.38 SD snub: why lswchp??

Just a small correction to something that was said earlier.

P.O. Ackley and Elmer Keith worked for years on high powered loads for the 38 Spl. much of their work led to the development of the .357 Magnum. Keith's lswchp designed bullet was used in a good deal of this testing by Keith and was available for reloaders through the Lyman Co.

Keith's 155 gr. hp bullet #358439 was a popular one for years as was his 165 gr. load. Both were also used in the .357 Magnum according to my 1957 Lyman catalog 41st edition. Both in fact had been available for years.

The idea that these bullets and commercial ammo which used them was not available till the 1960s is a mistake. They became more widely commercially available from Federal and Remington in the post war period though.

158 gr. lrn ammo in 38 Spl. dominated police use till the end of the revolver era.

tipoc
 
The first 38/44's came out in April of 1930. The published ballistics were a 158 LSWC at around 1100 FPS or a 150 grn metal pointed lead bullet at around 1150 FPS. I have chrono-ed some original ammo over the years and believe the original ballistics were about right.

An original catalog lists the following for 1932 ballistics:
38/44 S&W Special 158 grn 1125 fps
38 S&W Special 158 grn 847 fps
My testing of original ammo says this was probably from a 6.5" 38/44 Outdoorsman.

Historically the 38/44 ammo came out in response to the 38 Super ammo from the Colt Supers. They eventually standardized on a 130 grn at 1300 fps around 32?


3844hd_target.jpg


This is an April 1930 38/44 Heavy Duty. It was shipped the second week of production and is in nice shape for being that age. I don't shoot it that well as the ivory grips are small for my hands but here is 50 shots at 15 yrds.


3844_casehead.jpg


Here is some 38/44 S&W Special ammo. It was chronoed and did generally between 1050 and 1100 fps but it was erratic due to poor storage.
 
The chrono testing on the .38/44 is interesting. There's a school of thought out there that thinks some of the advertised velocities back then were inflated. Makes me wonder if that is really true.

BTW, nice looking revolver and those grips are very classy.
 
Bill, speaking to your question:

I can't argue with any of the statements made in support of the 158 grain LSWCHP round in .38 Special, but I'll add my analysis.

Handgun barrel lengths do not make for 'high' velocities (depending on one's concept of 'high'.) Short barreled revolvers generally are slower.

Some attempt to maintain velocity in a short barreled handgun by reducing bullet weight. However, the energy so derived is based on velocity; as velocity falls, the energy of the bullet drops with the square of the velocity. However, by shooting a heavier bullet at lower speeds, the energy is dependent on the momentum of the bullet, and heavier bullets maintain momentum more than lighter bullets.

A SWC bullet has 'edges' that tend to cut and clip body parts, rather than push them aside. So, when a jacketed hollow point doesn't open up, it tends to act more like a FMJ bullet and do less damage and energy transfer. But a sharp shouldered bullet still does the same thing; clip and cut as it passes.

For these reasons, I think a heavy bullet with a flat meplat is more useful in self-defense than an 'iffy' expanding bullet. And as mentioned, the trajectory of the bullet suits the sights.

There are those who differ. They can present their own thoughts.
 
Since there is an interest in 38/44 High Speed ammo, here is a writeup I did a while back. I shot this with 3 post war 38/44's, a 4", 5" and 6.5" Heavy Duty's. If you are not familar with the Oehler 35P printouts, the first number is the barrel length, the second is the high speed, the next is the low speed, the extreme spread ends in e, the mean ends in m and the standard deviation ends in s. These are for 12 round strings which is less than my usual 20.

shooting_setup.jpg


This is real 1940’s vintage 38/44 ammo. It says “.38-44 S.&W. Special” 158 grn Lead bullet. The box says “r266” as the version of the load an it specifically says “specially adapted for the .38-44 Smith and Wesson Special”.

3844_r266.jpg

This is the 38/44 ammo that was chrono-ed.

6.5” 1198+ 1057- 141e 1121m 82s
5.0” 1131+ 1002- 129e 1079m 71s
4.0” 1069+ 739- 330e 1010m 103s (one bad round)

I had a bunch of misfires so I was barely able to get my 12 rounds for testing of each. That is why I was stuck with the one bad round on the 4”. I just ran out of decent ammo otherwise I would have voided the round and shot another one. So do I believe that original 38/44 ammo would have done about 1150 fps out of a 6.5” and 1125 fps out of a 5”? Yes. The degradation of the ammo in the last 70 years could explain my results running a bit slow compared to expectations. We are certainly not far outside the range of belief on the commercial of that vintage. Given the number of duds I had in the box, it would be quite believable that 1150 and 1125 are the targets.
 
Last edited:
dont forget, ive seen alot of online testing in gelatin were those oldr types of hollowpoints whem put out of a snub had no penetration when they expanded. thats a non issue withe the fbi load
 
The chrono testing on the .38/44 is interesting. There's a school of thought out there that thinks some of the advertised velocities back then were inflated. Makes me wonder if that is really true.
Click to expand...

One reason for this is that ammo manufacturers published velocities taken from unvented 7-7 1/2" test barrels. These were uniformly higher than velocities taken from 6" or 4" barrels of revolvers.

If I remember right, from my readings, it wasn't until the 1970s that the ammo industry, through it's self regulating institution SAMMI, agreed on standard pressures and testing methods. At that time alot of the published velocities dropped.

Older reloading catalogs list heavier loads for the 38 Spl. than some current +P loads. But on all I think there are some heavier loads these days available commercially. Better powders possibly and better bullets as well.

tipoc
 
The chrono testing on the .38/44 is interesting. There's a school of thought out there that thinks some of the advertised velocities back then were inflated. Makes me wonder if that is really true.
Click to expand...
I subscribe to that idea.
Today anyone can go out and buy a chronograph and use it to prove or disprove velocities.

50/60 years ago - in the supposed hay day of "hot ammunition", there was no way to determine the velocity of ammunition.

It wasn't until cheap chronographs (transistors & integrated circuits) appeared that all of a sudden, people started to cry "wimpy loads".

For all anyone really knows, they could have been "wimpy" all along - with just no way for anyone to prove it.
 
I am sure there was some inflation of loads but having shot enough "old" ammo, it has more of a pop than modern ammo has. 38 Special ammo from the late 40's and 50's measures as much as 150 fps faster than modern Remington/Winchester/CBC for the same bullet weight.

Even the much vaunted "FBI+p load" you can buy today actually has less velocity than 1950's 38 special. For a data point, in a 5" barrel, Winchester +P FBI load goes 887 FPS (158 grn). 1940's 38 Special ammo does 838 FPS in the same gun with the same bullet weight. CCI 158 does 775 and CBC's does 727 and Remington's 158 does 753.

So a +P load today does all of 50 fps more than a 1940's standard 38 special that has probably suffered some degradation.

Another interesting data point is that 1960's (pre zip code boxes) 200 grn Rem 38 Special ammo does 738 fps out of the same 5" barrel and gun. So 60's vintage 38's with 200 grns do better than 158's from CBC and are darn close to Remington's 158's today.

I would argue from my testing that modern ammo is not as powerful as older ammo and older ammo tended to be closer to the "mark" than modern ammo.

Just for fun, I looked up Winchester 38+P specials and note they quote 890 fps out of a 4" barrel and yet only do 887 out of a 5". Close but a bit optimistic don't you think? ( by the way, it did 862 fps out of my 4").
 
I read somewhere that the reason that +P did not appear until the mid 60's was because during that time period all the ammo manufacturers downgraded their loads for less power. The +P loads of today were what were the common loads of the early 60's. Any truth to this?
 
I would argue from my testing that modern ammo is not as powerful as older ammo and older ammo tended to be closer to the "mark" than modern ammo.
Click to expand...
I just find it too coincidental that published velocity figures dropped at the exact time affordable chronographs hit the market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top