If shooting .38 spl or .38 spl +P, it doesn't matter.I was under the assumption that I should only shoot 158 and up loads out of my Model 13 K frame. Im good with that. Im good with that. I normally carry it with a M38 in my pocket.
If shooting .38 spl or .38 spl +P, it doesn't matter.I was under the assumption that I should only shoot 158 and up loads out of my Model 13 K frame. Im good with that. Im good with that. I normally carry it with a M38 in my pocket.
110 gr would beat 38 spcl, but the 125 gr is not much heavier. A hot loaded 125 gr .357 mag is possibly THE best SD handgun load on the planet. Why not go with that?
The Rem. consistently hit 1800fps+/-.
The data is to the contrary -- http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_D...Data/38spl_HorndayFTX_SpeerGDHP_CorbonDPX.htmI agree with most the other members that the 110gr won't have enough penetration especially when a attacker is wearing heavy clothing.
Quote:
I agree with most the other members that the 110gr won't have enough penetration especially when a attacker is wearing heavy clothing.
The data is to the contrary -- http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_De..._CorbonDPX.htm
All the 110 gr loads at .38 spl velocities from snubbies penetrated more than 12 inches in bare gel and through four layer denim. Expanded sufficiently, as well.
Good point on the bullet construction being different. I think it would be difficult to generalize that higher velocities would result in lesser penetration because of greater expansion.
Energy, in and of itself, actually retards penetration due to Newton's third law (every action has an equal and opposing reaction). Basically, the more energy with which a bullet strikes its target, the more force pushes back against the bullet thusly retarding penetration.
Quote:
Energy, in and of itself, actually retards penetration due to Newton's third law (every action has an equal and opposing reaction). Basically, the more energy with which a bullet strikes its target, the more force pushes back against the bullet thusly retarding penetration.
I have a question about this formulation of the subject here. It's been popping up the last year or so, or rather, the first time I heard it put this way was about a year ago. I'm not sure that it's right. To my understanding there is no "force" that "pushes back against the bullet" when an object is struck. The kinetic energy that a bullet has when it strikes an object is transferred in several ways; heat, deformation of the round (expansion), penetration, noise, etc. But no equal force rises up, so to speak, to oppose it.