal with the fallout over someone's little darling who was just getting his life together (we need a *barf* smiley) getting dumped when he pulled a knife on a cop than do the right thing.
Can the .38 special revolver do a decent job? Yes. Are there better choices in terms of ergonomics, etc, especially with modern ammo? Yup. Did I ever consider it a serious use sidearm? Nope. A J frame is a BUG only to me, and when I have to carry a revolver on my trip to a mag capacity limited state later this week, I'll carry my 296 and my 940. I could carry the 642 instead of the 940, but there are reasons for the choice which are not limited to ballistics.
