.38sp +P vs. 9mm?

D

Do-Man

New member
Which caliber would be better for an ultra compact gun? I don't have experience with a .38 +P.

A local gun store has both the Kahr MK9 and the S&W 342 on sale this week. I'm leaning towards the 342 since:

- I have 3-nines already and don't have a single revolver. One 9mm is a compact (P228).
- The 342 has a titanium cylinder and is way light for carry.
- I don't have to mess with mags on the 342.
- I can keep the 342 loaded forever w/no worries.
- The 342 is probably cheaper, although it's listed as "too low to advertise".

doland
 
I would be wary of +P loads in most of the lightweight guns.

1) +P may be more than the gun can handle, over time. (Gun Tests magazine had some real problems with one of the S&W "light" guns using that type of ammo a few months back.) Of course, this may not be an issue, since your comments makes it sound as though you aren't going to shoot the gun much. If so, ignore my comment.

2) +P loads will probably be unpleasant to shoot. (Not as bad as .357 in a small gun, but bad nevertheless.)

3) You don't have to mess with mags with the revolver, but you don't have to mess with mags on the Kahr either: just load it. (If you don't think you'll have to reload a wheel gun in a shootout, why should you have to reload a pistol?)

4) Mag spring failure is not a big problem, so keeping a magazine loaded isn't much of an issue.

(Indeed, if you're not shooting that gun from time to time, your own ability to shoot it well may be a much bigger issue.)

5) the Kahr is probably heavier than the S&W, but is probably easier to conceal... if concealment is an issue.

Both should be equally reliable. The Kahr will probably be easier to shoot well, if they both have 3" barrels (or roughly that lenght.)
 
Just my $.02

Based on the ballistics of the rounds, most .38spl +P are actually weaker than standard-pressure 9mm, for example:

9mm 124gr Remington G.S. (NOT +P):
1125 feet per second, 347 foot-pounds KE

versus .38spl 125gr Remington G.S. +P:
975 feet per second, 263 foot-pounds KE

Even the hottest .38spl rounds (e.g. Cor-Bon's stuff) is only equal to standard 9mm, so objectively 9mm can be expected to perform better.

----------
CastleBravo
 
Walt Sherrill,

I agree with everything you say except for
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>4) Mag spring failure is not a big problem, so keeping a magazine loaded isn't much of an issue.[/quote]I had a P14-45 magazine fail on me after only a couple of months. Just before Thanksgiving, I loaded up the ten round magazine (the pre-ban 14 rounders didn't come in yet) with only 9 rounds so as not to fully compress the spring. With all of the craziness of the holidays and Christmas shopping, I didn't get to the gun until after the new year (I would estimate about 6-7 weeks had gone by). When I went to fire it, it just would not feed and I had a hell of a time trying to get the bullets out of it afterwards. The magazine was brand new and the first time that I used it was just before Thanksgiving and it functioned flawlessly at the time.

This has taught me that magazines CAN fail -- fortunately, it wasn't when I needed it. That said, I still prefer pistols over revolvers and, as a matter of fact, the MK9 is my everyday CCW. But the point is that people should not get caught in a false sence of security that "these are high quality magazines & springs and thet're not going to fail" because they can fail and we just have to be aware of that fact.


------------------
Share what you know, learn what you don't -- FUD.
 
Hello. The standard velocity 9mm is to the +P .38 as the +P .38 is to the standard .38 load. The +P 9mm is certainly the more powerful round. Having said all that, the little J-frame S&Ws in .38 Spec are sure hard to beat for daily carry. A fine standout among standard pressure .38 loads for the little airweights is Federal's 125 gr Nyclad HP. If Kahr brings out their P9 (polymer frame and lightweight), it might be the optimum answer to what you seek. Best.
 
I think the answer to your question would be whichever you can shoot more comfortably. Neither the 9mm or 38 special is exactly a powerhorse coming from a compact gun with or without +P loads. Shot placement is everything and the ability to make accurate repeat shots is of value also. I carry a S&W model 36 and I have shot it enough with and without +P's to be comfortable with it; however, if pistols and not revolvers are what your used to, I would probably go with the Kahr.

Alex Johnson
NRA, Life Member
 
I think the answer to your question would be whichever you can shoot more comfortably. Neither the 9mm or 38 special is exactly a powerhorse coming from a compact gun with or without +P loads. Shot placement is everything and the ability to make accurate repeat shots is of value also. I carry a S&W model 36 and I have shot it enough with and without +P's to be comfortable with it; however, if pistols and not revolvers are what your used to, I would probably go with the Kahr.

Alex Johnson
NRA, Life Member
 
For me, the j-frame .38 airweight is much easier to hide than any other weapon with adequate power. I carry my Glock 26 often but the 442 all the time. In the pocket, it's shape does not shout gun and in the waistband the grip hugs so close to the body that no amount of bending will cause it to portrude even under a light t-shirt. No matter what the primary weapon, I think every CCW holder should have a light j-frame. My .02 only. JLee
 
I have a taurus TI m85 UL, which fits well in the pocket, and doesn't print like a pistol does. I would not even attempt to carry a pistol in my pocket in public, except for the keltec p32. I think pistols need to be in a holster for effective concealment, and even then you must be careful.
 
9mm rounds may be faster, but the cavity of a 38 JHP is MUCH larger. I would bet that a 38 JHP would open more reliably than many auto rounds.

IMHO, J frame revolvers are still a great option for CCW.
 
Hi, FUD,

I'm a little puzzled by your magazine problem. If the spring went weak, you should have been able to just about shake the cartridges (not "bullets") out of the magazine, since there would be no spring tension to hold them. The failure may have been something else.

Jim
 
I tried the 342 a few weeks ago. All I can say is that it hurt to shoot the damn thing. Recoil was painful but manageable and I could control the weapon effectively. However, my hand didn't stop throbbing for an hour or so (doing a qualification course with my 229 at the end of the session probably didn't hurt). If you get this one, watch where you put the thumbs. The cylinder release gashed my shooting hand thumb on the first round. I apparently wasn't the first one to leave blood on it, according to the gun shop.

Another disturbing thing was that while watching my brother shoot Treasury loads in it (he only fired two as he's an optical surgeon who values his hands) I got hit with some lead shavings that were spit out through the cylinder gap. A little disconcerting.

That all said, I'm thinking of getting both a Kahr P9 and a 642 as a carry combo. Best of both worlds.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jim Keenan:
Hi, FUD,

I'm a little puzzled by your magazine problem. If the spring went weak, you should have been able to just about shake the cartridges (not "bullets") out of the magazine, since there would be no spring tension to hold them. The failure may have been something else.

Jim[/quote]Seven bullets came out the way you said. I had to use a pen to get the eighth bullet out and a screwdriver/knife to get the ninth bullet out. It wasn't that complicated as it took only a few minutes but the point being that I couldn't do it with my hands alone -- I needed some kind of tool (pen, knife, etc.). After applying preasure, the spring bounced back and it was once again able to feed properly. I'm not saying that the spring failed but that I experienced a failure in the whole spring/mag combo -- making me realize that even though I prefer pitols, revolvers are less prone to failure since two areas of failure are removed (extracting & feeding).

[This message has been edited by FUD (edited February 25, 2000).]
 
Thanks for the comments, guys. I've shot pistols more than revolvers, so the Kahr would get the nod there, but it's a bit pricey. Plus, I remember when it first came out and testing showed the Kahr a little less than reliable in G&A. Maybe that's changed. Guess my next step will be to go fondle them at the store.

Walt, whay do you mean you don't have to load magazines with the Kahr? It doesn't have mags?
 
Do-Man:
Here in Illinois, ccw is not legal, so I am planning to buy a S&W model 637 (I don't need titanium).

The 637 is a 2", 5-shot revolver, stainless, single/double action, 15 ounces. The 337 is the titanium version, 11 ounces.

The 642 is DAO, and the 342 is the titanium versin of the 642.

My local shop has a 337 priced right at $500, and a 637 at $350. Both are new.

Now, if you were to carry a gun everyday, then the extra $150 shelled out for losing 4 ounces may be worth it.

When I get my tax rebate, I'm trading in a Taurus 85CH (bad mistake to buy Taurus) and getting the Smith 637.

Blackie
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FUD:
I had a P14-45 magazine fail on me after only a couple of months. (Snip) This has taught me that magazines CAN fail -- fortunately, it wasn't when I needed it.
[/B][/quote]

I was responding to an implied problem that probably wasn't being addressed: that magazine springs take a "set" and tend not to work right over a long period of time, if kept loaded. I should've been more articulate in my response.

Your problem sounds like something different, particularly since it was a new magazine.

It did fail, and that's a legitimate point.

(I've had MANY magazine failures -- but that typically happens with a new magazine, which I promptly send back for a replacement. Especially with after-market brands.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top