.38 snubby ammo?

[pioneer461]

I received a S&W model 642 .38 spl. snubby from my son on Christmas, along with a box of Federal 110 gr. HydraShok ammo to feed it. I already have a supply of 147 grain +P HydraShok, and am interested in seeing comparisons between the two bullet weights fired from snubbys. I prefer heavier bullets, but am relatively new to snubbys. I've googled without success, so if anyone can point me in the right direction, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks

[Old_Painless]

How about this out of the way place.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot27.htm

Also, read this:

http://www.ar15.com/content/page.html?id=237

[Sidney]

Congrats Pioneer461 on your new S&W 642. Those are very nice little revolvers. Check out this webstite www.hipowersandhandguns.com There are several good articles in this site on premium ammo for .38 snubbies.

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/3...mmo%20Test.htm

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/3...on%20Tests.htm

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/C...ial%20Ammo.htm

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/S...at%20Snubs.htm

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/M...ame%20Work.htm

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Feedingthe38Snub.htm

There are plenty of other good articles on that site. Another good self-defensive ammo to try is the Magtech Gaurdian Gold. I 've bought & shot some of this and they make some pretty stout ammo (+P pressures). http://www.magtechammunition.com/sit...search=details

[pioneer461]

Sidney & O.P., thank you very much.

[pioneer461]

After doing my research, I decided on Speer Gold Dot, 135 gr. +P, Short Barrel ammo. I found some on line in .38 spl., and some at a local gun store in .357 mag., for my 2" magnum.

Thanks for your responses.

[Sidney]

That ought to work.

Here is another site that shows penetration, expansion and recovered weight of various calibers. Here is the test of .38 Special mmo.

http://stevespages.com/page8f38special.html

According to this test the Speer 135 gr Gold Dot fired out of a 2.5" snubnose penetrated 17" of water and expanded to .60" dia. Recovered weight was 133.5 gr.

[pioneer461]

Sidney,
Thanks for the info. That is one of the places I checked in my research.

The more I learn about Gold Dot, the more I like it. I've not been a big fan of .38 spl., but with many of the changes made to modern ammo, I'm becoming more comfortable with it. My primary carry gun is still a .45acp, but with summer coming on, I'll probably carry my snubby in a pocket when it gets hot.

[umloth]

Originally Posted by pioneer461

The more I learn about Gold Dot, the more I like it. I've not been a big fan of .38 spl., but with many of the changes made to modern ammo, I'm becoming more comfortable with it. My primary carry gun is still a .45acp, but with summer coming on, I'll probably carry my snubby in a pocket when it gets hot.

I've seen the tests done on our duty issue gold dots and been very happy with the results, of course that's in .40. As to the .38 spl, I ask out of curiousity but what did you carry as a detective? I personally really like the .38 and consider it a fine close in round plus an execellent trainer. May it serve you well.

[pioneer461]

Originally Posted by umloth

I've seen the tests done on our duty issue gold dots and been very happy with the results, of course that's in .40. As to the .38 spl, I ask out of curiousity but what did you carry as a detective? I personally really like the .38 and consider it a fine close in round plus an execellent trainer. May it serve you well.

Umloth,
For many years our officers could carry any firearm of our choice, as long as it met department standards. Major brand, no less than 9mm or .38, etc. Most carried 9mm, some .45 acp. and revolver carriers all used .357 magnum.

As a patrol officer I carried a S&W 1st generation model 59 for many years. In 1994, I traded in the old workhorse and bought a S&W model 4006, in .40 S&W as my duty gun.

Our firearms training program began urging officers to upgrade from 9mm, to .40 caliber duty guns. That began after the FBI released the findings of their investigation of the Miami FBI shootout and the introduction of the .40 S&W. In addition, there had been a number of officer involved shootings where the officer's 9mm rounds were making what should have been put-down hits, but the 9's were just not working. It was a trend we were seeing.

Round about that time I traded my off duty/backup gun, a Walther PPK, for a Glock mod. 27, the small frame .40. Because detectives were allowed to carry smaller frame firearms for concealabililty, the Glock became my primary pistol.

In 1997 or so, the department changed policy again. Using confiscated drug money, the department bought and issued Sig Sauers, making them required duty guns. They were great pistols, and I was issued a model 229, but because detectives are "special," I continued carrying the Glock until I retired, except for an occasional drug raid, or other dynamic entry mission. Then I got to suit up in my ninja suit. I qualified with everything I might carry, but I'm a shooter anyway, so it was not a problem and they provided the ammo.

In retirement I continued carrying the Glock until about 3 years ago. I was always aware of the Glock trigger and the lack of a positive safety. I was sitting in my car one fine spring day, and the weather was turning warm. I decided to get rid of my jacket which covered my otw holster and carry it in another manner. As I unholstered and began to put the pistol on the passenger seat, it slipped from my grip. Reflex kicked in and I grabbed for it and caught it before it hit the floor. I next realized that I was looking straight down the muzzle, with my thumb in the trigger guard, pressing the trigger.

That scared me! A couple more inch pounds of pressure on the trigger, and my wife and the PD would still be trying to figure out why I committed suicide in the car. That very day I dusted off my 4006 and carried that until I could find a more suitable carry gun. After so many years carrying the S&W double/single action semi-autos, in patrol I decided to return to that platform. I found and bought a S&W 457, .45acp. Very accurate, very reliable, 3.5" barrel, very concealable, with .45 caliber performance.

I had (have) a Springfield 1911, which I carry from time-to-time when the mood strikes me, but I fear that in a crisis situation, I may fumble the thumb safety. I've dry fired and drilled with it till I'm blue in the face , but when running tactical drills with the PD (I try to keep my edge) I sometimes fumble with it. Old age? I don't know, but I'm more comfortable with the S&W DA/SA system.

That's a long way around to answer your question. I carried a Glock 27.

My 457

[umloth]

Originally Posted by Old_Painless

How about this out of the way place.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot27.htm

Also, read this:

http://www.ar15.com/content/page.html?id=237

Boss, how about .45ACP and .357 in a shorty? I'd be particularly interested in seeing the .357's loaded specifically for snubbies.

[cskimber1911]

Originally Posted by umloth

... I'd be particularly interested in seeing the .357's loaded specifically for snubbies.

I have a Lady Smith .357 mag with a 3" barrel, the other day I did a bunch of ammo testing, I was shooting wet newspaper so I could catch my bullets. I have 200 gr. Cor Bon hard cast bullets for my snubby. I set up about 36"-40" of wet newspaper and the round had enough energy to penetrate all the newspaper and kick up dust about 30 yards downrange. If I get my hands on some more ammo I'll be sure to test it out.

[44HP]

Pioneer, thanks for giving folks the benefit of your experience, it is appreciated.

I was intrigued to read this bit...

I was always aware of the Glock trigger and the lack of a positive safety

Whilst this part of the forum isn't the place for a debate on this particular topic, I found myself (now unfortunately from an academic only point of view) wondering the very same thing. So I posted this...

http://www.theboxotruth.com/newforum...t=glock+safety

And was wondering if you had any thoughts..?

[pioneer461]

Originally Posted by 44HP

Whilst this part of the forum isn't the place for a debate on this particular topic, I found myself (now unfortunately from an academic only point of view) wondering the very same thing. So I posted this...

And was wondering if you had any thoughts..?

The argument that shooting a Glock is just like shooting a revolver may not be entirely accurate, unless you are shooting the revolver single action. The safety feature of modern double action revolvers is the long and relatively heavy trigger pull.

That's my experience and opinion, your mileage may vary.

[Pointblank]

I've tried just about all of them. I own several snubbies and some of them are older models. Hornady just came out with their Critical Defense line of ammuntion in .38 Special, 380acp and 9mm. I've tried the first two and they work great. The price is reasonable too. The best part is they offer .38 Special in both standard pressure and +P so if you own an older gun go with that.

[Absintheur]

Once again I have to suggest CorBon DPX. It is one of the few that will open up first time, last time, every time out of a short barrel. So much of this reliability is due to the bullet itself. DPX is all loaded using the Barnes X Bullet. This is a monolithic hollow point meaning it is completely made from a single metal, in this case a copper alloy. The cavity in this bullet is designed to expand only when it encounters a fluid medium. Hydrostatic pressure open it up but barriers will not. This is why DPX penetrates even a car door and still expands when most JHPs tend to expand passing through one layer of steel and then fail to penetrate the second. We tested this quite a bit using 2 layers of 16 gauge steel placed 4 inches apart. Corbon DPX also has a few other advantages. Low muzzle flash, very consistant velocities, very good accuracy to name a few.

I have been in on the testing of many brands of ammo and my Dad has participated even more. All out testing is done using calibrated ballistics gel prepared using FBI protocols and always with 4 layers of heavy denim to replicate clothing. Many JHPs will plug up especially at snub nose velocities but the CorBon is a consistent performer.

In short the Corbon DPX is a departure from the standard, all other JHPs on the market have a core encased in a jacket and this is old technology. DPX is the new technology and it works. There are no magic bullets, you still have to do your part and hit the target in the right place. Almost every major brand of self defense ammo will do a good job when this is done. So why do I only carry DPX? Because the edge it has over the rest of the market is enough that it could make the difference between winning or losing...as Bill Jordan said "there isn't a second place winner".

[mna]

Originally Posted by Absintheur

In short the Corbon DPX is a departure from the standard, all other JHPs on the market have a core encased in a jacket and this is old technology.

Actually, you could say that all JHPs "have a core encased in a jacket" by definition - the Barnes X bullet isn't a JHP because there is no Jacket in a single-alloy construction. (Oh, and Barnes isn't the only one to make such, but I only see the others in rifle calibers usually.)

[Absintheur]

I apologize for not being more technical in my wording describing the difference between the Barnes Triple Shock X bullet and more common lead/alloy cored JHPs. I was working on the assumption the most folks here understood how bullets are constructed and that my stating the Barne's bullet was a monolithic design would be sufficient. Also as there really isn't a common designation for a monolithic hollow point that people would recognize (a MHP?) I tend to call it a JHP rather than typing out monolithic hollow point...
...

[mna]

Originally Posted by Absintheur

I apologize for not being more technical in my wording describing the difference between the Barnes Triple Shock X bullet and more common lead/alloy cored JHPs. I was working on the assumption the most folks here understood how bullets are constructed and that my stating the Barne's bullet was a monolithic design would be sufficient. Also as there really isn't a common designation for a monolithic hollow point that people would recognize (a MHP?) I tend to call it a JHP rather than typing out monolithic hollow point...

Actually, this is a very real problem in real life, and we had legislators get involved in it a long while ago already too, so...

Oh, and I've also seen "CEX" as the bullet type designation for those in some catalogs. Not sure what that's been abbreviated from.