Manstopper bullet for the 38 special

[GabbyM]

A little real life here....A cousin who was county LEO that had a BIG city in it had to put down a mean bulldog. Cousin was wonderful shot ( trophies to prove it) and aimed for dog between the eyes with Glock 9mm with the then current wonderammo. Shot entered one eye and dog went down....and stood back up....second shot in head did the trick. Cousin had seniority to go back to 45 acp pistol and did so that day. No one knows if the 45 would have failed also....

Yes, the dog was dead with the 9mm but didn't know it....

Said cousin also said that when they had to go into the bad area, 10 to 15 cops ,each with a pump shotgun, was the normal way....

I dunno what this proves.....I hope I NEVER need to find out.....

Your cousin used extremely poor shot placement. Dogs among many other predators with front facing eyes. Don't have there brains in between the eyes.

[castalott]

I thought he did wonderful for the time frame involved...but I do see your point. I also doubt the slug had time to expand much either. Dogs are a wonderous creation....some are incredibly sturdy!

Would you have tried for the brain or went for heart/lungs?

I know a deer with his heart demolished will still live 5 seconds/ or 75 yards...whichever is less...

[Norman524]

A little real life here....A cousin who was county LEO that had a BIG city in it had to put down a mean bulldog. Cousin was wonderful shot ( trophies to prove it) and aimed for dog between the eyes with Glock 9mm with the then current wonderammo. Shot entered one eye and dog went down....and stood back up....second shot in head did the trick. Cousin had seniority to go back to 45 acp pistol and did so that day. No one knows if the 45 would have failed also....

Yes, the dog was dead with the 9mm but didn't know it....

Said cousin also said that when they had to go into the bad area, 10 to 15 cops ,each with a pump shotgun, was the normal way....

I dunno what this proves.....I hope I NEVER need to find out.....

To be honest, it doesn't prove anything. I fear that some people put too much faith in handgun rounds. They're for making blood drain holes, think of them as flying drill bits if you will.

I've had the pleasure of seeing a gentleman who was shot in the head with TWO 45ACP rounds. The first shot was from about 2 feet, and was at a upward angle, facing. It took a chip of skull with it as it skipped off his skull. The second shot was quartering away, maybe 15 feet. Bullet hit, went under the scalp, briefly followed the curvature of his skull and exited above his ear. He drove himself about 12 miles home, and was sitting in his living room, smoking a cigarette with a towel wrapped around his head when we got there. Neither round penetrated the skull, and he got some antibiotics and had a headache.

There's really not a moral to the story except for these:
Pistol bullets suck, 45ACP isn't any better than 9mm, 357 sig or 40 S&W, and when it's not your time it's not your time.

[GabbyM]

I thought he did wonderful for the time frame involved...but I do see your point. I also doubt the slug had time to expand much either. Dogs are a wonderous creation....some are incredibly sturdy!

Would you have tried for the brain or went for heart/lungs?

I know a deer with his heart demolished will still live 5 seconds/ or 75 yards...whichever is less...

Two shots to put down a fighting dog isn’t bad. Your average shooter would have a hard time getting it done at all.

Blaming the caliber of gun used doesn’t get a guy very far with my logic. IMHO and after shooting a lot of small critters with 9mm, 38 Special and a 44 mag downloaded to 940 fps. I’d definitely say the big bores are better for little targets. Especially Western Rattle snakes. For police work I’d place ability to penetrate auto sheet metal and glass way up high on my list of priority. I’d use a single stack 9mm that fit my hands. Loaded with 124gr TC-FP at 1,150 fps. My old S&W M39-2 was my best nine and I traded it off on a fifteen shot wonder nine. Bad move. My current favorites now are the K frame S&W’s.
When you get right down to it there isn’t much difference between 9mm, 38 Special and 45 acp. Unless you figure in B.S.

[Jtarm]

The .38 has caused more cop deaths from sad performance then anything. Nine not better. My slingshot is better. My carry would start at the .45 and go up.

Ok. You take the slingshot. I'll take my S&W M64 loaded with full charge wadcutters & we'll square off at 10 yards.

[44man]

Ok. You take the slingshot. I'll take my S&W M64 loaded with full charge wadcutters & we'll square off at 10 yards.

I hunted with my sling for rabbits, squirrels and pheasant for years, a ball would go through a rabbit, instant kill. I never came out with less then 16 rabbits. Not so good anymore of course but a .38 is not much better.
The military person hates the nine. Most elite forces want a .45.
Tell me a .38 is as good as the ACP and I can tell you that you live in a book world. The nine is a feel good thing too. The cap and ball with BP might have been the deadliest ever.
If I had to carry, a 1911 would be my choice. I do not want a gun that takes a full magazine to stop anyone.
I would never own a snub .38. A .22 with precision is a better gun.
Many shoot nothing but paper and never shot any animal or a man but claim wondrous things.
To shoot a 6' 4" black on drugs, I would want my .500 JRH.
I could kill a man with a slingshot in the head every time.
Back in the day I would plant a .50 cal lead ball between your eyes before you could pull the trigger.
I killed pigeons over 100 yards with a slingshot in my young days. City with no guns but I also used a .22 for them and rats.

[Blackwater]

Norman's "flying drill bit" analogy isn't a bad one. This is why 44man's one-time comment about hard, square tipped WFN's cutting larger "leak holes" still has me fascinated. I think he was onto something significant, and Norman's "flying drill bit" comment kind'a meshes well with that. My experience tends to make me conclude very differently from Norman's though, and bigger bullets almost alway do a better job of stopping aggressors or game.

A friend of mine has shot more deer than most people have ever seen, and one of his all time great favorites is the one he started out with, the .45 Colt, and mostly, he just loads factory equivalent loads in his Rugers, and it performs quite well on deer. Of course, he's a really great shot, and places his bullets well 99.99% of the time, and they never go far after the shot. The ones he shoots in the head don'g go anywhere but straight down.

The indicent of the .45 not penetrating or stopping on the skull shots is the exception that basically kind'a proves the rule that big bullets do better. The .45's only real "weakness" is that those RN bullets CAN tend to skip off hard surfaces because the velocity is fairly low. Change that to a SWC or RNF configuration, or a TC profile, and I suspect the results would have been quite different. Remember, it's not the CALIBER that kills, it's the BULLET! And different bullets can have profound effects on the terminal performance we get in EVERY caliber, bar none. Even the big calibers need appropriate bullets to the task at hand. Violate that rule, and bad things can happen. One must really be pretty dogged about evaluating results from any given specific instance, and look at ALL the factors involved. That's more "trouble" than many want to go to these days, but it'll never stop being necessary, no matter what we "like" or are willing to consider.

BTW, my buddy has shot many deer with just about any common caliber you can think of, and his findings, based on real world shooting of deer, was that the 9mm. HP's were superior to the .45 hardball, and easily outperformed the JRN's of the bigger round. Change that bullet to a SWC and the reverse was the case. Good illustration of how important bullet configuration really is in the real world, but even then, nothing is 100.000% effective in stopping except a brain shot, and for that, even a lowly .22 LR can serve well, IF, of course, it's placed well. Marksmanship will always be required, and it's a given these days that many just don't have the time or opportunity to practice enough to get really good, so everybody seems to be searching for a "magic bullet" or caliber that will make up for that. Improvements CAN indeed be had now, and some are being developed, but marksmanship will always, Always, ALWAYS be THE most important thing in self defense or success afield or on the range. It'll never be trumped by anything we can presently conceive of, and really, why shouldn't it? It's really not all that hard to develop, if we can just find the opportunity, and if determined, at least many if not most of us can MAKE ourselves at lest some sort of opportunity to vastly improve our skills. All it takes is a little time on a regular basis, and some thoughtful plans for a steady progress. I used to go down to the lower 40 and shoot coffee cans, or whatever I could find, including cardboard boxes. I'd face away, turn and fire on another's command, and try to take two or three targets in quick succession and at varying distances. If you have decent coordination, it really doesn't take as long as you think to significantly improve your skills, and it may well surprise you at what you can do and learn in whatever time you can make available for it. That's about as simple and quick a way to get to be a pretty darn good shot as I know. Give it a try, and see if I'm not right. All it takes, is a little forethought and rational planning, and you can reform your plan as you go, depending on your success at any given point. Your speed will likely improve faster than your groups will, but the groups will come along very well too, or should. If not, you need to focus more. It's really just that simple, and won't take nearly as long as most seem to think. It's more about the care you take in the planning and execution than it is what your skill level is starting out. I've taught people, many of them women, who'd never shot a gun in their lives, to shoot, and shoot well, and it didn't take long to get them there at all. Mostly, all you really have to do is get them to simply use and respect the basics of grip, sights and squeeze, and just divert their attention from how to move their arms, etc., and just let them do what comes naturally. Keep it simple, and most folks naturally use the arms, etc. rather instinctively, and it's best to use their given instincts rather than trying to fight them. It just works out better, and helps them achieve skills more quickly and naturally, and if they ever have to use a handgun for self defense, they're going to do it instinctively anyway, so it just makes sense to "groove" that into the way they shoot. Sure has worked well for me and the folks I've taught, anyway. FWIW?

[Bonz]

I'm going to buy this mold http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...7-Keith-SWC-HP

[44man]

Norman's "flying drill bit" analogy isn't a bad one. This is why 44man's one-time comment about hard, square tipped WFN's cutting larger "leak holes" still has me fascinated. I think he was onto something significant, and Norman's "flying drill bit" comment kind'a meshes well with that. My experience tends to make me conclude very differently from Norman's though, and bigger bullets almost alway do a better job of stopping aggressors or game.

A friend of mine has shot more deer than most people have ever seen, and one of his all time great favorites is the one he started out with, the .45 Colt, and mostly, he just loads factory equivalent loads in his Rugers, and it performs quite well on deer. Of course, he's a really great shot, and places his bullets well 99.99% of the time, and they never go far after the shot. The ones he shoots in the head don'g go anywhere but straight down.

The indicent of the .45 not penetrating or stopping on the skull shots is the exception that basically kind'a proves the rule that big bullets do better. The .45's only real "weakness" is that those RN bullets CAN tend to skip off hard surfaces because the velocity is fairly low. Change that to a SWC or RNF configuration, or a TC profile, and I suspect the results would have been quite different. Remember, it's not the CALIBER that kills, it's the BULLET! And different bullets can have profound effects on the terminal performance we get in EVERY caliber, bar none. Even the big calibers need appropriate bullets to the task at hand. Violate that rule, and bad things can happen. One must really be pretty dogged about evaluating results from any given specific instance, and look at ALL the factors involved. That's more "trouble" than many want to go to these days, but it'll never stop being necessary, no matter what we "like" or are willing to consider.

BTW, my buddy has shot many deer with just about any common caliber you can think of, and his findings, based on real world shooting of deer, was that the 9mm. HP's were superior to the .45 hardball, and easily outperformed the JRN's of the bigger round. Change that bullet to a SWC and the reverse was the case. Good illustration of how important bullet configuration really is in the real world, but even then, nothing is 100.000% effective in stopping except a brain shot, and for that, even a lowly .22 LR can serve well, IF, of course, it's placed well. Marksmanship will always be required, and it's a given these days that many just don't have the time or opportunity to practice enough to get really good, so everybody seems to be searching for a "magic bullet" or caliber that will make up for that. Improvements CAN indeed be had now, and some are being developed, but marksmanship will always, Always, ALWAYS be THE most important thing in self defense or success afield or on the range. It'll never be trumped by anything we can presently conceive of, and really, why shouldn't it? It's really not all that hard to develop, if we can just find the opportunity, and if determined, at least many if not most of us can MAKE ourselves at lest some sort of opportunity to vastly improve our skills. All it takes is a little time on a regular basis, and some thoughtful plans for a steady progress. I used to go down to the lower 40 and shoot coffee cans, or whatever I could find, including cardboard boxes. I'd face away, turn and fire on another's command, and try to take two or three targets in quick succession and at varying distances. If you have decent coordination, it really doesn't take as long as you think to significantly improve your skills, and it may well surprise you at what you can do and learn in whatever time you can make available for it. That's about as simple and quick a way to get to be a pretty darn good shot as I know. Give it a try, and see if I'm not right. All it takes, is a little forethought and rational planning, and you can reform your plan as you go, depending on your success at any given point. Your speed will likely improve faster than your groups will, but the groups will come along very well too, or should. If not, you need to focus more. It's really just that simple, and won't take nearly as long as most seem to think. It's more about the care you take in the planning and execution than it is what your skill level is starting out. I've taught people, many of them women, who'd never shot a gun in their lives, to shoot, and shoot well, and it didn't take long to get them there at all. Mostly, all you really have to do is get them to simply use and respect the basics of grip, sights and squeeze, and just divert their attention from how to move their arms, etc., and just let them do what comes naturally. Keep it simple, and most folks naturally use the arms, etc. rather instinctively, and it's best to use their given instincts rather than trying to fight them. It just works out better, and helps them achieve skills more quickly and naturally, and if they ever have to use a handgun for self defense, they're going to do it instinctively anyway, so it just makes sense to "groove" that into the way they shoot. Sure has worked well for me and the folks I've taught, anyway. FWIW?

Not much has ever been posted as good as this.

[9.3X62AL]

I agree, 44 Man. Very succinctly stated.

[Jtarm]

Ballistic gel isn't a man.

When the US Army adopted the 45 acp many decades ago. They went to the Chicago stock yards and shot hogs with many different caliber pistols. 38 Special, 9mm Luger, 45 Colt and 30 Luger/Mauser were all well represented. That's what I call a valid test.

In the big cites they remove those HP's out of men everyday. Still alive men BTW.

Neither are hogs and if you're referring to the Thompson-LaGarde tests, they were performed on cattle and human cadavers in 1904 and did not include the .45 ACP.

The tests were about as scientific as sticking your wet thumb in the wind to forecast the weather.

If I ever need to shoot stockyard cattle using handgun ammo available in 1904, I might give it another read.

[9.3X62AL]

Jtarm--

I would not unplug the Thompson/LaGarde testing data and conclusions entirely. I consider their validity at least on par with that of the Facklerite Jello Shooter Cadre findings, although NONE of these attempts to quantify "stopping power" is satisfactory. All of the formulae depend upon the squaring of at least one element of the ballistic equation--bullet velocity, bullet weight, or bullet diameter. The Hatcher Index of Relative Stopping Power was derived from the Thompson/LaGarde studies, and it squares the bullet diameter to arrive at its calculations. I like to note here that squaring diameter is NOT an inference, it occurs empirically. Also, Hatcher uses mass rather than weight in its estimations. With 112 years of T/LG under our belt and close to 90 years of the Hatcher Scale, I am obliged to point out that "Hatcher" predictions hew the closest to results seen empirically in sidearm gunfights during that same time.

[Bill*B]

A bit of a thread drift, perhaps, but what fun! To chime in, I posted my own 2 cents worth here.

[johniv]

Jtarm--

I would not unplug the Thompson/LaGarde testing data and conclusions entirely. I consider their validity at least on par with that of the Facklerite Jello Shooter Cadre findings, although NONE of these attempts to quantify "stopping power" is satisfactory. All of the formulae depend upon the squaring of at least one element of the ballistic equation--bullet velocity, bullet weight, or bullet diameter. The Hatcher Index of Relative Stopping Power was derived from the Thompson/LaGarde studies, and it squares the bullet diameter to arrive at its calculations. I like to note here that squaring diameter is NOT an inference, it occurs empirically. Also, Hatcher uses mass rather than weight in its estimations. With 112 years of T/LG under our belt and close to 90 years of the Hatcher Scale, I am obliged to point out that "Hatcher" predictions hew the closest to results seen empirically in sidearm gunfights during that same time.

Well stated sir.

[tazman]

I don't think anyone will refute the fact that with similarly placed and designed bullets, the larger the projectile the more effective it will probably be. I know from a monetary standpoint that purchasing a new/used gun specifically for carry in another caliber can become prohibitively expensive, not to mention getting used to another gun system requiring more practice time and ammunition expense.
I know there are technically better rounds out there but the 38 special has been doing the job for a long time.
The fact remains, if what you have is a 38 special, you need to know what may do the best job. I realize a lot depends on the particular weapon used, length of barrel, etc.
I am interested in this myself as I will most likely be carrying a 38 special in either a 2 or 3 inch barrel J frame for my concealed carry. I have larger frame revolvers (S&W15 4" and Taurus 627 tracker) for home use or field carry where the same answer would still apply.
I guess my questions would be do you prefer factory ammo? If so, what design, manufacturer, load, etc? If reloads, what projectile? Cast or jacketed? If cast, what boolit design?
If jacketed or factory, which cast boolit gives the closest comparable performance as far as felt recoil and impact point to be used for practice?

And yes, I did read all the way through this thread. There have been many opinions posted that really aren't practical from my standpoint. The reverse loaded hollow based wadcutter being one of them. The reliability/accuracy issue becomes more important than "maybe" getting a huge mushroom. I guess the last question I asked might be the most important since I can't afford to practice with factory ammo, particularly the $1 per shot variety.

[FergusonTO35]

I can shoot my .32 Auto, .380, 9mm, and .38 Special handguns very well. If I have to be in a gunfight and a .30-30 or .357 carbine is not available then I am going to have whichever one of those I am carrying at the time.

[9.3X62AL]

Tazman--

Practice ammo expense for a carry gun IS a major variable. In my carry calibers I have developed handloads that closely duplicate ballistic performance of the factory rounds I am obliged by CCW issuer policy and (supposed) HR 218 requirements. Cost factor for my handloads with jacketed bullets is about 5 to 1/factory to reload, with cast bullets more like 12 to 1. I am a HUGE believer in practicing with full-potential ammunition that hews closely to carry ammo characteristics.

38 Special is an EXCELLENT choice as a CCW caliber. 113 years of success is hard to argue with. Perhaps not the single-best, but certainly among the best. Even Col Jeff Cooper--the guru of 45 ACP use and carry--thought very highly of the 2" 38 Special as a CCW option, saying something along the line of "It's the 38 Special at its best."

My old agency authorizes the Rem 125 grain JHP +P loading as its 38 Special spec. These get about 925-950 FPS in most 4" barrels, and c. 825-850 FPS from the 2"-2.5". I have not had any experience at autopsy or emergency room with the results of this load; it is mostly a back-up gun or off-duty gun chambering these days, and was adopted after I retired in 2005. It doesn't generate a lot of discussion at the shop, either positive or negative.

FBI still recommends the same old 38 Special load it has encouraged for 30+ years--the +P 158 grain lead semi-wadcutter HP. These are easily and affordably duplicated by the handloader, and there is tons of data for "158 grain LSWCs" out there, both standard pressure and +P. In real life, these loads get to about 900-920 FPS in 4" barrels and 800-825 FPS in snubguns. Paper ballistics show them to be a notch above the 125 grainers performance-wise, and if I was to choose a 38 Special carry load for myself this one would get the nod.

[FergusonTO35]

I load my .38's (all with 4 inch tube) with the Lee 150 grain SWC at 840 fps.

[Jtarm]

Jtarm--

I would not unplug the Thompson/LaGarde testing data and conclusions entirely. I consider their validity at least on par with that of the Facklerite Jello Shooter Cadre findings, although NONE of these attempts to quantify "stopping power" is satisfactory. All of the formulae depend upon the squaring of at least one element of the ballistic equation--bullet velocity, bullet weight, or bullet diameter. The Hatcher Index of Relative Stopping Power was derived from the Thompson/LaGarde studies, and it squares the bullet diameter to arrive at its calculations. I like to note here that squaring diameter is NOT an inference, it occurs empirically. Also, Hatcher uses mass rather than weight in its estimations. With 112 years of T/LG under our belt and close to 90 years of the Hatcher Scale, I am obliged to point out that "Hatcher" predictions hew the closest to results seen empirically in sidearm gunfights during that same time.

I agree that empirical evidence is by far the best. TLG did reinforce what had already been observed in the Philippines: that the .45 Colt was superior to anything available at the time, though I think the .44-40 may have had a slight edge.

Is there a particular study you're citing?

The only one I'm familiar with is Sanow-Marshall, which seems to be widely criticized today. IIRC, it had the .357 125 JHP far ahead of anything.

That's another problem with TLG and Hatcher: there were no reliable expanding bullets available at the time..

[tazman]

A number of years ago(probably 25 or so) the 357 mag 125HP was considered to be the ultimate one shot stopper. This was based on collected statistics from police shootings and considered how quickly a man dropped after one shot with a given cartridge in the torso. This was from a magazine article(not sure which magazine).
There have been a lot of changes since then, both in calibers used and bullet technology. It would still be hard to better the effectiveness of a 357 mag loaded with a good HP bullet(current design).
There are undoubtedly more effective loads out there. I am not certain how many are easily concealed and easily controlled in a concealed carry situation. Say, for someone older who has arthritis in their hands and wrists or for a small frame woman.