That's correct, Doug. But a lot of people forget the other half of the battle which is for YOU to keep from being shot regardless of what you use. COVER, COVER, COVER, COVER, AND MAKE YOURSELF A DIFFICULT TARGET TO HIT. Drawing you weapon on an assailant that already has his gun on you is likely going to go bad. Even if you see him "going for it" (which you should if you're being alert) then that gives you even more time to proceed to the following. Take cover, THEN draw your weapon. The bad guy then has two choices. He can flee, and you win! OR he can advance against an armed citizen who is behind solid cover with a fully loaded weapon, and to his knowledge the police may be on their way. A very pressing situation for any felon, because he knows he is a "sitting duck" and a walking sillouette target. The .38 has saved my life and it wasn't even a +P which in my opinion is a waste of time and an advertisement gimmic for a load that already works fine without added pressure. A person armed with a .32 ACP with a survival mindset will outperform someone with a .357 that can shoot good groups at the range.
Is the .38 enough stopping power
- Thread starter workin_ike
- Start date
Funny you should mention the .32 caliber
It's funny you should mention the .32. After I posted my last message on this subject I was thinking that a lot of people, even today, like using the little .32 snub nose 5 or 6 shot revolver. Even back in the 20s-70s a lot of people liked the snub nose detective special in .32 caliber or the police positive in .32 caliber. If the .38 special was such an insufficient weapon as some today claim then why in the world would people 70 years ago buy a .32 cal over a 9mm auto or even .38. Why would there even be a market for it? Answer: Because even the .32 has sufficent stopping power to kill a man.
For that matter, if police didn't like the .38 special so much as some claim, then why (if they didn't want all the bulk of the .357 either) didn't they simply go to the 9mm as many law enforcement officers have done now. The 9mm has been around almost as long as the .38 special. The Walther P38 or the Luger are two examples. Yet Austrian Glocks with their high capacity mags sell like hotcakes in America today. It seems that changing from the .38 special didn't really become a fad until all these high capacity clips came out in the 70s and 80s. Police, at least psychologically, "felt" out gunned with all the high capacity autos out there and began trading in their .38s and .357s for Berrettas and Glocks. (On the side I read a great article called In Praise of Revolvers in a recent issue of Guns & Ammo: 2005 Annual Handguns Magazine that debunks a lot of these notions that revolvers are outdated and inferior to automatics
I think a lot of these ideas, including the idea that the .38 is insufficient comes from watching movies and television shows like The Matrix, Terminator, and Death Wish with all these shootouts that have people firing 6000 shots per second from their automatic 
or a .357 or .44 mag throwing someone ten feet across the room with blood spurting out of their cloths (how would blood spurt out of cloth 
) as seen in Dirty Harry movies and the like. Hence the idea that emerges is that "if my gun can't do all that then it's won't be enough"
For a historical analogy of this, I will elaborate further. Lets go back to when the revolver first came out. I believe it was the Colt .31 caliber black powder 5 shot in 1836. Handling one now is the most awkward feeling in the world. You quickly realize just how much you take the trigger guard for granted and how much support you get from it. The gun was 5 shot, no trigger guard, took 1 minute at best to load, but it was the first pistol that fired more than one shot. And the place that created a market for it was the then country of the Republic of Texas. It turned the tide as the Texas Rangers (the only line of defense the Republic had....Jedi Knights of Texas if you will) defended the frontier settlements from hostile Commanche Indians mounted on horseback and mounted Lancers and Dragoons from the Mexican army. The rangers loved the .31 caliber (roughly equivalent to the modern.32 caliber) Rangers would win battles where they were outnumbered 10 to 1.
Now, lets fast forward a few years. In 1847 Colt came out with the .44 Walker Dragoon (The equivalent or even better than the modern .44 magnum). This gun was six shot and wieghed about 4.5 pounds. (My dad owns a replica of one....it's like wearing an fire hydrant in your holster...but as John Wayne playing Rooster Cogburn said of this gun "this'ul sure get the job done...that is if you can find a fence post to rest it on while you take aim") The rangers took to this gun too. Like the .357 was to automobiles in the 1930s the .44 Walker could penetrate and stop charging horses shooting them out from under riders. Also like the .357 of the 1930s, the gun was quite heavy and bulky for users to handle. Then Colt came out with something a little in between, the 1851 Navy .36 caliber (right about the equivalent in power and caliber of the .38 Special that is being discussed in this Thread). This gun was six shots and much lighter than the 44. and had less recoil yet had enough power to knock a man down sometimes even if winged on an arm or leg. These guns remained in high usage during the War Between the States by officers and men on both sides. While the .44 Colt or Remington Army (same caliber but less power than the older and heavier Walker Dragoon) was quite popular, the .36 Navy was still able to rival it on both sides. Indeed, the Texas Cavalry regiment known as Terry's Rangers whose men were armed to the teeth (4 pistols and a shotgun) carried a vastly higher percentage of .36 navys than .44 armys. It wasn't until the early 1870s that these guns became largely replaced by the .45 cartridge guns and even then many .36 Navys were converted to take cartridges.
The point is that the .38 special or the .32 is in no way insufficient today the same way that the .36 and .31 were not in their day even when competing with .44 and .45 revolvers. Granted there is a difference between the effect of a .45 or .357 hitting me and a .38 or .32 hitting me but BOTH WILL KILL. If a SUV hits me at 50 MPH and a Semi Truck hits me at 90 MPH I will be just as dead. Same principle with the .38
Also, like you mentioned, the kind of gun isn't as important as the man shooting it. A man with a 15 round Glock .40 caliber will die facing a man with a 6 round S&W .38 who knows how to shoot straight and fast and handle himself in a dangerous situation. All it takes is one or two shots, not a spray of 300 high pressure bullets (in fact you are more likely to miss doing that). Learn how to shoot. Anybody can rapidly jerk the trigger but it's not very effective. ( again see "In Praise of Revolver" in 2005 annual Handguns magazine from Guns and Ammo. It should still be on the magazine rack in your grocery or convenient store. you WON'T find it on Guns and Ammo website or www.handgunsmag.com as one reader has already notified me)
Doug
It's funny you should mention the .32. After I posted my last message on this subject I was thinking that a lot of people, even today, like using the little .32 snub nose 5 or 6 shot revolver. Even back in the 20s-70s a lot of people liked the snub nose detective special in .32 caliber or the police positive in .32 caliber. If the .38 special was such an insufficient weapon as some today claim then why in the world would people 70 years ago buy a .32 cal over a 9mm auto or even .38. Why would there even be a market for it? Answer: Because even the .32 has sufficent stopping power to kill a man.
For that matter, if police didn't like the .38 special so much as some claim, then why (if they didn't want all the bulk of the .357 either) didn't they simply go to the 9mm as many law enforcement officers have done now. The 9mm has been around almost as long as the .38 special. The Walther P38 or the Luger are two examples. Yet Austrian Glocks with their high capacity mags sell like hotcakes in America today. It seems that changing from the .38 special didn't really become a fad until all these high capacity clips came out in the 70s and 80s. Police, at least psychologically, "felt" out gunned with all the high capacity autos out there and began trading in their .38s and .357s for Berrettas and Glocks. (On the side I read a great article called In Praise of Revolvers in a recent issue of Guns & Ammo: 2005 Annual Handguns Magazine that debunks a lot of these notions that revolvers are outdated and inferior to automatics
I think a lot of these ideas, including the idea that the .38 is insufficient comes from watching movies and television shows like The Matrix, Terminator, and Death Wish with all these shootouts that have people firing 6000 shots per second from their automatic or a .357 or .44 mag throwing someone ten feet across the room with blood spurting out of their cloths (how would blood spurt out of cloth ) as seen in Dirty Harry movies and the like. Hence the idea that emerges is that "if my gun can't do all that then it's won't be enough"For a historical analogy of this, I will elaborate further. Lets go back to when the revolver first came out. I believe it was the Colt .31 caliber black powder 5 shot in 1836. Handling one now is the most awkward feeling in the world. You quickly realize just how much you take the trigger guard for granted and how much support you get from it. The gun was 5 shot, no trigger guard, took 1 minute at best to load, but it was the first pistol that fired more than one shot. And the place that created a market for it was the then country of the Republic of Texas. It turned the tide as the Texas Rangers (the only line of defense the Republic had....Jedi Knights of Texas if you will) defended the frontier settlements from hostile Commanche Indians mounted on horseback and mounted Lancers and Dragoons from the Mexican army. The rangers loved the .31 caliber (roughly equivalent to the modern.32 caliber) Rangers would win battles where they were outnumbered 10 to 1.
Now, lets fast forward a few years. In 1847 Colt came out with the .44 Walker Dragoon (The equivalent or even better than the modern .44 magnum). This gun was six shot and wieghed about 4.5 pounds. (My dad owns a replica of one....it's like wearing an fire hydrant in your holster...but as John Wayne playing Rooster Cogburn said of this gun "this'ul sure get the job done...that is if you can find a fence post to rest it on while you take aim") The rangers took to this gun too. Like the .357 was to automobiles in the 1930s the .44 Walker could penetrate and stop charging horses shooting them out from under riders. Also like the .357 of the 1930s, the gun was quite heavy and bulky for users to handle. Then Colt came out with something a little in between, the 1851 Navy .36 caliber (right about the equivalent in power and caliber of the .38 Special that is being discussed in this Thread). This gun was six shots and much lighter than the 44. and had less recoil yet had enough power to knock a man down sometimes even if winged on an arm or leg. These guns remained in high usage during the War Between the States by officers and men on both sides. While the .44 Colt or Remington Army (same caliber but less power than the older and heavier Walker Dragoon) was quite popular, the .36 Navy was still able to rival it on both sides. Indeed, the Texas Cavalry regiment known as Terry's Rangers whose men were armed to the teeth (4 pistols and a shotgun) carried a vastly higher percentage of .36 navys than .44 armys. It wasn't until the early 1870s that these guns became largely replaced by the .45 cartridge guns and even then many .36 Navys were converted to take cartridges.
The point is that the .38 special or the .32 is in no way insufficient today the same way that the .36 and .31 were not in their day even when competing with .44 and .45 revolvers. Granted there is a difference between the effect of a .45 or .357 hitting me and a .38 or .32 hitting me but BOTH WILL KILL. If a SUV hits me at 50 MPH and a Semi Truck hits me at 90 MPH I will be just as dead. Same principle with the .38
Also, like you mentioned, the kind of gun isn't as important as the man shooting it. A man with a 15 round Glock .40 caliber will die facing a man with a 6 round S&W .38 who knows how to shoot straight and fast and handle himself in a dangerous situation. All it takes is one or two shots, not a spray of 300 high pressure bullets (in fact you are more likely to miss doing that). Learn how to shoot. Anybody can rapidly jerk the trigger but it's not very effective. ( again see "In Praise of Revolver" in 2005 annual Handguns magazine from Guns and Ammo. It should still be on the magazine rack in your grocery or convenient store. you WON'T find it on Guns and Ammo website or www.handgunsmag.com as one reader has already notified me)
Doug
Last edited:
44mag@ucnsb.net
New member
Silly? I do believe that Elmer Keith found this out back in the 50's and designed his famous SWC bullet with that principle in mind. Handloaders know this bullet well and have been using it since it's inception. Funny that the Ammunition industry is supposedly only know learning the lessons that Elmer Keith learned and promoted 50 yrs ago. Also to point out a misconceived notion in the post, Elmer Keith and his fellow handloaders pushed for the replacement of the round nose bullet because of their issues with the terminal ballistics while hunting, not self defense. Elmer Keith and Bill Jordon a decade later pushed Keith's design to law enforcement as a superior design to the round nose bullets they were using. I do agree with the "one thing holds true" statement, Keith showed it's truth to us 50 yrs ago. It is often the way of our world, we only recognize the great achievements a person makes after they are dead.
.44mag
Matthew,
It is extremely important that people understand the difference between COVER and concealment. Simply put, cover is something that will stop or deflect bullets from reaching you. A phone pole, fire hydrant, automobile, dumpster, concrete wall, etc. Concealment simply hides you from view (to varying degrees) but is not effective at stopping penetration of rounds. If cover isn't available, concealment can give you a few moments edge -- like drawing your weapon and looking for cover!
Doug.38PR
I liked most of your post with a few quibbles.
Back in the '20s & such, a lot of police officers in less metro areas carried a Colt or S&W in .45 Colt caliber. Some still carried single actions in more rural areas! For police work, it was thought that the Semi-Auto Pistol was too unreliable as it could jam if it got dirty or your grip was off or your arm not rigid enough. And back then there were not the "speed clearing drills" we know and use today.
Lots of plain folk used a .32 Long Colt or .32 S&W Long cartridge for several reasons. First was that it was a light recoiling gun and six could be fired quickly when needed. Second, it was accurate enough to be a match round. Third was that the report is mild enough not to jar your teeth loose but the round was capable enough of ending a fight. And they knew then what we know today -- a BG suddenly confronted by an armed victim knows he'll get hurt so most of the BGs tended to flee.
(Plus, back then, most citizens would hang around to turn thugs in to the police and they were praised for helping keep the vermin off the streets!)
Also the move from revolvers to pistols in the 70's was often NOT a case of the police feeling "outgunned" so much as it was the increasing death toll of officers shot with their own duty weapons. The newer breed of semi-auto pistols such as the S&W M39/59 series could fire DA like a revolver but had several safeties built in -- the thumb safety and a magazine disconnect. In a struggle the officer could try to pop out his magazine and then if the perp got the weapon it was useless (and cop resorts to BUG and ends problem). Contenders for police guns were S&W, Colt (1911's), Browning HP & BDA and later H&K. LOTS of 9mm's were sold since it was ballistically much like the .38/.357 on paper and guns were readily available. But poor stopping incidents with FMJ and Remington 115gr JSP's were legend.
Black powder -- The ballistics of the typically loaded .36 caliber BP revolver resemble the modern .380 ACP JHP loads more than the .38 special. I can't recall if it was Buffalo Bill Cody or Pat Garrett who carried a pair or Remington .36's when making his reputation as a "shootist". The .36 revolver did pack a good punch with a round ball, which according to some medical journals at the time, "tended to travel a curved path once it struck flesh" and a surmise that it was the rifling spin that was responsible.
You're right that the .44 Walker Dragoon was THE definitive BP pistol. Properly loaded and maintained, the Walker's ballistics were truly impressive. Muzzle energies equivilant to or exceeding the .44 Magnum were not unheard of and it's striking power was famous. Recalling a little history I'd read one Texas Ranger had claimed that he'd downed a Mexican bandito through a 1/2" thick hickory door from 200 feet with his Walker. Several news scribes were dubious of the story (it's not wise to impune the honor of a Ranger). The Ranger set a plank on top of his chair inside the saloon and walked out the back door, closing it behind him. After he'd paced off about 200 feet he turned and fired. The Walker's ball chopped a hole in the door, whizzed past both the scribes and impacted the plank where a man's head would have been, flipping the plank neatly onto the floor. In walks the Ranger who resumed his seat, took a swallow of his beer and asked if the news scribes had "any more stupid questions?"
Gotta git to bed now.
Thanks for reading
It is extremely important that people understand the difference between COVER and concealment. Simply put, cover is something that will stop or deflect bullets from reaching you. A phone pole, fire hydrant, automobile, dumpster, concrete wall, etc. Concealment simply hides you from view (to varying degrees) but is not effective at stopping penetration of rounds. If cover isn't available, concealment can give you a few moments edge -- like drawing your weapon and looking for cover!
Doug.38PR
I liked most of your post with a few quibbles.
Back in the '20s & such, a lot of police officers in less metro areas carried a Colt or S&W in .45 Colt caliber. Some still carried single actions in more rural areas! For police work, it was thought that the Semi-Auto Pistol was too unreliable as it could jam if it got dirty or your grip was off or your arm not rigid enough. And back then there were not the "speed clearing drills" we know and use today.
Lots of plain folk used a .32 Long Colt or .32 S&W Long cartridge for several reasons. First was that it was a light recoiling gun and six could be fired quickly when needed. Second, it was accurate enough to be a match round. Third was that the report is mild enough not to jar your teeth loose but the round was capable enough of ending a fight. And they knew then what we know today -- a BG suddenly confronted by an armed victim knows he'll get hurt so most of the BGs tended to flee.
(Plus, back then, most citizens would hang around to turn thugs in to the police and they were praised for helping keep the vermin off the streets!)
Also the move from revolvers to pistols in the 70's was often NOT a case of the police feeling "outgunned" so much as it was the increasing death toll of officers shot with their own duty weapons. The newer breed of semi-auto pistols such as the S&W M39/59 series could fire DA like a revolver but had several safeties built in -- the thumb safety and a magazine disconnect. In a struggle the officer could try to pop out his magazine and then if the perp got the weapon it was useless (and cop resorts to BUG and ends problem). Contenders for police guns were S&W, Colt (1911's), Browning HP & BDA and later H&K. LOTS of 9mm's were sold since it was ballistically much like the .38/.357 on paper and guns were readily available. But poor stopping incidents with FMJ and Remington 115gr JSP's were legend.
Black powder -- The ballistics of the typically loaded .36 caliber BP revolver resemble the modern .380 ACP JHP loads more than the .38 special. I can't recall if it was Buffalo Bill Cody or Pat Garrett who carried a pair or Remington .36's when making his reputation as a "shootist". The .36 revolver did pack a good punch with a round ball, which according to some medical journals at the time, "tended to travel a curved path once it struck flesh" and a surmise that it was the rifling spin that was responsible.
You're right that the .44 Walker Dragoon was THE definitive BP pistol. Properly loaded and maintained, the Walker's ballistics were truly impressive. Muzzle energies equivilant to or exceeding the .44 Magnum were not unheard of and it's striking power was famous. Recalling a little history I'd read one Texas Ranger had claimed that he'd downed a Mexican bandito through a 1/2" thick hickory door from 200 feet with his Walker. Several news scribes were dubious of the story (it's not wise to impune the honor of a Ranger). The Ranger set a plank on top of his chair inside the saloon and walked out the back door, closing it behind him. After he'd paced off about 200 feet he turned and fired. The Walker's ball chopped a hole in the door, whizzed past both the scribes and impacted the plank where a man's head would have been, flipping the plank neatly onto the floor. In walks the Ranger who resumed his seat, took a swallow of his beer and asked if the news scribes had "any more stupid questions?"
Gotta git to bed now.
Thanks for reading
Doug,
Either you or I may be showing our age here. I recall when the Cleveland Police Dept. wanted to drop the .38 RNL in a model 10 Smith and Wesson in favor of a 9mm. semi auto. The process took the better part of 10 years. It came down to a letter writing campaign by ordinary citizens, on the side of the police, to overcome the objection that the 9mm was a "race round" - designed only to "kill black urban youths". It was far from a "simple" matter.
I don't doubt that statement but....
I don't doubt that some were worried about getting their gun snatched from their holster. But more often I have heard from several policemen and sheriff deputies and from articles (such as In Praise of Revolvers) and documentaries on the History Channel that police started wanting automatics for 2 primary reasons 1) they felt outgunned or lacked firepower when facing criminals with high capacity magazines or 2) felt it was faster to be able to snap a magazine into the gun than to reload a revolver. Granted this is true if you are loading one bullet at a time into the revolver, however speedloader's to me easily make up for that. Some say they have more trouble with speedloaders than magazines, but personally, for me practicing at the gun range, I can get to and load a revolver with a speedloader about as fast more or less as it takes to pull out and snap in a magazine on an automatic and pull the slide back. I guess it all depends on the man shooting and what he's comfortable with and practices enough at. But then, as far as needing to reload goes how many shots is one, including a policeman, likely to need in the average gunfight....between 2 and 6 not 50
Also, as you said many of the more rural law enforcement liked carrying .45 or the .41 caliber version of the Colt DA Official Police. Others still liked the .38 special such as this nice old .38 here from San Saba Texas http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/c1612.htm
But this raises the point again, if the .38 special was indeed so insufficient then why did so many police (both rural and urban) carry them over the .45 or .41 caliber. Why are there so many Police Positives, Model 10 Military & Police and Official Police revolvers in the .38 caliber out there?
Heck, I know guys I've worked with that carry .22 mag revolvers for protection
(a mosquito gun I call'um) with hollow point heads.
I don't doubt that some were worried about getting their gun snatched from their holster. But more often I have heard from several policemen and sheriff deputies and from articles (such as In Praise of Revolvers) and documentaries on the History Channel that police started wanting automatics for 2 primary reasons 1) they felt outgunned or lacked firepower when facing criminals with high capacity magazines or 2) felt it was faster to be able to snap a magazine into the gun than to reload a revolver. Granted this is true if you are loading one bullet at a time into the revolver, however speedloader's to me easily make up for that. Some say they have more trouble with speedloaders than magazines, but personally, for me practicing at the gun range, I can get to and load a revolver with a speedloader about as fast more or less as it takes to pull out and snap in a magazine on an automatic and pull the slide back. I guess it all depends on the man shooting and what he's comfortable with and practices enough at. But then, as far as needing to reload goes how many shots is one, including a policeman, likely to need in the average gunfight....between 2 and 6 not 50
Also, as you said many of the more rural law enforcement liked carrying .45 or the .41 caliber version of the Colt DA Official Police. Others still liked the .38 special such as this nice old .38 here from San Saba Texas http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/c1612.htm
But this raises the point again, if the .38 special was indeed so insufficient then why did so many police (both rural and urban) carry them over the .45 or .41 caliber. Why are there so many Police Positives, Model 10 Military & Police and Official Police revolvers in the .38 caliber out there?
Heck, I know guys I've worked with that carry .22 mag revolvers for protection
(a mosquito gun I call'um) with hollow point heads.Good point, BillCA. I had melted the concealment factor into the statement "make yourself a difficult target", which includes making distance quickly between yourself and your attacker. Use a zig-zag pattern. Chances your attacker won't be a good skeet shooter, especially if he has a handgun. No concealment won't likely stop bullets, but with enough distance you would usually find cover. One example when this option isn't available is a clerk at a store behind a counter. But I think alertness is a HUGE, probably the largest factor. Being suspicious of a place or person can give you time to look around and think of an option IF something were to happen. Creating different calibers, cartridges, bullet designs, etc. is a way for the industry to make money. If people, such as myself, had success with a plain-jane .38 SWC do really think someone would pay twice the price for a "premium" HP. I won't. I've only looked at one shooting with a .32 Long and it was a aorta hit, it worked. But then most everything else does when hit there. I favor the .32-20, though.
.38spcl can be adequate...if you do your job.
Many of the loads available do not exhibit enough expansion or penetration to inspire confidence...especially from a 2" barrel
The J-frames are better suited to BUG use IMHO, since their small size results in lower velocity and reduced accuracy.
In todays world, there are several 9mm autos that approach the size and weight of the snubby with more options for effective ammunition
Many of the loads available do not exhibit enough expansion or penetration to inspire confidence...especially from a 2" barrel
The J-frames are better suited to BUG use IMHO, since their small size results in lower velocity and reduced accuracy.
In todays world, there are several 9mm autos that approach the size and weight of the snubby with more options for effective ammunition
And recall as well that the .38 Special itself was the "magnumized" version of the incredibly common .38 S&W.
A couple rounds center mass at close range of almost any persuasion will typically and historically do the job.
One other thing to keep in mind about "lethality" of the new uber-ammo. We're still killing only about 1 in 4 of the people we shoot with handguns.
That to me says we're probably still hitting or not hitting at a consistent level and that the ammo is of less importance than accuracy.
(Yes, I realize it is incapacitation not lethality at issue but I'm reasonably confident there's a regular ratio involved there as well.)
A couple rounds center mass at close range of almost any persuasion will typically and historically do the job.
One other thing to keep in mind about "lethality" of the new uber-ammo. We're still killing only about 1 in 4 of the people we shoot with handguns.
That to me says we're probably still hitting or not hitting at a consistent level and that the ammo is of less importance than accuracy.
(Yes, I realize it is incapacitation not lethality at issue but I'm reasonably confident there's a regular ratio involved there as well.)
Well if you are done reading "War and Piece"..
In regards to the .38 Special.
It is a fine caliber. It has been effective for a hundred years, and will continue to be for another hundred. The knee-jerk reaction for us human males to go for the bigger/faster/better is well documented, and actually, the .38 special was a product of this originally.
What you need to consider is what works best for you, and what feels best for you. I am of the personal belief that it is of greater importance that one is comfortable with their weapon(s), than caliber selection, so long as the caliber is generally suitable for the task you require it for, which .38 is well suited for close range self defense.
I have a friend that is dreadfully fearful of .44 mags due to his father stoking his super blackhawk with some downright evil handloads. He can barely hit a target even with .44 specials in a redhawk. But I have watched him shoot quite well with a 1911.
I do not do all that well with magnum rifles, but am pretty good with my .30-30.
You require a back up weapon, get a snubby in either caliber, try out ammo, find something that performs best for you.
To me the question of "does the .38 have enough stopping power" is too broad and is kind of like asking "Is 1/2" rope strong enough to lynch with?" or "ford or chevy?" You are going to get answers from a million people, each with a different opinion, and what they are telling you is not neccessarily the truth, but what they feel most suits them.
In regards to the .38 Special.
It is a fine caliber. It has been effective for a hundred years, and will continue to be for another hundred. The knee-jerk reaction for us human males to go for the bigger/faster/better is well documented, and actually, the .38 special was a product of this originally.
What you need to consider is what works best for you, and what feels best for you. I am of the personal belief that it is of greater importance that one is comfortable with their weapon(s), than caliber selection, so long as the caliber is generally suitable for the task you require it for, which .38 is well suited for close range self defense.
I have a friend that is dreadfully fearful of .44 mags due to his father stoking his super blackhawk with some downright evil handloads. He can barely hit a target even with .44 specials in a redhawk. But I have watched him shoot quite well with a 1911.
I do not do all that well with magnum rifles, but am pretty good with my .30-30.
You require a back up weapon, get a snubby in either caliber, try out ammo, find something that performs best for you.
To me the question of "does the .38 have enough stopping power" is too broad and is kind of like asking "Is 1/2" rope strong enough to lynch with?" or "ford or chevy?" You are going to get answers from a million people, each with a different opinion, and what they are telling you is not neccessarily the truth, but what they feel most suits them.
It wasn't just worry, it was established fact. Living through the 70's as a young adult, a local police officer and friend was killed when jumped and his service revolver taken. A month or so later the neighboring city had one of it's officers killed when a domestic dispute turned ugly and the revolver was used against the officer. Remember too, that at this time there were numerous active "militant groups" (e.g. the Black Panthers) and a couple of incidents where cops were disarmed and their firearms used by the "militants". Cities tend to take a dim view of losing officers and the hunt was on for a better, safer duty gun. Some even explored the use of a magnetic ring worn by officers that would "unlock" their gun in their hands alone. In the end, most agencies opted for auto pistols with some kind of safety.
Autos didn't start to really gain in police circles until the later part of the 70's and into the 80's. We often saw officers with 8-round S&W M39's and a local city used the 13 shot M59. Some cities had a mixture of wheelguns and autos toted by officers at the same time. But the autos also brought along their own problems. The local M59 using agency had a suicidal man running amok with a samurai sword take 15 hits from the 9mm before falling. Two weeks later a pair of officers in a neighboring city engaged ex-felons armed with 1911's and put them down with 2 rounds each of .357 JHPs from 4" Model 19 duty guns.
I'll agree that it's easier to train someone to reload a pistol than a revolver. The "firepower" issue came into play, as I see it, because some of the aforementioned "militants" were buying and showing off for the press their AR15 rifles and surplus M1 carbines. Certainly the idea of pitting a six-shooter against a modern military style rifle is not good for one's digestion. And this was before every agency had created its own SWAT team.
Now days they want even more firepower and some agencies are putting AR's and Mini-14's in squad cars with .223 rounds. What they should have done (IMHO of course) is equip those cars with a semi-auto .308 (7.62) hunting rifle like a Browning and a 5 shot (up to 8 shot) magazine. For general purpose, the 12ga shotgun is still excellent for 98% of police uses. For those special engagements (i.e. Hollywood shoot outs) a trio of officers firing .308 NATO ammo from accurate rifles would (should) make for short work.
Rambled longer than I thought.
Thanks for reading,
CareBear said:
Not to be too picky, but the .38 special is actually a longer version of the .38 Long Colt cartridge. The .38 S&W was actually slightly larger in bullet & case diameters.
Amen, brother! It's the placement of the round and not necessarily the magic engineering of an ultra-stopper-whup-ass bullet that is important. While modern JHP and JSP ammo is much improved over older designs, if you can't put them into the right places they'll be ineffective.
The beauty of the .38 special is that one can find a wide variety of loads and bullet designs for almost any purpose. With this in mind, the .38 can be fired by most people with a modicum of training and practice well enough to use as a defensive arm.
In Re: .32 caliber cartridges
I've known some "older" folks who used to carry .32 revolvers for defense. When I asked Why, for heavens sake a .32? the answer was usually the same. The .32 was small, easy to carry and handle, recoil was mild but the bullet usually went where you aimed it with enough gee-whiz to make the other fellow hurt. If you needed a second shot (or more) the .32 could rattle them off quickly and didn't jump around like the .38.
(One octigenarian I know used to carry a .32 short revolver! He said he used it twice against "bums" in the late 30's to early 40's and he always shot at their feet. He figured you can't aim your gun or hurt him if y'all are hoppin' around like that!
)I had a .32 H&R Magnum snubbie (until it was stolen) that I really liked. It was a J-Frame size, packed a walop but little recoil. As a carry gun, it could be considered a "polite" carry gun. It also made one weigh the situation more carefully knowing you had a "lighter" gun.
A former partner had someone shoot him with a .32ACP one night. At 6'4" and 220lbs, it annoyed him mightily. He was able to thump the cr*p out of the perp with his flashlight (he was otherwise unarmed) with the .32 round firmly lodged in his right pectoral muscle. Didn't really even hurt until he popped out the bullet with his thumb.
Personally, I like the .32 S&W Long round for its docile behavior and while I wouldn't depend on it against a sudden, determined attacker it allows you to follow rule #1 of a gunfight -- have a gun. I like the .32 H&R Mag better and wouldn't feel bad about it as either a CCW or BUG.
Ramble mode off.
Thanks for reading,
I got the 22 snub nose thing.......it was funny
I think he meant it that way too....... It was good ice breaker and a little cold water flew up.....felt good here......... Don't take it wrong or get up tight...........I think it was funny
The point stands as it started......which is better........ WELL, THAT DEPENDS ON A ZILLION ISSUES......
I think he meant it that way too....... It was good ice breaker and a little cold water flew up.....felt good here......... Don't take it wrong or get up tight...........I think it was funny
The point stands as it started......which is better........ WELL, THAT DEPENDS ON A ZILLION ISSUES......
orionengnr
New member
I'm sorry, and if I am wrong...
I'm sure you will enlighten me...
But I think some of you are missing the point. Since when is this a sum-zero game? The fact that (shot placement equal) .357 is more effective than a .38 is a GIVEN . If you can shoot it well, it is an ADVANTAGE. Use it!
Likewise (even moreso!), hollowpoints. Given two .357 rounds, AND SHOT PLACEMENT EQUAL, the hollowpoint wins. Period.
Is there any good reason (and saving a few bucks per 50 rounds is not a good reason) that you would equip yourself with a less-effective (RNL or SWC) when your life is at stake?
Practice a lot with the cheap stuff. Shoot a bit of the good stuff (every time you are out--I shoot a cylinder or two or a magazine or two of "good stuff" near the beginning of the range sesion, and another at the end. Same principle regardless if it is a 9, a 40, 45 or 357).
Carry (or keep by your bedside) something that you shoot well, with the best ammo you can afford (and that feeds and functions reliably).
It's only my opinion, but it's your life...
I'm sure you will enlighten me...
But I think some of you are missing the point. Since when is this a sum-zero game? The fact that (shot placement equal) .357 is more effective than a .38 is a GIVEN . If you can shoot it well, it is an ADVANTAGE. Use it!
Likewise (even moreso!), hollowpoints. Given two .357 rounds, AND SHOT PLACEMENT EQUAL, the hollowpoint wins. Period.
Is there any good reason (and saving a few bucks per 50 rounds is not a good reason) that you would equip yourself with a less-effective (RNL or SWC) when your life is at stake?
Practice a lot with the cheap stuff. Shoot a bit of the good stuff (every time you are out--I shoot a cylinder or two or a magazine or two of "good stuff" near the beginning of the range sesion, and another at the end. Same principle regardless if it is a 9, a 40, 45 or 357).
Carry (or keep by your bedside) something that you shoot well, with the best ammo you can afford (and that feeds and functions reliably).
It's only my opinion, but it's your life...
orionengnr,
Really? Against a boar or bear, I might sign on with that theory, but when applied to thin-skinned bipeds?
Maybe it's because I'm getting old and crotchety, but I've come to the firm belief that, since a +P 158gr LSWC-HP will expand reliably and shoot purt' near through a man no matter what angle you hit him from, anything beyond that is just whistling past the graveyard, from a terminal ballistics standpoint.
Sincerely,
Tam
(Who tends to carry 230gr Golden Sabers, because she's fond of whistling. )
Really? Against a boar or bear, I might sign on with that theory, but when applied to thin-skinned bipeds?
Maybe it's because I'm getting old and crotchety, but I've come to the firm belief that, since a +P 158gr LSWC-HP will expand reliably and shoot purt' near through a man no matter what angle you hit him from, anything beyond that is just whistling past the graveyard, from a terminal ballistics standpoint.
Sincerely,
Tam
(Who tends to carry 230gr Golden Sabers, because she's fond of whistling.
)Here is some science (along with some opinion)
www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=000282;p=2#000028
www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=000282;p=2#000028
orionengnr said:
Now that you've stepped in it, the only way to wipe it off is to define "more effective".
I'll grant you that the .357, given the same bullet and same placement, will penetrate further than a .38 Special. However, .38 Special +P ammo used in modern guns will penetrate front to back on most Homo Sapiens (and the occasional Homo Habilus that shows up in Darwin awards). The extra gee-whiz of the .357 is much less significant than 30 years ago when both calibers were police guns.
It's what happens after said penetration occurs that matters. Given your subject is not under the influence of pharmacutical chemicals there probably won't be a noticeable difference in their reaction to a hit. Chemically inclined subjects are too variable to be reliable indicators.
Seems to be more opinion than science from what I read. Much like the discussions here except they're arguing 9mm vs. .38/.357.OBIWAN said:
Tamara, when you hit 40 and can tell tomorrow's weather with your knees, then you'll be getting old & crotchety. Well, crotchety mebbe, you'll never be "old"; women's ages are young, grown, mature and "a source of wisdom"...but never old!Tamara said:
I carry 230gr HydraShoks 'cuz I am old and crotchety!
Yeah, and I do ride a Gold Wing too.
FrankDrebin
Moderator
What does "defend him/her self" mean? Shooting the bad guy without being shot in return? Shooting the bad guy without being killed? Stopping a robbery without shooting the bad guy? Here are a couple where the robbed guy was shot, gun or no gun. Incidentally, check out how many times this guy fired. Was he just a bad shot? Would the average CCW carrier done any better with all the training and "bench racing" they do? These are only stories that come to mind off the top of my head, and only in this area....