The BBTI numbers using real world weapons (scroll down from the first table) differ a bit from the cut-down T/C numbers.
Also, there's this:
pax
Also, there's this:
BBTI website said:
pax
...a .38 special. "Don´t be a fool..."
- Thread starter Tarcante
- Start date
- Status
Mike Irwin
Staff
You're 150 to 200 fps. low on the .38 Special's velocities for some loads, high for others.
You can find test events on the net showing that modern ammunition pushes well over 800 fps. (here's one of many: http://www.snubnose.info/docs/38-snub_vs_357-snub.htm)
Note that it also includes .357 Mag. velocities for comparison.
You can find others that show even lower velocities (especially for heavier bullets), such as here: http://www.yankeegunnuts.com/2012/07/30/38-special-ballistics-snubnose/
But, I'm going to offer this up for thought and discussion.
A bullet's velocity is, today, of less importance than ever before.
Why?
Because of modern high-performance bullets.
At handgun velocities, tissue damaged is going to be a factor of bullet expansion and penetration. You simply can't drive a handgun bullet fast enough to cause peripheral tissue damage.
Modern bullets, such as the Speer 135-gr. Gold Dot, have been designed and tested specifically to expand AND penetrate at velocities seen in a snub nosed revolver.
If you have a round that's a proven penetrator and which will expand to .45 to .50 just about every time, and it's only going 600 feet per second, what's the problem?
To that end, I say that choosing the .357 Magnum chambering is overkill and of little to no benefit.
You get harder recoil, you get increased muzzle blast, but do you get increased wounding?
Not if both bullets expand to the same diameter and penetrate to the same depth.
I know what my chosen Speer loads will do out of my S&W 042. I know they will penetrate well and expand.
And it's why I choose that gun as my primary carry piece.
You can find test events on the net showing that modern ammunition pushes well over 800 fps. (here's one of many: http://www.snubnose.info/docs/38-snub_vs_357-snub.htm)
Note that it also includes .357 Mag. velocities for comparison.
You can find others that show even lower velocities (especially for heavier bullets), such as here: http://www.yankeegunnuts.com/2012/07/30/38-special-ballistics-snubnose/
But, I'm going to offer this up for thought and discussion.
A bullet's velocity is, today, of less importance than ever before.
Why?
Because of modern high-performance bullets.
At handgun velocities, tissue damaged is going to be a factor of bullet expansion and penetration. You simply can't drive a handgun bullet fast enough to cause peripheral tissue damage.
Modern bullets, such as the Speer 135-gr. Gold Dot, have been designed and tested specifically to expand AND penetrate at velocities seen in a snub nosed revolver.
If you have a round that's a proven penetrator and which will expand to .45 to .50 just about every time, and it's only going 600 feet per second, what's the problem?
To that end, I say that choosing the .357 Magnum chambering is overkill and of little to no benefit.
You get harder recoil, you get increased muzzle blast, but do you get increased wounding?
Not if both bullets expand to the same diameter and penetrate to the same depth.
I know what my chosen Speer loads will do out of my S&W 042. I know they will penetrate well and expand.
And it's why I choose that gun as my primary carry piece.
It pays to do some research. This is the result of a quick search.
http://www.shootingillustrated.com/index.php/848/snubby-ballistics/
http://www.yankeegunnuts.com/2012/07/30/38-special-ballistics-snubnose/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvTF8Pwj7Q4
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=281907
http://www.gunsandammo.com/reviews/hard-hitting-handful-the-357-magnum-review/
http://www.shootingillustrated.com/index.php/848/snubby-ballistics/
http://www.yankeegunnuts.com/2012/07/30/38-special-ballistics-snubnose/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvTF8Pwj7Q4
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=281907
http://www.gunsandammo.com/reviews/hard-hitting-handful-the-357-magnum-review/
Mike Irwin
Staff
Yep, I'm familiar with most of that.
I'm also seeing this from your first link:
"Although snubbies are easier to carry, one pays a price in terms of reduced velocity. This makes ammunition selection even more important. You have to pick a high-quality, versatile load that will consistently perform well in short barrels."
Funny, I think that's what I said...
Raw velocity simply isn't important to the average concealed carrier. It's a figure they don't need to concentrate on.
They need to concentrate on bullet expansion and penetration.
If they're concentrating only on velocity, they really don't know what they're getting at all.
I'm also seeing this from your first link:
"Although snubbies are easier to carry, one pays a price in terms of reduced velocity. This makes ammunition selection even more important. You have to pick a high-quality, versatile load that will consistently perform well in short barrels."
Funny, I think that's what I said...
Raw velocity simply isn't important to the average concealed carrier. It's a figure they don't need to concentrate on.
They need to concentrate on bullet expansion and penetration.
If they're concentrating only on velocity, they really don't know what they're getting at all.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Just found this statement, as well, about the Speer load I'm talking about:
"...but Speer’s recently introduced 135-grain Gold Dot was a model for success in modern ammunition. Clearly, this load was specifically engineered for a proper balance between penetration and expansion. Even though velocity was only 885 feet per second from the two-inch barrel, it went some 44 inches in water and expanded perfectly to .53 inch. That’s approximately the same as 13 inches in gelatin or tissue."
"...but Speer’s recently introduced 135-grain Gold Dot was a model for success in modern ammunition. Clearly, this load was specifically engineered for a proper balance between penetration and expansion. Even though velocity was only 885 feet per second from the two-inch barrel, it went some 44 inches in water and expanded perfectly to .53 inch. That’s approximately the same as 13 inches in gelatin or tissue."
Mike Irwin
Staff
Oh, and your Yankee Gun Nuts link?
Go back to my first message talking about velocity...
I linked it first.
Go back to my first message talking about velocity...
I linked it first.
LOL, ya I saw that after I posted. Was posting between honey doo's....
We all post based on our perspective. I do not feel I am an "average" CCW'r. After 35 years of LE/Military and competitive shooting my perspective is different from the first time carrier.
Having seen living people shot on many occasions, seen the autopsies and spoke with officers involved and or investigators I think i have a pretty good grasp of what works and what does not.
The 38 snubby has always been a marginal defensive weapon and always will be. No magic bullet can change that.
Dave Chuppa
New member
If the 38 special is not good for defense, why would the NYPD have Speer develop a round for them. They wanted a round for their Officers that carry 38s. Last I herd they were happy with the Speer Gold Dot 38+P and it's performance. Other P.D.s were quite impressed also and have approved it for Officer carry. Good enough for me. That man is entiteald to his opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mike Irwin
Staff
"The 38 snubby has always been a marginal defensive weapon and always will be. No magic bullet can change that."
We're not talking magic bullets.
We're talking advances in design.
It wasn't that long ago that just about any bullet out of any handgun was a very iffy proposition for proper expansion.
The old design paradigm was as simple as draw a jacket, fill it with lead, punch a cavity in the nose, and there's your hollow point.
FBI testing after the Miami fiasco showed that virtually none of the hollow points then available could truly be relied upon to both penetrate and expand.
Many then on the market were really no better than solids with a higher price tag.
That's changed. We now have bullets that are designed to both penetrate AND expand, and which are designed to do that within the specific velocity range in the type and barrel length of gun in which they're fired.
So, then, if you're calling a .38 Special bullet that is designed to meet those performance criteria, and actually does it based on both performance testing AND real world application a "magic bullet," you also have to call the 9mm bullet and the .357 Mag. bullet designed using the same philosophy Magic Bullets.
And that means that your argument falls apart.
We're not talking magic bullets.
We're talking advances in design.
It wasn't that long ago that just about any bullet out of any handgun was a very iffy proposition for proper expansion.
The old design paradigm was as simple as draw a jacket, fill it with lead, punch a cavity in the nose, and there's your hollow point.
FBI testing after the Miami fiasco showed that virtually none of the hollow points then available could truly be relied upon to both penetrate and expand.
Many then on the market were really no better than solids with a higher price tag.
That's changed. We now have bullets that are designed to both penetrate AND expand, and which are designed to do that within the specific velocity range in the type and barrel length of gun in which they're fired.
So, then, if you're calling a .38 Special bullet that is designed to meet those performance criteria, and actually does it based on both performance testing AND real world application a "magic bullet," you also have to call the 9mm bullet and the .357 Mag. bullet designed using the same philosophy Magic Bullets.
And that means that your argument falls apart.
Dave Chuppa
New member
I'm not calling anything magic. I say if it works on the street for the Police, it's good enough for me.
Mike Irwin
Staff
I was referencing Nanuk's post, Dave.
Mike,
I am not arguing, just stating facts. I am not saying that there have not been advances in technology, just that there is only so much you can ask of the 38 special. Penetration and expansion are generally mutually exclusive, more energy generally allows for more expansion and deeper penetration.
I have not seen many bullets fired into felons that resembled bullets fired into gelatin. You really need to look beyond the numbers, how effective are these bullets in real fights? I am not talking lethality, the flu is lethal. How many of the modern 38 special bullets are actually more effective fight stoppers than the old technology HP's?
I understand that the 38 is popular but that does not make it effective. In the shootings I saw the 380 ACP was just as effective as the 38 special on real people.
I am not arguing, just stating facts. I am not saying that there have not been advances in technology, just that there is only so much you can ask of the 38 special. Penetration and expansion are generally mutually exclusive, more energy generally allows for more expansion and deeper penetration.
I have not seen many bullets fired into felons that resembled bullets fired into gelatin. You really need to look beyond the numbers, how effective are these bullets in real fights? I am not talking lethality, the flu is lethal. How many of the modern 38 special bullets are actually more effective fight stoppers than the old technology HP's?
I understand that the 38 is popular but that does not make it effective. In the shootings I saw the 380 ACP was just as effective as the 38 special on real people.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Actually, you're not, Nanuk. You're stating opinion based on observations that may or may not be relevant to the discussion.
You say you've seen the after effects of many shootings (as have quite a few of us, actually).
You don't say over what time frame. You don't give any information on how many of those are directly relevant to the discussion at hand. You don't indicate what types of bullets were used in those shootings. You don't give any information on bullet performance in target (expansion, penetration, etc). You don't give any information on what developmental generation these bullets were.
"Penetration and expansion are generally mutually exclusive, more energy generally allows for more expansion and deeper penetration."
As I've continually explained, that is outdated thinking and has been proven to be outdated by rigorous manufacturer and third-party testing AND actual bullet performance in shootings. No longer are you limited to one or the other, you CAN have both.
"You really need to look beyond the numbers, how effective are these bullets in real fights?"
As I've also indicated a number of times, while the data samples are still small, new-generation bullets are performing in actual shootings. They are concurrently providing reliable expansion AND deep penetration in actual shootings that largely mirror what is seen in laboratory testing.
This has been an ongoing development since Winchester first designed the Black Talon in the early 1990s as the first bullets whose designs were matched to the velocity ranges for the cartridges in which they would be used. It's a trend that has continued through to this day.
I'll say it again, and simply.
Laboratory testing AND actual shootings are showing that the new designs are capable of both expansion and penetration.
Your thinking is apparently stuck in the 1960s when hollowpoint bullets generally didn't expand, penetration and expansion were often mutually exclusive, and 158-gr. LRN bullets were the standard by which .38 Special was judged.
We're no longer stuck there.
You say you've seen the after effects of many shootings (as have quite a few of us, actually).
You don't say over what time frame. You don't give any information on how many of those are directly relevant to the discussion at hand. You don't indicate what types of bullets were used in those shootings. You don't give any information on bullet performance in target (expansion, penetration, etc). You don't give any information on what developmental generation these bullets were.
"Penetration and expansion are generally mutually exclusive, more energy generally allows for more expansion and deeper penetration."
As I've continually explained, that is outdated thinking and has been proven to be outdated by rigorous manufacturer and third-party testing AND actual bullet performance in shootings. No longer are you limited to one or the other, you CAN have both.
"You really need to look beyond the numbers, how effective are these bullets in real fights?"
As I've also indicated a number of times, while the data samples are still small, new-generation bullets are performing in actual shootings. They are concurrently providing reliable expansion AND deep penetration in actual shootings that largely mirror what is seen in laboratory testing.
This has been an ongoing development since Winchester first designed the Black Talon in the early 1990s as the first bullets whose designs were matched to the velocity ranges for the cartridges in which they would be used. It's a trend that has continued through to this day.
I'll say it again, and simply.
Laboratory testing AND actual shootings are showing that the new designs are capable of both expansion and penetration.
Your thinking is apparently stuck in the 1960s when hollowpoint bullets generally didn't expand, penetration and expansion were often mutually exclusive, and 158-gr. LRN bullets were the standard by which .38 Special was judged.
We're no longer stuck there.
Most of us are not law enforcement officers charged with going out, finding, and confronting and capturing bad guys. Most of us carry to protect ourselves. Our requirement for carry guns is different. For civilians who carry, I simply look at everything as mathmatical odds.
The odds that you will be killed by a criminal are pretty slim.
If you carry, the odds that you will ever need to draw your weapon are pretty slim.
The odds that you will need to fire it to halt an attack are slimmer.
The odds that one shot will not halt an attack even if you don't hit your target are slimmer.
If you hit your attacker, the odds that halting the attack is dependant on the round's power or bullet design is extremely unlikely.
The odds that 5 rounds won't be enough, and that you would need to reload are astronomically low.
The NRA has compiled statistics as to how many more times guns are used for self defense, and end attacks without ever being fired. When you draw your weapon, you should be prepared to shoot to kill, but your objective is to thwart an attack as effectively as possible. You are not deer hunting, where the objective is drop the animal as quickly as possible so you can recover it before it runs off. If an attacker runs off and dies 5 miles away, your defense was just as succesful as if he dies in front of you, or is arrested getting medical treatment.
I carry a .38 snubby with some hot loaded, but manageable +P 148gr cast wadcutters, and am confident that in the unlikely event I should ever be required to put them to use, that the 5 of them in my gun will be sufficient to protect me. If I were a LEO, with increased odds of necessity, I might consider alternatives.
The odds that you will be killed by a criminal are pretty slim.
If you carry, the odds that you will ever need to draw your weapon are pretty slim.
The odds that you will need to fire it to halt an attack are slimmer.
The odds that one shot will not halt an attack even if you don't hit your target are slimmer.
If you hit your attacker, the odds that halting the attack is dependant on the round's power or bullet design is extremely unlikely.
The odds that 5 rounds won't be enough, and that you would need to reload are astronomically low.
The NRA has compiled statistics as to how many more times guns are used for self defense, and end attacks without ever being fired. When you draw your weapon, you should be prepared to shoot to kill, but your objective is to thwart an attack as effectively as possible. You are not deer hunting, where the objective is drop the animal as quickly as possible so you can recover it before it runs off. If an attacker runs off and dies 5 miles away, your defense was just as succesful as if he dies in front of you, or is arrested getting medical treatment.
I carry a .38 snubby with some hot loaded, but manageable +P 148gr cast wadcutters, and am confident that in the unlikely event I should ever be required to put them to use, that the 5 of them in my gun will be sufficient to protect me. If I were a LEO, with increased odds of necessity, I might consider alternatives.
Madcap_Magician
New member
Mike Irwin said:
This. Velocity and bullet weight aren't the point. What matters is the expansion and penetration depth of the bullet, not how it got there (whether by velocity or bullet weight).
buck460XVR
New member
In the same tone, in the case of the OP, some folks should shoot more and TALK less. Far too many folks assume what is right for them is correct for everyone else. What ever the reasons they have for justification of their choice they seem to want to impose on others. Don't make it Gospel.
Mike, no I am not stuck in the 1960's I was a kid then. As you know some of the earliest HP's were made by Lee Juras in the 1970's. My experience spans from the late 70's to today. You seem to want to tear everything I say to shreads if it does not mesh with you ideas.
My opinions are based on experience over decades on the street. I did not catalog every shooting in a log book. I was a cop not a scientist, that is where experience is valuable. My experience says the 38 special is marginal at best and the minimum one should carry for self defense and it is an opinion shared by many knowledgeable people such as Evan Marshall, Greg Ellifriitz, Massad Ayoub.
I am done here. It seems you are not willing to accept an opinion different from yours.
My opinions are based on experience over decades on the street. I did not catalog every shooting in a log book. I was a cop not a scientist, that is where experience is valuable. My experience says the 38 special is marginal at best and the minimum one should carry for self defense and it is an opinion shared by many knowledgeable people such as Evan Marshall, Greg Ellifriitz, Massad Ayoub.
I am done here. It seems you are not willing to accept an opinion different from yours.
I don't know why but THE PROJECTILE just never gets considered. How does a military full metal jacket 9mm at point blank range compare to a lead, wad cutter loaded backwards in a 38 special? Which does more damage on soft tissue? If both rounds are fired into the head of a perp which is more lethal?
Interesting thread, some good points brought up. Some experienced people have given us some good observations and explanations...BUT..(for the last couple pages anyway) everyone has been dancing around the elephant in the room.
It is shot placement that is the most important thing, NOT expansion, NOT velocity.
Velocity is good. It is the driving force. But talking handguns, the velocity we need is what it takes to get the bullet where it needs to go, under any reasonable circumstances (and hopefully the unreasonable ones as well).
Beyond that, it becomes a matter of discussion. Some believe that a bullet that completely penetrates is a good thing, others do not. They see "overpenetration" as wasted energy, and endangering bystanders. I see it as a separate argument, and not germane to this one.
Expansion is nice. When it happens, it is a useful thing, adding to the bullets potential. But it is NOT an absolutely necessary thing. We focus a lot on hollowpoints, because in truth, when they work, they work better than a non expanding bullet in the same situation. But this tends to give the impression that non-expanding bullets don't work, which is absolute rubbish.
If the .38 Special, in any of its loadings didn't work, it wouldn't still be with us as a commercial round 112 years later. If at least some loadings didn't work acceptably well, it wouldn't have been the most popular handgun cartridge in the US for over 80 of those years.
Back in the era when the 9mm was only available with FMJ bullets the general opinion (expressed by numerous writers at the time) was that the .38 Special, with its lead bullet was superior to the 9mm Luger for stopping ability.
At that time, with the guns and ammo of the day, I don't see that they were wrong.
Today, with the advances in bullet technology and other factors, the 9mm Luger is considered superior, and the .38 is old, obsolete, and ineffective (in comparison). Not everyone shares this opinion, but it seems widely held, based on what people write, particularly online.
Are there things that statistically perform better than the .38 SPecial? Yes. Certainly. Is a man a fool for choosing a .38 when these "better" choices exist? I don't think so. Other people do.
Here is another point, one I haven't noticed being mentioned in this discussion yet, and it relates to shot placement. Not everyone can shoot all guns equally well. Sure, you might think they ought to be able to, or can learn with enough practice, and that is true for some, but not for all.
There are people who cannot shoot compact autoloaders well. but can do well with a revolver. And the reverse is also true. I have one friend who, for some reason known only to the gods and gremlins of shooting, cannot manage a decent group with any small S&W. Put a Colt snub in his hands, and he is deadly accurate. Can't say why, or how, but the results are an observed fact.
There are other people with the same kind of quirk, meaning that some guns are difficult / impossible for them to easily master, and others seem to be natural and easy for them to use.
It's a total package thing, not just the round used, not just the bullet's performance, not just the gun used, its all these things AND the person pulling the trigger, COMBINED.
It is shot placement that is the most important thing, NOT expansion, NOT velocity.
Velocity is good. It is the driving force. But talking handguns, the velocity we need is what it takes to get the bullet where it needs to go, under any reasonable circumstances (and hopefully the unreasonable ones as well).
Beyond that, it becomes a matter of discussion. Some believe that a bullet that completely penetrates is a good thing, others do not. They see "overpenetration" as wasted energy, and endangering bystanders. I see it as a separate argument, and not germane to this one.
Expansion is nice. When it happens, it is a useful thing, adding to the bullets potential. But it is NOT an absolutely necessary thing. We focus a lot on hollowpoints, because in truth, when they work, they work better than a non expanding bullet in the same situation. But this tends to give the impression that non-expanding bullets don't work, which is absolute rubbish.
If the .38 Special, in any of its loadings didn't work, it wouldn't still be with us as a commercial round 112 years later. If at least some loadings didn't work acceptably well, it wouldn't have been the most popular handgun cartridge in the US for over 80 of those years.
Back in the era when the 9mm was only available with FMJ bullets the general opinion (expressed by numerous writers at the time) was that the .38 Special, with its lead bullet was superior to the 9mm Luger for stopping ability.
At that time, with the guns and ammo of the day, I don't see that they were wrong.
Today, with the advances in bullet technology and other factors, the 9mm Luger is considered superior, and the .38 is old, obsolete, and ineffective (in comparison). Not everyone shares this opinion, but it seems widely held, based on what people write, particularly online.
Are there things that statistically perform better than the .38 SPecial? Yes. Certainly. Is a man a fool for choosing a .38 when these "better" choices exist? I don't think so. Other people do.
Here is another point, one I haven't noticed being mentioned in this discussion yet, and it relates to shot placement. Not everyone can shoot all guns equally well. Sure, you might think they ought to be able to, or can learn with enough practice, and that is true for some, but not for all.
There are people who cannot shoot compact autoloaders well. but can do well with a revolver. And the reverse is also true. I have one friend who, for some reason known only to the gods and gremlins of shooting, cannot manage a decent group with any small S&W. Put a Colt snub in his hands, and he is deadly accurate. Can't say why, or how, but the results are an observed fact.
There are other people with the same kind of quirk, meaning that some guns are difficult / impossible for them to easily master, and others seem to be natural and easy for them to use.
It's a total package thing, not just the round used, not just the bullet's performance, not just the gun used, its all these things AND the person pulling the trigger, COMBINED.
- Status