practical purpose for .38 spl guns gone....

[223 shooter]

Some folks are in fact looking for a 38 Special revolver.

Yes , don't know why that is so hard for some to comprehend. Last time I looked the Smith 642 38 Special was not lacking in sales. I appreciate the fact that is a 38 and I don't want it to be anything else.

[osbornk]

I had 2 old (60s and 70s) 38 specials that were both large and prior to +P ammo. I sold them and bought a 357 Magnum snubby to replace them. It was not because I wanted to shoot 357 but because I could shoot anything in it without worrying about it being strong enough to handle it. Some gun snobs will look down their nose at my Taurus 605 hammerless polished stainless older model (no longer made polished or without an external hammer) but it shoots well, is tight and less than half as much as a Smith. I decided to sell the old 38 specials after I unintentionally bought +P and caught it before I shot it.

[stinkeypete]

Reply to the bad science posted in Reply 75:

The experimental bias of the longer barrel for the .357 is simply inexcusable. Shoot .38 out of the 2 1/2 .357 magnum gun? What happened to the 1 7/8" barrel?

Someone did some actual science properly:
http://ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.htmlhttp://

You can see that going from 3" to 2" drops .357 velocity by 200-300 fps depending on the factory ammunition. (Powder speed, I speculate)

Okay.. now I have a bee in my bonnet and am going to do a regression to see what the velocity difference simply due to barrel length would be...

assumption... velocity= 665 + 533 ln(Length) (not a bad fit and I don't care to muck about as we are spitballing)

Simply due to barrel length alone the velocity of Corbon 125 g ammunition would be 1153 fps at 2.5" and 1,000 fps (huh, nice round number) at 1.875"

The .357 magnum loses 153 fps simply due to barrel length.

SO... if we take barrel length in to account, your youtube guy would have gained...

150 FPS for a massive increase in recoil. I buy that. Complete agreement.

When you reduce powder, the velocity lost per barrel-inch is less...
http://ballisticsbytheinch.com/38special.html#RW

So you kill your zombie deader than mine.. but he was already ...dead.

[HighValleyRanch]

Here's my chronograph results of testing the difference of Buffalobore 158 grain .38 +P out of a 1 7/8" LCR and a Ruger 3" LCR with the same ammo. Since it's exactly the same ammo, it sould give a sound example of velocity loss with high grade ammo out of short barrels.

Ruger 1 7/8 LCR yielded 1024, 1027
Ruger 3" LCRX yielded 1076, 1087

We are talking about 50 fps difference here! So not that much loss in 1 inch.
Now in the 4" Ruger secuirty six, we got 1177 fps with the same load, so 100 fps gain over the 3" and 1237, 1218 out of my brother's 6.5" blackhawk. Now that is screaming for some .38 special load! 530 ME ft. pounds for a .38 special.

[44 AMP]

People aren't buying that gun because its a .38, they are buying a S&W 10, 15, 14, etc., and it happens to be a .38 Spl.

That just doesn't make sense. The model number DEFINES the caliber in which it's chambered.

you missed my point. The people buying those older Smiths could buy any .38 spl, they're buying those S&Ws because they want those S&Ws

Simply due to barrel length alone the velocity of Corbon 125 g ammunition would be 1153 fps at 2.5" and 1,000 fps (huh, nice round number) at 1.875"

The .357 magnum loses 153 fps simply due to barrel length.

Did you chronograph those numbers, out of your gun(s)?? or just take someone's word for them?

Ruger 1 7/8 LCR yielded 1024, 1027
Ruger 3" LCRX yielded 1076, 1087

We are talking about 50 fps difference here! So not that much loss in 1 inch.

These were chronographed numbers, but it doesn't matter, really. Until you start talking velocity differences of over 100fps, you are within the normal range of different velocities from the same barrel length guns shooting the same ammo.

USUALLY the difference is small 50fps or less, but sometimes its not and I've see 100fps difference between different guns with the same barrel length,
so you cannot absolutely say X difference is due to different barrel length. It could just be due to a different barrel, period.

It's rare, but its not impossible for a 4" barrel to actually shoot a few fps faster with a certain load than an 8" one. You won't ever know, exactly what velocity YOU get with your gun and a given load unless you chronograph it. Other people's data will probably be close. The maker's data will probably be close. If its an exact match, its serendipity. But it could be 100fps different or possibly even more...Don't get hung up over a double handful of fps.

[HighValleyRanch]

^^^^^^^
I agree, and that's why it's important to chronograph your particular firearm because two 3" guns might give very different results. And you can't always go by the manufacturer's data.
But in most cases, I've found BB to be pretty darn close to what they got and what I got.
FWIW, I only use BB for my woods loads in various guns, i.e. .357, .38, 10mm

[74A95]

Originally Posted by stinkeypete

Reply to the bad science posted in Reply 75:

The experimental bias of the longer barrel for the .357 is simply inexcusable. Shoot .38 out of the 2 1/2 .357 magnum gun? What happened to the 1 7/8" barrel?

Okay.. now I have a bee in my bonnet and am going to do a regression to see what the velocity difference simply due to barrel length would be...

Simply due to barrel length alone the velocity of Corbon 125 g ammunition would be 1153 fps at 2.5" and 1,000 fps (huh, nice round number) at 1.875"

The .357 magnum loses 153 fps simply due to barrel length.

SO... if we take barrel length in to account, your youtube guy would have gained...

150 FPS for a massive increase in recoil. I buy that. Complete agreement.
[/url]

If you want speeds from the same gun, you could have looked at the other two resources I posted.

An even better source with lots of data is the Lucky Gunner site. https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/rev...llistics-test/

The 2" 357 has about 300+ fps lead over the 2" 38 Special with equivalent loads.

[74A95]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

"People aren't buying that gun because its a .38, they are buying a S&W 10, 15, 14, etc., and it happens to be a .38 Spl."

you missed my point. The people buying those older Smiths could buy any .38 spl, they're buying those S&Ws because they want those S&Ws

No, I didn't miss your point. You wrote "People aren't buying that gun because its a .38 . . . "

See where the confusion lies? It's not my confusion. I simply read what you wrote. It's not just semantics, it's a literal interpretation of what you wrote.

'Cause people are buying them because they are 38 Special.

[44 AMP]

Allow me to restate hopefully more precisely..

I don't believe the primary reason people are buying old S&W 10s 12s, 14, 15s etc is because they are .38 Specials. Sure, some probably are, but I think mostly its because those guns have features people want (and want more than other guns with different features). Yes, caliber is part of the package, but I don't think its the most important factor in this case.

People who could buy a .38 SPL Ruger for say $450 are buying old, out of production S&W .38s, and paying half again, (or more) the cost of the Ruger, to get them. They aren't paying that money because its a .38, they're paying it because its the .38 they want.

Back in the day, you could get a Mustang with a 351cu in engine. You could get a station wagon or a pickup truck with the same engine. The 351 was a good engine. People bought the Mustang because they wanted a Mustang, not because it had the same good engine several other models also had.

Sure, it was A factor, but it wasn't the overriding factor.

[USSR]

People who could buy a .38 SPL Ruger for say $450 are buying old, out of production S&W .38s, and paying half again, (or more) the cost of the Ruger, to get them. They aren't paying that money because its a .38, they're paying it because its the .38 they want.

Exactly why I bought my 2 pre-1980 S&W Model 14's. Oh, and the idea of a better built handgun APPRECIATING in value every year instead of DEPRECIATING in value appeals to me.

Don

[74A95]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Allow me to restate hopefully more precisely..

I don't believe the primary reason people are buying old S&W 10s 12s, 14, 15s etc is because they are .38 Specials. Sure, some probably are, but I think mostly its because those guns have features people want (and want more than other guns with different features). Yes, caliber is part of the package, but I don't think its the most important factor in this case.

People who could buy a .38 SPL Ruger for say $450 are buying old, out of production S&W .38s, and paying half again, (or more) the cost of the Ruger, to get them. They aren't paying that money because its a .38, they're paying it because its the .38 they want.

Even restated, it sounds the same. You seem to assume too much, that you know what's in other people's minds. That usually leads to errors.

And you don't speak for me (and, I suspect, lots of other people). I'm looking specifically for a 38 Special, and some of the models you've mentioned are among the list, as well as current production ones (all S&W). But, again, specifically 38 Special.

Those people who you say could buy a Ruger might not even be considering a Ruger, so your example probably isn't useful. Unless you want to convince them to buy something they don't want.

[JERRYS.]

I like the .38 special round, but why not just drop it in to a .357 gun and put it in your pocket so you are not limited to just that round? (unless you buy two different guns).

[stinkeypete]

The data from Ballistics By The Inch is much more reputable because:

They describe their methodology completely so anyone can repeat it.
They do a large number of trials and average their data
They provide all the raw data so you can crunch the numbers yourself

ON CLOSER READING, I found that they measure barrel length from the breech, while us revolver guys measure barrel length from the cylinder.

This complicated comparing data between guns because the cylinders are different lengths.

I’ve shot .357 extensively from 5.5 inch Blackhawk (add the cylinder length), 10” Contender (.357 Maximum... so the case was a tad longer, shouldn’t change much) and 20” .357 marlin carbine.

I just bought a 3” LCRX 2 hours ago. I am very pleased so far and I am sure pinecones and tin cans will tremble in fear, as that’s what I shoot in the woods. .38 special is fine.

[HighValleyRanch]

Hey, I'm glad you found one. One of my favorites!

[74A95]

The ballistics by the inch data is very good. That said, as you noted, they measure the barrel from the breach, and when dealing with revolver cartridges it does not reflect revolver barrel length. This is a real problem when looking at 'short' barrel data, and it would play hell with doing a regression analysis. The cylinder gap data should be used for revolver stuff - see below.

They describe their methods, but that's not special. The part that matters is just shooting over a chronograph, and that is easy.

They don't do a large number of trials. They use three shots for the bulk of their data. "Three shots are made of a given ammo. If we get consistent readings, then we swab the barrel once with a Boresnake of the appropriate size, and the next ammo in that caliber is tested. " http://ballisticsbytheinch.com/process.html

They use 10-shots for their cylinder gap test, but that is not the data they report on their general results page. http://ballisticsbytheinch.com/gaptests.html This data is best for comparing short barrel data for revolver rounds.

They don't provide the raw data, which would be the velocity of every shot. They report the averaged data, which is fine. Hardly anyone shows all their 'raw' data. It takes up too much room and is generally unnecessary. It can be summarized with the average, standard deviation and extreme spread. They don't say what their criteria is for "consistent readings". That's not a big deal except for folks who want to know their criteria in case they have odd criteria. It's probably not odd.

[44 AMP]

No, I didn't miss your point. You wrote "People aren't buying that gun because its a .38 . . . "

See where the confusion lies? It's not my confusion. I simply read what you wrote. It's not just semantics, it's a literal interpretation of what you wrote.

I believe it is your confusion. Yes, I did say People aren't ...but you are ignoring the fact that I began that statement with "I think"...meaning it was my opinion,. I don't claim to speak for you, or anyone else, just stating what I believe. And I don't believe it is necessary to begin every sentence with "I think", so that each sentence of a statement is resistant to being taken out of context.

I have my opinions, you are welcome to yours.

[azretired]

Originally Posted by JERRYS.

I like the .38 special round, but why not just drop it in to a .357 gun and put it in your pocket so you are not limited to just that round? (unless you buy two different guns).

Many of us just happen to like and appreciate the 38 for what it is; a very capable self defense and small game round. Produce a 357 Magnum 642 at the same price as a 38 special 642 and maybe it would sell. I have both a 4" 65 and a 4" 64 when I could just keep the 65 and get rid of the 64. Thank God I don't have to.

By the logic used by the OP we should all be driving big 4 door, 1 ton, 4x4 pickups! Because why limit yourself by driving a 2 door half ton.

[P Flados]

Just because they make small 357 guns does not mean all of them are built "like a 357 should be".

To make small light gun in 357 causes problems.

Very expensive materials and processes are generally required. Many makers cut corners on design (low margins for stresses) such that reliability and durability are compromised.

Some small 357s may be made "right" (will last a lifetime of full pop loads without wearing out) but they are either heavier and/or very very costly. My confidence in the durability of any small light 357 that is mid range for price would be very low.

By the way, my personal opinion is that no reputable maker should have ever made a 357 not durable enough to handle a lifetime of full pop loads. Since gun reliability can mean life and unreliability can mean death, it was a stupid unjustified choice in the first place.

Since many small revolver buyers do not feel under gunned with a 38 +P, why should they either pay for the extra cost for a good 357 or accept a gun that is "not right".

[stinkeypete]

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/rawdata.html

[74A95]

Originally Posted by stinkeypete

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/rawdata.html

Well I'll be darned. They do show their raw data. Awesome. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

[pete2]

I buy the V-8 because it sounds better than the 6. The 642 is a lot less expensive than the .357 version. Not to mention that the .38+P is all I can handle in a 13 oz. gun. Also, why buy a semi if you're only gonna haul your lawnmower?

[osbornk]

I think a lot of people buy the 38 is the same reason people buy a Ford, Chevy or other brand. They buy it because their Dad had one and maybe their Grandad.

[DashingDan]

I'm going with a Ruger 1771 and plan to shoot 38 and 357. It is exactly what I want.

[DaleA]

Ruger 1771---with the above recommendation and being a bit of a Ruger fan, I just had to look it up.

It's the stainless steel 7 round GP100 4.2 inch barrel and here's a youtube video of it. (Spoiler alert: they guy in the video likes it just fine.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW2PxQJ0SrA

[Bob Wright]

Bear in mind there are still target shooters who shoot the .38 Special. Shooting .38 Special ammunition in .357 Magnum, will in time cause a build-up of carbon and gunk in the chambers,to the point even .38 Special cartridges won't chamber properly. Its always the best policy to use ammunition for which the revolver is chambered.

Further, some range/matches will not allow .357 Magnum revolvers to be used in .38 only leagues/matches.


Bob Wright