Home› Main Category› Personal Defense
N320AW
Senior MemberPosts: 648 Senior Member
38 Special: 125 or 158 Grain For SD?
N320AW
Senior MemberPosts: 648 Senior Member
Anyone have any opinions (?) Silly question around here!
How would you compare the following loads for SD in the 38 Special?
125 Grain lead @ 1000 FPS, or;
158 Grain lead @ 850 FPS?
Now, before someone elevates this question into outer-space . . . you know something akin to E=mc2 . . .I'm just trying to figure out which bullet/velocity/weight would get more attention from the recipient?
In fact, after said recipient receives such, which bullet would render the subject LESS ATTENTIVE to his surroundings?
How would you compare the following loads for SD in the 38 Special?
125 Grain lead @ 1000 FPS, or;
158 Grain lead @ 850 FPS?
Now, before someone elevates this question into outer-space . . . you know something akin to E=mc2 . . .I'm just trying to figure out which bullet/velocity/weight would get more attention from the recipient?
In fact, after said recipient receives such, which bullet would render the subject LESS ATTENTIVE to his surroundings?
Replies
Winston Churchill
Finding duty-style +P ammo is much easier in the 125-grain realm, although there are several 158-grain loads that are perfectly sufficient. I wouldn't feel better or worse-equipped with either ***Waffle mode off***
Winston Churchill
And just to be contrary, many of today's loads in .38 Spl are specifically tailored to get listed velocities from the short barrels...
:cool:
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
+1
Luis
Dan
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
I find the 125 gr .38 spl do not have the accuracy I want, somewhere center mass yes; POA on a practice tgt ---no.
I get more satisfying practice results with 130 or heavier with 148 having been best for me.
You will have to try whatever you chose, so let that make your decision
if I had gotten better accuracy I would have no worries using 125's.
I often see 125 HP's on sale and wounder if it is the accuracy issue.
Well maybe. In my opinion the difference in recoil is a non-issue as neither one has much recoil.
In a SD situation (which, according to statistics) is going to be less than 10 feet, I doubt that any "follow-up shots" are particularly critical. In other words: Aim and shoot!
You never know. Feel comfortable and your reactions will be maximized for efficiency. How about two attackers? Or more. Be prepared for different scenarios.
This is my HD load as well, dispensed with a 6" Dan Wesson, so velocity and recoil are less of an issue for me. I keep six more in the speedloader ready to go.
You left out bullet configuration, afterall, it's the bullet that does the work. So what kind of lead bullets are we comparing? (HP, RNL,TC, SWC, SWCHP, FWC?)
If it's up to me to choose then I'd go for a 158 gr. wadcutter @ 850 fps and let that sucker tumble. :devil:
How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and [how] hard it is to undo that work again! -- Mark Twain
As many here know, I don't mind a little diverse opinion.
Yep, the 148 grain WC has the BC of a pancake. Also, given such, it's penetration is not condusive to deep oil drilling. I'm still a bit reserved about the WC bullets for SD.
A bit less frontal area and we may have a winner!
Oh. by the way. When I think of lead bullets, I always use Keith SWC's or truncated cone style.
I would like to see some penetration/expansion tests on them. Know of any?
BTW . . . what exactly was their purpose in the scheme of things?
These are some of the OLD S&W "Chief's Special" 125 SWCHPs, I bought loose a number of years ago. The expanded one was shot into wet newsprint @ ~800 fps
Penetration is usually influenced by SD or Sectional Density. BC is the Ballistic Coefficient, which determines how well the bullet cuts through the air and retains velocity. SD is determined as the weight in pounds divided by the diameter in inches, squared. It is irrespective of bullet profile.
Most hunting loads for modern hunting revolvers use a Wide Flat Nose profile, which have an almost wadcutter profile. They penetrate quite well, but they are generally made of a harder alloy and driven at higher pressures. Keith devised the wadcutter to get a heavier bullet (with a consequently higher sectional density) that would fit into a revolver without infringing too much on the powder capacity.
A 125 gr. .38 has an SD of 0.139
148: 0.165
158: 0.176
180: 0.201
200: 0.223
As you can see, the difference in SD between the 148 gr. wadcutter and the 158 gr. whatever differs by only 0.011. That's an increase of only 6.67%, while going form a 158 gr. slug to a 180 gr. is a 14.20% increase.
For what it's worth.
I'd be happy with anything in that weight range, not a big fan of anything lighter.
I beg to differ. You left out "everything else being equal." Yes, the SD is irrespective of bullet profile, however the penetration is NOT. Also, although the penetration is influenced by SD, that is not the sole criteria. Velocity plays a very important role where penetration is concerned.
For instance it could be correctly stated that a hollow-point bullet will expand faster than the same bullet impacting at a lower velocity. In fact, the higher velocity bullet may have less penetration than the slower one due to quicker expansion. However, if one were to take two FMJ bullets, one being a WC and the other a pointed type (even a RN) the WC bullet would exhibit less penetration everything else being equal.
Additionally, Keith did not advocate the WC bullet. His design was the SWC. He knew that this style of bullet, having a somewhat pointed nose (wide meplat) along with a wide front driving band would not only give this projectile superior penetration over a plain WC, but would also cut a square hole on impact lacerating more tissue.
His reason for designing such a bullet was for big game hunting, not self-defence.
That last part really sums up Keith, I don't know of too many stories of Keith and his mighty 38 Special loads. :jester:
On the other hand, I think he'd be happy to use these in his poodle shooter.
http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=291
158 gr. Hard Cast Keith @ 1,250 fps
(1027 fps -- S&W Mod 642 (pre dash), 1 & 7/8 inch barrel, 38 SPL)
Might not "feel" really good in a light weight snubby though.
Should work as a self-defense load.
Disclaimer:
All other things being equal
:roll2:
How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and [how] hard it is to undo that work again! -- Mark Twain
On the other hand, I think he'd be happy to use these in his poodle shooter."
I thought "poodle shooter" was what Col. Cooper called the mighty M-16 ?
And all things considered, size, weight, cost of the gun and specialty ammo,
Why a snubby revolver and not lets say a Glock 19 ?
Performance and overall cost of ammo, and total amount of rounds carried, ease of re-loads etc..... seems a better more practical choice.
Seems to be a point of diminishing returns to ramp up the performance of a snubby .38 special that may make it hard to handle and still retains is other features such as slower re-loads etc....
When something more practical is available.
What makes you think we don't already have 45's?