The history part of the hobby figures highly in a lot of my reloading and shooting activity. 95% of my firearms are recreational tools; only a few are dedicated defensive implements. That latter 5% get close to 1/3 of the "round count", all told--they get the living daylights shot out of them, about 1K-1.5K rounds per year each. One rifle and one shotgun are included in that bit.
I don't paint bullets. I like Black Rifle Coffee. Sacred cows are always fair game. California is to the United States what Syria is to Russia and North Korea is to China/South Korea/Japan--a Hermit Kingdom detached from the real world and led by delusional maniacs, an economic and social basket case sustained by "foreign" aid so as to not lose military bases.
9.3,
Thanks for your thoughts on your selection of weapons for "duty," i.e. serious business. Certainly your LE experience and continuing responsibilities in that arena inform your choices, influence your choices, and apparently to some extent dictate your choices.
I hope my rationales are never really tested! I basically mix hobby & "duty," partly for the fun of it, partly to match weaponry to weather, dress, activities, etc. I'll state for certain that if I had an "offensive" duty requirement such as my former career, or yours, my choices would be the same as yours: .45 Auto, .40 S&W, or .357 Mag. (Or a combination thereof!) So if the sheriff ever deputizes me to help chase Angola escapees, or deal with the next Katrina-style influx, I'm hauling out my milsurp LBE with holster and two twin ammo pouches for my 1911, and the M4 with two triple-30 mag pouches.
Since my tamer civilian existence essentially precludes offensive duties, I wear the gamut described previously, from twin .380's at the lightest, to twin 1911's at the heaviest, and several combinations in between. I realize that the first rule of "have a gun" can go to the exteme light end (think Beretta Minx or NAA revolver), but I draw the line above that. When I carry a 32-1 and a 33-1, the snub has 200g ammo and the 4" is loaded with the 135g GDHP-SB. Their size, weight, power level, and shootability are positives--natural pointing, fast shooting. Since I don't shoot nearly as much as you do, I find that I can shoot faster, straighter and more instinctively with somewhat lighter calibers and/or loads, so that's my trade-off.
Last question for tonight: in my situation as I've tried to outline it, if you were carrying J-frames in .38 S&W, would your heavy load (200g) of choice be the slow LRN (560 in snub, 610 in 4") to promote tumbling; or the hottest 200g SWC or LRN (700 from 4" J, according to Ed Harris) you could use? Or would you choose the 135g GD, a 148g WC, 158g SWC, or something else? The GD works in the 4", but is too slow in the snub.
Thanks for your thoughts on these matters.
My observations on varmints with the 195-200 grain Lyman #358430 and the NEI #169A show that both boolits at 700 FPS will tumble during penetration. I'll see about finding a coyote volunteer ASAP as test media for the NEI boolit for ya!Layered clothing or slanted surfaces give me some concern with those loads, but LA is a lot warmer than much of the country--so thick clothing isn't as much a factor. I'm not sure the J-frame S&W is built to sustain a steady diet of 200 grainers at 700 FPS, though. I wouldn't (and won't) run them in my Colt Police Positive. Beside the wear factor, I can't shoot small revolvers in my big ol' paws worth a darn, and those 200 grain loads buck just a bit in the K-frame and the Webley. For me, they would be more difficult to control for follow-up shots in absence of decent grip panels, which add to the bulk of the tool, which steers me closer to larger sideiron.
Now, if push came to shove and some fool insisted that I commence hostilities upon his bad self with the little Colt while afield, said fool would get the Usual Load of 38 S&W capped with Lyman #358477 and prompted by 3.0 grains of Unique for about 725 FPS. Here come my prejudices.......I REALLY like semi-wadcutter boolits--their flat meplat and full-caliber front drive band let in a lot of air. I think the Facklerites in the lab coats call that a "crush cavity". NO handgun caliber should be used as a single-shot weapon in an exchange of finality, so at least 2 per customer is a minimum, and a 3rd or 4th into the Brain Housing Group after a couple center-mass hits are appropriate. THIS DOESN'T MEAN A "COUP D' GRACE"--you are stopping an attack, and with a marginal weapon (any handgun is a marginal weapon). Get to a safe place and call the cops ASAP.
I don't paint bullets. I like Black Rifle Coffee. Sacred cows are always fair game. California is to the United States what Syria is to Russia and North Korea is to China/South Korea/Japan--a Hermit Kingdom detached from the real world and led by delusional maniacs, an economic and social basket case sustained by "foreign" aid so as to not lose military bases.
Makes plenty of sense to me. That's why I've never pushed the 200g bullet to 700 in a J frame: (1) not handy to shoot quickly; (2) probably would batter the gun at some point; (3) I wasn't sure that the additional velocity would help if the idea is to enhance terminal effects through tumbling, since the faster bullet might remain stabilized, rather than tumbling. But since your 200/700's tumble in jackrabbits, "overstabilization" clearly isn't an SD concern.
So now, my question on the opposite side of the coin: if the 200g tumbles at 600 and 700, is it more advantageous to reduce recoil & recovery time with the lower vel, or increase the terminal effects of tumbling by boosting the velocity? And is the tumbling 200g RN a better proposition than a 200g SWC, which would most likely remain point forward? Is the RN at 600 more, or less, effective than the SWC at 700? Vice versa? I know I can shoot my 5" Victory very rapidly & accurately in one-handed point shooting with a 200/600-ish load, but have wondered whether the velocity & power reductions were a good idea.
I'd have to find my old thread to see how many overcoat layers such rounds will penetrate. A couple of rounds of Mk 2Z 178g FMJ military ammo each punched through several overcoat layers, devastated a milk jug of water, and buried themselves sideways a couple inches into a pine tree. When I rolled the entire overcoat tightly, it presented many more layers and actually stopped the bullet. That could certainly pose a concern in some latitudes, but I agree that the light clothing down here would be a non-issue.
BTW, when we were trained to assault through an ambush kill zone, it was made rather clear that it was wise to shoot anyone lying on the ground as you moved through, because they might still pose a threat & there wasn't time to conduct an examination. We were NOT to administer a double-tap to the head, however. We were a bit puzzled at the distinction between eliminating the threat and, well, eliminating the threat, but such is training.
I am impressed by Capt. Sykes's book Shooting to Live with the One-Hand Gun, despite its 1940 vintage, and certainly noticed his emphatic recommendation to shoot quickly and in bursts of 2-3 shots. I also note, however, that for SD/HD he recommended choosing the biggest caliber, heaviest bullet, highest velocity that one could handle, even though the British Army had just gone in a different direction by adopting the .38-200 to replace the .455. However, he also related anecdotes of police shootings with the .45 ACP and .455 Webley, in which two of his Royal Shanghai Policemen achieved 5-6 hits apiece, but still had to hit their respective BG's in the head with the pistol butt to stop them!
I have been away for awhile, and have just been catching up on this thread. Thanks for filling me in on the fun that can be had with the older cartridges. These things what shooting is about. Fun, friends, research and the pure joy of shooting.
Scott
If you can shoot the 200 grain at 600 quickly and accurately, I'd stick with that load. No battering the gun, good assurance of hits, and the more reliable tumble add up to a win.
I'm in "I'll Make Mine's" camp in terms of a 'recommendation', with the MASSIVE caveat that terminal ballistics are quite unpredictable--given the restricted caliber selection on point here. I still prefer "the most of everything possible" in my counter-hairball sideiron, and wish like h--l my agency authorized the 10mm Auto.
I don't paint bullets. I like Black Rifle Coffee. Sacred cows are always fair game. California is to the United States what Syria is to Russia and North Korea is to China/South Korea/Japan--a Hermit Kingdom detached from the real world and led by delusional maniacs, an economic and social basket case sustained by "foreign" aid so as to not lose military bases.
No arguments, though I personally prefer a revolver (less to go wrong, in my opinion) and like .357 Magnum. Your 10 mm is a little hotter, little heavier bullet, but a great deal more expensive to feed and throws its brass around -- and since I don't have a TLA buying my ammunition, those are big factors.Originally Posted by 9.3X62AL
There is nothing wrong with the 10mm Auto. I have four handguns chambered for the cartridge, and they're all "the bad boys on the block."
Ya gotta love it!
Scott
Heck, y'all are talking about ray guns! 10mm, .357. . . some serious death rays. Guess my phaser is stuck on "stun"!
Not only old-school guns (Mods 32-1 and 33-1) with Magna grips, but each one sports a Tyler T-grip. At the restaurant tonight the snub was loaded with vintage--but new condition--Super Police 200g LRN. As a concession to modernity and technological progress, the 33-1 was loaded with my 135g Gold Dot.
The "old-school" guns are impressive! i'll tell you quite plainly, I think that the .32 S&W Long is quite the killer a well-placed .32 will bring a stop to the fight instantamente with a telling round. (There's an old Sheriff that killed a goodly number of me with the old Model 31 he was shooting that could attest to that fact.) I'd be willing to bet my bottom dollar that your old 32-1 and 33-1 could "cancel someone's ticket" pretty darned quickly!
Scott
Oh, I buy ALL my carry and practice rounds these days. The only thing provided by my old agency are regulations, and I follow those closely out of an abundance of caution--and the fact that their authorized loads do very good work in most calibers.
I don't paint bullets. I like Black Rifle Coffee. Sacred cows are always fair game. California is to the United States what Syria is to Russia and North Korea is to China/South Korea/Japan--a Hermit Kingdom detached from the real world and led by delusional maniacs, an economic and social basket case sustained by "foreign" aid so as to not lose military bases.
And just to ensure that latecomers to the thread are aware--my Mods 32-1 and 33-1 are in caliber .38 S&W, and are essentially 5-shot equivalents of the 6-shot Mods. 30-1 and 31 in caliber .32 S&W Long.
Our positive impressions of a 30-1 snub .32 were a big part of my subsequent decision to equip wife and both daughters with personal sets of 32-1 and 33-1. That 30-1 fit them well and they handled it with confidence, so I got them essentially the same gun, bigger caliber, but similar power level. I was also rather amazed to learn of the versatility of the .38 S&W cartridge, which can range from .32 Long equivalents up to .38 Special power levels quite readily. With careful application of Ken Waters's "Pet Loads" article from 1978, some loads are more like .38+P. (Of course you have to make your own judgments about using his powerful loads.)
Those I/J-frame Models 30-33 inclusive are all little jewels, and fine hardware for those shooters not able to handle the recoil of more substantial calibers. These models faded from popularity in the mass of gunscribe text decrying any caliber less than 38 Special or 9mm as insufficient to the task of self-defense.
There is a germ of validity to that assertion, but it enthusiastically ignores the fact that not all shooters are enthusiasts. It also ignores the great truth that any firearm is better than no firearm in an exchange of finality, and that "too much sidearm" will not foster the habit of regular practice with that firearm.
Sadly, I don't see a re-birth of the fine Colt and S&W 32 caliber revolvers. Compact pistols are all the rage these days, mostly in large calibers. "Bigger Is Better" seems to be the watchword. Someone like LA Man or Gunfan that touts the benefits of the 32 SWL or 38 S&W is in the minority, for certain. But the niche they occupy is still a valid one, and if it keeps their loved ones safe--more power to them.
I don't paint bullets. I like Black Rifle Coffee. Sacred cows are always fair game. California is to the United States what Syria is to Russia and North Korea is to China/South Korea/Japan--a Hermit Kingdom detached from the real world and led by delusional maniacs, an economic and social basket case sustained by "foreign" aid so as to not lose military bases.
9.3,
I hope you have written a memoir--I'd like to buy a copy! I have to ask if you are an author.
Back to the issue of calibers, let me admit a few things. First, if I were going into combat, I would go the more conservative route that has so often proved a smart move: high firepower, heavy bullets, large calibers, modern hi-tech expanding bullets. Part of that is boosting my odds as much as I can, part of it is the fact that such duties bring an offensive/pursuit requirement with them, partly because I would need a general purpose bullet that combined expansion with barrier penetration, etc. More bullets, bigger, shoot faster, reload faster. All the reasons we know and appreciate.
In my personal case, it would be easy enough to do that with my .40 or .45's, although the former is much easier to carry IMO. But like many others, I commonly gear down to something easier to conceal in this heat, easier on my back, and easier to fit between my, um, abdominal musculature and my belt in an IWB holster. I know this line of thinking is absolutely anathema to many, and I understand why. In two dozen years of active duty, however, I became well-accustomed to the concept of tailoring logistics to the mission, whether it was as a nuclear site security platoon leader or as a logistics operator/planner in the 1st Cavalry Division. IMO, the guys who vehemently reject this concept may not be accounting for the fact that most of us cc'ing aren't mandated, or typically even authorized, any "offensive" role that requires maximum versatility and firepower. I must admit, some of them also remind me of certain generals who would say things like "Logistics will not be allowed to constrain this operation!" Heck, logistics are one of the primary constraints on operations! It's not practical to try to pack everything, everywhere, all the time, against any contingency. What soldier would carry a 100-pound rucksack and 800 rounds of ammo on a stealthy night reconnaissance or listening post mission?
All of that is a long-winded way of saying that for most of us, lesser firepower is adequate for most situations, and the rest is "acceptable risk"--at least until it's not!!!
The other admission I must make is that I learned a very obvious truth the hardest possible way: I was proud as a peacock to present my girls with Airweights and "low recoil ammunition," only to have a single practice session turn budding shooters into shell-shocked ones who have honestly never enjoyed shooting very much since then, although the steel guns with low-velocity lead bullets have helped substantially to repair the damage. That was a real eye-opener for me, belatedly, that there certainly can be times when less is more. Particularly apropos since the British Army adopted this exact same cartridge for the exact same reason in about 1930!!!
FWIW, when I carry this caliber, I'm generally loaded with GDHP's at 38 SPL level, or with 200g low-vel bullets that actually clocked slightly faster than some vintage 38 SPL 200g Super Police loads. . .and as many of you know, COL Charles Askins used that to shoot a German soldier at 25yds and knock him "heels over jockstrap" with a through-and-through torso shot. Although my girls's loads are less robust, I believe they are at least as effective as the very best .380's.
On Gunbroker there is a 2" barreled .32 S&W Long (brand new Airweight) that has been there for months. This was a revolver that had been destined for Portugal (a special-order from S&W.) They want $700.00 for this little jewel. While not a "first choice" revolver, a good hot load for the .32 Long (bordering on .32 Magnum velocities) would make this little handgun a nasty surprise for the bad guy that happened to find him/her self on the "business end" of it in a dark alley!
Talk about suddenly experiencing Excedrin headache #32!
Scott
Wow! Newbie here, doing a little research on the 38 S&W as I have a top break S&W and Colt PP 4" that I got interested in loading for my wife to use. She shoots most of my handguns but really likes the revolvers as opposed to the brass flinging autos.
I love to reload and recently started looking into casting - still way too much to learn so I got some homework ahead of me.
I will have to go back and read this post a couple more times as you guys have a library of great info here on the old 38SW. When I showed her the PP she really liked it and said "that's the one for me", her favorite now is my Model 63 2" .22 but not much in the accuracy or HD mode. I got thinking the old PP might be the ticket. I just ordered some factory loads from Grafs but will probably me 6 weeks before they ship. I really want to get the load right so she enjoys it. I have a box of old nickel cases my Uncle saved and need the new brass.
One question, I have some 357 LSWC 125 gr that I use in the 686. Can I use them in the S&W? Also, will my 38/357 dies work in a pinch or do I need the dedicated dies?
Thanks for any help you can provide and excuse my ignorance on this old time caliber..will continue to research.
Dalv
LA Man--
No, never an "author" per se. I've done a great deal of writing at work, though--most weeks as a detective equalled a quarter of college work in terms of written work product.
Dalv--
Welcome aboard, sir. Those .357" 125 grainers may work all right in the Colt PP, my PP has .359" throats and .358" grooves. You will need a caliber-specific die set for the 38 S&W, though--dimensionally, it and the 357 are apples and oranges. Spec diameter for the 38 Special/357 Magnum is .379"; 38 S&W is .386". If you want to use a tungsten-carbide sizer on the 38 S&W, the 9mm Makarov sizer will do the job for you.
I don't paint bullets. I like Black Rifle Coffee. Sacred cows are always fair game. California is to the United States what Syria is to Russia and North Korea is to China/South Korea/Japan--a Hermit Kingdom detached from the real world and led by delusional maniacs, an economic and social basket case sustained by "foreign" aid so as to not lose military bases.
Dalv,
Let me second 9.3's welcome to you. I think you'll find the old .38 S&W very fun to work with.
Let us know what you can about the S&W top-break, as they come in several models that vary greatly in inherent metallurgical soundness, condition, strength of design--in other words, SAFETY. If it's in sound condition, and especially if it was made for smokeless powder, you'll have a nice shooter that can still do the original job it was designed to do, but almost certainly with light factory loads (or perhaps their handloaded equivalents) only. I have a couple that function nicely, but after verifying that, I have relegated them to proud service as "end table guns" that can help out in an emergency, but which I don't want to rely upon if I can help it. Age & metal fatigue, plus delicate design, all combine to make their reliability somewhat suspect, as any shot may be the one that breaks an old spring & brings things to a halt until repair parts can be obtained.
Your Police Positive (PP), if in good shape and made with heat-treated steel, should be a much more solid proposition. If it's actually a Police Positive Special (PPS), especially one of later manufacture, it will probably outlast all of us! If it left the factory in 1910, OTOH, you'll probably need to keep it on a light diet.
I have had two PPS's that were beautiful & solid, and only let them go to "scratch other itches." Most of the .359 or larger ammo that my Smith & Wesson I/J frames and Victory models thrived on, would not chamber in my Colts, especially if it was a cartridge I'd loaded "long" to help keep pressures low. They would accept anything in .358 or anything loaded to the original short Cartridge Overall Length (COL) typical of factory ammo, whether it was called .38 Smith & Wesson or .38 Colt New Police. I managed to snag two Ruger Indian Contract guns made in this caliber, but called ".380 Rim" IAW British military nomenclature, and their chambers are as tight as the Colts. Since they are merely a Service-Six and Speed-Six chambered for the shorter cartridge, they're still strong as the proverbial bank vault--just the chambers are shorter than my Smiths.
My wife and daughters find that Smith I/J frames and Colt D frames fit their hands just right, and that goes a long way to making these guns comfortable for them to shoot, rapidly and with good combat accuracy (torso hits), at close ranges. Wife and one daughter have petite hands and simply can't grip a K frame well enough to pull the trigger properly or hold onto the gun without a struggle.
Wife and other daughter can handle .38 Special standard pressure loads in guns that fit them, so I can load their .38 S&W's stouter than factory-loaded ammo--although they don't like to shoot the more powerful loads for an entire range session. My more petite daughter needs to shoot factory-level ammo, period.
I've just cast a bunch of 125g SWC's and will experiment a bit with them to see if they are better-suited for any of my crew than 140-150g loads they currently use. I expect these bullets, loaded to modest velocities (650-700), will help all of them enjoy more frequent range sessions. . .which I'd trade over more powerful ammo any day! The 125's will also let me shoot the I/J frames more heavily in range sessions without worrying so much about durability.
In the meantime, their car/carry 2" and HD 4" guns are loaded with 140-50g SWC or WC bullets loaded to 685-710 or so, i.e. factory vel but with a more efficient bullet design. These WC's, cast from wheelweights & thus harder than many factory .38 SPL wadcutter loads in the same velocity range, should be somewhat more effective defense loads than the .38 SPL target WC ammo carried or recommended by many. My own carry loads in this caliber are closely akin to .38 SPL standard pressure (or +) loads of days gone by, but with more efficient bullets.
Enjoy yours, and my bet is you'll find them every bit as easy to load for as 38 SPL. I have gotten great service from Lee .38 S&W dies, to include a factory crimp die. The latter helps deal with the varying chamber dimensions discussed above, plus it helps when I crimp at COL's that don't allow me to use a bullet's crimp groove. I cast with normal Lee .38 molds, and the resulting .358-.360" bullets function as-cast in my Smiths, although I size .358 for Colts & Rugers. I don't target shoot at 25-50 yards, but test/chronograph groups at 40-50 feet are plenty accurate for SD/HD.
9.3,
I still think you should write a memoir.
Posting Permissions
| BP | Bronze Point | IMR | Improved Military Rifle | PTD | Pointed |
| BR | Bench Rest | M | Magnum | RN | Round Nose |
| BT | Boat Tail | PL | Power-Lokt | SP | Soft Point |
| C | Compressed Charge | PR | Primer | SPCL | Soft Point "Core-Lokt" |
| HP | Hollow Point | PSPCL | Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" | C.O.L. | Cartridge Overall Length |
| PSP | Pointed Soft Point | Spz | Spitzer Point | SBT | Spitzer Boat Tail |
| LRN | Lead Round Nose | LWC | Lead Wad Cutter | LSWC | Lead Semi Wad Cutter |
| GC | Gas Check |
Reply With Quote