Bill DeShivs
New member
Agreed! 
.38 Super a choice for self-defense?
- Thread starter gmarr
- Start date
Just to be contrary and off topic...
No one that knew anything ever equated "stopping power" or "Knockdown power" with a bullets ability to either physically stop or knockdown a person. It's an internet myth that Elmer Keith, Julian Hatcher, Jeff Cooper, Skeeter Skelton, Charles Askins, Jack O'Conner and many others who spoke of "stopping power" were so inexperienced and ignorant that they believed that the bullet would or could knock a fella off there feet. They clearly knew otherwise. Hatcher was the first to demonstrate it and still used the terms on occasion. The phrase was always a standby for a bullet hitting harder and potentially doing more damage than another. The 357 had more "stopping power" than a 38 Special, the 45acp more "knockdown power" than the 32acp, a LSWC has more "stopping power" than ball ammo, etc. But in the last decade or two some like to believe they learned better than the old timers or discovered something new. That bullets don't knock folks down. But people knew that including those who regularly used the inexact and misleading terms, even though the terms had a particular meaning.
People in bars and gun stores can tell you that a 45 Colt round will knock a horse off it's feet, or the 45 acp tear your arm off. I had a man tell me the other day that the 45 Colt needs to be "lobbed" into a target 25 yards away. This is inexperience and myth speaking. But when O'Conner or Hatcher used the terms knockdown power, they knew. It was an inexact way of referring to the relative power of handgun and rifle rounds and their ability to do damage.
tipoc
No one that knew anything ever equated "stopping power" or "Knockdown power" with a bullets ability to either physically stop or knockdown a person. It's an internet myth that Elmer Keith, Julian Hatcher, Jeff Cooper, Skeeter Skelton, Charles Askins, Jack O'Conner and many others who spoke of "stopping power" were so inexperienced and ignorant that they believed that the bullet would or could knock a fella off there feet. They clearly knew otherwise. Hatcher was the first to demonstrate it and still used the terms on occasion. The phrase was always a standby for a bullet hitting harder and potentially doing more damage than another. The 357 had more "stopping power" than a 38 Special, the 45acp more "knockdown power" than the 32acp, a LSWC has more "stopping power" than ball ammo, etc. But in the last decade or two some like to believe they learned better than the old timers or discovered something new. That bullets don't knock folks down. But people knew that including those who regularly used the inexact and misleading terms, even though the terms had a particular meaning.
People in bars and gun stores can tell you that a 45 Colt round will knock a horse off it's feet, or the 45 acp tear your arm off. I had a man tell me the other day that the 45 Colt needs to be "lobbed" into a target 25 yards away. This is inexperience and myth speaking. But when O'Conner or Hatcher used the terms knockdown power, they knew. It was an inexact way of referring to the relative power of handgun and rifle rounds and their ability to do damage.
tipoc
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I've had two men (both well over 6 ft) tell me that they shot a 1911 and it damn near tore their arm off. No, they didn't shoot themselves in the arm - .
I'm 5'8" and have easily shot 125 45 ACPs in a morning. Still got my arm. Given Newton's laws - why do I still have my arms?
.I'm 5'8" and have easily shot 125 45 ACPs in a morning. Still got my arm. Given Newton's laws - why do I still have my arms?
While the knockdown power is myth what about put down power ie stopping the threat?
Don't the heavier caliber have a better chance of putting down a threat? I don't buy my ammo because of the 12" penetration capability, they exceed it to 18" of penetration minimum.
You should know why.
Don't the heavier caliber have a better chance of putting down a threat? I don't buy my ammo because of the 12" penetration capability, they exceed it to 18" of penetration minimum.
You should know why.
OldMarksman
Staff
Patrick Sweeney made the following relevant point: when the US Army demanded the use of a .45 over the .38 ACP and over 9mm of the time some 100+ years ago, they were looking for a cavalry weapon that was effective against horses.
He opines that had the .38 Super been available, it might have been selected.
All of that is yesterday's newspaper. Most of us do not need to stop horses; the premium 9MM defensive ammunition available today is far more effective than that of old; and the need for placement remains, and now we can put more priority on lower recoil to improve control and increase chances for effective placement.
He opines that had the .38 Super been available, it might have been selected.
All of that is yesterday's newspaper. Most of us do not need to stop horses; the premium 9MM defensive ammunition available today is far more effective than that of old; and the need for placement remains, and now we can put more priority on lower recoil to improve control and increase chances for effective placement.
g.willikers
New member
Yeah!
I didn't buy no danged handgun to shoot them nice horsies.
Dragons!
That's what my shootin' iron is for.
You betcha.
Don't see none around these parts neither.
I didn't buy no danged handgun to shoot them nice horsies.
Dragons!
That's what my shootin' iron is for.
You betcha.
Don't see none around these parts neither.
OldMarksman
Staff
Well, the 1911 source selection preceded the era of motorized cavalry by some years.
Ever wonder why the .44 was called the "Army calibre" and the .36 the "Navy"?
Obviously, the horse was bigger target than the rider.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-gun-digest-book-of-the-1911-patrick-sweeney/1103443665
sometimes its just more fun to sit down in the bar and enjoy the conversation like the good old days when the only citation sources were miles away at the closed for the evening library...
part of me wishes the govt would have picked the 38 Super over the 45acp, its truly a more versatile round. But I digress history was written and now it wouldn’t be the same without a 1911 in 45...
part of me wishes the govt would have picked the 38 Super over the 45acp, its truly a more versatile round. But I digress history was written and now it wouldn’t be the same without a 1911 in 45...
Just FYI, GECO ammo [Hungarian] is a more 'mainstream' manufacturer than Buffalo Bore, and their .38Super ammo claims to push a 124gr FMJ at 1411 fps.
It was accepted as the official match ammo of the World Shoot XVI [2013?], where it was accepted as meeting the power factor of 160 for this IPSC-type event.
Tests indicated it was a bit lower [1250fps from some guns], but GECO was going to work on the ammo to introduce changes and bring it up to snuff.
I have a .38Super that I need to get out and shoot. I have a bunch of stuff I need to get out and shoot. Why is it I only have free time after 10pm, when all ranges within 100 miles are closed?
I love the 1911 platform, and look forward to reloading for .38Super some day. I like the 9mm. I like the .45acp. I have moderate-small hands.
If the 1911 didn't feel right, I'd probably not be very interested in the .38 Super- or the .45, or the 10mm. All of them require a different grip size, generally.
I live where 10 rounds is the legal max for a magazine. Thus a standard capacity Glock G17 isn't a possibility- I need a neutered 10 rounder. If I can only have 10 rounds of 9mm, then why worry about 9 rounds of .38 Super?
If I had the ability to carry a G17 with a standard capacity [17 rounds] mag in it, I'd be less interested in a .38 Super for defensive purposes, as the 8 extra rounds of +P+ 9mm would make me more relaxed than 8 fewer rounds that make 100 fps more each.
Now, if I could just afford a semi-auto that could hold/fire 10 rounds of Buffalo Bore's .357Mag Heavy Loads [making around 720 ft/lbs of ME, vs 'normal' target .357mag loads around 500 ft/lbs], I would take that in a heart beat over the others.
It was accepted as the official match ammo of the World Shoot XVI [2013?], where it was accepted as meeting the power factor of 160 for this IPSC-type event.
Tests indicated it was a bit lower [1250fps from some guns], but GECO was going to work on the ammo to introduce changes and bring it up to snuff.
I have a .38Super that I need to get out and shoot. I have a bunch of stuff I need to get out and shoot. Why is it I only have free time after 10pm, when all ranges within 100 miles are closed?
I love the 1911 platform, and look forward to reloading for .38Super some day. I like the 9mm. I like the .45acp. I have moderate-small hands.
If the 1911 didn't feel right, I'd probably not be very interested in the .38 Super- or the .45, or the 10mm. All of them require a different grip size, generally.
I live where 10 rounds is the legal max for a magazine. Thus a standard capacity Glock G17 isn't a possibility- I need a neutered 10 rounder. If I can only have 10 rounds of 9mm, then why worry about 9 rounds of .38 Super?
If I had the ability to carry a G17 with a standard capacity [17 rounds] mag in it, I'd be less interested in a .38 Super for defensive purposes, as the 8 extra rounds of +P+ 9mm would make me more relaxed than 8 fewer rounds that make 100 fps more each.
Now, if I could just afford a semi-auto that could hold/fire 10 rounds of Buffalo Bore's .357Mag Heavy Loads [making around 720 ft/lbs of ME, vs 'normal' target .357mag loads around 500 ft/lbs], I would take that in a heart beat over the others.
OldMarksman
Staff
The .38 Super was introduced a quarter of a century after the .45.
The 38 Super was introduced in 1899 or so as the 38 acp. That round came close to being the standard U.S. military round. It was originally loaded with a 130 gr. fmj round that did about 1300 fps from the 6" barrel of the Colt model 1900 which was Colt and Browning's initial effort to win a U.S. military contract for a semi-automatic pistol.
http://www.coltautos.com/1900.htm
It was followed by the 1902 Sporting Model and the 1902 Military Model and the 1903 Pocket Hammer. They went through military trials repeatedly, design changes, etc. Along the way the military decided it wanted a semi in 45 acp and not in 38 caliber or 41 caliber (which they also considered) this eventually resulted in the 1911.
The 38 acp at 1300 fps was too powerful for the "parallel ruler" design of the Model 1900, and 1902 so the 38acp was loaded down to about 1100 fps. The guns were relatively fragile and in 1928 Colt ceased their production.
In 1928, the same year the guns chambered in 38acp were discontinued, they introduced a 1911 chambered for 38acp and called the new gun the "Colt Super 38". With the stronger design of the 1911 over the older guns they returned the gun to it's 1300 fps velocity, now from a 5" barrel. In time the round came to be called the 38 Super as well as the gun.
The 38 acp and the 38 Super are identical other than the loads.
So it almost was the standard U.S. military round.
tipoc
http://www.coltautos.com/1900.htm
It was followed by the 1902 Sporting Model and the 1902 Military Model and the 1903 Pocket Hammer. They went through military trials repeatedly, design changes, etc. Along the way the military decided it wanted a semi in 45 acp and not in 38 caliber or 41 caliber (which they also considered) this eventually resulted in the 1911.
The 38 acp at 1300 fps was too powerful for the "parallel ruler" design of the Model 1900, and 1902 so the 38acp was loaded down to about 1100 fps. The guns were relatively fragile and in 1928 Colt ceased their production.
In 1928, the same year the guns chambered in 38acp were discontinued, they introduced a 1911 chambered for 38acp and called the new gun the "Colt Super 38". With the stronger design of the 1911 over the older guns they returned the gun to it's 1300 fps velocity, now from a 5" barrel. In time the round came to be called the 38 Super as well as the gun.
The 38 acp and the 38 Super are identical other than the loads.
So it almost was the standard U.S. military round.
tipoc
...but one only sends a SINGLE bullet type downrange at a time, not an assortment. If one has one GOOD bullet, one really doesn't need any more.
Since I handload and have a good supply of VihtaVuori N105 powder, whatever anybody or everybody else has or hasn't doesn't enter into my figuring.
Tipoc...was wondering where you got the information that the original .38 ACP round manufactured in 1900 had an initial velocity of 1300 fps and then reduced to 1100 fps because of the 1900 pistol design.
Everything I have read stated that the velocity of the .38 ACP from the beginning was 1260 fps from a 1900s 6" barrel. These same rounds were going a listed 1190 fps from a 5" 1911 barrel when the gun was introduced in 1929.
The velocity was boosted to 1300 fps from a 5" gun in 1932/3 when Remington came out with a new line of cartridges. It was not till the mid 1940s that there was some concern that this enhanced round could be harmful to the older 1900s design guns. It was then that some of the manufacturers reduced the .38 ACP to under 1100 fps.
All of this information comes from Douglas Sheldon's book on the .38 Super...
I've carried a .38 Super in the form of a Commander daily since 1980. For me it is the perfect balance of speed, recoil control, power and shootability...
Bob
Everything I have read stated that the velocity of the .38 ACP from the beginning was 1260 fps from a 1900s 6" barrel. These same rounds were going a listed 1190 fps from a 5" 1911 barrel when the gun was introduced in 1929.
The velocity was boosted to 1300 fps from a 5" gun in 1932/3 when Remington came out with a new line of cartridges. It was not till the mid 1940s that there was some concern that this enhanced round could be harmful to the older 1900s design guns. It was then that some of the manufacturers reduced the .38 ACP to under 1100 fps.
All of this information comes from Douglas Sheldon's book on the .38 Super...
I've carried a .38 Super in the form of a Commander daily since 1980. For me it is the perfect balance of speed, recoil control, power and shootability...
Bob
g.willikers
New member
^^^
Yes, and probably no real advantage considering the availability and choices of modern 9mm ammo.
Yes, and probably no real advantage considering the availability and choices of modern 9mm ammo.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
That's nothing but B.S.OldMarksman said:
Patrick Sweeney writes a lot about 1911s, and IMHO he fabricates most of what he writes out of thin air. I can't understand why anyone pays any attention to what he writes.
It has been well documented that the Ordnance Department (not "the Army") started looking for a new sidearm after the dismal ineffectiveness of the then-current issue .38 caliber revolvers against Moro tribesmen in the Philippines. While it is true that the subsequent testing for an effective handgun cartridge included shooting large animals, it also included shooting at human cadavers. The goal was to find a cartridge that would be effective against human opponents.
http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/history/background.htm