Is anyone loading .38 S&W...

[gunfan]

at a "full-tilt" level? The commercially loaded 700-fps 148-grain load doesn't have that much power (for sparing the top-break revolvers).

The solid-framed "I" and "J" frame revolvers aren't prohibited from taking a healthy 850 fps load from a 4" barrel. While there aren't many of these around, are many owners loading peak loads in them?

Scott

[rintinglen]

Whatever for?

I suppose were that the only gun I had available to defend hearth and home, I might over-load a Regulation Police or Police Positive. But who is in that cicumstance? Most folks that I've met who rely on a 38 S&W for protection have only the one gun--"Grandpa's old Service Revolver." and do not reload. Most reloaders have more than one gun, at least one of which is chambered for a cartridge superior to the old Short and Weak.

I can see no benefit to hot rodding this cartridge, and some severe penalties arising should one of those Heated-up rounds end up in an elderly Hopkins and Allen top break.

[gunfan]

Whatever for?

I suppose were that the only gun I had available to defend hearth and home, I might over-load a Regulation Police or Police Positive. But who is in that cicumstance? Most folks that I've met who rely on a 38 S&W for protection have only the one gun--"Grandpa's old Service Revolver." and do not reload. Most reloaders have more than one gun, at least one of which is chambered for a cartridge superior to the old Short and Weak.

I can see no benefit to hot rodding this cartridge, and some severe penalties arising should one of those Heated-up rounds end up in an elderly Hopkins and Allen top break.

Not an answer, but a smart-aleck remark.

Perhaps I can get a real answer from someone that shoots a solid-frame .38 S&W "Terrier". They were manufactured until late 1974, you know. Not everyone is shooting an H&R or Iver Johnson "breaktop".

[9.3X62AL]

This isn't a smart aleck remark--it's an expression of opinion.

I load the 38 S&W to two levels--one to cater to a Colt Police Positive x 4", the other to cater to a Webley-Enfield top-break and a S&W M&P x 5".

The Colt load uses 3.2 grains of Unique under Lyman #358477, a 150 grain SWC. It yields 725-740 FPS and shoots right to the fixed sights at 25 and 50 yards. This load/extrapolation and others can be found in the RCBS Cast Bullet Manual, No. 1 (1986).

The Webley and S&W load HAS NO PLACE in ANY small-frame revolver, regardless of construction. These use a 200 grain RN boolit (NEI #169A) that was configured to match service bullets used in these heavier revolvers by the British using services. My loads are 3.0 grains of Unique or 3.3 grains of Herco, and yield 675-710 FPS. Again, such loads shoot right to the sights of my revolvers at standard distances. These loads were derived from Ken Waters' "Pet Loads" compilation.

Expressions of caution are to be expected when such a small case (just .025" longer than a 9 x 19) is discussed in the context of extending performance with either heavier bullets or heavier powder charges. The 5-shot S&W Terrier may offer more strength than my Colt PP, but I also own 38 Special and 357 Magnum revolvers that offer ballistic upgrades from 1880s-level 38 S&W ballistics. My Colt PP leaves nothing to be desired as a small game rig with the load given above.

ETA--Speer Reloading Manual #13 (1998), pp. 514-516 shows some data for use with their commercial bullets. These data subscribe to the current SAAMI pressure limit of 13K CUP. The compilers used a S&W Model 33 x 4" to gather the data, as was used in the Cast Bullet Manual. The data shows 110 grain JHPs topping out at 1060 FPS, and 125 grainers hitting 986 FPS. Overall loaded lengths are given as well. Your S&W is likely to have throats at 360"+, so be warned that leading via undersized swaged or cast bullets can occur.

Good hunting!

[Snapping Twig]

I have two dedicated 38Spl revolvers, a 649-3 and a 36ND.

My load is a home cast Lyman 358156 over 4.5g W231 and a WSP.

Consulting old and new reloading manuals, this is what might be considered 'old school' or 'pre lawyer', not quite +P but certainly more than the modern loads.

I figure somewhere in the 850fps area from these revolvers. Short barrels aren't a good platform for velocity experiments, but I am interested in a hard hitting round for SD and IMO, that's about as good as it gets without taking things further than I want - point of diminishing return and all.

I have a 3" 65-5 and a 4" 13-3, they carry well, but the J frame carries best. My preference is for the .45acp in a commander or a 3" .44 loaded with 250g SWC @ 900fps, so this motivates me to make the 38Spl work at least well enough to ease my mind. I know placement is key and to that end, these loads are very acurate out to 10 yards, probably more.

[220swiftfn]

I have two dedicated 38Spl revolvers, a 649-3 and a 36ND.

My load is a home cast Lyman 358156 over 4.5g W231 and a WSP.

Consulting old and new reloading manuals, this is what might be considered 'old school' or 'pre lawyer', not quite +P but certainly more than the modern loads.

I figure somewhere in the 850fps area from these revolvers. Short barrels aren't a good platform for velocity experiments, but I am interested in a hard hitting round for SD and IMO, that's about as good as it gets without taking things further than I want - point of diminishing return and all.

I have a 3" 65-5 and a 4" 13-3, they carry well, but the J frame carries best. My preference is for the .45acp in a commander or a 3" .44 loaded with 250g SWC @ 900fps, so this motivates me to make the 38Spl work at least well enough to ease my mind. I know placement is key and to that end, these loads are very acurate out to 10 yards, probably more.

For all to keep in mind......

The 38 S&W is NOT the 38 Spl!!!!!! They are two different cartridges!!!!


I now return you to the thread.....


Dan

[Piedmont]

I didn't think rintinglen was being a smart aleck either. Look how small that case is. An 850 fps 158 grain load is at least borderline plus-p for the .38 spl. Your case capacity is much smaller. If you load to .38 plus P pressures in your 1970s marked J frame you will still trail the .38 special by a substantial amount.

If you still want to go ahead and can find some good cast bullet pressure data on the 9mm Parabellum, the case sizes are nearly identical. If you kept the bullet weight and overall length the same that would put you right in the ballpark. I'm not suggesting 33-35,000 psi loads but just some stated data with for example a 22,000 psi load. Still if I were to do that it would be with one of those Ruger Service Sixes in .380 Rimmed.

[gunfan]

Thank you, Dan. What I was suggesting is a more potent loads for the 146-grain lead bullet. In the last years of the .38 S&W "Terrier" manufacture, I believe that S&W reduced the bullet diameter from .361" to .357" and the bore along with it.

In my 1978 Speer #10 reloading manual is illustrating the use of 110, 125, 148 and 158-grain .357" diameter bullets in both semi-jacketed and lead bullets. The revolver used was the S&W Model 33 with a 4" barrel. I saw some 125-grain Speer JHP bullets being launched at a maximum of 972 fps using 4.8 grains of Unique. A 110 grain .357" JHP was driven to 1001 fps with 5.1 grains of the same propellant.

I thought that someone might be able to offer something along these lines.

While not used in a new "flashy" plastic self-loader, the .38 S&W has the potential "gusto" to penetrate even better than the .380 ACP. A 110-grain FMJ can be driven fast enough to provide sufficient performance to deal with most close-range self-defense tasks.

Scott

[9.3X62AL]

No "time in grade" with one of the later-series Terriers, so I'm limited by the Colt PP's strength limits.

I don't consider the #358477 at 740 FPS to be a paltry service round. Compared to standard-pressure 38 Specials/158s from a 2" barrel, there's not a lot of difference. Those loads barely get past 700 FPS. Using the sharp-shoulder/flat meplat SWC boolit is a plus, also. I'd call it a "push".

I haven't tried the JHPs in the Colt (yet). They would be a fair fit, its throats run .359" and grooves are .358". I just found a 500-ct lot of 125 grain JHPs for 357 Magnum load work (bulk W-W), so some of those might get diverted into a test series for the 38 S&W/Colt PP. The heavier 38/200 revolvers have .363" throats, so .357" bullets would be a waste of time and components. The Colt PP is a sport revolver, and isn't carried in harm's way. That isn't to say that a recipient who earned its attention wouldn't have its contents delivered if the matter arose--but self-defense isn't its primary role.

[Char-Gar]

I can see no reason the try and push the 38 S&W round. None what so ever. The British military and police thought the 200 grain load going 650 fps was a crackerjack round and killed many folks all over the world with it, to prove their point.

If you want to drive a bigger nail, get a bigger hammer!

[Guesser]

My newest 38 S&W is a 1953 Improved "I" frame 4" Regulation Police, I cast and load 358246 and 360271. Both drop at .361+, I size .360. They are really finely accurate bullets in my guns. Accuracy is so good that if I changed from the load data listed in Ideal #35 the accuracy would fall away just as the point of aim/impact would shift. I'm really happy with it as is and am not intimidated while carrying it, but then I'm not intimidated while carrying a 32 loaded with 85 gr. 32 S&W. I treat the guns as if want them to last forever. Horse powering up an "I" frame is foolish in my opinion. As LTC. North sez. Everyone has a constitutional right to my opinion!!!!!!!

[gunfan]

Thank you gentlemen. I appreciate your input.

Scott

[LouisianaMan]

Gunfan,
I load 38 S&W at a number of power levels. Started off several years ago when I sought a low-recoil, medium caliber load to standardize for my wife & daughters. OTOH, 2 of them can handle loads stouter than the current factory 145-46/685 LRN available from Win, Rem, PP, Magtech, and perhaps others.

Likewise, I'm a historian and was attracted by the Brits' use of heavy bullet (200g) loads for service use, an approach also used by some US police depts a few decades ago; indeed, by many depts if you include 38 SPL 200g loads, some of which duplicate the low-vel 38 S&W 200g Brit Mk 1 and US commercial "police service" rounds.

Further, I was interested in playing around with the caliber myself, and I found readily-available modern data that closely approached 38SPL loads, so I felt I could standardize with 4 sets of 2" and 4" guns, i.e. S&W Mods 32-1 and 33-1, so that my girls could all use any gun they picked up, and that any practice with anyone's revolver was like practicing with their own. The fact that these revolvers were J frame (fits their small hands) and easily found on-line, plus commercial ammo is still available if needed, were additional benefits.

When perusing Speer 13 and Ken Waters's 1979 Pet Loads article, I found a number of hi-performance loads that I continue to experiment with. I've wound up with an Enfield, a Victory, a Colt PPS, both 2 3/4" and 4" Ruger Indian contract Service-Sixes, as well as an improved I frame Terrier, plus 3 sets of the aforementioned 32-1 and 33-1. Someday I hope to pair up the I-Terrier with an I-Regulation Police and a Banker's Special with the PPS.

I don't worry overmuch about SAAMI 13K CUP limits, because I won't bring aboard any of the weaker top breaks, and I view my guns as tools & hobby equipment, not as safe queens whatsoever. I definitely limit the demands placed upon my Colt D frame and Smith I frame, and use sane judgment (I hope) in general. I cast my own bullets and carefully take into account the varying groove sizes when putting together loads. I have Sharpies and will color code any of the heavier stuff--natural for me, as I was a career officer in the Army Ordnance Corps, and retired Marine M/GySgt P.J. Goodman taught me well about such things :-)

So, although there are many simpler solutions available that make good sense in their own ways, my girls' guns are loaded with 148g LWC's in the low 700's, my 32-1 carries the same bullet at a true 800, and my 33-1 carries Speer GDHP-SB 135g at high 800's. These latter loads are scaled DOWN from Ken Waters's 140g JHP'S at 984, and the heavy WC load is only slightly shorter than the 38 SPL load in Lee 2nd that clocks over 900 with TiteGroup at a listed 11,900 CUP. I've been carrying the 32-1 with 200g large-meplat, pure lead SWC's that chrono low 600's (4") and high 500's (2"). I plan to approach Ed Harris's recommended top-end 200g load of 700 fps from a 4" gun, to see what it does for POI and recovery time, using 50-50 alloy + tin.

I chronograph EVERYTHING I try, and individually weigh ALL heavy loads. I can't pressure-test, so I limit myself accordingly. I consider Harris, Lee, and Waters to be responsible and capable sources who forgot more about ammo than I'll ever know. My accuracy needs are modest, because these loads are essentially intended for close range SD/HD using Fairbairn, Sykes, Applegate point-shooting techniques.

I feel safe, but don't recommend anyone do what I do without doing their own research and testing, since everything involved in hand loading and casting is a variable, and I can't begin to account for anyone else's reloading practices. None of my guns will shoot many hundreds, much less thousands, of the heaviest loads, mostly just 200/600 and 140-160/675-750 level stuff.

Happy shooting, and to each his own joys in our shared hobby!

[Hardcast416taylor]

I find myself in a similar situation about what to do as far as loading for the .38 S&W. A good friend inherited an S&W in this cal. from his Dad`s estate, I`m unsure of the exact S&W pistol model. He has asked my guidance for loading this pistol seeing as how he can`t find any sort of factory ammo at shows. So, my thanks to the above posting members for shedding a bit of light on this round for me.Robert

[9.3X62AL]

L-Man, many thanks for "coloring in" my rough sketch.

Both Lyman #358430 and the NEI #169A show evidence of having tumbled on impact in small game and varmints I've shot at slower velocities with both boolits. The Lyman driven at 1100-1200 in the 357 Magnum seems to punch straight-through, though. All hits are DRT/final, in any event--and FAR MORE DECISIVE than hits with those sub-sonic 147 grain 9mm HP Fackler Fark-Ups. Don't get me started.......

[gunfan]

Thank you, Louisiana Man. This is the kind of information that I am seeking. These sane approaches to handloading a neglected bullet/cartridge combination makes a great deal of sense. I hope that stimulating conversation along these lines will encourage others to make the most of these older firearms without abusing them.

Again, thank you.

Scott

[LouisianaMan]

You bet, Gunfan. Lots of quality revolvers in this caliber that have been held back because (a) weak break-tops abound, and (b) because souping up a 38 S&W essentially makes it into a 38 SPL. Since the latter are so readily available, it's not sensible on a macro level to worry much about the old S&W.

On a micro level, however, we are left with perfectly serviceable revolvers, capable of doing the job they always did, but hindered terribly by the "lowest common denominator" commercial ammo situation. Of course, it doesn't sell new guns to provide modern, capable ammo for guns 40-90 years old--especially since only automatics can serve for SD/HD anymore. :-)

For us lucky enough to own a sound 38 S&W revolver, however, we can handload ammo that is absolutely respectable for those who believe a medium caliber revolver is still able to do what it always could. Commercial component bullets work OK for Colts, Smiths, and Rugers, but casters have an absolute ton of options.

9.3, do your 200g bullets still tend to tumble at 700-ish, or do they do their best work when less stable at 600-ish?

[gunfan]

While I don't even own a .38 S&W, I certainly have been eyeing a few that have been reblued and would likely shoot very well.

I am a fan of the off-beat, the "underdog" and showing how it can still be used to good effect!

Scott

[9.3X62AL]

L-Man, the #358430s show evidence of tumbling after impact to 800-825 FPS from 38 Specials. I suspect those were maxed standard or +P loadings, but the empties ejected easily. Very accurate, from 700-1200 FPS--but they do cartwheel at lower impact speeds.

I haven't run the NEI much past 725 FPS, and those tumble readily on/in jackrabbits. Funny cartridge, the British 38/200.......the boolit is longer than the case it fits into! While velocity is modest, the THWOCK they hit critters or iron targets with is substantial. I sure as h--- wouldn't stand downrange and try fielding these slow-movers with a catcher's glove.

Gunfan, I load the 7.65 MAS pistol--30 Luger--7.62 x 38R--so the 38 S&W is on the high side of "normal" for me, relatively speaking.

[LouisianaMan]

9.3,
Thanks for the info--that question has been on my mind a long time and I should have asked you a year ago.

I have a GB mold for the 358430 clone & a bunch of bullets made up, but haven't yet cast anything with the Webley/Enfield GB NEI 169A clone mold sitting in my garage. Think I'll remedy that deficiency this afternoon! Anything that tumbles in a jackrabbit is highly likely to expend its energy and momentum inside any two-legged reprobate who may ever merit its administration.

I was amazed to see the humble, much-maligned 178g FMJ Mk 2Z bullet's effects when tested on jugs of water, pine trees, etc., their "armor" of greatcoats notwithstanding. It seems like a ball ammo solution to achieving hollow point effects without requiring HP velocities, blast & recoil, all within the strictures of the old Hague conventions. Based on your experiences, does that seem like an accurate assessment? Sort of a 1930's handgun version of the M-16 with M193 ball ammo?

And IIRC, you load a long 148g LWC as well, although I don't know the velocity range. Is that your choice for "shooting to the sights" with civilian-market revolvers, hitting harder than commercial LRN while not taxing your trusty Police Positive?

[9.3X62AL]

Buckshot has loaded some 148 wadcutters in 38 S&W, he has a wide-cavity #359063 mould IIRC. My boolit for the Colt PP is the Lyman 150 grain SWC (#358477), which works because the little Colt has tighter throats and grooves that accomodate the castings' dimensions. These I run to 725 FPS atop 3.3 grains of Herco or 3.0 grains of Unique. The loads shoot right to the sights at 25 and 50 yards.

[LouisianaMan]

Yes, my Colts have always been dimensioned smaller than the Smiths, and bulky SWC shoulders that the Smiths gobble cannot be chambered in the Colt. It does fine with long ogive bullets, such as the .35-200 rifle bullet. I "smush" them in a blind die I bought from Buckshot, and the resulting flat nose gives quite a respectable meplat. Lighter bullets such as a Lee 140g WC and 148g WC also function fine in the Colt, although I can't necessarily seat them as long as I might in an S&W.

Gunfan, which guns do you have an eye on? FWIW, I'm also a fan of reblueing, as I like guns to look nice & shoot straight--I'm a shooter/enthusiast/dabbler, not really a collector.

[gunfan]

There is an S&W with a 2" barrel misposted and put into the .32 revolver column.

Sadly, I have spent all of my available money on 1 revolver in .32 Magnum, and 2 in .32 Long (I also picked up a dandy little FIE Titan in .32 ACP for $274.32 OTD). I can't afford to bid $200.00 + dollars on the piece.

The .38 S&W nice little S&W "Terrier", it has a 2" barrel with a beautifully new re-blue job and "faux" pearl grips. (I'm not much for "faux" pearl grips, but the revolver is in nice condition).

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=286501334

You have about 7 hours to bid on it.


Scott

[LouisianaMan]

Nice eye! Unfortunately, after getting those 2 Rugers and now a supply of CIS Mk 2Z ammo for them, I'm tapped for a while, too. :-)

[gunfan]

Nice eye! Unfortunately, after getting those 2 Rugers and now a supply of CIS Mk 2Z ammo for them, I'm tapped for a while, too. :-)

Somebody is going to get a really nice revolver... and they'll get it cheaply too!

[gunfan]

Someone is going to be very angry when they discover that they haven't bought a .32 S&W revolver! :-o

Scott

[9.3X62AL]

I hope not, Gunfan. Most of the folks interested in these gems know right well that with the small-frame S&Ws that 5 shots = 38 caliber (of some kind) while 6 shots = 32 or 22. Also, Models 30 and 31 = 32 S&W Long, while Models 32 and 33 = 38 S&W.

If that critter had a 4" barrel, I'd chase it down in a hurry.

[gunfan]

I hope not, Gunfan. Most of the folks interested in these gems know right well that with the small-frame S&Ws that 5 shots = 38 caliber (of some kind) while 6 shots = 32 or 22. Also, Models 30 and 31 = 32 S&W Long, while Models 32 and 33 = 38 S&W.

If that critter had a 4" barrel, I'd chase it down in a hurry.

You can chase a 4" barrel for it down from a parts house, if you're so inclined.

Scott

[PB234]

Not being familiar with the model listed on the auction can I ask what is the attraction of it? Old time quality or perhaps it is an I frame which I have never seen. Just trying to see it from another's perspective and broaden my understanding.

The grips are sort of an eyesore.

[gunfan]

When you say "old time quality" the .38 S&W and .38 S&W Special revolvers until we were given the "Hillary Hole". The .38 S&W, when loaded to it's proper potential doesn't fall too short of the .38 S&W Special cartridge, and it eclipses the .380 ACP.

These "pocketable" little revolvers carry a potency rivaling the current modern loadings of .380 and it also exceeds the most potent .32 Auto (7.65 x 17SR or 7.65mm Browning).

The attraction is what is was during the first part of the last century: A moderately powerful round, in a high-quality, yet concealable revolver. The grips? Those are a matter of taste. I had stated earlier in the thread that I didn't much care for them, but would like a set of originals, to restore the original look of the revolver.

These revolvers were discontinued in 1974. The sample we had mentioned was either of late 1950's to early 1960's production. When it comes to the world of handguns, it really isn't that old.

Scott

[PB234]

I think I had it as early 1950s. What I do not understand about the pistol is that if it is a J Frame and not an I frame why would one not just go with a 38 Special Model 36 and load it down? I understand the attraction of history and from that perspective would also have liked it. If it is dimensionally the same as a 36 the 36 seems to be a better option offering a wider array of ballistics.

[gunfan]

It isn't because the "I" frame was inadequate, because it was. The frame was just too short to safely accommodate a 6 round cylinder! It is lighter in weight, and in the day, made it more amenable to concealed carry.

If you want a .38 Special, fine. The "I" frame is smaller, and can hide more easily. Besides, if you perform some research, the .38 S&W (again) isn't that far behind the .38 Special. (Speer Reloading Manual #10, 1978). The bullets are different .360"-.361" as opposed to .357"-.358" and are usually made of nearly 100% lead. (Casting makes the revolver even more attractive).

I repeat, conduct some research, (on line, or on paper) and borrow someone's .38 S&W solid-frame revolver. If you obtain a Model 32 or 33 (either a"Terrier" or Regulation Police) and shoot it, perhaps you may understand.

Scott

[gunfan]

I might add that if you "load down" the .38 Special too far, you can cause pressures to "spike" and exceed the pressures of the cartridge. The smaller case of the .38 S&W compensates for this. You could shorten a .38 Special case, but the .38 S&W already exists.

Scott

[gunfan]

From Wikepedia:

The .38 S&W is a revolver cartridge developed by Smith & Wesson in 1877. Though similar in name, it is not interchangeable with the later .38 Smith and Wesson Special due to a different case shape and slightly larger bullet diameter.
The British military adopted a loading of this cartridge as the Cartridge, S.A., Revolver Ball, 380 in, MkI .38-200, with the "200" referring to the weight of the bullet in grains. In 1937, this cartridge was replaced in British Service by the Cartridge, S.A., Revolver Ball, 380 in, MkII. The main difference between it and the previous round was that that it had a 178 gn. FMJ bullet.
[edit]U.S. Variants

The .38 Colt New Police was Colt's Manufacturing Company's proprietary name for what was essentially the .38 S&W with a flat-nosed bullet.
The U.S. .38 S&W Super Police cartridge was nearly identical to the British .38/200 Mk I, using a 200 grain (13 g) lead alloy bullet with a muzzle velocity of 630 ft/s (189 m/s) and a muzzle energy of 176 ft·lbf (239 J), and was supplied by several U.S. manufacturers to the British government as equivalent to the Mk I loading.
The .38 S&W is also called the .380 Rim and .38 S&W Corto.

[PB234]

I have a 1930s 38-200 Commercial Webley; however hesitant to shoot it as it is virtually new. Most likely I'll eventually secure another 38-200 Webley or Enfield in and play with it. I do not question the 38 S&W is interesting or with a soft lead heavy bullet formidable. Just wonder why one wants a 38 S&W in a J Frame?

In an I frame I understand the attraction. Thinking the auction was for an I frame I was the second highest bidder. The materials (except dies) to reload for the 38 S&W are on my shelf. In a J frame 38 S&W is a curiosity that eats into a budget I have already gone through this month.

[gunfan]

I have a 1930s 38-200 Commercial Webley; however hesitant to shoot it as it is virtually new. Most likely I'll eventually secure another 38-200 Webley or Enfield in and play with it. I do not question the 38 S&W is interesting or with a soft lead heavy bullet formidable. Just wonder why one wants a 38 S&W in a J Frame?

In an I frame I understand the attraction. Thinking the auction was for an I frame I was the second highest bidder. The materials (except dies) to reload for the 38 S&W are on my shelf. In a J frame 38 S&W is a curiosity that eats into a budget I have already gone through this month.

Got it. I believe that the .38 S&W "J" frame was continued for the "senior" or "female" agents/detectives. this would permit them to shoot a reasonably potent round while not shooting a .32 caliber cartridge. (They had few holster options at the time, so they had to remain within frame guidelines). Small departments didn't load their own ammunition, and the "J" frame in .38 S&W "filled the bill". If a policewoman of the day dumped five rounds of .38 S&W into a subject/miscreant, it was believed that she had a reason to do so; few, outside of the shooting review board, questioned it.

Scott

[PB234]

Gunfan,

This is the one that I am trying to figure out. Any help is gratefully received.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=154446

PB

[gunfan]

Sorry, kid. That's far outside my pay grade. If it was shipped around the world and converted that long ago, I couldn't begin to tell you the story. Obviously the barrel has been changed and the breech face and hammer nose altered to accommodate the rimfire cartridge.

Returning it to it's original configuration would be costly, but only you can decide whether, or not, it is worth the time an money to do so. If it is an "I" frame, it may be an interesting project and a fun shooter. It will, however, not be inexpensive when it comes to time, materials and labor.

Scott

[PB234]

I am going to keep it as is. The oddness of what it currently is and the likelihood that it has been all over the world is why I acquired it. Will take it out and shoot it soon as I get time. Someone who was a target shooter worked this one into what it is now and determining what he produced is part of its attraction. The quality of the workmanship is excellent. Odd to think it was converted to a rimfire prior to being sent out of England, but hard to figue how it got back to England and then became a rimfire.

Getting to the USA is also interesting.

Hope it shoots accurately. It's oddness appeals to me.

All the best.

PB

[PB234]

Only other thing I can figure out is that the Brits converted it into a training pistol and it made it to Europe as a training pistol for the local police. Later it found its way here.

Cuts out one unlikely leg of its journey.

[gunfan]

I am going to keep it as is. The oddness of what it currently is and the likelihood that it has been all over the world is why I acquired it. Will take it out and shoot it soon as I get time. Someone who was a target shooter worked this one into what it is now and determining what he produced is part of its attraction. The quality of the workmanship is excellent. Odd to think it was converted to a rimfire prior to being sent out of England, but hard to figue how it got back to England and then became a rimfire.

Getting to the USA is also interesting.

Hope it shoots accurately. It's oddness appeals to me.

All the best.

PB

I understand. the unusual has it's appeal. (I tend to go for the "offbeat" myself). Why do you think that I like the .32 caliber revolvers and self-loaders? I have a driving penchant for accuracy. The .32 caliber "family" has it in spades! If I can dump 8 rounds of hot .32 ball ammunition in someone's face or chest in short order, I'll take that over a poorly placed .45 ACP in less than a heartbeat!

Scott

[PB234]

Not knowing much about 32s this is a good opportunity to ask which do you favor the most? The 32 HSC and PPK look interesting to me. 1935 Beretta and Browning 1922 also are interesting. I like the older stuff with a sense of history in it.

Lot to be said for a controllable cartridge that is easy to shoot accurately.

Just picking your brain here for suggestions for 32s. Figure you now them and I sure do not so here is my opportunity to learn the easy way.

[9.3X62AL]

There is a significant number of 32 caliber handgun addicts here at Cast Boolits--just hide and watch, we'll all be coming out of the woodwork in short order. :)

Scott touched on a subject tangentially that has been a question I've pursued with some vigor as both a hobbyist and as an expert witness/investigator in lethal force scenarios and ballistics venues. That question or inquiry series would be "What changed over the past 125 years of cartridge arms in self-defense roles that caused the near-demise of the less powerful/smaller caliber sidearms in those venues?"

Medical factors--most gunshot wounds are dirty, germy, infectious messes. This was common knowledge after our national experience in the War Between The States. The dissuading effect of likely infection and slow, painful recovery or agonizing death from a pending gunshot injury cannot be over-emphasized, and such dissuasion figured highly in an assailant's threat assessment well into the early decades of the 20th Century. So a diminutive top-break 32 caliber revolver held the potential in 1900 of being just as lethal as any large-caliber sidearm or rifle--and with a more lingering, miserable journey into that good good night, as well.

The modern scenario medically is radically different. If the ballistic trauma itself has not caused organic destruction inconsistent with maintenence of life, the array of antibiotics and pain management agents provide a pretty good oppurtunity for a gunshot victim to survive the incident. This too has become common knowledge, especially noted by the hood rats and thug culturists that make up our criminal element. This variable is part of their mindset, and is aggravated by use of mind-altering substances. In short, a lawful defender (citizen or LEO) is potentially more likely to be obliged to project lethal force in current times than in the past--simply because gunshot wounds have been made more survivable medically.

Legal factors--125 years ago, if a citizen was obliged to fire upon an assailant for some reason, it was almost assumed from the outset that said citizen likely had a good reason for doing so. Society seemed aware that vicious people were abroad, and that such persons were prone to prey upon others for various and sundry illicit motives.

While in reality that situation remains unchanged, the legal landscape has altered radically. A LEO or citizen who projects lethal force will be obliged to justify those actions, and that justification will be raked and sorted with a very fine-toothed comb. Regardless how well-justified the defensive action may have been, the self-defender will likely face lawsuits, threats. and negative publicity ad nauseum.

Another change in the legal landscape that has REALLY altered the playing field.......125 years ago, it was considered good public policy to fire upon suspected fleeing felons irrespective of their status as being armed. Society felt it was intrinsically good to capture suspected felons by any means possible, in the interest of preserving public order. In such a situation, lower-powered sidearm calibers served well, given the likelihood of resulting infection as above--the bullet as "marking pellet" assured that the perp would either seek medical assistance and thereby be identified, or expire on his own and relieve society of the need and costs of trying him. A very different world, indeed--where value judgements favoring the law-abiding were the order of the day.

A profound shift occurred during the 1960s, and society's view (or at least the legal sub-culture's view) changed on this subject. Firing upon fleeing suspected felons became frowned upon, esp. upon unarmed recipients. By the time I entered LE in late 1977, the rules of engagement forbid firing upon fleeing unarmed felons outright, and fleeing armed felons were a definite gray area. I played by the rules, since I liked having the job.

But the unintended consequences of such strictures remain with us--felons are NOT obliged to flee, esp. from citizens, and the net effect has been to make confrontations occur at MUCH closer quarters and "on the offensive" with deadly force often deployed. This alone has done more to cause the decline of small, less-powerful sideiron for CCW. I carry ALL THE TIME. I carry a 357 Magnum, 40 S&W, or 45 ACP. The 32s and the 38 S&W are recreational devices. If those lighter calibers were to be pressed into defensive work, all shots would be placed in the Brain Housing Group via eye sockets. Yes, I practice such moves. Twice monthly.

[gunfan]

The 32s and the 38 S&W are recreational devices. If those lighter calibers were to be pressed into defensive work, all shots would be placed in the Brain Housing Group via eye sockets. Yes, I practice such moves. Twice monthly.

The Mozambique drill works well in this respect.

Scott

[9.3X62AL]

The Mozambique drill works well in this respect.

Scott

And provides for a more interesting autopsy, as well.

[gunfan]

There is a significant number of 32 caliber handgun addicts here at Cast Boolits--just hide and watch, we'll all be coming out of the woodwork in short order. :)

Scott touched on a subject tangentially that has been a question I've pursued with some vigor as both a hobbyist and as an expert witness/investigator in lethal force scenarios and ballistics venues. That question or inquiry series would be "What changed over the past 125 years of cartridge arms in self-defense roles that caused the near-demise of the less powerful/smaller caliber sidearms in those venues?"

Medical factors--most gunshot wounds are dirty, germy, infectious messes. This was common knowledge after our national experience in the War Between The States. The dissuading effect of likely infection and slow, painful recovery or agonizing death from a pending gunshot injury cannot be over-emphasized, and such dissuasion figured highly in an assailant's threat assessment well into the early decades of the 20th Century. So a diminutive top-break 32 caliber revolver held the potential in 1900 of being just as lethal as any large-caliber sidearm or rifle--and with a more lingering, miserable journey into that good good night, as well.

The modern scenario medically is radically different. If the ballistic trauma itself has not caused organic destruction inconsistent with maintenence of life, the array of antibiotics and pain management agents provide a pretty good oppurtunity for a gunshot victim to survive the incident. This too has become common knowledge, especially noted by the hood rats and thug culturists that make up our criminal element. This variable is part of their mindset, and is aggravated by use of mind-altering substances. In short, a lawful defender (citizen or LEO) is potentially more likely to be obliged to project lethal force in current times than in the past--simply because gunshot wounds have been made more survivable medically.

Legal factors--125 years ago, if a citizen was obliged to fire upon an assailant for some reason, it was almost assumed from the outset that said citizen likely had a good reason for doing so. Society seemed aware that vicious people were abroad, and that such persons were prone to prey upon others for various and sundry illicit motives.

While in reality that situation remains unchanged, the legal landscape has altered radically. A LEO or citizen who projects lethal force will be obliged to justify those actions, and that justification will be raked and sorted with a very fine-toothed comb. Regardless how well-justified the defensive action may have been, the self-defender will likely face lawsuits, threats. and negative publicity ad nauseum.

Another change in the legal landscape that has REALLY altered the playing field.......125 years ago, it was considered good public policy to fire upon suspected fleeing felons irrespective of their status as being armed. Society felt it was intrinsically good to capture suspected felons by any means possible, in the interest of preserving public order. In such a situation, lower-powered sidearm calibers served well, given the likelihood of resulting infection as above--the bullet as "marking pellet" assured that the perp would either seek medical assistance and thereby be identified, or expire on his own and relieve society of the need and costs of trying him. A very different world, indeed--where value judgements favoring the law-abiding were the order of the day.

A profound shift occurred during the 1960s, and society's view (or at least the legal sub-culture's view) changed on this subject. Firing upon fleeing suspected felons became frowned upon, esp. upon unarmed recipients. By the time I entered LE in late 1977, the rules of engagement forbid firing upon fleeing unarmed felons outright, and fleeing armed felons were a definite gray area. I played by the rules, since I liked having the job.

But the unintended consequences of such strictures remain with us--felons are NOT obliged to flee, esp. from citizens, and the net effect has been to make confrontations occur at MUCH closer quarters and "on the offensive" with deadly force often deployed. This alone has done more to cause the decline of small, less-powerful sideiron for CCW. I carry ALL THE TIME. I carry a 357 Magnum, 40 S&W, or 45 ACP. The 32s and the 38 S&W are recreational devices. If those lighter calibers were to be pressed into defensive work, all shots would be placed in the Brain Housing Group via eye sockets. Yes, I practice such moves. Twice monthly.

I like YOU! Intelligence, education, experience and wisdom. What's not to like?! :cool:

Scott

[LouisianaMan]

9.3,
I've seen some of your thoughts on these matters before, but really enjoyed your exposition in post #43!
A related topic is the trend towards requiring LEO's to go hand-to-hand with thugs, employing a seemingly ever more complicated escalation of force in a manner that must bear scrutiny on the omnipresent cell phone video. I'm 53, and had a Baton Rouge PD officer and a LA State Trooper as two of our neighbors when I was a teenager. The former was the old-school burly cop who could handle most folks with brute force alone--no idea if he had any special training or any equipment besides his revolver and motorcycle. The state patrolman kindly showed me his Colt Trooper .357 one evening; I still remember & use the technique he taught me to hand over an unloaded revolver to someone. I also remember the awe in which I held that Colt and its .357 caliber--the ne plus ultra of sidearms, it seemed to me.

In any event, my perception at that time was that anyone tangling with a cop would suffer one helluva beatdown with fists and/or nightsticks, or simply get shot for his trouble. Don't know if that was literally true, but my perception was widely shared. What's more, we all felt it made perfect sense and was fully justified--we had no notion that the criminal deserved kid glove treatment, nor that a cop was obligated to risk his life so unnecessarily as now seems to be the case. The first time he gets licked, his gun may be taken and turned on him, yet if the assailant is losing & takes off, he does it fairly secure in the knowledge that the cop can't shoot him. (A lot like the rules of engagement we hold our soldiers to in combat operations.)

So, in the process of making all of this more "humane," we've now habituated criminals to expect non-deadly force in the first place, and likewise to expect to be saved by heroic measures and the finest medical technology if they do get shot! So instead of being able to use what you describe as the old "marking" rounds such as 32 and 38 S&W, cops & civilians alike are liable to be carrying firepower undreamed of when I was a young 'un. Again, the rule of unintended consequences distorts the efforts of the do-gooders and increases the danger to everybody (sorry if that sounds bitter).

Well, I guess the 135 bullets I cast this evening from an old Ideal hand-tool 146g LRN mold will be limited to practice ammo for my girls in their 38 S&W's, or perhaps as fodder for speed loaders/-strips to ease reloading after their WC carry ammo is expended on a monumentally bad day. They can't reload very quickly, but I emphasize to them that they've got to reload after a SD incident, as they'll have lost track of rds expended and CANNOT count on the PD to arrive before the BG's possibly vengeful friends and family.

I also cast perhaps 400-500 of the 200g GB clone of the NEI 169A bullet. Hope it'll tumble at 600-ish and nearly duplicate the CIS Mk 2Z 178g ball ammo I have inbound next week. A previous test with that ammo impressed me greatly as a SD round, even though it's not a barrier penetrator. As I reviewed my records of commercial 38 S&W and 38 SPL 200g loads at 600-ish, I see I got some ferocious tumbling in water penetration tests. The LRN's I loaded up into the 700's curved thru water jugs, but didn't tumble. 200g SWC and flat-noses of several types plowed a straight line, nose first in every case.

Perhaps I'll get lucky and get the results the British Army apparently got from the 200g blunt nose, once that GB mold arrives later this year: light recoil, report & blast, violent tumbling, smashing effect on bone, and deep penetration. May be feasible for my girls to handle, unlike the 200 SWC's at 700+ in 38 SPL.

[9.3X62AL]

Scott--thanks for the kind words, sir.

LA Man, I think the uptick in cartridge power was a direct response to assailants "taking the offensive" far more frequently, in the absence of the old La Ley De Fuga (The Law Of Flight)--Si su fuga, mi fuego(If you flee, I fire). That Spanish may not be perfect, but is close. In Mexico, those rules of engagement still largely hold sway. If an attacker is in your face and presenting lethal force, he needs his switch turned off RIGHT BLEEPIN' NOW--so the bigger/heavier/faster bullet gets the call.

I'm sure that humane motives and a genuine desire to save human life played some role in the softening of the rules of engagement as stated previously. But being the realist and cynic that I am, I'm equally certain that the legal establishment had as much or more to do with having those rules modified--in order to fatten and deepen their revenue streams. Dead criminals don't directly prompt legal fees, so the obvious response is to create an environment that preserves their lives--or at least sanctions via litigation the taking of criminal life, irrespective of the justification for said life-taking. The lawyers want their piece--and, by God, they mean to get it.

So the object of the game becomes one of being there to defend one's self in court, after defending one's self on the street. What a country.

[gunfan]

LousianaMan writes, "Again, the rule of unintended consequences distorts the efforts of the do-gooders and increases the danger to everybody (sorry if that sounds bitter)."

That isn't bitterness, it's righteous indignation.

Scott

[9.3X62AL]

True that.

The 38 S&W (and the 32 handguns, for that matter) become very efficient "Kit Guns", with far more game- and varmint-harvesting ability than the 22 LR versions once made by S&W. Their cast boolits--when run at docile velocities--anchor small and medium critters capably, and without the meat-shredding effects of the Magnums. I have come to greatly enjoy the little Colt PP as a field companion.

[gunfan]

While the .22 LR is quite economical for small game, it is advisable to use a revolver/self-loader with a barrel of six inches in length (or longer) to ensure sufficient energy is generated to harvest game cleanly. Our fathers and grandfathers knew this. Even with the modern development of high-velocity hollow point ammunition, the .22 long rifle must be provided sufficient "runway" to be effective when it comes to humanely dispatching small game.

The small-bore .32 S&W & .32 S&W Long excel in this arena. Withe the proper loads, even the larger canine varmints can be dealt with quite readily. All that is required is an accurate piece, and bit of skill on the shooter's part.

Scott

[btreanor]

If you're interested in some low-recoil, accurate .38 S&W rounds, I've had great luck with the Rem. 148 HBWC designed for .38 Spl wadcutter rounds. They are oversized at about 0.360" and work well in the .38 S&W. I just seat them about halfway down and crimp on one of the driving bands. I use between 2.0 to 3.5 grains of Bullseye depending on the gun.

[9.3X62AL]

I tried the Hornady swaged HBWCs in the Webley-Enfield and the S&W M&P. They shot pretty well, but ran lower than the sights held. I haven't tried those boolits in the little Colt.

[LouisianaMan]

I've just loaded a bunch of Lee .358-148-WC in front of TiteGroup, and hope it will be low 700's and a good match for the Colt & S&W sights. Mine run about .358-.360, so shoot well in the Smiths (.359 grooves) and hopefully in the tighter Colt, too.
Expect to keep the Enfield, Victory, and Indian contract Rugers in some combination of Mk 2Z service ammo and 200 LRN at low 600's. Since the LSWC 200's won't tumble anyway, will pump some up to about 700 and see how they shoot & feel. Also want to see how 158's at 750-800 do in the Victory; I can "smush" the nose with Buckshot's blind die, and get a sharp-edged meplat that looks wicked.

[gunfan]

I've just loaded a bunch of Lee .358-148-WC in front of TiteGroup, and hope it will be low 700's and a good match for the Colt & S&W sights. Mine run about .358-.360, so shoot well in the Smiths (.359 grooves) and hopefully in the tighter Colt, too.
Expect to keep the Enfield, Victory, and Indian contract Rugers in some combination of Mk 2Z service ammo and 200 LRN at low 600's. Since the LSWC 200's won't tumble anyway, will pump some up to about 700 and see how they shoot & feel. Also want to see how 158's at 750-800 do in the Victory; I can "smush" the nose with Buckshot's blind die, and get a sharp-edged meplat that looks wicked.

The flatter the meplat (at any speed) the better.

Scott

[Char-Gar]

Mexico has not had capital punishment for a very long time. "La Ley de Fuga" is often Mexico's pragmatic substitute for the lack of such a law. Many miscretants have been taken to a rural area, cut loose and told to run for their lives. They seldom make it very far.

[gunfan]

Mexico has not had capital punishment for a very long time. "La Ley de Fuga" is often Mexico's pragmatic substitute for the lack of such a law. Many miscreants have been taken to a rural area, cut loose and told to run for their lives. They seldom make it very far.

That works for me. The b@$tards die in a hail of gunfire; the world keeps on turning.

Scott

[Muzzlehatch]

Some years ago I chronographed some .38 S&W loads in two of my revolvers:

S&W Victory 5" barrel - 158 gr. SWC 2.2 gr. Bullseye 588 fps
200 gr. LRN 2.2 B/E 530 fps
148 gr. HBWC 2.2 B/E 735 fps
New Zealand Military 651 fps
125 gr. LTFP 2.2 B/E (?) 757 fps

Swedish Nagant 158 gr. SWC 2.2 B/E 460 fps (large cylinder gap)

[Salmoneye]

Lyman Manual #44 has 141gr, 150gr, and 158gr loads that are the peppiest .38 S&W I have seen...They recommend for solid frames only...

Use with caution...

[smkummer]

About 20 years ago, I had a FFL order from Hunter's Lodge a 38 Colt Police positive special. What I got was a Hong Kong 38 S&W chambered post 1966 police positive special. I was kind of mad but at $100 I thought I would play with it for awhile. Factory ammo was pleasent to shoot out if it. But I wanted more and loaded the maximum load I could find in any manual, which was pushing towards 900 FPS rated velocity with a 158 bullet, this was most likely not SAMMI specs.. I even loaded store bought cast bullet seated out to make a longer cartridge. The gun was tight and actually shot pretty good but I sold it for what I had in it because I wanted nothing to do with the caliber. Knowing what I know today about short cases and higher pressure, I probably would not do it again but the gun was tight before and after 100 rounds with nothing notable happening.

[LouisianaMan]

IIRC, Ken Waters listed a "Pet Load" for the .38 S&W which used Blue Dot to drive a 200g LRN at 884 fps from a 4" barrel. (Don't reckon I'll ever try that barnburner, but I also think that Waters forgot more about such things than I'll ever know.)

In any event, this old blackpowder pocket pistol caliber is capable of far better performance in a solid frame revolver than most folks imagine. Many guns chambered for the 38 S&W were also chambered in 38 SPL, and many bullets can be loaded in the 38 S&W to a COL that approximates 38 SPL COL's. It stands to reason that it's realistic to achieve standard-pressure 38 SPL results from various 38 S&W guns , just NOT in topbreaks.

[9.3X62AL]

THAT would be honking it on for a 200 grainer from any 38 S&W. IIRC, Mr. Waters used a Ruger Speed-Six x 4" chambered to 38 S&W for his test series. That is likely the strongest platform ever chambered in this caliber, and I sure wouldn't mind having one. These were made up for the Royal Hong Kong Police/Constabulary, and weren't offered commercially AFAIK.

The S&W M&P is plenty strong enough for the 200 grainers at 700 FPS, as is the Webley-Enfield. I'm reluctant to run the NEI #169A any faster than that through those platforms. It is one thing to actualize a platform/caliber combo's full potential, but quite another to abuse a mechanism. That goes to the respect a shooter holds for his hobby, his tools, and for the safety of any bystanders or fellow shooters who might be nearby. Beside that esoteric foofahrah, I have 38 Specials and 357 Magnums that can do a lot more with much less mechanism strain. It's plumb dumb to over-reach.

[LouisianaMan]

9.3,
Great to hear from you, as always. A few months back I lucked into a very nice deal on a 4" Service-Six and a 2 3/4" Speed-Six, NIB, from that Indian Contract run. What's the old saying about blind squirrels and acorns?

Gracious, but they are nice guns! The Service-Six is on the nightstand for checking out the "bump in the night," loaded with Mk2Z ball ammo of recent CIS manufacture, which functions reliably, has a terrific, smashing, tumbling action after initial penetration, and is the ultimate in controllability, as you might imagine. My own handloads for my solid frame .38 S&W's and my Enfield are in the low 600's, as my amateur testing has convinced me that such velocities, combined with 200g LRN bullets, are consistent and powerfully destructive tumblers. I also load 200g soft lead SWC's, which smash straight and deep without tumbling.

Ballistically, the SWC's would be stronger performers at 700 or so, but I find my slower 600-625 fps versions shoot so nicely from a 5" Victory model that I couldn't ask for more. That slow, sharp-shouldered, soft lead heavyweight gives me great confidence as a defensive load, because the gun-ammo combination is lightning fast and wonderfully accurate & controllable in the short-range point-shooting I do.

I use a 135g GDHP-SB in the upper 800's from a Mod 33-1 when I carry it concealed; the powder charge is a *reduced* (!) Ken Waters load. I typically pair that gun with its Mod 32-1 snub version, loaded with a stout 148g LWC, or one of the two aforementioned 200g loads. I have two I frame Terriers that I often carry, and they are loaded with a milder 700-ish wadcutter recipe or the slow 200/600's.

My wife and daughter each have sets of 32-1 and 33-1 for carry and house duty. A Smith Perfected Model, a 3rd Model, and a Colt Police Positive Special, all do house duty with a 147g SWC I've "smushed" into a fairly large meplat form, but at the sedate sub-700 velocities these guns were built for. That's the same load we use in the ladies' guns--they hit with some authority, but recoil and report are manageable and allow them to shoot fast & accurately. Soon I'll brew up some 125g SWC's at 700-800 for them to try, to see if they have a preference. Ditto for a 115g/800fps Hunter's Supply pentagon hollowpoint and a 148g WC loaded at factory-level 685 fps.

I often use a 158g SWC or RNFP at 710 fps for a handy general-purpose load. Nice to bring along on walks in our rural/small town area, where a coyote or feral animal (2- or 4-legged) may be encountered.

In sum, I guess you could say that my overall approach is to use the approximate bullet weights and velocities the 38 S&W commonly used in its heyday, but harder-hitting due to large meplat designs fired from steel guns of quality manufacture. The exceptions are the stout WC and the 135g Gold Dot, which are defensive loads I carry a lot and shoot only a little, and only in strong, solid-frame guns of quality manufacture and excellent condition. I am very pleased with these versatile guns and their equally versatile range of loads, which exhibit many of the same qualities that have made the .38 Special an enduring favorite.

I'm no "caliber warrior," for sure, but would gladly compare these light, steel-framed, compact, well-balanced HD/SD/concealed carry gun-ammo combinations with the .38 Special; they are particularly comparable to the justly famous old Colt D frames. I consider my .38 S&W's distinctly superior in these roles to .22, .25, .32 revolvers and autos, and .380 autos (perhaps excepting high-capacity .380's, which typically weigh 20+ oz. unloaded). The .38 Special cartridge itself is ballistically more versatile, but the flyweight J's or heavier K/L frames fill slightly different roles than the old D frames and my 16-18 oz. steel .38 S&W's.

The comparisons only become distinctly lopsided when one throws the weaker top-break .38 S&W's--often further disadvantaged by obscure or substandard manufacture--into the mix. That's a whole different ballgame.

[Piedmont]

LouisianaMan, How would you compare the recoil of a 200 gr. at 600-650 fps. with a a 'normal' .38 special load with a 160 gr. at around 800 fps? I'm now lubrisizing some boolits from the NOE 180 gr. GC extra nasty meplat mold, which has me thinking of carrying it at perhaps 650 fps. from a 2" J frame .38 special, and am also in the 200 RN group buy that will be completed in a few months. My worry is recoil because in everything else as the bullet weight goes up, so does the recoil.

[9.3X62AL]

I've fired both my S&W M&P x 5" in 38 S&W with the NEI #169A @ 700 FPS, and my S&W Model 10 x 5" with 163 grain #358429 at 850 FPS on the same range trips--several times. I couldn't feel much difference in the recoil impulses.

[LouisianaMan]

Piedmont,
My experience is similar to 9.3's. In general, the heavyweights feel like they push backwards, as opposed to the sharper "rap" I perceive with higher-velocity bullets. Perhaps it's just the difference in the intensity or pitch of the muzzle blast or something.

The free recoil calculator on Beartoothbullets.com shows a 200/650 load generating 3 ft-lbs and 10 fps, whereas a 160/800 shows 3 ft-lbs and 9 fps, assuming 3 grains powder and 2 lb. gun. FWIW, the old FBI 38 SPL +P load of 158 @ 850 = 3/10, precisely the same as our notional 200/650.

Science certainly seems to track with our subjective observations in this case.

[Piedmont]

Thanks Al and LouisianaMan. Tthat calculator is especially helpful because I carry the FBI load in my J frame, though only expecting 800 fps. from its two inch barrel. So I can expect about the same recoil.

All of your posts here and on other boards on your experiences with the .38 S&W and heavy bullets are a great service. I like how you have figured out what best fits you and your wife and girl's needs and followed that, rather than just accepting what most would use. Then you share it all with the rest of us. Kudos.

[whopist]

9.3,
My wife and daughter each have sets of 32-1 and 33-1 for carry and house duty. A Smith Perfected Model, a 3rd Model, and a Colt Police Positive Special, all do house duty with a 147g SWC I've "smushed" into a fairly large meplat form, but at the sedate sub-700 velocities these guns were built for. That's the same load we use in the ladies' guns--they hit with some authority, but recoil and report are manageable and allow them to shoot fast & accurately.

LouisianaMan, how does your S&W Perfected, (top break) compare, (strength wise) to a 1970 vintage H&R Model 926, (top break)? Both 38 S&W

I chose the 926 over the Perfected because I felt the two latches might be a problem in pleasure shooting.

Thanks,
whopist

[LouisianaMan]

Hi Whopist,
I thought I'd subscribed to this thread but apparently not--just stumbled back across it now.

I really would be in over my head trying to answer your questions comparing the S&W Perfected with a more modern H&R. It gets into questions of design strength and metallurgy that are beyond my ken.

Nothing I've ever read about the .38 S&W has indicated that anybody considers any top-break platform other than Webley/Enfield suitable for anything but factory duplication loads, i.e. 145-50g @ 685-725 fps or so. I imagine, but do NOT know, that top-breaks built for smokeless powder could also handle at least a light diet of Super Police 200g at 600 fps. Perhaps it would be a function of whether or not the gun was built with modern heat-treatment, though.

[LouisianaMan]

BTW, it's easy to manipulate both latches simultaneously on the Perfected. Now, building that into your muscle memory for quick action is a different matter :-) Nonetheless, it's pretty intuitive to push forward the thumb latch with your right thumb, while using your left hand to release the top latch.

[LouisianaMan]

Thanks, Piedmont, happy that my musings have been of some service. I can't take too much credit, though, because it took a very unpleasant afternoon of shooting to convince me that the brand-new Smith & Wesson 637 and 642 I'd proudly brought home were simply unsuited for my girls. If I'd had the perfect aftermarket grips and light wadcutter loads ONLY, those guns might have worked out OK for them, although I still suspect they were simply too light for their hand strength.

As far as the rest goes, I was a practicing historian for a time, and I'm probably more willing than most to consider old-time experiences and old-time solutions with something of an optimistic outlook. And the more I thought about it, the more I realized that the old .38 S&W caliber had satisfied one heckuva lot of people in the old days. Very roughly analogous to the once-contentious selection of the M-16 as the standard US combat rifle in the 1960's, when plenty of people preferred its handy size, shape, portability, and light recoil to the superior ballistic performance of the M-14.

The slick & smooth little top-breaks were quite handy in an era of looser-fitting clothes, big pockets, and sack coats as part of a man's normal apparel. By selecting the more modern solid-frame S&W revolvers, I could combine many of the same advantages while eliminating the disadvantages of weaker, century-old guns. I also knew that Mods. 32-1 and 33-1 were far more likely than any .38 SPL to have spent their lifetimes in a dresser drawer or nightstand, so they'd tend to be mechanically as-new, with possible superficial damage due to poor storage conditions and near-total lack of TLC. Kind of the firearms equivalent of the car "owned by a little old lady who only drove to church on Sundays." :-)

I also soon found out that the horror stories of rare and exotic bullet diameters were badly exaggerated, in that they seemed to be confined to Brit surplus revolvers and some of the old top-breaks, neither of which was my intended solution. Turned out that solid-frame guns made by S&W, Colt, and even (gasp!) Ruger had groove diameters exactly or nearly the same as .38 SPL guns, and were widely acknowledged as usable with the same bullets. With both brass and bullets commercially available, plus the ability to cast perfectly adequate bullets with normal .38 SPL molds, my logistics worries were largely solved.

Another leap of faith was the issue of lead bullets vs. modern jacketed hollowpoint ammo. That decision was simplified by my realization that the only .38 SPL ammo (wadcutters) my girls would use would almost exactly duplicate the power level of the .38 S&W. A little further investigation sealed the deal when I read up on the old British Mk I ammo, practically identical to the Super Police ammo used rather commonly in the US once upon a time. That gave me the feeling that I could carry a more effective load, and that someday one or more of my girls might be interested in upgrading, too.

My subsequent discovery of Ken Waters's "Pet Loads" article, thanks to the kindness of a fellow forum poster, opened up further horizons for me. When I carry my 33-1 with 4" barrel, it's loaded with 135g Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel bullets at the same velocity attained from a .38 SPL snubbie, 860 fps, which I verified with Speer as their design velocity for full expansion. And I did so by REDUCING one of Ken Waters's "Pet Loads" for a 140g jacketed bullet! It also turned out that the 200g Super Police load was a ballistic duplicate of a .38 SPL 200g load, and that my little Smiths could even handle handloads equal to the .38 Special Super Police, i.e. 200g @ 700 fps.

Soon I'll be experimenting with Hunter's Supply 115g pentagon .358 hollowpoints, to see if I can achieve an expanding bullet solution with low recoil for my girls, along with the acknowledged (in many circles) advantages of soft lead bullets. (Tomorrow I'll see what the 95g .356 version can do in .380.) If I could get my hands on 125g Federal Nyclad component bullets, I could easily duplicate the famous, viable Chief's Special load, using another of Waters's Pet Loads. I may even work up the ballistics with commonly available lead 125's, and then pull some Nyclads and load them in .38 S&W cases for carry use in my 32-1 and in my girls' guns, perhaps.

Final disclaimer (for now, anyway): my ideal solutions depend on using handloads for SD/HD, and I'm fully aware of the contentiousness of that issue. I could dodge that by carrying as-new vintage Super Police (200g @ 630) and Colt New Police ammo (150g flatpoint at 730), but generally don't. My Enfield, Victory, and both Indian Rugers are loaded with modern CIS Mk 2Z 178g ball ammo that has a terrifically disruptive tumbling effect after penetration. I've often toyed with the idea of loading this ammo in my 32-1's and 33-1's, and may yet do so. Certainly, however, my small quantities of these vintage ammo types is not an enduring viable solution to the ammunition issue.

[Piedmont]

LouisianaMan, Lead is always going to shoot faster at equal pressures than jacketed in your little .38s. That fact and the emotional comfort of the extra weight has kept me with Winchester's FBI load (158 +P lead HP) rather than checking out the 135 grain Gold Dots that are actually supposed to expand out a 2" for a carry load in my J frame .38 specials.

I have a high opinion of Ken Waters and have read the Pet Loads on the .380 R, but I would be leary of duplicating .38 special loads (velocities) in .38 S&W cases. The pressures HAVE to be higher than the equivalent velocity in the longer .38 Special case. It won't matter a bit in your over-built Ruger Service Six but will matter in a J or I frame Smiff, or D frame Colt.

That is the beauty of the tumbling 178 to 200 grainers in my opinion. They aren't built to expand so chasing the last 50 fps. is pointless. Less velocity actually helps them tumble!! How cool is that?

My little M642 has just over 4,500 rounds through it, mostly wadcutter equivalent. The recoil sheild is setting back slightly. I can't measure it (maybe someone could) but it is both visible and can be felt. That revolver is still on duty but I quit practicing with it several years ago. Even the steel small frame guns are not strong, but better than aluminum, so I carry +Ps but don't shoot them except for a function test. CE Harris will tell you how weak the small frame S&Ws are if you are still in contact with him. I know this because he told the same to my friend 15 years ago and I read the email.

I can't get over thinking maybe we are all succumbing to the ammo maker's advertising by wanting everything to expand. If there is a surplus of power and a relatively long bullet that can still penetrate after expanding, fine, but many carry guns and loads are underpowered to begin with. Getting a pretty mushroom may just ensure underpenetration. I know I won't carry anything but ball in my Makarov.

[9.3X62AL]

LouisianaMan, Lead is always going to shoot faster at equal pressures than jacketed in your little .38s. That fact and the emotional comfort of the extra weight has kept me with Winchester's FBI load (158 +P lead HP) rather than checking out the 135 grain Gold Dots that are actually supposed to expand out a 2" for a carry load in my J frame .38 specials.

I have a high opinion of Ken Waters and have read the Pet Loads on the .380 R, but I would be leary of duplicating .38 special loads (velocities) in .38 S&W cases. The pressures HAVE to be higher than the equivalent velocity in the longer .38 Special case. It won't matter a bit in your over-built Ruger Service Six but will matter in a J or I frame Smiff, or D frame Colt.

That is the beauty of the tumbling 178 to 200 grainers in my opinion. They aren't built to expand so chasing the last 50 fps. is pointless. Less velocity actually helps them tumble!! How cool is that?

My little M642 has just over 4,500 rounds through it, mostly wadcutter equivalent. The recoil sheild is setting back slightly. I can't measure it (maybe someone could) but it is both visible and can be felt. That revolver is still on duty but I quit practicing with it several years ago. Even the steel small frame guns are not strong, but better than aluminum, so I carry +Ps but don't shoot them except for a function test. CE Harris will tell you how weak the small frame S&Ws are if you are still in contact with him. I know this because he told the same to my friend 15 years ago and I read the email.

I can't get over thinking maybe we are all succumbing to the ammo maker's advertising by wanting everything to expand. If there is a surplus of power and a relatively long bullet that can still penetrate after expanding, fine, but many carry guns and loads are underpowered to begin with. Getting a pretty mushroom may just ensure underpenetration. I know I won't carry anything but ball in my Makarov.

Hellacious-good summary right there, Piedmont. There has been almost a mania in ballistic circles--professional and hobbyist--over quantifying and predicting terminal effects and forecasting wound ballistics. Internal ballistics (primer ignition to the bullet's muzzle exit) is HARD SCIENCE. Same story for external ballistics--from muzzle to target. In either instance, control the variables and results won't wander. Terminal ballistics--what the bullet does as it hits the target and continues through same--is at best a poorly-understood art form. The art is improving, and becoming more scientific--but variables control is practically impossible. They ramify exponentially, and no two bullet strikes are alike. That is a distasteful and unsatisfying answer for the "absolutists", but to examine wound ballistics with an absolutist mindset is a path to madness.

The best route for the hobbyist or professional to take when equipping self or others with defensive side iron is to assess the shooter's abilities and limits to control the system, and have them run that system at or near their maximum capability. LA Man has done this in a pretty scientific and methodical manner, and it is a model well-followed by others on the same path.

[LouisianaMan]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies, Piedmont and 9.3.

Now that I have the Rugers, any future heavy load testing will be on that platform and I won't transition anything to the J frames until & unless results seem to be at sane, predicted levels. The J's have gotten a chrono & function test during load work-ups--used to be 10 rds, now generally just one cylinderful--and that's about it. As a rule, I also load long, trying to equal or at least closely approach the COL's used in .38 SPL load manuals, and backing off on the powder charge, too. Nothing I work up to exceeds published data, or data recommended by Waters and/or Harris.

What I've generally been doing has been to keep velocities well below any maxes from Ed, Ken, Lyman 46/47/49, or Speer 13, while using bigger meplats to maximize efficiency/wound channel, and long COL's and small-side bullet diameter sizing to reduce pressures. Another way to generalize it is to say that I don't use top-break load data, I use info generated in Smith Model 33's (Lyman & Speer, with some Harris and Waters as well). I also think about it all, yap about it, and read/write much more than I shoot :-) The round count you mentioned on your Smith J frame is one I'll never remotely approach with any of these guns. By most people's standards, I test a fair amount, but "train" rather rarely. I get enough gun-handling and trigger time to be comfortable employing any gun I pick up, but nobody would possibly mistake one of my training sessions for the hi-intensity practical pistol competitions that are so popular.

When all is said and done, what I carry tends to be 200/625; 145-50/700-750; 158/710. The girls have 145-50/675-700. All with big meplats. And those vels are in the 4" Mods. 33-1; the 2" Mods. 32-1 chrono significantly slower.

The one exception is the 135g GDHP-SB in my personal 33-1. That load is about 10-15% below Waters's max, and yields a vel from 4" that Speer advertises from 2" bbls. (And I actually plan to expend them or load them in the Rugers, and back off another .1-.2g in the Smith.)

Of late I've carried these guns rather seldom, instead experimenting with two Remington 51's in .380, a SIG P-238, a RIA GI 5" and an Officer's Model in 3.5", and a S&W SD40VE. Almost everything gets some nightstand time--generally two are there. I've chosen to be a hobbyist-versatile shooter, rather than a muscle-memory selected-systems trainer, although I appreciate what each offers. The main thing I personally train to nearly instinctive levels is point-shooting in the Fairbairn-Sykes-Applegate styles.

BTW, I certainly took NO offense at the safety concerns you understandably expressed, Piedmont, as I share them. Just wanted to kinda think out loud on how I go about this--it helps me make sense of it all. . .although I've probably made everyone else cry "Uncle!" :-)

[9.3X62AL]

I have 50 each of Starline and R-P 38 S&W cases emptied out via the S&W M&P and tumbled, ready for refill. These will get the #358477s at 700-725 FPS and sized for the Colt PP. Lotta fun, clanging the daylights out of a 4" dinger plate at 35-50 yards. Those 200 grain NEI 169As put the THWOCK on the steel, for certain.

Look out, jackrabbits.

[LouisianaMan]

Just looked up a photo of the 358477 and it looks like the same weight & similar profile to the old Colt .38 New Police bullet, just blunter and with a shoulder. Perfect for your PP, I imagine.

I've got a pile of the 169A Group Buy 200's cast up--need to load 'em and shoot 'em. What vel do you like best, about 600-650 to match the sights?

[9.3X62AL]

Just a taste faster, LA Man. Mine run 675-700 FPS, with 3.0 grains of Unique or 3.3 grains of Herco. They track with the sights pretty closely in both the S&W M&P and the Webley-Enfield milsurps. Both have .362"-.363" throats, boolits are sized @ .363". I'm not near my ammo right now, so can't give an OAL--but the cases are crimped into the crimp groove of the 169A boolit.

The #358477s hit close to the little Colt's sights as well, and use the same 3.0 grains of Unique to do this. IIRC, this was derived from the RCBS Cast Bullet Manual #1. A light roll crimp is rolled into the groove behind the thin front drive band.

[LouisianaMan]

9.3,
If you routinely get these 200g bullets @ 675-700 to tumble in jackrabbits, what more could we really need for SD/HD/CC? At that vel, I imagine soft-tissue hits on a BG would probably make it clear through, tumbling after the first couple of inches. Anything hitting bone would be less likely to exit, but should devastate that bone structure by hitting it at an odd angle of incidence and smashing through it. The wound channel would certainly differ from an HP bullet, but I suspect the volume of the wound channel would be as substantial as an HP, roughly speaking.

As a defense round, is there anything not to like about all that in the statistically typical short range, face-to-face SD situation? (Besides barrier difficulties, which would be significant only if you had to shoot through cover, or maybe thru a metal lighter in a pocket, cowboy belt buckle, or the like.)

Do you personally use these guns & that ammo for HD? Or even for concealed carry? What would be your ballpark guesstimate on relative effectiveness, compared to other calibers?

[9.3X62AL]

LA Man--

No sir, I don't and won't use these loads for CC or HD. They are better than 32 ACP :) but hardly as effective as 357 Magnum, 40 S&W, or 45 ACP--my usual carry tools. There is also the issue of "authorized loads/calibers" for retired deputy carry--I continue to carry the same loads/calibers my old agency authorizes, because I don't want to be the test case that gets used to clarify the many gray areas of those regulations. Beside that, the authorized loads do pretty good work--based on my experience at crime scenes where said ammo was used and follow-up at hospitals and autopsies. The exception to that trend is the 9mm load, the excreble 147 JHP sub-sonic FBI-pimped debacle. I don't carry 9mm in harm's way, owing to the lackluster ballistics that load provides.

The "38/200" 38 S&W load hits with some authority. There have been questions about its performance on barriers--slanted vehicle windshields tend to glance them off, and I'm not sure just how well they would work against layered clothing. Having actually exchanged finality with armed subjects changes your perspective a bit, and my thoughts are that the more bullet diameter, the more bullet weight, the more velocity, and the more rounds I can get on tap--the better. Reality intrudes on such musings, as does portability and concealability. My milsurp 38 S&Ws are about the same size and weight as my S&W 686 x 4", the Glock 23 x 40 S&W, and the SIG P-220 x 45 ACP. All three can project a great deal more stopping force per single shot or en masse than can the 38 S&Ws. There ya go.

[ROGER4314]

About this time last year, I had a feeling that the US market was going to vomit again so I set our to acquire reloading equipment to load every firearm except for rimfire. I worked my way down the list and got to the 32 S&W Long. True to form, I set that cartridge up, too. I like the H&R guns chambered for this cartridge so I had fun in getting that project together.

For me, being able to shoot a piece of history is the most fun. It's not a big blaster but it has a place in the spectrum of firearms equipment and in development of SD cartridges that we have today. With lead round nose virtually the only option, choices are limited. Brass is not rare but uncommon. They are fun to shoot but I don't hotrod them or try to make them into powerful SD rounds.

Flash

[9.3X62AL]

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.

[LouisianaMan]

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.

[9.3X62AL]

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.

[LouisianaMan]

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. :-) (And yes, SD/LE focus is on STOPPING, not EXECUTING, the threat.)

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!

[gunfan]

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

[I'll Make Mine]

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.

[9.3X62AL]

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'll Make Mine]

I still prefer "the most of everything possible" in my counter-hairball sideiron, and wish like h--l my agency authorized the 10mm Auto.

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.

[gunfan]

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

[LouisianaMan]

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. :-) I like to think that Sgt. Joe Friday would be proud!

[gunfan]

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

[9.3X62AL]

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.

[LouisianaMan]

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.)

[9.3X62AL]

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.

[LouisianaMan]

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.

[gunfan]

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

[dalv]

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

[9.3X62AL]

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.

[LouisianaMan]

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.

[LouisianaMan]

9.3,
I still think you should write a memoir. :-)

[gunfan]

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

SLUG YOUR BARREL! If you use the wrong bullet, you will lose velocity and may damage you barrel. Determine you bore's diameter, and use cast or jacketed bullets of proper size and use appropriate load data.

Scott

[LouisianaMan]

My advice: skip jacketed bullets for the top-break ALTOGETHER, and for the Colt until and unless extensive lead-bullet work shows you the parameters. At low-end vels, jacketed bullets may stick in the bore; lead bullets won't.

Mild factory loads shouldn't be a problem if your guns are of heat-treated steel and in good mechanical condition. If they chamber, they should be OK to shoot. If the groove diameter is larger than the chamber mouths, you'll have undersized bullets rattling down the bore & you'll know it because accuracy will be terrible. You'll also probably have leading problems. If your chamber mouths are larger than your groove diameter, the bore will swage down the bullet when you fire. If this size differential is excessive, pressures will rise when you're shooting solid-based, hardcast bullets, and leading will be evident. The top-break won't be particularly resilient in such a case, so I'd use the Colt for starters.

Factory .38 S&W bullets tend to be small diameter (.355-.356) with a hollow base, which flares out upon firing and engages the rifling. This is a built-in mechanism to keep pressures low, while adapting to a variety of groove diameters. You may wish to try some 148g Remington .38 Special component bullets, hollow-based wadcutters of soft lead, and duplicate that safety/accuracy effect. Load them to the same length and speed as factory .38 S&W ammo, and you may decide it works so well that you skip further experimentation! Since factory ammo these days runs 145-46g at 685 fps, you will be duplicating that performance.

You also may wish to pull a factory bullet, catch a fired bullet in milk jugs of water, and compare measurements.

If the guns are in good condition, mechanically sound, and in time, use soft lead and low vels at first to feel your way along, and you should be fine.

[dalv]

Points taken on all of the above and thanks to all that responded. Sorry I didn't get back sooner but I've been preoccupied with my newest addition to the safe.....Ruger Redhawk in .44 mag while I wait on the factory loads to come in. I will take the advice given and keep you posted on my progress.

[KCSO]

The 38 S and W MANSTOPPER loads were oaded to just 16,000 psi. The 200 grain bullet did not come out the muzzle all that fast. Waters has some good loads for the S and W in Pet Loads, but nothing that will match a 38 Special. I loaded S and W a lot for my Enfield and Webley revolvers and finally settled on a 158 Gr. semi wadcutter at a little over 750 fps as the best balance between power and the ability of the gun to take a steady diet. The Terrier is a stronger gun than any of the top breaks but it's still a J frame and I have shot those loose with 158 gr semi wadcutters that my model 10 ate by the thousands. IMHO if you pick a good bullet and drive it at say 750 fps frm a 2" barrel you are at the top of what a Terrier will taake for a using load for self defence and I would cut that for a regular practice load.

Be more concerned with accuracy as a solid hit is way more important than squeezing the last fps from a load. I would have to go back to my noteboooks from the 70's for specific load data for the S and W but IIRR I used a lot of Bullseye with the 158 semi wadcutter.

[9.3X62AL]

I just refilled 100 of the 38 S&Ws for the Colt Police Positive x 4", and used Lyman #358477 @ .359" and 2.5 grains of WW-231. Per the Winchester data, these run 11K PSI.

[KCSO]

You are right the older 38 S and W was a 360 bullet and the later ones were reduced to 357. I looked last night and I also checked Waters Pet Loads and 750 fps from a 2" is about max for the S and W round. I was getting that from a 3" Webley top break and I thought that was about as good as it gets. The original manstopper 200 grain went 600 fps. I have a 146 gr mould for the 38 S and W and wiht the lighter 146 bullet i got right at 780 fps from the 3" Webley. A lot of my 38 S and W shooting in recent years was with the Cimarron Lightning and with it's 4" barrel I was clocking 800 fps with a charge of either Bullseye or Unique. I never spent any time with jacketed bullets as at the velocities obtainable they don't expand anyway.

[9.3X62AL]

Anymore, I run the "Revolver Polygraph" on any new addition to the rollerpistole stable--pin gauge the throats, and slug the grooves. Guesswork is more labor than it is worth, and knowledge saves time and effort. Life is too short to deal with leaded barrels.

[gunfan]

Guesswork is more labor than it is worth, and knowledge saves time and effort. Life is too short to deal with leaded barrels.

Amen, brother, AMEN!

[dalv]

Not looking to hijack but I am finding little information in my manuals on lead bullets. There is some, but it always seems to not be the same bullet. Example today, have some 100 gr .313 for my 32.20 but no exact load - shows JHP in 100gr, 98 gr in LSWC and 115 LSWC. I went safe with the load until I can try them but would really like a manual that has more lead loads. Suggestions welcome!

[LouisianaMan]

Best place I know for lead bullet data in general is Lyman, although it's always given with bullets from their molds. If you can load a bullet of your own that nearly matches the weight & COL of the manual data, you can get close enough to work up a load safely. Start low, because there are SO many variables.

[gunfan]

Thanks, Louisiana Man. You're a wonderful source of information, and I greatly appreciate it.

Scott

[gunfan]

Is the "tumbling bullet" a valid premise for "stopping power" or is it just an excuse for poor bullet performance? I have heard many tales regarding this phenomenon, as it relates to both the .38 S&W as well as other cartridges.

What's the scoop?

Scott

[9.3X62AL]

Scott--

I've observed this phenomenon repeatedly with both the Lyman #358430 (195 grain RN) and the NEI #169A (202 grain RN) when fired at 600-700 FPS velocity ranges in 38 S&W, 38 Special, and 357 Magnum calibers. About half of the bullet strikes from shots at jackrabbits show ragged, oblong exit wounds as if the boolits were tumbling as they traversed the critter's carcass. When #358430 gets accellerated to 800-1200 FPS, this ragged exit aspect disappears--as if the increased rotational speed at the almost-doubled velocity further stabilizes the boolits.

My thoughts are that while the tumbling boolit effect isn't completely reliable at the lower velocities, it does seem to be going on frequently and can't do the recipient any good. I'll say this--whether the boolits tumble or not, the critters were DRT practically every time--a much better effect than that created by the 9mm 147 grain JHPs, which have been marginal for use ON JACKRABBITS. These latter loads are conspicuous by their absence in my carry sideiron.

These "low and slow" 200 grain 38 S&W loads really thump the steel silhouettes at 25 yards. It is noticeable, and subjectively a far stronger strike than that created by the 150 grainers running 725 FPS. All of this is sorta anecdotal, and unscientific as can be. I DO know that I sure as hell wouldn't stand downrange and try fielding these heavies with a catcher's mitt.

[Piedmont]

9.3x62AL, I'm curious whether you have ever shot jackrabbits with the .38 spl. FBI load (158 SWC HP +p), and if so, how it did? And if you did this, the barrel length involved.

Also, do you think maybe you were using an early iteration of the 9mm 147 gr,? I have zero experience with it but it seems like they ought to be able to make it expand if they tweak some design factors.

[LouisianaMan]

Scott,
Glad to help where I can. I don't have anywhere near the knowledge and experience of many on this forum--9.3x62AL being a good example--but I'm happy to share what I can. Although I learned a few things about small arms and shooting during my 24 years in the Army, it's ironic that those years generally limited the amount of shooting I could do. I must admit, though, that writing a book during every spare moment from 1994-2000 contributed to a lack of range time!

As to tumbling bullets, I believe that 9.3's experiences track closely with bits and pieces I've gleaned about the British Army's experiments of the 1920's-1930's. Until I get a chance to read their archival materials for myself, however, I won't know for sure what they tried, observed, and why they concluded what they did.

Their conclusions are normally summarized as "they concluded that the .38-200 was equal to the .455 in stopping power. . . which is stupid beyond belief."

I approach history with the assumption that the participants had good reasons for thinking as they did, unless there is clear evidence that they were deranged, bad actors, or simpletons. When it came to handgun combat, however, the British Army were NONE of the above. Of course, individuals can err and bureaucracies magnify the chances of that :-) From what we know about their tests, they were prolonged and as rigorous as they knew how to make them. We know that they shot cadavers and animals, like the US Army's 1904 Thompson-LaGarde tests, but we don't have access to a detailed summary of the British tests, observations, and conclusions.

When I piece together everything I've gleaned, though, it appears that some of our Internet ninjas seized on the ".38-200 = .455 Webley" and were blinded by the apparent ridiculousness of such an assertion. What the British Small Arms Board actually concluded, AFAIK, is that the Enfield .38-200 weapons system was superior to the Webley .455 weapons system, for combat use by hastily-trained wartime conscripts, and that the .38's practical stopping power was equal or nearly equal to the .455's practical stopping power.

Until I'm shown otherwise, here's what that means to me: a 200g soft lead .38 caliber bullet smashing around inside an enemy soldier at trench-raid close ranges would do about as much damage as a slightly heavier, slightly larger .455 bullet doing the same thing, which predates Fackler and concurs with Thompson-LaGarde in the conclusion that at handgun bullet velocities, the wounding element was what we now refer to as the "permanent crush cavity." No hydrostatic shock, etc. Maybe even more important was their conclusion that the average conscript could get more of these .38-200's into an enemy soldier because the new Enfield was smaller, lighter, more ergonomically designed for point-shooting, recoiled less, and therefore could be fired faster and straighter by an AVERAGE CONSCRIPT.

In short, their interpretation of "equal stopping power" was not based upon a ballistic comparison of the two cartridges. Rather, it reflected their conclusion that the average soldier could wield the Enfield .38 more effectively in close combat than the Webley .455; the Enfield's 200g soft lead bullet would smash bone effectively enough due to high sectional density and adequate momentum; a .360 hole wasn't all that much smaller than a .455 hole; and--perhaps--inflicted about as much physical damage ("permanent crush cavity") since it was quite likely to tumble violently within the target.

I know they thought low vel was a positive thing because it didn't waste energy after exiting the target. I'm not certain about their theories on dwell time and energy dump as wounding mechanisms, but believe these were considered important. Why and how, I don't know.

I also can't account for the effects of an assertion I encountered quite recently that states that the .455 bullet was a tumbler, too.

Almost all of this is a fancier way of saying what almost all US police departments "knew" back then: the .45 was too powerful for the average cop, who could ON AVERAGE use a .38 more effectively. Sounds a lot like many modern-day civilians who feel better-equipped with a .38 or 9mm than a .44 or .45; it's also why many buy a .357 and load it with .38 Specials.

[gunfan]

I believe it when you postulate that the 200 grain bullet can, and does, smash through bone and tear through flesh, causing greater cavitation than the simple forward strike of the .45 bullet. This bears a great deal of research, consideration and deep thought.

Thanks to all.

Scott

[Piedmont]

I'm convinced .45 hardball is prone to yaw. It penetrates something like 30" of ballistic gelatin yet stays in human torsos more than half the time. Doesn't make much sense unless it is prone to yawing and that would also explain why the roundnose .45 is not a poor stopper.

[9.3X62AL]

I've shot a lot of jacks and a few coyotes with the #358477 from 38 Specials at 850-1000 FPS, which is a fair approximation of the 158 grain FBI Load. It drops critters in pretty abrupt fashion, though it penetrates completely almost invariably. I would have no hesitation in carrying that load in harm's way in any barrel length, though my experience is almost entirely in 4" and 6" barrels.

My objections to the use of the FBI 9mm/147 JHP load are both physical and philosophical. This load, which runs at 925-950 FPS from service pistol barrels, is a 25% down-load from the caliber's capability--which is 1100 FPS run at full strength. FBI is being intellectually dishonest here--the loading is NOT being used for its lethality or stopping ability, but to enhance scoring ability of the many marginal shooters employed by FBI and the local agencies they advise. It's a target wadcutter, really--a range round. In the real world, bad guys shoot back. Dr. Fackler doesn't get shot at. I did--several times. I don't choose to exchange finality using sub-par ammo.

[LouisianaMan]

I've been loading up some old-fashioned #360271 150g SWC's that I cast a couple of years ago and sized down to .361 since they cast fat (.364, 154-56g). Just got a 2-cav #358271 from Beagle; if it casts fat, I hope to get .360-.361 and load them w/o sizing.

The old Lyman model I'm using looks almost like a twin to your #358477, although yours has a lube groove and a proper crimp groove, it looks like. The old model has two lube grooves, and I crimp it in the top lube groove, just below the heavy, sharp shoulder. No problem since I tumble-lube with a 50-50 LLA/mineral spirits mixture.

Early in my fixation on the old .38 S&W, I cast some of these 360271's, loaded them just over 700 fps with 2.7g Win231 (IIRC from memory; that lot of powder was slightly slow). The durned thing shot straight as an arrow through 6 milk jugs of water (36") and stuck shoulder-deep in a stop-board.

I've also "smushed" the noses on some to make a very mean meplat; the meplat is blunt in front, sharp-edged, and about .30" in diameter. I've loaded both unmodified and modified versions over 2.3g Bullseye to see if that yields 700 +/- 25 fps. Hope to chrono it this weekend & post a short range report.

[9.3X62AL]

"477" is as you describe, sir. It has been a long fixture here for 38 Special, and once my considerable stock of the Lyman castings are consumed I'll start using a more recently-acquired Group Buy NOE version in 4-cylinder layout. The boolit has been so darn good for so darn long that I only in the past few years acquired a Lyman #358429, and that occurred because someone offered it at a good price--I didn't seek it out, per se. I'm lucky that the little Colt's internal dimensions are as tight as they are, enabling good use of the nominal "38/357" castings @ .359".

[JWFilips]

I picked up a super clean Smith & Wesson model 32-1 (2" barrel) It is very tight and has been fired very little.
This is to be my little lady's gun We went and transferred it today and she is smiling from ear to ear. We may get out to the range tomorrow and shoot it ( with some very overpriced WW factory loads I got locally).
I have brass and dies coming in but I don't think she is going to want to wait that long.

I have a lee 358-158gr SWC-TL mold that tends to drop .360" boolits which I use unsized in my big throated Pre-27 S&W
I'm hoping I may be able to utilize that boolit for this 32-1's .38 S&W loading (Probably will try to slug the throats & barrel tonight)

I have a bunch of 10 bhn boolits cast already Do you guys think these will be fine or should I cast some with a softer lead?

(Really loving this thread!)

[LouisianaMan]

You are absolutely good to hook! .360-158 @ 10 BHN--it doesn't get much better than that. Lots of load data for those bullets that will let you get a true 650 +/- 25 fps to give a very close approximation to factory 146/685 and the old 38 Colt New Police 150/730, IIRC. From a 4" barrel, such a load would run about 720, allowing for manufacturing variations.

The gun itself can be loaded more stoutly, should you wish, but the controllability of the gun/load at those levels is one of its virtues. My girls all like the original power level; I bump some bullet designs to make the meplat more effective than factory LRN. What bullet are you using? I've bumped the rather rounded nose of the Lee .358-158-SWC/TL into a sharp-edged meplat of about .3", IIRC.

[JWFilips]

You are absolutely good to hook! .360-158 @ 10 BHN--it doesn't get much better than that. Lots of load data for those bullets that will let you get a true 650 +/- 25 fps to give a very close approximation to factory 146/685 and the old 38 Colt New Police 150/730, IIRC. From a 4" barrel, such a load would run about 720, allowing for manufacturing variations.

The gun itself can be loaded more stoutly, should you wish, but the controllability of the gun/load at those levels is one of its virtues. My girls all like the original power level; I bump some bullet designs to make the meplat more effective than factory LRN. What bullet are you using? I've bumped the rather rounded nose of the Lee .358-158-SWC/TL into a sharp-edged meplat of about .3", IIRC.

Well That would be the bullet I would be using since that is my only mold ( I'm new to casting)
I just slugged the throats and barrel of the 32-1 ( after dropping my .360's right through the cylinder!!!)
The barrel is good to go at .360 but the throats measure .362" ..... Uugh! I have nothing that big maybe I can set them out far out of the case but I think I'm going to be in for some nasty cylinder leading. Is there a mold in the 140 to 158 gr range that drops .362" / 364"?

[LouisianaMan]

My barrel slugged .359, never slugged the chambers. Miked them, I think, but don't recall dimensions. Have fired .357 to .362 and about everything in between, without major leading problems, probably helped out by the low pressures and velocities involved. Have several 32-1 and 33-1 and never any leading that a little Chore Boy wrapped around a bore brush couldn't handle easily.

Anyway, I'd try it first before changing molds. If need be, beagle your mold with some aluminum foil to fatten the bullets a bit, but at least your chamber throats are larger than your groove diameter, rather than vice versa.



Well That would be the bullet I would be using since that is my only mold ( I'm new to casting)
I just slugged the throats and barrel of the 32-1 ( after dropping my .360's right through the cylinder!!!)
The barrel is good to go at .360 but the throats measure .362" ..... Uugh! I have nothing that big maybe I can set them out far out of the case but I think I'm going to be in for some nasty cylinder leading. Is there a mold in the 140 to 158 gr range that drops .362" / 364"?

[9.3X62AL]

All is not lost--Lyman has .363" H&I sizer dies as regular-stock items, and one of the semi-custom mouldmakers that are featured on this site can easily cobble up a mould to the specs you require. As LA Man mentioned, run what ya got on hand and see how things go, no sense in spending money if it isn't absolutely necessary.

[silverbuzzard]

an old thread but a good one .
I would like to buy some 190 to 200 grain cast and lubed for the 38 S&W. Please PM me if you have some to spare. I would like to duplicate the old British load

[Outpost75]

Great thread!!~ Ed Harris had an article in The Fouling Shot, cross-posted here through his kind permission:

Tales from the Back Creek Diary - The Webley & Scott Mark IV .380 Revolver

By the 1930s the British Army was mostly a conscript force, its career officer and NCO cadre having been decimated during the First World War. Tommy Atkins no longer had the luxury of time to develop his competence in firing the battle proven, but heavy .455 revolver. A lighter “pistol” (the Brits call all handguns “pistols”) of smaller caliber was sought. Webley & Scott was producing the Mark III, a 26 oz., top-break, simultaneous ejecting police revolver, in .380 Rimmed (.38 S&W), basically a scaled-down version of its Mk VI .455, and submitted samples to the British Army for testing on July 19th, 1921.

The Army suggested changes to better adapt the civilian police revolver for military use, and the modified Webley Mark IV submitted for testing in January, 1922, received favorable reports from the Small Arms School at Woolwich. The smaller .38 revolver was well liked for its lighter weight and reduced bulk, shorter barrel and mild recoil. A .38 revolver was easier to train inexperienced, hastily trained troops to adequacy. The Army concluded it was better to hit with a .38 than to miss with a .45, but asked that a cartridge loaded with “a heavier projectile of sufficient stopping power” be developed.

Anticipating a need for rapid production of replacement revolvers, the British government Small Arms Committee directed RSAF Enfield in August, 1922, to arrange with alacrity to begin volume manufacture of a new revolver, making minor design changes to Webley’s design to simply manufacture and speed production. In the meantime the sample Webley & Scott Mk. IV revolvers were sent to the Small Arms School in March, 1924 and underwent trials from September 4th to 11th, 1924. These guns, one with a 6 inch barrel and one with a 5 inch barrel achieved 1 inch groups at 10 yards and 2 inch groups at 20 yards. In Britain’s post WW1 financial austerity, the government chose not to pay Webley for its design. Webley sued for development costs, and years later received a token settlement, while the British Government severed its long relationship with the company. As fate would have it, RSAF Enfield wasn’t able to produce its No.2 Enfield revolver, a blatant Webley “knockoff”, in sufficient quantity, and the Webley & Scott firm received contracts from the British Government in 1942 to produce about 120,000 Mark IV revolvers which were issued to British and Commonwealth forces during the war.

The Small Arm, .380 Revolver Cartridge, as the Brits call it, has an interesting history. Because the 1.3 inch length cylinder precluded using a longer cartridge (such as the .38 Special), Kynoch was approached to produce test ammunition loaded with blunt, 200-grain lead bullets propelled by 2.8 grains of "Neonite" nitro-cellulose flake powder in a case dimensionally identical to the commercial .38 S&W. The objective was to ensure that bullets tumbled predictably after having lost their gyroscopic stability during initial target penetration, thus improving their lethality. Despite low initial velocity, retained velocity was 570 feet per second at 50 yards, which was deemed adequate. The 200-grain cartridge was adopted as the .380/200 Mark 1 in 1929. Specifications were 625 fps +/– 25 fps from a 5-inch barrel.

In the meantime, Western Cartridge Company in the US followed Kynoch’s developments with great interest because a heavy-bullet .38 S&W cartridge providing an “improved knockdown blow” was being requested by police to dispatch heavily armed criminals. So, in 1929 Western introduced its .38 Super Police, a direct copy of the new British service round, loaded with a 200-grain, blunt, soft lead, hemispherical-nosed bullet loaded with 2.5 grains of Hercules Infallible (similar to modern Unique) producing 610 fps and 166 ft.-lbs., capable of penetrating four 7/8” pine boards.

In 1937, the British Army lead-bullet MkI cartridge was replaced by the 178-grain FMJ Mk2 cartridge, to comply with the 1899 Hague Declaration. Remaining MkI cartridges were expended for marksmanship training and civilian law enforcement purposes. The .380 Mk.IIz cartridge with 178-grain FMJ bullet is still loaded by FN, Fiocchi and the India Ordnance Factories. Postwar commercial production Webley Mk. IV revolvers remained in service with police in Britain, Jordan, Israel, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Australia well into the 1980's, and may still be found in Iraq, Pakistan, India and Afghanistan.
US commercial .38 S&W ammunition with 146-grain lead round-nosed bullet is appropriate. Point of impact relative to point of aim may vary, depending upon which ammunition was used to target the revolver at the factory, and which detachable front sight blade is installed. With proper ammunition the Webley Mark IV is surprisingly accurate. My example, made in the 1950s, produced hand-held, golf ball sized 12-shot groups at 7 yards in firing the various ammos through the chronograph. While revolvers guns made for the British commercial market had high polished blue and interchangeable, pinned in front sight blades, the export example I tested has typical military matte black oxide finish, lanyard loop, solid front sight machined integral with the barrel, and bears Israeli acceptance stamps. Its sights are correct for elevation with 146-grain Fiocchi ammunition or handloads with the Accurate 36-155D and 2.5 grains of Bullseye. Point of impact was about an inch right at 7 yards, but enlarging the rear sight notch by filing its left side only, giving more daylight around the front sight, for a clearer sight picture, corrected that. The Mark IV .38 is a pleasant, accurate and satisfying shooter and great classic revolver.

Because inquiring minds would want to know, I compared the Webley & Scott Mark IV with my 1930 date of manufacture Colt Police Positive in .38 Colt New Police. Both guns being virtually new had identical cylinder gaps of 0.005” “Pass” and 0.006” “Hold.” The Colt has a tighter barrel and cylinder throats than the Webley and produced about 50 fps higher velocity with Fiocchi ammo. Accuracy of the two guns was comparable and the velocity differences observed with my handloads was insignificant. I fired a brief “George Gently vs. Jimmy Cagney” shoot-off. Frank Marshall would have approved. Of course, I prefer the Colt, but once I tweaked the fixed rear notch on the Webley, widening the rear notch to see the sights better, and centering point of impact for windage, it is a serviceable piece.

Table 1 – Comparison of weight and dimensions Colt vs. Webley

_____________Webley Mark IV .380 (1950)___Colt Police Positive .38 Colt NP (1930)[/B]
Barrel length:_____4”__________________4”
Overall Length:____10.1”_______________9.5”
Height:__________5.1”________________4.5”
Weight:__________26.5 ozs.___________20 ozs.
Cylinder Diameter:__1.45”_____________1.40”
Cylinder Length:____1.30”_____________1.30”
Cylinder Throats:___.362______________.359
Cylinder Gap:__0.005PASS/0.006HOLD___0.005PASS/0.006HOLD
Barrel bore/groove:__.355/.362_________.344/.354

Table 2 - Velocity Comparisons Webley & Scott .380 Mark IV vs. .38 Colt New Police Positive

Ammunition: ____________Webley Mark IV____Colt Police Positive
Fiocchi 146-grain LRN factory load__750 fps, 19 Sd________794 fps, 14 Sd
Accurate*36-125T, 2.7 grs. Bullseye_761 fps, 10 Sd________803 fps, 10 Sd
“ “ “, 3.0 grs. Bullseye____________837 fps, 16 Sd________883 fps, 9 Sd
Accurate 155D-146-gr.HP 3.0 BE___794 fps, 15 Sd________852 fps, 12 Sd
Accurate 36-155D, 2.1 grs. BE_____640 fps, 8 Sd_________671 fps, 11 Sd
“ “ “, 2.5 grs. Bullseye____________710 fps, 16 Sd________756 fps, 11 Sd
Accurate 36-178D, 2.1 grs. Bullseye 595 fps, 10 Sd________601 fps, 18 Sd
Ideal 195-grain #358430 1.7 BE____513 fps, 11 Sd________.360 bullet would not chamber in Colt
Accurate 36-201D, 2.1 grs. BE_____601 fps, 12 Sd________612 fps, 20 Sd
NOE 201-grain Mk2, 2.1 grs. BE____609 fps, 12 Sd________629, fps 15 Sd

*36-125T is Accurate 37-125T for 9x18mm MAK with driving band diameter reduced from .365" to .360"

178736186692185444185446

[Outpost75]

As FYI, a new bullet 36-151H from Accurate for the .38 S&W and .380 Rimmed, shaped similarly to the Mk2, but with the ogive truncated to provide a 0.2" flat nose, being of almost identical shape to vintage .38 Colt New Police factory rounds, this one is intended for guns which shoot "on" with the factory 146-grain load. It would be a simple matter to increase the width of the base band when you order to "up" the weight if needed to shoot to your fixed sights, but my experience has been that a 146-155 grain bullet works well in the great majority of revolvers in this caliber. Increasing overall length to 0.68" by increasing the width of the base band only would bring weight to about 178 grains approximating the Mk2 service bullet, but with a flat nose, for those interested.

185411

[9.3X62AL]

Outpost--

This one would "come home" with me for my Police Positive 38 S&W x 4" in a hot second if the slightly fat (.360") Lyman #358477 didn't fit and shoot so well in its .359" throats. I'll bet it would--like the "477"--hit right where the sights looked at 25 yards when run at 725-750 FPS. A number of jackrabbits and sage rats have been civilized with this combo so far.

[Outpost75]

New Accurate mold 36-151H arrived and is a beauty! Casting from 1:5 linotype/wheel weights bullets drop .362-ish which was exactly as requested, based on the drawing minimum diameter being .360" with + tolerance 0.002".

Sample bullets are packed and ready to mail to Louisiana Man and several others for Beta testing and I hope soon we will have both pressure and velocity data, as well as practical accuracy observations from a variety of Colts, S&Ws, Webleys, British Bulldogs, and Enfields!

Performance benchmarks will be established first by firing with factory loads, then powder charges with 151H confirmed to approximate the factory velocity, using Bullseye powder initially in charge weights from 2.5-2.8 grains. Might try a few rounds at 3 grains, depending upon preliminary results, only to the point to match the velocity of the hottest factory .38 S&W load, which in prior testing was the Fiocchi, 770-800 fps. from a 4" barrel. Best guess is that in my 2" gun with 0.004" cylinder gap the expectation is in the 700 fps+/-region...

Ctg. OAL when seated in Starline .38 S&W brass is 1.18" so my initial plan is to compare the charge-velocity relationship of this bullet loaded in the .38 S&W to the same charges of Bullseye and a DEWC of the same approximate bullet weight, loaded to the same OAL in .38 Special brass, based on published data from the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook 4th Edition (2010). Test firings will be made first with the original factory .38 S&W cylinder, then repeated substituting an extra .38 Special cylinder, shaved to 1.40" length and fitted to the same S&W Model 32-1 revolver with 2-inch barrel.

Factory .38 Special 158-grain LRN loads poke out the end of the shortened cylinder, but then the noses are cut off in a 1.40" trim die to fit the shaved cylinder, it produces a nice large meplat and reduces bullet weight to 147 grains. Winchester factory 110-grain JHP and Silvertip non+P loads clear the short cylinder just fine, as do .38 Special wadcutter loads, so my "swap-cylinder" .38 S&W/and Special convertible traveling gun can make use of almost any common .38 ammo I can find out in the hinterlands.

Should be interesting, so stay tuned...

186107186105186106

[LouisianaMan]

Outpost,
That 36-151H bullet looks so darned good I jumped on the Accurate Molds website last night and ordered one myself!

[Outpost75]

Outpost,
That 36-151H bullet looks so darned good I jumped on the Accurate Molds website last night and ordered one myself!

I would like very much to see a photo comparing the Ctg. OAL and profile of 36-151H with vintage .38 Colt New Police factory FN rounds of the roaring 1920s gangster era...

186611

[Outpost75]

LM, unable to view attachments, may be issue with phone, will try desktop.
PM to follow.

[LouisianaMan]

Thanks to Outpost75 for a box of shiny, hardcast, plain-based Accurate Molds bullets received in this evening's mail! They look great, mic .3615" (one measured); weigh 154.2g, 153.3g, 155.7g (random selection of 3). As you will see below, he designed this bullet to replicate the original .38 Colt New Police bullets extremely closely.

The minor dimensional and weight differences are primarily a function of different alloys, hollow-base vs. plain base, etc. Also, meplats on original bullets vary visibly, probably from the manufacturing process, and the best I can do is mic + eyeball them, which is less than exact!

The Winchester Staynless pulled bullet weighed 150.5g, at .355"; two more came in at 150.2g, .347"; and 150.4g at .354". These bullets are HOLLOW-based and made of soft lead or lead alloy, which accounts for their smaller diameter, as the small skirt would flare readily upon firing to fill the grooves. That would also allow an easier, lower-pressure shooting experience with weak old breaktops of varying dimensions and quality.

Additionally, in the few guns I've slugged, groove diameter on S&W runs .359" and Colt was about .354" IIRC.

186670

L-R:
1. Peters .38 Colt NP cartridge; COL 1.150"; case .754"; crimp to nose .396", meplat .019"

2. Staynless case, 36-151H Accurate Molds bullet (courtesy of Outpost): COL 1.183"; case .772"; crimp to nose .411", meplat .215"

3. Pulled Staynless bullet (NOTE: Staynless primers dead, so I disassembled cartridges): .690" length, meplat .205" (2 other random bullets came in at .685" length, .205" meplat, and .680" length, .204" meplat.)

4. 36-151H bullet: .640"; meplat .215"

5. Winchester .38 Colt N.P. cartridge: COL 1.180"; case .765"; crimp to nose .415", meplat .205"


186671

In below photos, the cartridges are displayed in reverse order (L-R): Winchester; Staynless case + Accurate 36-151H bullet; Peters. The bullets are Accurate Molds (L) and Winchester Staynless (R)

PS to any who have watched this post morph and change non-stop for about two hours, I plead mea maxima culpa. It's been too long since I regularly posted photos on-line, so my technique was less than graceful, and an online photo storage/editing site was either sluggish, or my pics overloaded my WiFi capacity! The measurements I planned to take in leisurely fashion as I composed the message became a race against time to match captions to pics!!!! Sorry for the muddle!

[Outpost75]

Actually meplat of 36-151H is .208 per the drawing, with tolerance +0.002, so 0.21" is a good number, which comes out to 0.58 of bullet diameter for a .362" bullet. Good enough! Without an optical comparator to enlarge and plot an accurate measurement of the factory .38 Colt NP vs. the Accurate bullet to the intersections of lines, I would say that we have certainly met the "design intent."

Pulled .38 NP bullet has a bit larger lubricant groove. With modern lubes I think what exists on 36-151H is "enough" using LSStuff 45-45-10 or Lee Liquid Alox tumbled on, or 50-50 Alox-Beeswax with conventional size and lube, given the expected < or = to 800 fps velocity

Thx. for posting the pic, which answered my question!

Repeating the offer for anyone having the ability to test-fire, chronograph, group, waterjug penetration test these bullets in a .38 S&W revolver, top-break or solid frame, PM me for samples if you are willing and able to test, photograph, measure and report here! I want to have the feedback available for Tom at Accurate Molds, and then we will have a factory duplication bullet and tested load data for .38 Colt New Police, with +P potential possible for the modern, strong guns.

[LouisianaMan]

Outpost, I think your design and Tom's mold execution have given us an outstanding replica of the old .38 Colt New Police!

I fully expect it to be the relatively hard-hitting bullet that several noted authors commented upon in contemporary sources I've seen. Based on previous experience, I'll bet this bullet at 770-800 fps will drill arrow-straight through 6 or 7 water jugs from a 4" gun, and 5-6 from a snub-nose. And I'll further wager that jug #1 is likely to split drastically if well-filled, and jump a few inches high to boot! The hardcast samples you provided me would be engraved by the rifling, but otherwise undeformed. One could probably reload recovered bullets and keep shooting them!

I recently retrieved a small pile of cast bullets from my "target stump" at the old homestead in the country, and the damage they suffered is essentially from hitting, or being hit by, other bullets fired into the stump! That oak stump was plenty hard back then, but cast bullets were unscathed by it.

[9.3X62AL]

So......the Colt 38 New Police load dynamics run a 150 grain-class bullet into the 775-800 FPS realm? I have been reluctant to push #358477 past 725 FPS in that little Colt 4" PP (mfg. 1920). What say the correspondents herein? I am loath to over-strain this little jewel.

[Outpost75]

My Colt Police Positive in .38 Colt New Police, from its serial number, was produced in 1930.

186722

I do not have authoritative documentation. Various sources state that when Colt adopted its Positive Lock mechanism, that all Police Positive frames and cylinders were heat treated from the start in 1908, unlike earlier New Police and New Pocket revolvers which preceded them. Other sources say that Colt started heat treatment when found necessary in producing the M1917 .45 ACP during WW1 and began to heat treat all commercial production by the mid to late 1920s, according to other sources.

My practice has been to measure the payload and velocity of factory loads and to attempt to match that benchmark closely with my handloads, using a suitable powder. The Fiocchi 146-grain LRN factory loads approach 800 fps from my Colt, which has tighter cylinder throats, bore and groove diameters than the Webley, which produces about 40-50 fps less velocity despite having the same cylinder gap.

Accurate 36-155D when hollow pointed also weighs 146 grains and does likewise with 2.7 grains of Bullseye. I mostly use 2.5 of Bullseye with the 155-grain solid for 750 fps in my Colt, for routine range work in all of my guns of this caliber.

186724

A charge of 3 grains of Bullseye with the 146-grain 155D-HP runs 850 fps, but I treat that like a +P for occasional use only. I've shot my Colt quite a lot more than the Webley with these loads and it has not loosened up. But most of ammunition I use does not exceed the energy of the Fiocchi load and the "+P" is for carry only.

I use the same loads in my postwar Webley & Scott Mk4, Israeli contract revolver, and plan to do likewise in the S&W 32-1. The basic recreational practice load is 2.5 grains of Bullseye with Accurate 36-155D, and I expect also with the new 151H.

If your gun is "tight" with cylinder gap of 0.005" or less, 800 fps is safely attainable. Expect a Delta-V of -10 fps for each 0.001" increase in cylinder gap when using lead bullets and a fast-burning powder like Bullseye. A tight 2" gun with minimum tolerance 0.003" barrel-cylinder gap may likely produce higher velocity than a "loose" maximum tolerance 0.008" gap on a 4-inch gun. That is reality.

[LouisianaMan]

So......the Colt 38 New Police load dynamics run a 150 grain-class bullet into the 775-800 FPS realm? I have been reluctant to push #358477 past 725 FPS in that little Colt 4" PP (mfg. 1920). What say the correspondents herein? I am loath to over-strain this little jewel.

This target was fired with a S&W Mod 33-1, a modern-era J frame. Note the velocities and manufacturers of three different .38 New Police vintage brands of ammo, but don't blame group size on either them or the gun! Half the time when I'm trying to chrony several loads quickly, I wind up paying more attention to the getting the bullets across the two chrony windows than to the target or good shooting fundamentals.

My limited experience with Colts is that they shoot faster, due to smaller-dimensioned chambers, throats, and grooves. They were noticeably picky about chambering any sort of square-shouldered bullets such as SWC or WC, which any and all of my Smiths would typically chamber with ease, whether Victory Models, I frames, Improved I frames, or J frames.

For easy reference, read clockwise from top left.
1. Peters 150g Colt NP: 770 fps
2. Remington 150g Colt NP: 670 fps
3. Winchester 150g Colt NP: 739 fps
4. Winchester Staynless 150g Colt NP: all dud primers.

186725

I will soon have data available from a much wider variety of vintage brands, assuming the "non-corrosive, non-erosive, non-mercuric!" qualities of their primers allow them to go bang :-)

[9.3X62AL]

Thank you, Outpost & LA Man. Duly noted.

[LouisianaMan]

Here's a question for you smart guys: the vintage .38 CNP loads obviously have soft lead bullets, as do the .38 S&W loads. What kind of pressure curve differences do we create by firing harder cast bullets at full diameter?

I realize Outpost kept in mind that the bearing surfaces of the 36-151H were a significant part of the equation, from pressure, lube, and accuracy standpoints, to ensure good function and avoid problems. I know y'all can't teach me all the math, but maybe give us an insight into the differences between the old bullet designs and the ones we're casting.

[Outpost75]

The 1:5 linotype/wheelweight mix on the bullets I sent you should be about 13 BHN. My experience when pressure testing .38 Special using the older radial copper system was that soft bullets and fast powders ran pressure up, especially with hollow-based bullets. Harder cast bullets which "fit", being neither upset, nor extruded into a tight cylinder throat, were both lighter and reduced base upset, which lowered pressure with powders such as Bullseye or Unique. Harder jacketed bullets of normal size, not over barrel groove diameter and not being reduced in initial shot-start by being forced into tight cylinder throats, do not raise pressure. Hard cast bullets which fit the cylinder throats can transition from a well aligned chamber into a tight barrel with 1% area reduction without excessive pressure rise. A Colt with .359 cylinder throats and .354 barrel is no issue as long as bullets fit the throats and the gun times and indexes properly as designed.

Driving hard .452" FMJ .45 ACP hardball bullets through a shaved Webley Mark VI with .450" throats will spike pressure about 2000 psi above what the same lot of ammo would produce in an M1911 pistol or a revolver with throats reamed to .4525 or so.

[Outpost75]

Some .38 S&W chronograph data for you. – Bottom line is that a .38 S&W 4” barrel = a .38 Special 2” barrel.

193039193040193041

Firearm____________S&W 32-1*_______W&S Mk4
Barrel length__________2”______________4”
Cyl. Gap___pass 0.004/hold 0.005*__pass 0.005/hold.006_*Min. factory spec.
Ammunition______________________________________
FN Mk2z___________577,8 Sd________616, 10 Sd
Kynoch 146LRN______639, 18 Sd_______695, 7 Sd
WRA 146LRN (WW2)__659, 10 Sd_______702, 22 Sd
Fiocchi 146 LRN______706, 12 Sd_______820, 23 Sd
R-P 146 LRN________603, 14 Sd_______666, 11 Sd
W-W 146 LRN_______586, 18 Sd_______643, 15 Sd

Column Mean______628_fps_________690 fps
Avg. .38 S&W Energy_127 ft.-lbs.______153 ft. Lbs.

.38 Special Snubby for comparison

Firearm____________S&W 36
Barrel length________2”
Cyl. Gap_____pass .008/hold.009”** max. S&W Cust. Service spec.
Ammunition________________________________________ ____
WRA 158LRN (WW2)__694, 16 Sd
Above clipped nose___706, 14 Sd - RN filed off in trim die to .25 meplat 146 grains
Monarch 148 HBWC __665, 10 Sd - 1960s production
Monarch 158 LRN____730, 9 Sd - 1960s production
Western 148HBWC___652, 12 Sd - 1960s production
Rem-UMC 148 HBWC_ 680, 23 Sd - 1950s production

Column Mean_______ 688 fps
2” .38 Spl. energy____154 ft.-lbs.

[9.3X62AL]

Many thanks, Outpost 75. I kind of assumed this to be the case after a lot of years with both calibers and a variety of platforms. It is nice to have my impressions given some statistical validation with empirical data.

[FergusonTO35]

That has been my experience. My favorite load for my S&W 637 is a 148 grain Lyman wadcutter over 3.1 grains Bullseye and a Federal primer for 712 FPS average through my chronograph with a low spread and excellent accuracy. Sedate wadcutters penetrate quite well with their high sectional density and usual lack of expansion. Pretty much every test I have read reports at least 18" penetration in gelatin.

[35remington]

At that speed it's more like 21.

[FergusonTO35]

Well then, with a big full meplat that's all you need!

[Outpost75]

Fired some water jugs when measuring the above velocities.

The bullets which did the 180-degree "flip" and stopped base-first penetrated four gallon water jugs, exited the 4th jug and were lying on the plywood table.

Wadcutters in the .38 Special did not exit the 4th jug and did not dent the far side of it, so you are looking at 20-21" of WATER penetration, which approximates about 12" of gelatin, if you accept that gelatin is about 0.6 of water penetration, which I feel is generally a good number.

193482193483193485

[9.3X62AL]

Gelatin testing gets a lot of bad-mouthing, sometimes by me. Gelatin testing to assess and compare ballistic performance is sort of like living in a republic......absolutely awful, but so much better than any other option currently available.

[LouisianaMan]

Gelatin testing gets a lot of bad-mouthing, sometimes by me. Gelatin testing to assess and compare ballistic performance is sort of like living in a republic......absolutely awful, but so much better than any other option currently available.

A Churchill fan in our midst! Well, add me and many more, I'm sure. Wonder how his C96 Mauser would have done in gell or water? Of course, Omdurman gave him a more realistic test media....

[9.3X62AL]

Oh, yes--Sir Winston had all the bark still on. I have a beater/rebuilt C-96, and those 86 grain FMJs likely penetrate like nobody's business. Up close, I'm sure they will connect on a recipient......but once the barrel gets warmed, accuracy gets a mite poetic. So does ejection--no matter the barrel temp. All points of the compass are in play. But it is hell for style! I took no end of feedback from my varmint hunting partners when the Broomer came along for a jackrabbit hunt--snide comments about Churchill, Omdurman, and "Dating the Dragon Lady" came thick and fast. When the Hornady 86 JSPs connected, the rabbits expired forthwith--but actual hits were a fortuitous convergence of my good fortune and the jack's extremely poor luck. In terms of "batting average" past 25 yards, I wouldn't have gotten past Single-A ball. The Tokarev TT-30/33 and CZ-52 do and did far better work.

[Outpost75]

Gelatin testing gets a lot of bad-mouthing, sometimes by me. Gelatin testing to assess and compare ballistic performance is sort of like living in a republic......absolutely awful, but so much better than any other option currently available.

When Marty Fackler instructed us in proper gelatin prep, temperature of the warm water during mixing and prep, curing, wrapping in plastic to prevent moisture loss during cold storage, and bringing blocks up to correct temperature at time of test firing was all critical, as was also firing a calibration steel BB shot into a corner of each block at the time of testing. He came up with this 10% gelatin versus 20% formerly used by the Army, and the specific preparation methods by calibrating the results against live 80-90 kg pigs.

When those teaching seminars were conducted at Letterman, AFIP, FLETC, Quantico and APG in the 1980s we had some pretty grand BBQs.

[9.3X62AL]

So--there WERE some vestiges of the Thompson/LaGarde stockyard work getting done, sort of by analogous default. Interesting.

[Outpost75]

So--there WERE some vestiges of the Thompson/LaGarde stockyard work getting done, sort of by analogous default. Interesting.

Thompson and LaGarde didn't have flash xray video and computer analysis of each shot.

[35remington]

I will hold with 21 or near it in gelatin for a 148 cast WC at around 710 fps. Last used was a button nosed RCBS. Phone books do 10.5 which I find to be a 2:1 conversion. Lower velocity target WC tests I've seen for gelatin from short barrels go around 16, and somewhere there is a higher velocity cast bullet wadcutter test of notable penetration.

[texasnative46]

To All,

A long, LONG, time ago (nearly a half century past), I was a Deputy Sheriff in South Louisiana & any number of our SD detectives/office deputies/female personnel carried WWII-era Colt & S&W "British service" revolvers in .38S&W with quite good results, when loaded with a 200 grain lead RN at about 700FPS.
(I'm told that the SD paid the princely sum of 1.oo each for those revolvers!!)

Out of a Colt's/S&W revolver, that so-called "sort of a 38 Super Police load" TUMBLED inside the body & proved to be as good a "stopper" as a .38SPL (which was the usual police carry piece in those days), with what were then thought of as "hot loads".
(As long as I could find them, I carried the Winchester .38SPL Super Police load in my duty gun & never felt "under-armed".)

Note: Given the fact that a goodly percentage of "street cops" in 2017 cannot easily qualify (or sometimes at all!) with their SA handguns, I think that .38SPL revolvers should be the routine issue handgun UNTIL/UNLESS the officer can convince a senior supervisor that they can actually qualify with something more complex/powerful.
(When I was an instructor at the "rookie school", we routinely qualified HALF of the students, including those who had never even held a revolver, with 8 or less hours of range time. Very few SD cadets "failed to qualify" after the 2nd or 3rd day on the range. I cannot remember even one cadet that failed to qualify with their revolver by the end of "Range Week".)

yours, tex

[Outpost75]

Tex is correct. One of the ogival wadcutters in heavy weight for the caliber, as produced by either LBT or Accurate Molds would ALSO do the job. My experience is that the large meplat, flat-nosed bullets don't tumble, but give you the nearly full-caliber crush with impressive penetration which keeps on going like the Energizer Bunny, even at low velocity. The current bullet I have been fooling with in the .38 S&W with 2.5 grains of Bullseye in my S&W Model 32-1 and Webley & Scott Mk4:

193782193783193784

[texasnative46]

outpost75,

In my experience in "observing" autopsies, the 200 grain RN lead DID seem to tumble (or perhaps "swap ends") in the thorax.
I wonder if there is enough difference in the 185 FN & the 200o grain RN (due to nose shape and/or weight) to change the bullet's behavior within the chest cavity??

yours, tex

[9.3X62AL]

Lyman #358430 when fired at 700-725 FPS at jackrabbits seemed to have tumbled frequently, if the ragged stellate-aspect exit wounds were any indicator. At 1150-1225 FPS from the 357 Magnum, they seemed to drill straight through. NEI #169A, a design that imitates the RN form of the earlier 200 grain British service bullet, also seems to tumble while passing through jacks whem started in the 675-700 FPS ballpark. None of my crime victims--living or dead--was hit with a 38 S&W of any sort IIRC. I also have not launched the NEI bullet much faster than 700 FPS. FWIW.

[LouisianaMan]

outpost75,

In my experience in "observing" autopsies, the 200 grain RN lead DID seem to tumble (or perhaps "swap ends") in the thorax.
I wonder if there is enough difference in the 185 FN & the 200o grain RN (due to nose shape and/or weight) to change the bullet's behavior within the chest cavity??

yours, tex

Hello Tex,
Am writing from Baton Rouge, somewhere near your old haunts in Cajun country :-)))

I haven't yet fired Outpost's heavyweight ogival wadcutters, but have been fooling with .38 S&W 200g bullets of various configurations about seven years now. Shooting in water jugs, the 200g LRN indeed tumble, starting in jug 1-2 if at c. 600 fps, or jug 2-3 if about 650+ fps. Jugs are 6" in width. Any flat-nosed bullet, of any weight, stays point-forward, to include 200g LRNs that I "smushed" or "bumped" into ogival wadcutter shape using a blind die and some trial and error. I understand Outpost to be saying that his FN also stay point-forward.

Of course, I look forward to his answer as definitive, but since I'm up at 0200 reading this, I figured I'd chip in what I have! :-)

I have fired some vintage .38 S&W 200g LRN that clocked about 600-610 over the chrony out of a 5" Victory Model, and vintage .38 Special Super Police 200g LRN that actually clocked only 591 fps from a 4" Model 10.

I am actually quite close, finally, to firing about 20-25 boxes (mostly 40-50 rounds each) of vintage .38 S&W 145-46g LRN and .38 Colt New Police 150g LFN out of 8 S&W revolvers. I have one pair of I frames (i.e. Regulation Police 4" and Terrier 2"); one such pair of Improved I frames; and two such pairs of J frames, i.e. the 33-1 and 32-1 models. Finished measuring barrel/cylinder gaps and all chamber throats this past week, and will provide that info to help interpret chronographed velocity data.

One box of 40 rds. is the actual .38 Super Police .38 S&W 200g LRN "Lubaloy" load manufactured by Peters, IIRC. A Winchester red & yellow box 200g LRN, was tested previously, with results generally summarized above. The box bears the statement, "Specially adapted for police use." I have about 22-25 rounds remaining, so enough to fire from selected guns in my upcoming tests. (Victory Model and Webley Mk. IV.) A third box, of .38 Special Super Police 200g LRN "Lubaloy", will give me a bit of comparison from another gun or two. All three of these boxes of ammo feature the original, distinctive bottle-nosed bullet design.

I find your comments on the effectiveness of .38 S&W Super Police, and of .38 Special Super Police, to be of very great interest. Among other things, your observed results at autopsies give us some insight into the performance of not only the .38 Super Police load, but also of the British Army's original Mk 1/1Z .380 Rim aka .38/200, when it was adopted in the early 1930's.

The two were interchangeable if not identical, and some of the British testing was conducted with so-called "trade pattern" (i.e. commercial) ammo while the military arsenals (Woolwich?) were still working out kinks in the manufacture of official pattern government ammo. In my very limited experience with two boxes of US-made commercial ammo, COL was 1.170", whereas an official British military diagram showed a COL of 1.240". Since velocities were about the same, an advertised 630 fps commercial and 595 fps military, both bullet and powder charge may have been equal, and the .070" COL difference may have contributed to the difference in velocities, although gun tolerances and test equipment and conditions certainly played a role.

Subsequent wartime experience in WWII, however, was largely with the Mk 2/2Z 178g FMJ loads, which in my water tests tumbled violently and reliably, but which suffered many notorious bullet-in-bore or squib load incidents in British service use due to tolerance stacking amassed by low pressure, FMJ in-bore resistance, generous groove diameters, generous chamber dimensions, poor ammo storage conditions, or a combination thereof. Had the Brits felt able to stick with the original lead bullet load--which they declared "obsolete/only for training use" due to Hague Convention concerns about "easily deformed bullets"--the bullet-in-bore problems never would have occurred in sizeable numbers. A lead bullet with any powder under it will get out of a pistol barrel.

Question for you: you said your sheriff's department colleagues considered the .38 Super Police 200g LRN gave "stopping power" results about equal to "hot .38 Special ammo" of that era. Can you describe those "hot .38 Specials" for us?

Second question: was it the opinion of LEOs and M.E.'s that the tumbling effect of the 200g .38 Super Police bullet was what made that loading effective? Or was it the effect of 200g of soft lead hitting bone? Or anything else? My understanding of your post would seem to indicate that tumbling in the thorax was causing enough additional damage to make the difference in effectiveness. Is that correct?

I like to think of it as sort of a "poor man's hollowpoint," or "low velocity hollowpoint," in that a solid bullet was creating increased terminal effects by tumbling inside the target, as opposed to an actual hollowpoint creating a similar enhanced wounding effect due to expansion (if it occurs). Would you agree with such a characterization? Or state it differently?

Thanks for chiming in on this thread!

[LouisianaMan]

Lyman #358430 when fired at 700-725 FPS at jackrabbits seemed to have tumbled frequently, if the ragged stellate-aspect exit wounds were any indicator. At 1150-1225 FPS from the 357 Magnum, they seemed to drill straight through. NEI #169A, a design that imitates the RN form of the earlier 200 grain British service bullet, also seems to tumble while passing through jacks whem started in the 675-700 FPS ballpark. None of my crime victims--living or dead--was hit with a 38 S&W of any sort IIRC. I also have not launched the NEI bullet much faster than 700 FPS. FWIW.

Hello 9.3,
I've fired only at inanimate targets with these 200g bullets, and not nearly as much as you have. However the Lyman 358430 and its clones have a very blunt nose that approaches the old Super Police and British Mk. 1/1Z 200g lead military loads. The 200g NEI 169A's extremely long, tapered ogive more nearly approximates the shape (and characteristics, I think) of the later 178g British Mk. 2/2Z FMJ bullet.

Shooting at water jugs, wool overcoats and the like, I definitely observed that the lower-velocity 590-610 fps bullets destabilized and tumbled more consistently and sooner after target penetration, than did hotter-loaded .38 S&W or .38 Special 200g @ 650-725 fps.

Your thoughts?

[texasnative46]

LouisianaMan,

GREETINGS from The Alamo City. - YEP, I miss South LA, the great food (haven't had any decent crawfish etouffee with rice, in I don't know how long.), hunting, fishing, music, "chicken chasers" & most of all the GREAT folks who are from there.
To answer your questions:
1. What passed for "hot .38SPL loads" in those long ago days/DAZE was a 150 grain HP at about 900FPS. = The department bought Remington factory loaded ammo "on contract".
2. YES, our department's "range rats" believed that the "tumbling effect" of the 200 grain soft lead bullets made the .38S&W loads essentially equal to the "expensive factory HP ammo". - Obviously, hitting & splintering a bone(s) inside the chest cavity would make a wound more severe. SEEING the damage to the inside of the opened chest at autopsy made me "a believer" in heavy-for-caliber lead RN bullets at SELF-DEFENSE ranges. - Our department issued the "one buck revolvers", as the "bean-counters" & the Sheriff believed that the office personnel/detectives/females didn't need anything more powerful.
(Fwiw, "the veteran deputies" thought it was funny to send the "smart-ast college kid" to every possible autopsy & "made sure that" I was dispatched to all the fatal TA scenes/drownings/"messy" suicide scenes. - The didn't know that "I was raised up in" a city/county hospital, that my aunt managed, from age 5-6YO onwards. = "Blood, guts & gore" doesn't much effect me, unless it's MINE, though "floaters" & "crispy critters" are MOST UNPLEASANT to be around..)
and
3. YEP, I agree with your final comment & believe my "cheap 'big boolit' @200 grain cast reloads" are "quite adequate" for self-defense out to at least 25M AND those CB loads are certainly easier on my .38SPL "snubbie", that I routinely carry since I retired from LE, than "hot" JHP loads are. - The 200 grain low-velocity also don't "kick" as much either in my little air-weight "snubbie".

just my OPINIONS, tex

[9.3X62AL]

My observed impressions of the "tumbling" effects to the #358430 in 38 Special and the NEI #169A in 38 S&W is that the effect is occasional and not reliable or predictable, regardless of velocities. The #358430 at 1100-1200 FPS very reliably drove straight through, though--so, my thoughts are that by default and empirical data the slower bullets may tend to tumble in media more readily. I wouldn't bet the farm on that trait's behavior.

One thing abundantly clear, though--a 200 grain bullet started at 700 FPS strikes iron plate at 25 yards with A WHOLE LOT MORE WHOMP than do the 150 grainers (#358477) started at 700-725 FPS. A lot more is going on with these heavies in 38/200.

My NEI #169A castings weigh 202 grains in WW alloy, FWIW. They shoot where the sights look at 25 yards from the S&W M&P and the Webley-Enfield at 675-700 FPS, prompted by 3.0 grains of Unique or 3.3 grains of Herco.

[texasnative46]

9.3x62AL,

Fwiw, my reloads that I routinely fire in my little Airweight S&W "snubbie" are about the same as the load that you mention. = I do NOT think that for SELF-DEFENSE that a person needs anything more powerful than that load at ranges out to 25-30M.
(imVho, anything that cannot be "fixed" by 5 or 6 well-aimed shots from a .38SPL revolver is a job for a rifle/shotgun AND hopefully someone coming soon as "back up".)

yours, tex

[9.3X62AL]

Tex--

I haven't employed the 38 S&Ws as defensive tools, they are sport guns for me. That said--I darn sure will not stand downrange and try fielding those 200 grain slugs running sedately at 600-625 FPS with a baseball glove, either. In 52 years of hunting and 28 years of cop work, I never saw a gunshot wound recipient whose status was enhanced by having been hit.

I keep my Colt Police Positive 38 S&W close to original ballistics--150 grain-class bullets in the 700-750 FPS realm. I would probably do likewise with a J-frame S&W variant. I have the luxury of having other stronger arms to expand velocity potential with, so straining the capabilities of these little jewels is not a priority for me. You make a VERY valid point with your mention of rifles, shotguns, and more armed assistance as better responses to lethal threat gestures.

[FergusonTO35]

I've really come to appreciate the Lyman 35891 wadcutter with short SWC style ogive in my .38 Specials. All my revolvers shoot it well, I think of these rounds as the "longneck" .38 S&W as the OAL and velocity is similar to a .38 S&W.

[LouisianaMan]

I've really come to appreciate the Lyman 35891 wadcutter with short SWC style ogive in my .38 Specials. All my revolvers shoot it well, I think of these rounds as the "longneck" .38 S&W as the OAL and velocity is similar to a .38 S&W.

Looked up that mold and it looks just like the Lee .358-148-WC I use and love. I have loaded it "long" as specified in Speer 13, crimping in the second lube groove, tumble-lubed, and gotten velocities that were *significantly* higher than the book stated! As in, shockingly higher :-) Jim Cirillo would have been proud!

Accuracy was beautiful, and SD was reaching the disappearing point. I have experimented with lighter loads, crimped with shorter COLs per Lee 2nd .38 SPL data, and using various powders, and the results have always been excellent. POI has always been close to POA, probably because this 148g bullet is squarely in the 145-50g weight range used in standard .38 S&W / .38 Colt New Police loads.

I'm no cloverleaf shooter, but the Lee 140 SWC, 158 SWC, and this 148 WC, have always shot extremely well for me in .38 S&W, with the WC probably edging out the SWCs.

[texasnative46]

9.3x62AL,

I did NOT say earlier, though lots of folks here know, that my 1st fulltime LE job was as a railroad agent for a small railroad & I first started using a BIG/SOFT lead bullet because it "splatters" when it hits something like the side of a steel boxcar, rather than ricocheting all over the place. - Rail yards have LOTS of steel things to cause that (possibly life ending) problem.

Then, after I shot a VERY large, VERY vicious stray dog with my little Colt's Cobra , that made a run at me one night & killed him GYD, I discovered that at SD ranges that that big/heavy/slow boolit is A KILLER.
(Incidentally, my other firearm was a circa 1910 DB 12 gauge Parker with "sawed off" tubes.- I did NOT feel under-armed, even working alone. Shortly after I started work, I inherited a 90+# German Shepard ***** from a friend, who had passed away, too. = As the local sheriff said to a local thug, who had acquired the habit of stealing from the RR, "Tex & 'his partner' are a really poor bet for you to get past. I suggest that you stay away from there."
(After a while, I went to work for the SO & ended up as the county's "designated stock detective" but that's another story for another time.)

yours, tex

[Outpost75]

Re-read this thread after a respite, and still think that for my 2": S&W 32-1 that the Accurate 36-176P with 2.5 grains of Bullseye in the .38 S&W or 3.2 grains in the .38 Special for the Model 36 Chief's Special is "it." I see no reason to load anything else.

200778

[LouisianaMan]

Until and unless we start winning the health battle decisively here at home, my participation in every shooting activity has largely been limited to reading, on-line buying, but practically no casting, loading, or shooting!!!

If I am to accomplish anything for the time being, my best shot is to skip the endless tinkering I love to do and settle on a formula such as you've just identified. Until and unless I live on rural property again, my ability to load a few, walk out of the garage to my "test facilities", try everything out, and then walk back inside and tweak stuff on the spot, just is beyond reach.

The old saying, "perfection is the enemy of good enough," is one I must dust off and use again in this instance. I'll scan the thread a bit, but if you have the opportunity to point me at the right post or simply copy & paste your Pet Loads results, I would appreciate it!!



Re-read this thread after a respite, and still think that for my 2": S&W 32-1 that the Accurate 36-176P with 2.5 grains of Bullseye in the .38 S&W or 3.2 grains in the .38 Special for the Model 36 Chief's Special is "it." I see no reason to load anything else.

200778

[tucumcari_kid]

at a "full-tilt" level? The commercially loaded 700-fps 148-grain load doesn't have that much power (for sparing the top-break revolvers).

The solid-framed "I" and "J" frame revolvers aren't prohibited from taking a healthy 850 fps load from a 4" barrel. While there aren't many of these around, are many owners loading peak loads in them?

Scott

I'm sorry I came into this late. I have 2 or 3 38 S&Ws. I have a terrier and a Victory model, plus some break tops that are not part of this conversation. It is sad that a person asks "who is loading ... (something)" and the replies become everyone's thoughts on NOT reloading. Isn't really pertinent. Sharpe's loads listed in 1937 (read that again, 1937, a little before the Victory model came out and well after the heat treating of cylinders ... anyway Sharpe's load listed for 145 grain bullet was 3.0 to 4.7 grains of Unique. That made 895 FPS and a moderate 15,000 in pressure. His max load for the 38 special in that weight and powder was only 5.3 grains. Most of this accounts for the difference in case size, rather than, difference in pistols. Many Victory models and M&Ps of the day were bored out to 38 Special anyway. The frames (K-Frame equiv) of the 38 specials and the 38 S&W were identical as far as I can tell, so there isn't some huge difference in the guns. (I also owned a Model 13 357 magnum K frame -- does that bother anyone that there are 357 Mag K frames out there?) The original post was "who is loading adult loads" for this caliber and it is a valid question. The point is how to maximize performance of the round. Everyone knows it isn't a 357 magnum, but getting the most out of a round is a valid pass-time, especially in modern guns. By the way, Sharpe listed a load for 38 Special with 173 grain bullet - 5.0 grains of Unique pushing the round at 925 FPS and 15,000 pounds of pressure. That load might strike many as a +P load, but then, this was 1937 in 1937 or earlier hardware, published by the man who helped develop the 357 magnum. Point of all this isn't to punish the firearms or endanger anyone. The point is that there is reasonable room to make the 38 S&W do it's job and get the best performance out of it. I don't think we need to constantly avoid performance testing the 38 S&W.

[tucumcari_kid]

Tex--

I haven't employed the 38 S&Ws as defensive tools, they are sport guns for me. That said--I darn sure will not stand downrange and try fielding those 200 grain slugs running sedately at 600-625 FPS with a baseball glove, either. In 52 years of hunting and 28 years of cop work, I never saw a gunshot wound recipient whose status was enhanced by having been hit.

I keep my Colt Police Positive 38 S&W close to original ballistics--150 grain-class bullets in the 700-750 FPS realm. I would probably do likewise with a J-frame S&W variant. I have the luxury of having other stronger arms to expand velocity potential with, so straining the capabilities of these little jewels is not a priority for me. You make a VERY valid point with your mention of rifles, shotguns, and more armed assistance as better responses to lethal threat gestures.

I remember Dean Grennell writing at length about the lethality of the 38 Super and what a great cartridge it is/could be. At the end of one piece he said, that while it is a great round, if you know you're going in to a life and death situation, the preferred cartridge is the 12 gauge with 0000 buckshot. That would be the equivalent of 8 .38 caliber balls each time you pull the trigger, rather than just one bullet. An old colleague of mine one said, Nickle plated pump. So they can see that you have it, and they get to hear you rack the round, they know what it is...

[9.3X62AL]

That old "Gauge" is the Great Disincentivizer.

That "37-176P" design would do a lot of things very well for any of the 38 caliber cartridges.

[Outpost75]

That old "Gauge" is the Great Disincentivizer.

That "37-176P" design would do a lot of things very well for any of the 38 caliber cartridges.

It's 36-176P, but yes it would, and there is also the 177P version without the bevel-base if you prefer, but the 176P has a larger .255" meplat which is 0.7 of the bullet diameter and is about maximum to maintain good accuracy at subsonic velocities.

[bob208]

I worked up a hot load for a s&w victory with 5 inch barrel. both victories I have worked with had tight bores. the load I used is the 358429 as cast. powder charge is the max charge for the 200 gr. bullet in the lyman manual.

one victory was used by a deputy sheriff. this was when they had to have their own pistol. so his father gave him the old victory. he used it for years. then bought a ruger security-six. he left the smith home for his wife.

the other is mine I use the same load it works well in my gun also.

[tucumcari_kid]

It's 36-176P, but yes it would, and there is also the 177P version without the bevel-base if you prefer.

I have been thinking about grabbing a 195 or 200 grain, but I really like that design. It is interesting that you posted the 177P because I was thinking I wasn't really interested in GC because I want my speeds under 900. Maybe if I try it and it works well in a 357, I might want to bump that up for Magnum purposes, but otherwise, Big and Slow is the Way to Go.

[tucumcari_kid]

I worked up a hot load for a s&w victory with 5 inch barrel. both victories I have worked with had tight bores. the load I used is the 358429 as cast. powder charge is the max charge for the 200 gr. bullet in the lyman manual.

one victory was used by a deputy sheriff. this was when they had to have their own pistol. so his father gave him the old victory. he used it for years. then bought a ruger security-six. he left the smith home for his wife.

the other is mine I use the same load it works well in my gun also.

My Victory and my 32-1 are both under .360. I bet there is a point in time that S&W gave up on 360 bore and just moved everything over to 358. I read a VERY old article yesterday -- like 1901, where the author said he always needed bigger loads in Colts because the 38 bores were always larger than S&W and he needed to bump up the bullet. He said the S&W, even then, had moved closer to a uniform 38 bore.

[9.3X62AL]

Tale Of The Tape on my 38 S&W ensemble......

Colt Police Positive x 4", 1920 vintage.......359" throats, .358" grooves. Size at .359".

S&W M&P "Victory" x 5", WWII era.......363" throats, grooves not slugged (no V-block). Size at .363"

Webley/Enfield 38/200, WWII era......362"-.363" throats, grooves not slugged. Size at .363"

All of the above revolvers shoot with reasonable accuracy and without bore leading, even with long range days. Alloy is either WW or 94/3/1 (50/50 mix of Taracorp and lead), lube is NRA 50/50 Alox/BW.

[JWFilips]

S&W Pistols chambered for 38 S&W cartridge need to shoot bullets that a .362" minimum! (Many years of experience behind that statement)
If you are looking for commercial supplied bullets "Matt Bullets" are one of the better suppliers
Ask for his 149 Grain sized .363! Then you will be on the road to accuracy

[LouisianaMan]

Going from memory, but pretty sure I'm correct: Matt is "happy7" on the CB forum. Great bullet caster, idea man, honcho of group buys--a great American!

I have a box of his .38-200 (Mk 1 & .38 Super Police duplicate), and need to get a box of his 180g LHP's. I suspect the former are great in a .38 S&W Terrier/M32-1 snubbie, and the LHP's should be spectacular from 4" Regulation Police/M33-1 and 4" Colts. Of course the 200g loads will be fine from 4" guns, too. If that 180g LHP will expand from a snub .38 S&W...that will be crazy!

Probably going to be a great way to have "factory ammo" made with the care of handloaded ammo.

And nope, I'm not on his payroll, he just deserves the props!


S&W Pistols chambered for 38 S&W cartridge need to shoot bullets that a .362" minimum! (Many years of experience behind that statement)
If you are looking for commercial supplied bullets "Matt Bullets" are one of the better suppliers
Ask for his 149 Grain sized .363! Then you will be on the road to accuracy

[tucumcari_kid]

S&W Pistols chambered for 38 S&W cartridge need to shoot bullets that a .362" minimum! (Many years of experience behind that statement)
If you are looking for commercial supplied bullets "Matt Bullets" are one of the better suppliers
Ask for his 149 Grain sized .363! Then you will be on the road to accuracy

I won't argue with your experience, but on my M&P a sized .360 barely goes through the chamber. On my 32-1, a sized .360 would press through the chamber if forced. On both the bullet barely enters the forcing cone. I have a 38 Spec Hand Eject and I would say the bore is almost identical. The cylinders are a bit tighter, but not much. I shoot .360s in the M&P and it is very accurate. I'm going to try some .358s this weekend in both and see where that goes. I have .363s but they are honestly so large that I won't fire them without resizing. They won't fit through the chambers without a lot of help. But I'm shooting pure lead, so we'll see if there are any issues.... but 38 S&W is definitely the most fun to mess with...

[9.3X62AL]

I don't think you can assign any firm rules or rubrics to what a throat spec might or should be to any 38 S&W revolver example. The 38 Special and its 115-year-long history of internal dimensional throat & barrel integrity and consistency has spoiled the firearms hobby world ROTTEN. Gotta measure and confirm, or deal with leading and inaccuracy. The 38 Special/357 Magnum acceptance levels and popularity factor have basis in this consistency and user-friendliness; the 38 S&W and its poetic dimensioning is a likely factor in its status as an obsolescent chambering in decline.

[LouisianaMan]

"Poetic dimensioning." Now there's a true Romantic if I've ever heard one!!! Either that, or simply the most tactful statement I've heard lately...!

Been a while since I slugged anything, so I'm going from memory, but the couple of modern-era solid-frame commercial Smiths had .359 groove diameters. Depending on bullet shape, cartridges made up for the Smiths often did fit Colts and Rugers, and often did not. My Victory will eat anything.

[Outpost75]

"Poetic dimensioning." Now there's a true Romantic if I've ever heard one!!! Either that, or simply the most tactful statement I've heard lately...!

Been a while since I slugged anything, so I'm going from memory, but the couple of modern-era solid-frame commercial Smiths had .359 groove diameters. Depending on bullet shape, cartridges made up for the Smiths often did fit Colts and Rugers, and often did not. My Victory will eat anything.

My Webley & Scott Mk.IV has .362 cylinder throats with .360 groove diameter and 0.005" cylinder gap.

My S&W Model 32-1 also has .362 throats, but with .358" groove diameter and 0.005" cylinder gap.

My S&W Model 36, (no dash) has .3575 throats and .355 groove diameter with 0.009" cylinder gap.

My Ruger New Model Vaquero .357 has .360" throats, .356 groove diameter and 0.005" cylinder gap.

My Ruger Police Service Six has .358" throats, .356 groove diameter and 0.006" cylinder gap

My Ruger New Model Blackhawk has .358" throats, .357 groove diameter and 0.003" cylinder gap.

My 1930 DOM Colt .38 New Police has .359" throats, .354" groove diameter and 0.006" cylinder gap.

FWIW, I shoot 2.5 grains of Bullseye in the .38 S&W and 3.5 grains of Bullseye in the .38 Special, with bullets UNSIZED AND SOFT (1:30 tin-lead from Roto Metals) as-cast diameter .360," tumbled in Lee Liquid Alox in ALL of them! K.I.S.S. principle.

[9.3X62AL]

Can't argue against the K.I.S.S. logic. For certain.

[Buckshot]

.............Gee, I kind of missed out on this thread after all these years :-) I'll just post some photo's of my 3 Revolters chambered for the mighty striving 38 S&W:

http://www.fototime.com/20E262CE102F9D8/standard.jpghttp://www.fototime.com/39D383DEFAFD2FA/standard.jpg

This is the way the pistol looked when my father gave it to me. Yup, had Hubley cap pistol grips on it, HA!. I'm sure it was blued from the factory and while it has the 'V' prescipted seril there were no military inspector's initials.

http://www.fototime.com/F07416FB0193628/standard.jpghttp://www.fototime.com/16CB94CF7082789/standard.jpg

At some time in it's history it has had a 38 Special reamer run into each chamber. Didn't affect it's accuracy much as it is still a nicely accurate pistol. I think the barrel must have been cut back to 4" as the front sight had been soldered on ( I made the mods to the original). My dad bought this pistol from a California Highway Patrolman in 1964 for $70. I told dad he got stiffed!

http://www.fototime.com/8F3A1A58BE06A7F/standard.jpg http://www.fototime.com/B0879FB6246854E/standard.jpg

This is my original Victory Model. It went to Australia and went received a FTR in 1954 and placed back into store. It returned to the US in 1984, re-imported by Vega in Sacramento, CA.

http://www.fototime.com/ED99ACE3DB8D4DD/standard.jpghttp://www.fototime.com/D2A3E2508FEE3B8/standard.jpg

I don't know if it received it's Parkerized finish here or durting the FTR in Australia, but other then the nicks and dents on the grips, it appears to have lead a fairly sedate life.

http://www.fototime.com/7B35857A9E55C34/standard.jpg

Even have an un-issued British 1943 dated canvas holster for it.

[Buckshot]

http://www.fototime.com/86C54337F979FDD/standard.jpghttp://www.fototime.com/CD1F80B43CD4C22/standard.jpg

Got this nifty little Nickle plated Iver Johnson 5 shot break top from a shooting buddy.

http://www.fototime.com/9877DF39C588BA8/standard.jpghttp://www.fototime.com/56C0BA1FC0F2D05/standard.jpg

The little dude is as tight as can be, and in overall excellent condition. The hammer, trigger and frame latch still show fine case colors and the triggerguard is still bright fire blued.

http://www.fototime.com/5F1992A31630875/standard.jpghttp://www.fototime.com/8DAF2A1F0B9E0C6/standard.jpg

http://www.fototime.com/15427C2B47E63FD/standard.jpg

This is once around the cylinder benched at 25 yards. The load was the Lyman 35863 150gr WC cast of pure lead, as cast at .363". TL'ed over 1.6gr Red Dot 510 fps. Lemme tell ya, with the tiny 'V' notch in the cylinder latch and a front sight blade that's about as wide as a razor blade, trying to shoot many groups with those sights will wreak your Mk1 Mod1 eyeballs. With a 2 liter plastic juice bottle full of water at 15 yards, that WC will open'em up.

http://www.fototime.com/3B773CE97D573A2/standard.jpg

These are about the sum total of 38 S&W endeavors. From the left, 200gr Lyman RNPB, Lyman 35863 WC 150gr seated out to 38 Spec WC OAL to use 38 special loads in the Victory Models. Lee 100gr WC's, old Lee 6 cav group buy for a 146gr RN, and a loaded one. A Colt New Police (Western Factory Load).

All these are really shot just for the pure fun and pleasure of it all. However with a 14" plate at 100 yards, if you can find a rock, a weed or other aiming point of the right height over the target, it's an amazement to be sure and just simple fun :-)

....................Buckshot

[Rodfac]

Gunna bump this one to the top...this is a wonderful thread on an old-time cartridge that I've been playing with lately. Hope it gets some add'l attention from those of us who appreciate the great revolvers of the past. The Colt PP, mentioned below, was willed to me when my uncle passed.

My, long gone, Uncle Bill used a 4" Colt Police Positive in .38 Colt New Police as his duty gun while working as a plant guard for Bethlehem Steel during the war. Drafted in early '42, he spent much of his time as a CB on Guadalcanal...not a subject that came up in family discussions nor when he took me fishing for pike in Lake Erie. But back to his duty gun...can't say if he was armed after the war at Bethlehem, but it wouldn't have surprised me...both he and another uncle were tough men and very active during strikes there...

I'll post some load results as I work with it. Currently I have Lyman's 358156-SWCGC, 35891-WC, 35863-DEWC & 358429-SWC to work with. Throats on the 1920 vintage Police Positive, run 0.359" as close as I can tell from slugging them, but haven't slugged the groove dia. as yet.

Pic below is of a WRA factory Colt NP load of ancient lineage...1950's perhaps....it's a good shooter for sure...7 yds, from an unsupported Weaver two-handed stance.

Best Regards, Rod

https://i.postimg.cc/SsT6NYNv/IMG-0244.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

[Outpost75]

Agree that this is a Zombie thread which deserves dusting off. One of my favorite cartridges.

[Rodfac]

Thanx for the support, Outpost....I'm building a file on the cartridge and just clipped & pasted one of your posts to it from a cpl years back (#184 from 2017)...Rod

[Outpost75]

Thanx for the support, Outpost....I'm building a file on the cartridge and just clipped & pasted one of your posts to it from a cpl years back (#184 from 2017)...Rod

The .38 S&W is a real hoot in a rook rifle. John Taylor has the reamer and can build your Bunny Gun of dreams.

255281255282255283255284255285255286

[str8wal]

I can see no reason the try and push the 38 S&W round. None what so ever. The British military and police thought the 200 grain load going 650 fps was a crackerjack round and killed many folks all over the world with it, to prove their point.

If you want to drive a bigger nail, get a bigger hammer!

Some folks can only afford one hammer.........

[mozeppa]

I can see no reason the try and push the 38 S&W round. None what so ever. The British military and police thought the 200 grain load going 650 fps was a crackerjack round and killed many folks all over the world with it, to prove their point.

If you want to drive a bigger nail, get a bigger hammer!

exactly.....i have a webley 38 S&W top break ....got it from the original first owner....paris said he rarely if ever had the need to fire it.
except to qualify.

it is as tight as new. and as doug marcaida would say...."it will keel!"

[Catch22]

This is my 38 S&W jewel. 1937 Enfield No 2 Mk I that's RAF marked.

I've been working on my .38/200 load and enjoy the heck out of shooting it. Thankfully it's payday so I can get some more boolits ordered to last me until I get my pot set up and a mould bought.

255325

[Rodfac]

Ah....the Bunny Gun, Ed Harris' interesting project name IIRC....good lookin' rifle and what accuracy from those sights! I'll have to keep that in mind when I get some extra shekels in my jeans. That WFN looks like it's seated right into the rifling when loaded. LLA only for lube? I've used LLA or 45-45-10 thinned, in the past on WC's for .357 and .38 Spl. use, double coating the bullets and got zero leading up to ~850-900 fps or so with a proper match between throat and groove.

Nice "Brits" too...have always had a yen for one, just to try out but never got around to it, nor found one in a condition that tempted me.

It rained here yesterday, pretty much all day and that kept me busy feeding the new fireplace stove insert with catalytic converter (draft and flue bypass technique issues), while my wife knitted new toques for family and friends.

But did make it down to the gunshop in the basement...sized some 358156's to 0.359" (ACWW+2%) and loaded them with 2.0 & 2.2 gr of Bullseye. My 1920 Colt Police Positive 4" has relatively tight chambers and the older WRA brass I used won't seat with anything larger than 0.359". I'm going to order up some Starline, to see if that's going to work with my current sizing efforts, as I have a limited supply of R-P & WRA brass. Lee dies, WSP caps and 50-50 lube from White Label were the tools/components used.

Between showers I scurried out to my side meadow backstop... magic markered a 2" square aiming point and got a single cylinderful into less than an inch from 8 yds, from a standing Weaver stance. Basically, one ragged hole in the soaked cardboard backing target...gotta try them out from 15 yds later this wkend, but this looks promising as a starting point.

Wish Colt had invested in a thicker front sight...that finger nail thick disc is tough to see in the gloom. POI was 1" low and right, though, close enough that a little judicious use of a jeweler's file on the rear sight notch will center me up when the load's finally determined. For now KY windage and elevation are OK.

Best regards, Rod

[LouisianaMan]

Nice-looking Enfield! I found their DAO trigger pull astonishingly light, short, and smooth, and the gun handily accurate at the combat ranges for which it was intended. The grip size, shape, texture, and thumb grooves make it point more naturally for me than any other .38 S&W revolver I've fired, and the fixed sights are the best I've encountered for WWII combat handguns.

The 5" Victory and 4" Webley Mk. IV are close seconds, followed closely by the relatively rare Ruger Indian Speed-Six. Smith I and J frames are very accurate and beautifully made, but don't point as naturally in my hands. Same goes for the Colt Police Positive Special, which I found to lag behind the others in utility as a close-range DA combat weapon (due solely to grip geometry), although it's beautifully made and inherently accurate.

I'm a big fan of 200g bullets in various configurations, but have had excellent success with 110g-135g JHP of various types, Mk 2Z 178g surplus ball ammo, and cast bullets of all sorts from 125-215g. (I'm sure 100-120g would do fine, too, but simply haven't tried them.)

I've even had highly satisfactory results from Hornady 110g FTX I pulled down from .38 SPL CD ammo, 135g Speer GDHP component bullets, and I have a couple of boxes of 110g GDHP I still need to try out. XTP, Win and Rem component JHPs in 110-125g do fine, too, and provide excellent velocity and expansion from 4" and 5" revolvers. Since these jacketed bullets run .357", I've found it most efficient to use nickel-plated brass cases originally used in factory loads--they give good neck tension with my Lee dies. Starline brass is wonderful for cast bullets, but doesn't provide adequate neck tension with jacketed bullets.

Cautionary note: I've fired a few old US-made top breaks with factory (or equivalent) lead bullet loads just for a little novelty fun, but do NOT use them for any other purpose or with any other ammo.

[9.3X62AL]

Nor EVERY shot fired recreationally needs to be a wrist-wrencher. Toward that end, I have long enjoyed the friendly and affordable-to-reload-for 32 S&W Long and 38 S&W calibers. Varmint-whacking can be a year-round activity where I live, and few better calibers exist for the humane dispatching of pests like ground squirrels than the 32 SWL or 38 S&W.

[NorthMoccasin]

Great thread! I love the 32's and small 38's. My 6" Colt PP likes the Lyman 358212 146gr sized to .359 over 2.4gr of Bullseye. My S&W 32-1 likes Lymans 148gr WC 358191 sized .361 over the same 2.4gr of bullseye. Both shoot to the sights at 20 yds. The WC dispatches Racoons and other vermin with authority. The 6" Colt PP is a real gem, the long sight radius makes hitting easier for me.

[smkummer]

I see I responded to this back in 2012. I wish I now never sold that post 1966 police positive special chambered for 38 colt new police and stamped RHKP. But I have since acquired a colt bankers special, early police positive and an official police 38-200 of 1941 vintage. The official police is deadly accurate with lyman’s 358477 and 3 grains of bullseye, that load comes from I believe lyman’s 42 edition. I am going to bulk load about 400 rounds with that loading mainly for the official police when my next batch of nickel 38 S&W gets in. I have fired that load in the smaller Colts as well on small occasion. If I shot the smaller Colts more, I would go back to 3 grs. red dot for them or back off the bullseye so they have less recoil.