History of the 38 Special so-called "FBI Load?"

[dualsport]

Just to stir the pot...I have a very old box of Remington Kleanbore .38 Special 158 gr. STEEL jacketed roundnose ammo. I won't shoot it, it's old old and too interesting to shoot it up. But, somebody back then saw a need for extreme penetration from the .38 Special. It might expand if it hits a brick wall, maybe not. I still think the SEALS have it figured out and they use (must use) FMJ. Get it in there, I say. Like the man said, "P is for Plenty". And placement.

[ReloaderFred]

The Metal Piercing ammunition was brought out in the 1930's, during the heydays of the gangster era. The motorcar was the method of choice for driveby's, bank robberies, etc. The soft lead bullets in common usage during that era when the .38 Special was king just couldn't penetrate the body of a car. The steel used for building cars in those days was more than the foil used in today's cars. It was actual steel. That's another reason the .38 Super was made with a 130 gr. FMJ during that time. It was designed to punch holes in cars with a SA pistol.

I've got a booklet from Western Ammunition from about 1937 that explains why metal piercing ammunition was brought out in both .38 Special and .357 Magnum. The bearing surfaces were still lead, with a steel cap swaged on top. I'll see if I can scan those pages, but computers aren't my strongpoint, so no promises...

Hope this helps.

Fred

[9.3X62AL]

This thread DEFINITELY needs to be stickied. LOTS of good stuff.

I think VERY HIGHLY of R-Fred's old agency for many reasons, and their inclusion of the 41 Magnum for their personnel's usage is one of those. I had no small envy for agencies like his that were serious about keeping their deputies safe in this way. Anaheim PD was another shop that took defense seriously, allowing use of 45 Colt caliber "back in the day".

Alluding to Scharf's comments, the complaints about issued ammo came largely to a halt when our approval list expanded in 1987 to include 45 ACP and 9mm, biased toward 45. The 40 was adopted at light-speed, given the usual glacial progress such upgrades usually made, and Glocks were added about the same time. Even 357 Magnum joined the party, as did 380 ACP for some venues. Lots of choices = minimal b*o*tching. The old shop authorizes 5 handgun calibers--2 forms of shotshell--and pretty decent 223 these days. 300+ sidearm variants get the nod, too. Mo' betta', fo' sho'.

[ReloaderFred]

Can't get the picture to post. I'll try later.

Fred

[Hickok]

Attachment 157260Here ya' go Fred!

[Scharfschuetze]

PS: I always enjoyed getting the fire dept. out in the middle of the night for a ladder. They got paid for sleeping, but if my Deputies got caught sleeping, they'd get fired..........

Ain't that the truth!

the complaints about issued ammo came largely to a halt when our approval list expanded in 1987 to include 45 ACP and 9mm, biased toward 45

As one of my departments FTOs, I was able to revise our firearms policy to allow 357, 41, 44 Special and 45 Colt or ACP (in a revolver). Patrol revolvers could be any quality US made weapon, but S&Ws rulled although a few officers carried Colts.

I never could get the policy to include the 1911 or S&W 39 or 59 semi-autos. I retired and returned to the Army to finish that career just as the semi-auto was being accepted into the police service. I return and visit the department from time to time, although almost all my old comrades are now retired. When I do, I'm always a bit surprised not to see a single revolver on a gun belt anymore. Time waits for no man I guess.

[Bigslug]

I did learn a few things from this and that is when you're in a gun fight with a handgun, you'll always want a more powerful gun than the one you have and that even center mass hits don't always instantly stop a hopped up and determined opponent. My PD's policy allowed .41 Magnums and I bought a Model 58 S&W shortly afterwards.

I've rapidly drained the cardiovascular systems of two runty deer with 2500 fps+ impacts from a 30-06, and despite blown heart on #1 and lung/big artery tartare on #2, both took about ten seconds to lose their footing. Applying the same effect to the pondering of ending a gunfight, it pretty much got me thinking that foot-pounds are a pretty meaningless thing, and that differences in starting or expanded diameter (usually measured in tenths or hundredths of an inch) are similarly not that big a deal.

Lately have been of the mind that if it can transect an arm or a spine without stopping or deviating, AND the girls and desk jockeys can qualify without a lot of flinchy remediation, little more needs to be contemplated for a handgun (though I'm pretty evangelical when it comes to trying to convince them that a 12 gauge shotgun can be their bestest friend in alllll the world). I think the 147 grain 9mm HP may well be the ".38 FBI Load" of the future.

[ReloaderFred]

Thanks, Hickock. I scanned the pages from the 1937 handbook, but I made them jpegs, and couldn't get them to download. I'll try it again later tonight as a pdf and see if that works. I know next to nothing about computers, but I can reload 31 different calibers.........

Fred

[tazman]

Lately have been of the mind that if it can transect an arm or a spine without stopping or deviating, AND the girls and desk jockeys can qualify without a lot of flinchy remediation, little more needs to be contemplated for a handgun (though I'm pretty evangelical when it comes to trying to convince them that a 12 gauge shotgun can be their bestest friend in alllll the world). I think the 147 grain 9mm HP may well be the ".38 FBI Load" of the future.

I have made the statement several times on here that the 9mm is just a high capacity 38 special. When you compare velocities between 38 special and 9mm with similar weight bullets you find the numbers are very close. When you throw in the 38 special +P the 38 special can actually exceed the 9mm velocities.
If you are comparing the performance numbers between the two cartridges, there is little to choose from between them.
I am usually more accurate with a revolver than a semi-auto pistol. The difference isn't a lot. Probably isn't enough to make a difference in a combat situation. The capacity difference probably isn't enough to make a difference either.
You can't be prepared for all situations with a single concealed carry weapon. You pick what you feel will be the best trade off for what you are likely to run into. You use what you feel the most confident with. I have no problems carrying a revolver with the FBI load or a more modern defensive bullet. I also have no problem carrying a 9mm semi-auto pistol with the heavier bullets available.
I doubt I will ever run into a situation where the ammo capacity I have isn't enough to get me out of it.

[Hickok]

Thanks, Hickock. I scanned the pages from the 1937 handbook, but I made them jpegs, and couldn't get them to download. I'll try it again later tonight as a pdf and see if that works. I know next to nothing about computers, but I can reload 31 different calibers.........

Fred

Your welcome. I have only seen those metal piercing .38 rounds once in real life, a fellow showed a few to me.

[Scharfschuetze]

I am usually more accurate with a revolver than a semi-auto pistol. The difference isn't a lot. Probably isn't enough to make a difference in a combat situation. The capacity difference probably isn't enough to make a difference either.

That brings up an interesting side bar between revolvers and semi-autos. When the highway patrol in my home state adopted the Beretta 92, the average score of the average shooters went up a bit and the scores of the really good shots went down. I often shot with or had coffee with the state boys and they all reported the same phenomenon.

Another point is that only hits count and since the rearming of the American police with semi-autos, the number of rounds fired in gun fights by individual officers has climbed significantly. When LEOs were armed with revolvers, the FBI reported that in the average gun fight, the average officer fired four rounds at a suspect in the dark at about four to six feet with a hit ratio of about 20%. I have no idea what it is now, but if the nightly news is to be believed, then I'm no longer surprised to see officers with over 45 rounds on their gun belt between their handgun and two high capacity magazines.

[FergusonTO35]

I am not a cop, and probably never will be one. So, my needs would be strictly to stop a bad guy from whatever he is trying to do to me and get the heck out of there. I think my best bet is to stick with something I can shoot with good speed and accuracy, meaning nothing stronger than 9X19 or .38 Special. It would be counterproductive for me to load any of my pistols beyond standard loadings. Of course if others can shoot the big guns really well then more power to them!

[Larry Gibson]

I think the increase in the number of rounds fired by LEOs is two fold; first they have a larger capacity with semi autos before a reload is necessary and second the training the last 20 +/- years has emphasized "keep shooting until the threat is neutralized". That's my guess as to why we see so many rounds fired. I was a certified firearms instructor for the Board of Police Standards and Training in Oregon. I worked several qualification classes at the police academy and trained and qualified LEOs in a tri-county region. The marksmanship ability and weapons knowledge of most LEOs is greatly exaggerated by the public at large.

Larry Gibson

[tazman]

I think the increase in the number of rounds fired by LEOs is two fold; first they have a larger capacity with semi autos before a reload is necessary and second the training the last 20 +/- years has emphasized "keep shooting until the threat is neutralized". That's my guess as to why we see so many rounds fired. I was a certified firearms instructor for the Board of Police Standards and Training in Oregon. I worked several qualification classes at the police academy and trained and qualified LEOs in a tri-county region. The marksmanship ability and weapons knowledge of most LEOs is greatly exaggerated by the public at large.

Larry Gibson

I have no personal experience that would allow me to verify that statement. I only know what I read about and see in news videos. All the data I have makes me believe what you just stated is exactly correct.
When an officer needs to empty his 15 round magazine to stop a threat that is NOT moving from a range of less than 15 feet, there is something seriously wrong with his weapon handling. This seems to be more normal than one would think.

[Scharfschuetze]

The marksmanship ability and weapons knowledge of most LEOs is greatly exaggerated by the public at large.

My neighbor commutes to serve on a fairly large metro PD. While he's not a gun guy per se, he does does keep me abreast of developments in law enforcement. He and many of his compadres are turning in their 40 S&W handguns and returning to the 9mm. He claims that it is because the Glock 40 S&Ws are not holding up under extended use.

I also get the impression that most of the officers are not qualifying well with the 40 S&W as it is on a 9mm frame and it probably recoils more than most can tolerate and a flinch is the usual outcome from that. During my tenure as one of the FTOs (both field and firearms) on my department, I saw LEOs flinch so badly that they missed a B27 target at 7 yards. They were generally officers wanting to upgrade from the 38 special to a 41 Magnum and the increased recoil was just beyond their capabilities. Of course I could not sign off on their upgrade to a more powerful handgun until they could qualify with it. These were the guys that Larry is referring to and they really were only just barely 70% shooters through 25 yards with a 38 Special.

[ReloaderFred]

Those who have never experienced being shot at have no idea what it's like. It's not target shooting. It's survival.

I've always said training should involve something realistic, after the regular "target shooting" is done to establish a baseline for gun handling basics. When I was full time rangemaster for our dept., with over 600 sworn and another 300 reserve Deputies, I tried to come up with something that would create a more realistic shooting experience, i.e.; being shot at while shooting.

I tried to come up with an idea that would include a device shooting tennis balls, or even ping pong balls, at the shooter while they were engaging a target, but my limited funds and lack of equipment and support from administration, pretty much killed the idea. However, just before I promoted to sergeant and left the range, I ordered a device called the "Return Fire". This was used with wax bullets on the impact target. There was a slingshot arrangement that contained a tennis ball aimed at the shooter's chest. It had a trough in which a softball rolled down it to start the time, with an arm that would fall across the trough and stop the softball from tripping the trigger for the slingshot and tennis ball. The angle of the trough determined the time available for the shot. The wax bullet striking the target released the arm, hopefully in time to stop the softball.

Unfortunately, the Senior Deputy who took my place on the range didn't see the need for this type of training and it was never used. He ended up throwing it away after awhile, which really disappointed me, to say the least.

My suggestion is for those who think cops can't handle guns accurately to step up to the firing line and while they're calmly aligning their sights on their known distance target, let a couple of people throw rocks at them and see how well they do under those less than life threatening conditions........

The truth of the matter is more cops are killed in traffic accidents than shooting most years, though there are exceptions. When I was a patrol sergeant, I was much more concerned about my Deputies' driving abilities than I was their marksmanship, simply because they drove an average of over 100 miles per shift, under distracting and often hazardous conditions, but may never fire their handgun "on the job" over their entire careers. That's the reality, and I'd just come off almost 3 years as the department's only firearms instructor. Later, when I was in senior management, it became even more of an issue.

I've been to way too many funerals over the years for fellow officers, and the slight majority of them were killed in traffic accidents.........

As for increased round counts, in our dept., it went way up with the advent of the SA pistol. There have been numerous studies on the issue. One that stands out is the one done by the Washington Post (not my favorite media source) on the increased number of shootings, and round counts in those shootings, by the Washington DC police dept. after the adoption of the Glock pistols. There was a huge increase, as shown by the graphs they published at the time.

Hope this helps.

Fred

[Petrol & Powder]

There are a LOT of variables involved and it's easy to get lost in the data.

Officers equipped with semi-auto pistols clearly fire more shots on average during deadly force encounters but that statistic doesn't tell much of the story. When you pull a single statistic out of a pile of data you must be very careful when stating what that statistic means.

If you said there were more births during cross country journeys in 1840 than today, one might conclude that woman in the 1840's were very promiscuous ! The fact that the journey took 120 days by wagon in 1840 and 5 hours by jet now - changes that conclusion. You must be cautious when you look a finite statistic that has a lot of variables that influence that statistic.

Having more rounds available in the gun is one factor. Training is another factor. When the gun fight starts is another factor (officers are now very reluctant to fire first even when they are justified to use that force), etc.
Hit ratios may look abysmal when compared to target shooting but survival rates haven't changed much. It isn't about nice small groups and high scores, it's about survival. People that missed about 2/3 of the time with revolvers will still miss about 2/3 of the time with pistols. The raw numbers change but the outcomes are about the same.
Put a pregnant woman on a wagon train from St. Louis to San Francisco today and she just might give birth before she arrives at her destination ! What does that mean? Does it mean anything?

Handguns in general are terrible tools for self defense but they are often the only tool at hand when needed. It's wise to try to make them as effective as possible before the gun fight and that is what the "FBI Load" was all about. In the end, the difference between a 38 Special and a 45 ACP is probably more about the person behind the gun than the bullet coming out of the gun but that doesn't stop us from trying to get every last advantage possible out of that tool.

[tazman]

Handguns in general are terrible tools for self defense but they are often the only tool at hand when needed. It's wise to try to make them as effective as possible before the gun fight and that is what the "FBI Load" was all about. In the end, the difference between a 38 Special and a 45 ACP is probably more about the person behind the gun than the bullet coming out of the gun but that doesn't stop us from trying to get every last advantage possible out of that tool.

I agree with that statement completely. That's why I practice so much. It's also why I carry a gun I can control well and shoot accurately. I would prefer a shotgun in most instances but they are terribly hard to conceal. That FBI load is a good choice for the guns I use most.
I hear a lot of excuses about being shot at changes things so much. Perhaps for some people it does. I have been in survival situations before where I was attacked in one case by 3 people at once. I didn't experience the panic that people say happens in that kind of situation. After it was over, I had the shakes badly enough, but not while it was happening. I wasn't carrying a gun at the time but I managed to stay alive anyway. At the time, concealed carry wasn't an option here.
What bothers me is when LEOs, who may be required to live or die by the gun they carry, don't or won't practice with it to where it's use is a natural part of their being. If they panic, they become a danger to everyone.
I personally know a few officers who are superb shots and really work at their skills. I admire and respect them for their dedication. The only problem is when you meet an officer on the street, you don't know if he/she is a good one or one of the ones who might shoot you by accident because of unfamiliarity with their weapon.

[Scharfschuetze]

I've always said training should involve something realistic, after the regular "target shooting" is done to establish a baseline for gun handling basics. When I was full time rangemaster for our dept., with over 600 sworn and another 300 reserve Deputies, I tried to come up with something that would create a more realistic shooting experience, i.e.; being shot at while shooting.

Very true. During my tenure as one of the range masters, I was able to convince the brass that we didn't need to qualify quarterly but only twice a year. That gave me enough ammo and two days per officer per year to actually train (day and night) in more realistic scenarios applicable to actual street engagements. Administration often suffers from the illusion that qualification is training. It isn't. At any rate, I had junk yards bring out old cars to simulate traffic stops and I instituted an IPSC style course of fire on steel B27 targets that I had the city shop mechanics make. We also trained with instinct or point shooting to supplement aimed fire training. All in all, it was a successful program and one that the range masters that followed me kept in operation.

It isn't about nice small groups and high scores, it's about survival.

True on the face of it, but good shooting on the range will generally turn into good shooting in the field. Good shots are not born, they are trained as well as being self motivated. In this day and age, most recruits have absolutely no idea how to use a firearm until they are trained to do so. If an officer of soldier works hard in training, he will do much better when the chips are down and will likely survive. I can attest to that. Those that don't... well they're the ones not hitting and probably emptying those high capacity magazines. A big part of accuracy is dependent on one's mental outlook and confidence. The ability to shoot well on the training range will build that confidence and competence. I say that with just over 40 years under arms, much of it spent training both LEOs as an FTO and soldiers as an NCO from Vietnam to the Global War on Terror. "Train as you fight and fight as you train" is an old saying in the Army.

Put a pregnant woman on a wagon train from St. Louis to San Francisco today and she just might give birth before she arrives at her destination ! What does that mean? Does it mean anything?

You're right, it doesn't mean anything; but, as an aside, I once delivered a baby while on duty.

[Larry Gibson]

"My suggestion is for those who think cops can't handle guns accurately to step up to the firing line and while they're calmly aligning their sights on their known distance target, let a couple of people throw rocks at them and see how well they do under those less than life threatening conditions........"

The problem with that statement is when a reality check is applied. I'm sure the Chicago PD has all the documentation to prove the officer who shot the knife wielder 16 times was "trained to standard" and had "qualified". And the officer was some distance away (actually it was the officer who was closing the distance) from the knife wielder. There was no overt move toward the officer so he had no "rocks thrown at him" so to speak. Also if you've seen the ME report on the gunshot locations the marksmanship was extremely poor, especially with the 14 shots fired after the guy was on the pavement. Unfortunately such poor marksmanship is quite common among LEOs today.

I appreciate the defense of LEOs in general having been one for a number of years. But unless we put emotion aside and realistically determine what went wrong, accept those as lessons learned and incorporate them into training then this type of scenario will continue. Most of the time when an LEO is killed or even injured it is because they did something wrong, either in action or in judgment. That action and judgment is most often a result of poor training or no training. Too many times I have seen lessons learned ignored by "upper management" because they didn't want to cause dispersion on the officer or because they were afraid of liability issues or that they might be blamed for not "training" the officer correctly. Thus what was excellent lessons learned were often ignored. I always thought that was truly letting the officer die in vain because we may have prevented a future incident by learning what that officer did wrong.

As mentioned by you and several others firearms training is not qualification. Good marksmanship under stress after the officer has learned the basics is a very important 1/2 of it. Unfortunately many officers are put through the "stress training scenarios" before they learn proper handgun marksmanship. The added stress to the officer who knows they can't shoot well and will probably miss only leads to one thing; a spray and pray action. The department that pushes officers to quickly through firearms training are also the ones that will push the officers through stress training, if they get any at all. Those departments also will highly document via paperwork how well trained the officers are. Seen that too many times in too many departments.

The other half that does go hand in hand with good marksmanship is good "officer survival" (read that officer tactics) training. Seldom do we see that. Many gun fights and altercations would probably be avoided if the officers had used proper tactics prior to the shooting.

However, back to the topic of the thread. My own testing and use of the Winchester FBI load is that it's probably the best all around 38 SPL cartridge for LEO carry. There could possibly be some improvement going from a SWC to a WFN HP with a soft silicone type HP filler but that remains to be seen. I still use the Winchester in my wife's M19 2 1/2" as she can shoot it extremely well......keeps me being a "good boy".......

Larry Gibson