silvermane_1
Member
Well they supposedly used a 45 ACP 1911 with blanks in that scene in Animal House where Bluto and D-Day give Pinto a 1911 to shoot Neidermeyer's horse in Dean Wormer's Office.
38 Super for dummies
- Thread starter bersaguy
- Start date
- Status
wanderinwalker
Member
Many thoughts here, where to start...
@Rock185, that's a cool old Colt Pocket Hammer. Very neat to see a picture of one that isn't in an archival or museum setting.
@bersaguy, you've mentioned not wanting to spend "Colt" level money, and I can assure you from first-hand experience Colts Super .38 Automatics do not come with a ramped, fully-supported barrel.
Having had a new production Colt Competition in .38 Super (it's in my avatar pic, though since sold off), I would NOT tread anywhere near 1500-fps with a 124/125gr bullet in a stock gun. Be happy with 1300-1350 fps. Basically I looked at my Super as capable of outrunning 9mm +P+ all day long, but it is short what a full-throttle .357 Magnum will do. (Yes, I've had a few of those too.
) The pressure signs in the Shooting Time article are like reading tea leaves. When somebody starts mentioning how one brand of brass starts to guppy, so he uses a different brand that guppies at higher charge weights, that's a good sign you've stepped out over the abyss.
I view the idea of the .38 Super matching the .357 Magnum the same way I look at the rabid 10mm fans claiming "equals a .41 Magnum!": cherry picked numbers in specific firearms with a dash of hyperbole. Just accept them for what they are and don't try to turn them into a Honda Civic with a wing and a loud exhaust (please!).
(Unrelated side note: the cash from selling the .38 Super ended up becoming a Colt 1903 Pocket Hammerless. I'm also feeling the need for a proper suit and fedora. )
@Rock185, that's a cool old Colt Pocket Hammer. Very neat to see a picture of one that isn't in an archival or museum setting.
@bersaguy, you've mentioned not wanting to spend "Colt" level money, and I can assure you from first-hand experience Colts Super .38 Automatics do not come with a ramped, fully-supported barrel.
Having had a new production Colt Competition in .38 Super (it's in my avatar pic, though since sold off), I would NOT tread anywhere near 1500-fps with a 124/125gr bullet in a stock gun. Be happy with 1300-1350 fps. Basically I looked at my Super as capable of outrunning 9mm +P+ all day long, but it is short what a full-throttle .357 Magnum will do. (Yes, I've had a few of those too.
) The pressure signs in the Shooting Time article are like reading tea leaves. When somebody starts mentioning how one brand of brass starts to guppy, so he uses a different brand that guppies at higher charge weights, that's a good sign you've stepped out over the abyss.I view the idea of the .38 Super matching the .357 Magnum the same way I look at the rabid 10mm fans claiming "equals a .41 Magnum!": cherry picked numbers in specific firearms with a dash of hyperbole. Just accept them for what they are and don't try to turn them into a Honda Civic with a wing and a loud exhaust (please!).
(Unrelated side note: the cash from selling the .38 Super ended up becoming a Colt 1903 Pocket Hammerless. I'm also feeling the need for a proper suit and fedora.
)
Monac
Member
Oh, sure, they got 45's to work right eventually. Hollywood pretty much had too, when they started turning out WWII movies by the truckload. The vets were not going to be fooled by 38 ACP Colts. The 1959 movie I mentioned is one of the last ones I can think of where they used the 38 autos when they were not appropriate to the period. Maybe by then the prop houses were renting them dirt cheap.
TRX
Member
> .38/45 Clerke
Dean Grennell up-loaded that to .38/45 Hard Head, and then Dick Casull pumped it up to .38 Casull. 124 grains at 1800 fps, 890 ft-lb, or 147 grains at only 1650 fps for 830 ft-lbs.
You'd have to find one used, and neck down .40 Super brass, but you can still get .38 Casull dies from RCBS.
Dean Grennell up-loaded that to .38/45 Hard Head, and then Dick Casull pumped it up to .38 Casull. 124 grains at 1800 fps, 890 ft-lb, or 147 grains at only 1650 fps for 830 ft-lbs.
You'd have to find one used, and neck down .40 Super brass, but you can still get .38 Casull dies from RCBS.
Trey Veston
Member
I view the idea of the .38 Super matching the .357 Magnum the same way I look at the rabid 10mm fans claiming "equals a .41 Magnum!": cherry picked numbers in specific firearms with a dash of hyperbole. Just accept them for what they are and don't try to turn them into a Honda Civic with a wing and a loud exhaust (please!).
As a fan of the 10mm, I found your comment to be both hilarious and absolutely true, lol.
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that most claims that commercial ammo does this are and have been a bit exaggerated.
For decades (since the 1970s) the claim has been that the standard for self defense shooting has been a 125 gr. bullet from a .357 Magnum with a 4" long barrel. However, for much of that time most commercial ammo didn't actually make that even when it claimed to. The difference was often the unvented test barrels that the ammo was tested from rather than from actual guns with 4" barrels. It also made little difference in actual shootings whether it was 1400 fps or 1345 fps, etc.
These days though commercial ammo can outdo the 1400 fps mark you can see that here at "Ballistics by the Inch". Along with that goes the muzzle blast and flash.
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html
If you look closely at the BBTI figures you note that the velocity figures vary quite a bit from real world guns.
Last edited:
Ok, my understanding about the history of .38 Super was the .38 ACP had its pressure lowered to suit the Colt Model 1900 better. Then around 1929, high pressure loads began to be called .38 Super and were intended for use in Colt 1911 pistols. A frequently-cited attraction to the .38 Super was the notion that the high velocity bullets could better penetrate automobile bodies and body armor, both of which were increasingly being used by organized criminals in Prohibition-era US. I understand the body armor being used was simply heavily-padded cloth, but that it could stop .38 Special and .45 ACP as well as smaller rounds. It's been reported that these barriers, automobile bodies and body armor, were the initial reason for an interest in .38 Super, and that when the .357 Magnum offered the same or better ballistics in a revolver, which was then preferred by law enforcement in the US, the Magnum also satisfied this perceived need.
I understand that while .38 Super experienced a resurrgence in IPSC and USPSA competition, the trend in ballistics for manstopping over the last 20 years has been away from high-velocity. The .357 Sig, for example, appears to have failed to gain popularity. Its performance was excoriated by ballistic experts like Dr. Martin Fackler who summarized it as adding flash, blast, and recoil, with no meaningful effect greater than 9x19mm, and lower capacity in the magazine. He also accused the Secret Service, who adopted the .357 Sig, of ignoring all the evidence and of having a habit of doing so. Fackler and his successor Beaufort Boone have convinced a lot of people and agencies that there is little or no meaningful ballistic advantage in the ability to wound between .357 Sig, 9x19mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP, and even .357 and .44 Magnum. If this is so, the reasoning goes, one ought to adopt the cartridge that has less recoil and allows higher capacity in a magazine.
What about vehicle barrier penetration and body armor? It's not like cars today are made out of aluminum foil compared to the cars of the 1920's. A Model T only weighed 900 pounds. Even a '32 Ford V8 was only a little over 2300 pounds. Despite some misconceptions, they weren't made out of plate-steel. And what about Dirty Harry? His justification for carrying a .44 Magnum was that .38 Special bounced off windshields. Today, windshield angles are even lower than they were in 1971. Don't we need 44 Magnums anymore?
I understand the FBI evaluates ammunition in several barrier-penetration tests that are less talked about than the 4-layers of denim into 10% ordinance gelatin test. They do test against laminated automobile glass, as well as some common building materials. But Fackler criticized the selection of ammunition that performed well on barrier penetration because he was convinced that it necessarily diminished performance on unprotected targets that he believed was far more important. His thinking was probably very rational in that we can be sure that an overwhelming majority of handgun shootings occur against unprotected targets and the portion that involve trick shots through barriers has to be nearly negligible. It's also not as if a bullet optimized for unprotected targets is totally impotent at penetrating the most common barriers. It does seem that a trade-off for a little more barrier-penetration performance isn't worth the compromise.
What about body armor? Fackler, in his criticism of PDW's, pointed out that marginally-effective armor penetration is not likely to be meaningful against a terroristic threat that has a high probability of being well-planned. Today, nearly 20 years after his comments, IIIA panels and carriers can be had for about the price of a gun, and AR500 plates and carriers are less. A terrorist would almost have to be a bumbling incompetent to render his armored-areas vulnerable to handgun or PDW fire.
So it would seem that in the present-day, it is ill-advised to select a handgun cartridge for superior barrier penetration, and probably not practical to select one for armor penetration. Were these ever good justifications for .38 Super and .357 Magnum?
I understand that while .38 Super experienced a resurrgence in IPSC and USPSA competition, the trend in ballistics for manstopping over the last 20 years has been away from high-velocity. The .357 Sig, for example, appears to have failed to gain popularity. Its performance was excoriated by ballistic experts like Dr. Martin Fackler who summarized it as adding flash, blast, and recoil, with no meaningful effect greater than 9x19mm, and lower capacity in the magazine. He also accused the Secret Service, who adopted the .357 Sig, of ignoring all the evidence and of having a habit of doing so. Fackler and his successor Beaufort Boone have convinced a lot of people and agencies that there is little or no meaningful ballistic advantage in the ability to wound between .357 Sig, 9x19mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP, and even .357 and .44 Magnum. If this is so, the reasoning goes, one ought to adopt the cartridge that has less recoil and allows higher capacity in a magazine.
What about vehicle barrier penetration and body armor? It's not like cars today are made out of aluminum foil compared to the cars of the 1920's. A Model T only weighed 900 pounds. Even a '32 Ford V8 was only a little over 2300 pounds. Despite some misconceptions, they weren't made out of plate-steel. And what about Dirty Harry? His justification for carrying a .44 Magnum was that .38 Special bounced off windshields. Today, windshield angles are even lower than they were in 1971. Don't we need 44 Magnums anymore?
I understand the FBI evaluates ammunition in several barrier-penetration tests that are less talked about than the 4-layers of denim into 10% ordinance gelatin test. They do test against laminated automobile glass, as well as some common building materials. But Fackler criticized the selection of ammunition that performed well on barrier penetration because he was convinced that it necessarily diminished performance on unprotected targets that he believed was far more important. His thinking was probably very rational in that we can be sure that an overwhelming majority of handgun shootings occur against unprotected targets and the portion that involve trick shots through barriers has to be nearly negligible. It's also not as if a bullet optimized for unprotected targets is totally impotent at penetrating the most common barriers. It does seem that a trade-off for a little more barrier-penetration performance isn't worth the compromise.
What about body armor? Fackler, in his criticism of PDW's, pointed out that marginally-effective armor penetration is not likely to be meaningful against a terroristic threat that has a high probability of being well-planned. Today, nearly 20 years after his comments, IIIA panels and carriers can be had for about the price of a gun, and AR500 plates and carriers are less. A terrorist would almost have to be a bumbling incompetent to render his armored-areas vulnerable to handgun or PDW fire.
So it would seem that in the present-day, it is ill-advised to select a handgun cartridge for superior barrier penetration, and probably not practical to select one for armor penetration. Were these ever good justifications for .38 Super and .357 Magnum?
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
I can't comment, or won't comment, on labnoti's comments on Dr. Fackler's opinions on the 357 Sig, etc. If someone has a link to his criticism of the Secret Service and the 357 Sig I'd like a link to that please. It would be interesting reading.
In 1898 Colt and John Browning made a stab at getting a contract from the U.S. Army for it's first semi-automatic sidearm. The result was the 38 Automatic round in a pistol called the military Model. It had a 6" barrel and from that it sent the Colt 38 Automatic round with a 130 gr. ball out at about 1100 fps. This was the 38 Automatic Colt pistol round (not to be confused with the 380 acp).
You can read more about that here and I encourage all to do that:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170716064320/http://www.38super.net/Pages/History.html
For several years this gun went through military trials. At a certain point the Army decided it wanted a 45 caliber bullet and not a 38. That eventually led to the 1911 in 45 acp.
Now Colt kept selling different versions of their pistols in 38 acp. But at a certain point sales were dropping off for several reasons. One major reason was that Browning's parallel ruler design for linking and locking the barrel to the frame was not particularly strong. In the late 1920s Colt decided to chamber the 38 acp in the Colt Government Model. They named the gun the Colt Super 38 it was chambered in 38 acp. It was introduced in 1929.
Commercial ammo was punched up to around 1300 fps with the 130 gr. bullet from the 5" barrel. This was a level of popwer that had worn the earlier guns out. It also made it the most powerful semi auto round in existence at the time, in terms of kinetic energy.
Colt marketed the gun and the round as good for law enforcement and for hunting. 9+1 rounds of a powerful cartridge was an advantage. This pressed S&W to introduce the 357 Magnum revolver a few years later.
You can read more about this in the link I set above and in Duncan Sheldon's book "Colt Super 38".
In 1898 Colt and John Browning made a stab at getting a contract from the U.S. Army for it's first semi-automatic sidearm. The result was the 38 Automatic round in a pistol called the military Model. It had a 6" barrel and from that it sent the Colt 38 Automatic round with a 130 gr. ball out at about 1100 fps. This was the 38 Automatic Colt pistol round (not to be confused with the 380 acp).
You can read more about that here and I encourage all to do that:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170716064320/http://www.38super.net/Pages/History.html
For several years this gun went through military trials. At a certain point the Army decided it wanted a 45 caliber bullet and not a 38. That eventually led to the 1911 in 45 acp.
Now Colt kept selling different versions of their pistols in 38 acp. But at a certain point sales were dropping off for several reasons. One major reason was that Browning's parallel ruler design for linking and locking the barrel to the frame was not particularly strong. In the late 1920s Colt decided to chamber the 38 acp in the Colt Government Model. They named the gun the Colt Super 38 it was chambered in 38 acp. It was introduced in 1929.
Commercial ammo was punched up to around 1300 fps with the 130 gr. bullet from the 5" barrel. This was a level of popwer that had worn the earlier guns out. It also made it the most powerful semi auto round in existence at the time, in terms of kinetic energy.
Colt marketed the gun and the round as good for law enforcement and for hunting. 9+1 rounds of a powerful cartridge was an advantage. This pressed S&W to introduce the 357 Magnum revolver a few years later.
You can read more about this in the link I set above and in Duncan Sheldon's book "Colt Super 38".
Monac
Member
The 38 ACP was invented for the Colt 1900. They came out together. Why would the 38 ACP have to be modified to suit the gun it was designed for? I don't think 38 Super just sort of happened; when Colt decided to make the 1911 for cartridges other than 45 ACP, they realized it could handle something a lot hotter than 9mm Luger or 38 ACP, and redesigned 38 ACP into 38 Super, since the "installed based" of 38 ACP guns was not all that large.
And car body steel was thicker back before 1960 or so. My father was a claims adjuster for an insurance company that covered automobiles, and I remember him remarking how small dents on older cars could be "popped out" because of the springiness of the thicker steel, while the thinner steel in newer cars stretched and required more expensive body work.
And car body steel was thicker back before 1960 or so. My father was a claims adjuster for an insurance company that covered automobiles, and I remember him remarking how small dents on older cars could be "popped out" because of the springiness of the thicker steel, while the thinner steel in newer cars stretched and required more expensive body work.
wanderinwalker
Member
As I understand the history of the .38 ACP cartridge, it's initial loading WAS just a bit too hot for the parallel-link Colt 1900 and it's follow-ons. The original .38 ACP may have been a bit closer to the .38 Super power levels. It was throttled-back once experience with the pistol/cartridge combination indicated the pistols were being beat-up by simply shooting them. When Colt introduced the .38 in the Government Model, they then called it the "Super .38 Automatic", and it didn't take long after for the ammo manufacturers to give shooters a loading to take advantage of the more durable 1911, which becomes the .38 Super.
Keep in mind in the same time-frame we also see the .38/44 High Speed cartridge, the extra-pressure .38 Special loads intended only for the heavy N-frame S&W Outdoorsman and Heavy Duty revolvers. Though I understand Colt may have advertised it was OK to use this cartridge in their Officer's and Official Police models built on their I-frame. It was expected that shooters wouldn't inadvertently load and use this ammo in the smaller-framed S&W M&P or Colt Police Positive Special. How times and product liability concerns have changed...
I think comparing the weight of older cars to newer cars isn't a fair or direct comparison of the thickness of materials. Modern cars also pack a lot more STUFF into them. My 2016 Subaru Impreza isn't physically bigger than the 2006 Toyota Corolla it replaced, but it's a lot heavier. The 'yota was a 4-cylinder, front-wheel drive, manual transmission with power nothing, while the 'roo has all-wheel drive, power everything, an automatic transmission and loads of safety features. Find a '27 Ford or Chevy with all of that included in it's gross weight.
brutus51
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,367
There's all kinds of experts extolling their point of view, here's what I know, 124gr. 9mm punybellum 1150fps. .38 Super 1350fps. but more importantly I find the Super inherently more accurate than the 9mm. I attribute this to the longer powder column, much like I find the same condition in the .40 Super (10mm) vs. 40 short&weak.
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
With increased velocity comes increased range, and down range effectiveness.
Not everything that might need shoot’n will be at 7 yards or less.
As long as the shooter can handle the cartridge and over penetration isn’t an issue, all the noise about justifying the cartridge or why a “9mm is all you need”, or “no it’s a 45 for the win” is just that. Noise.
Some of us like to shoot different stuff because we like to shoot different stuff. Fackler? Whatever.
Not everything that might need shoot’n will be at 7 yards or less.
As long as the shooter can handle the cartridge and over penetration isn’t an issue, all the noise about justifying the cartridge or why a “9mm is all you need”, or “no it’s a 45 for the win” is just that. Noise.
Some of us like to shoot different stuff because we like to shoot different stuff. Fackler? Whatever.
.38/44 was also popular in Colt Single Actions Armies, which are quite strong when only bored out to .357"
My mention of automobile weights wasn't intended to assert that cars are more bullet-proof today. It was only intended to point out that 1920's cars weren't plate-steel tanks. Most of them were under 2000 pounds and not any more bullet proof than today's cars, most of which would be nearly transparent to a 9x19mm except for the engine block.
I'm just not convinced that automobile penetration is a good distinctive for a cartridge to have among the cartridges popular today. 9x19mm penetrates cars just fine, and the need for more penetration seems dubious -- I've never heard of a such a problem in modern times. The fact that 9x19 is not criticized for its lack of automobile penetration causes me to doubt that .38 Super or .357 Magnum were really justified by this capability. Now bullet construction could have some influence on this. There are some lousy bullets.
My mention of automobile weights wasn't intended to assert that cars are more bullet-proof today. It was only intended to point out that 1920's cars weren't plate-steel tanks. Most of them were under 2000 pounds and not any more bullet proof than today's cars, most of which would be nearly transparent to a 9x19mm except for the engine block.
I'm just not convinced that automobile penetration is a good distinctive for a cartridge to have among the cartridges popular today. 9x19mm penetrates cars just fine, and the need for more penetration seems dubious -- I've never heard of a such a problem in modern times. The fact that 9x19 is not criticized for its lack of automobile penetration causes me to doubt that .38 Super or .357 Magnum were really justified by this capability. Now bullet construction could have some influence on this. There are some lousy bullets.
In Wound Ballistic Review, 2000, Volume 4, Issue 4, there was an article "Preliminary Evaluation of .357 Sig JHP bullets intended for law enforcement duty," by Gary K. Roberts DDS, and Don Lazzarini SCPD who had worked with the CHP Academy to test and study .357 Sig in gelatin. The results and data was published in WBR, where Dr. Fackler was the editor. Roberts and Lazzarini's conclusion reads, "Compared to a 9mm, the .357 Sig has a decreased magazine capacity, more recoil, as well as greater muzzle blast and flash, yet at best it offers no gain in bullet penetration and expansion characteristics. What is the point of this cartridge? At this time, the new .357 Sig cartridge offers NO advantages and several disadvantages for Jaw enforcement use compared with current 9 mm Parabellum, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP loadings.
Dr. Fackler added this editorial comment which goes on to cite references for further study:
"I want to emphasize the question "What is the point of this cartridge?" posed by Roberts and Lazzarini in their article reporting testing of the .357 Sig (pp. XX). Apparently Sig's point is sell guns by pandering to the ignorance of
those who still believe that bullets with more velocity invariably cause increased incapacitation....Martin L. Fackler"
In the same issue of Wound Ballistic Review, Fackler wrote in another comment:
"In addition to the BATF, the US Treasury Department has another branch that has made fools of themselves regarding wound ballistics. I speak of the Secret Service. For many years the Secret Service have chosen bullets for their agents based on the "one-shot stop" pseudo-data which was proven so clearly fraudulent last year (Volume 4 issue 2 of this journal), that even the least analysis-inclined cannot fail to recognize it as such. In the 1980s, I was contacted by two extremely firearm-literate Secret Service agents who sought aid in trying to educate those in the US Treasury Department, or in the higher levels of the Secret Service, whose ignorance of bullet effects was forcing
Secret Service agents to be handicapped (and have their lives unnecessarily endangered) by using the inefficient too-light and too-fast bullets. These agents indicated that the Secret Service had been using the falsified "one-shot-stop" statistics as the basis for their choice of handgun bullets. Fortunately, the Secret Service is practically alone among major law enforcement groups in ignoring the findings of the FBI wound ballistics conferences where the importance of bullet penetration depth adequate to reach and disrupt major blood vessels was strongly emphasized. As any experienced hunter knows, in addition to good bullet placement, adequate bullet penetration is needed to have any chance of causing rapid and reliable incapacitation. The Secret Service agents who contacted me were stymied in their attempts to point out that the ill-chosen handgun bullets they were forced to use are a threat to
the lives of Secret Service agents as well as those of the elected officials they are assigned to protect. Martin L. Fackler"
Now this criticism was not specifically directed to the .357 Sig, but to the Secret Service's choice of 115 gr. 9x19mm +P+ cartridges. They had not adopted the .357 Sig at that point, but would do so. We know they more recently confirmed an intent to switch to 9x19mm again. I do not know if they're going to use a 115 gr. bullet again or something heavier.
Fackler also rips the Secret Service for their choice of light and fast bullets in Wound Ballistics Review, 1996 Vol. 2, No. 3, page 7.
He also decried their adoption of the 5.7x28 and PDW's for the same reasons. He considered the 9x19 superior to the 5.7x28 and the 4.6x30 in every way. He also considered both inferior to the .223 even with a short barrel (which he did not have a favorable opinion of), and he wondered what the point of a PDW was since it wasn't much smaller than a compact variant of an M4/AR-15 and was ballistically weaker than a 9mm handgun.
Since most of Fackler's criticism of the .357 Sig I've cited was based on a preliminary evaluation, and on principle or theory derived from light, high-velocity 9mm's, and the primary problem he cited was a lack of penetration, let's look at a better example of the current state of .357 Sig: https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/357-sig-gel-test/ I think it's fair to say that penetration is not insufficient. Fackler, if he were to see those results, would no doubt point out the 9x19mm results and ask Robert's and Lazzarini's question again, "What's the point?"
To get back to .38 Super, there is no question this is a good cartridge of historical interest and with historical significance and which continues to be relevant today, especially in the still-popular 1911. I have nothing bad to say about .38 Super. But what I'm curious about is how the premise that seems to have originally engendered the .38 Super (in 1929, not 1900), namely "high-velocity" seems to have fallen out of favor. As a result, similar high-velocity 9mm's like .357 Sig and even .357 Magnum have also fallen out of favor. This seems to have happened not because the cartridges are antiquated like .38 Super, but because the terminal ballistics and wound ballistics research does not support superior effectiveness with them.
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
You have a lot of competing factors that have limited the widespread use of the 38 Super.
We all know the history and motivation of using it against interstate criminals who were becoming bolder and bolder, and using vehicles as cover. Penetration was the key. All they were trying to do was actually penetrate car bodies to hit human bodies. The 357 magnum when loaded properly can out pace the 38 Super. However, today you have patrol officers armed with M4s, shotguns, sub-machine guns. The weaponry of law enforcement has progressed to the point that the muzzle flash and noise of the 357 magnum and other faster handgun cartridges are no longer worth tolerating as other equipment has helped bridge the gap.
You also have the advent of the plastic fantastic high capacity guns that swept the nation. Then throw in all the popularity that brings to the civilian market, partly just because of the fact law enforcement and other organizations use it. Hollywood of course plays a role also.
We also have to consider who is using firearms. Police, law enforcement, and military now has a lot more women involved and by anatomy alone, women tend to be of smaller stature and have more delicate hands. A weapon that agents, officers, and soldiers can't control is of no use. That's why 10mm Auto went away so quickly in law enforcement. So 9mm and some other cartridges, consequently cartridges that can be put in smaller guns and accommodate more individuals are popular, whether it be because of hand size, skill, or just preference for lower noise and blast.
The civilian market is bigger than ever before also. But I really think most civilian gun owners own fewer guns, and shoot far less than many of us on THR. The proportion of reloaders and hand loaders is also not very large when compared to the number of civilian gun owners. So when you consider the cost of ammo alone, many folks have no interest or need to get into more expensive faster cartridges.
As already stated, with increased velocity comes increased effective range. Penetration can be aided (or hindered depending on the velocity, bullet weight, and bullet construction) by speed. When dealing with animals that may or may not be of use. It's certainly of use for handgun hunters. These things only matter to a person if they have a need. Many folks live in a rural setting where shooting at longer distances or at non-human threats may be an issue. We shouldn't make the assumption that higher velocity cartridges have fallen out of favor due to no real gain in terminal ballistics. At short ranges and on human targets, there may be no real change in wounding potential, but velocity lets you put more hurt on something at further distances. We need to consider population densities as well. Someone living in New York is probably better served with a high capacity 9mm, where attacks from multiple assailants are more likely than an attack from a black bear. However someone living in northern Wisconsin is likely going to be encountering an animal, or occasional meth head. In eather case, higher velocity may have an impact on those situations.
I don't think we can assume potential wounding characteristics are the driving factor. It's likely a combination of factors.
Also, the 9mm Luger and 45 acp are both older than 38 Super is in it's current form. I don't think labeling it as antiquated is accurate given the popularity of those cartridges. It's just a niche cartridge that is still plenty effective. It sees use in competition for a few reasons, and some people absolutely have a use for it.
Last edited:
I would first ask why anyone would want to do it.
The .38 Super was developed for law enforcement use in an era when car bodies were made of heavy, tough stuff.
This is worth reading:
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/38-super-for-dummies.858053/page-3#post-11281804
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
The 38 acp was developed in 1898 by John Browning and chambered in the Colt Model 1900 38 acp Military and Commercial models. The gun was produced in an effort to get a military contract. You can see that gun here...
http://www.coltautos.com/1900.htm
http://www.coltautos.com/1902s.htm
http://www.coltautos.com/1902m.htm
The 38 acp is the same semi rimmed cartridge as the 38 Super and is identical physically in every way. Except for the load although some manufactures still load the rounds to just over 1100 fps with a 130 gr. bullet and label it 38 Super.
Here is an example of Fiocchi 129 gr. ammo loaded to a claimed 1180 fps. In reality it's lower than that.
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1000190284?pid=111535
As was pointed out earlier in this thread it was after the 38 acp was chambered in the 1911 and the gun was named the Colt Super 38 that gradually manufacturers came to call the round the 38 Super. It was the same cartridge and bullet with an increased powder charge.
Up until the 1980s or so Colt still put out advertising saying the gun was chambered in the 38 acp.
Note the velocity of 1300 fps. Note the pitch to Outdoorsmen.
Copy of a manual from 1983 or so...
http://www.coltautos.com/1900.htm
http://www.coltautos.com/1902s.htm
http://www.coltautos.com/1902m.htm
The 38 acp is the same semi rimmed cartridge as the 38 Super and is identical physically in every way. Except for the load although some manufactures still load the rounds to just over 1100 fps with a 130 gr. bullet and label it 38 Super.
Here is an example of Fiocchi 129 gr. ammo loaded to a claimed 1180 fps. In reality it's lower than that.
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1000190284?pid=111535
As was pointed out earlier in this thread it was after the 38 acp was chambered in the 1911 and the gun was named the Colt Super 38 that gradually manufacturers came to call the round the 38 Super. It was the same cartridge and bullet with an increased powder charge.
Up until the 1980s or so Colt still put out advertising saying the gun was chambered in the 38 acp.
Note the velocity of 1300 fps. Note the pitch to Outdoorsmen.
Copy of a manual from 1983 or so...
Last edited:
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
If we are to make a size per size comparison of vehicles produced in 1930 compared to today the older vehicles would weigh more.
A 1930 Buick series 60 car that sat 5 weighed 4200 pds.
https://www.conceptcarz.com/s13860/buick-series-60.aspx
https://www.google.com/search?q=193...0KHXjGDJwQ9QEwBHoECAYQGw#imgrc=-MTBA_RQf3uz7M:
Weight alone does not tell the story however. The chassis was steel and the body was of stamped steel considerably of a thicker gauge of steel than used today in vehicles.
Most cars and trucks today do not use steel in their bodies at all. Rather they use aluminum or plastic. When steel in door panels, fenders, etc. is used it is a quite thin gauge. Vehicles today are designed to collapse on impact and absorb the impact by crushing. Often unibody construction is used which facilitates that. Vehicles built in the 1930's were built entirely differently.
In the late 1920s not all police forces in the U.S. had transitioned to the 38 Special in their revolvers. The 38 Heavy Duty and 38 Outdoorsman revolvers had been introduced and were successful. When Colt released the Colt Super 38 they targeted the police and outdoorsman's market that S&W thought they had a lock on. S&W countered with the 357 magnum.
The Super 38 promised penetration and delivered it to gangster and cop alike.
A 1930 Buick series 60 car that sat 5 weighed 4200 pds.
https://www.conceptcarz.com/s13860/buick-series-60.aspx
https://www.google.com/search?q=193...0KHXjGDJwQ9QEwBHoECAYQGw#imgrc=-MTBA_RQf3uz7M:
Weight alone does not tell the story however. The chassis was steel and the body was of stamped steel considerably of a thicker gauge of steel than used today in vehicles.
Most cars and trucks today do not use steel in their bodies at all. Rather they use aluminum or plastic. When steel in door panels, fenders, etc. is used it is a quite thin gauge. Vehicles today are designed to collapse on impact and absorb the impact by crushing. Often unibody construction is used which facilitates that. Vehicles built in the 1930's were built entirely differently.
In the late 1920s not all police forces in the U.S. had transitioned to the 38 Special in their revolvers. The 38 Heavy Duty and 38 Outdoorsman revolvers had been introduced and were successful. When Colt released the Colt Super 38 they targeted the police and outdoorsman's market that S&W thought they had a lock on. S&W countered with the 357 magnum.
The Super 38 promised penetration and delivered it to gangster and cop alike.
I think Paul Harrell justified his choice of .38 Super for the 1911 he sometimes carries with the argument for longer range (than .45 ACP). Velocity can help with the trajectory at longer ranges, but it has very rapidly diminishing returns. Momentum, on the other hand, does not diminish so rapidly as range increases and is essential for penetration once the bullet arrives at that great distance.
I'm not familiar with .38 Super or .45 ACP, but I would guess that at 150 yards or 200 yards, the .38 Super with a heavy bullet would penetrate well. I guess that would mean 147 gr. I am convinced a 147 gr. .38 Super bullet would penetrate better at 150 yards than a 115 gr. at a higher velocity. I'm not sure it would do better than a 230 gr. .45 ACP. Certainly, the trajectory of .45 ACP gets difficult at 200 yards.
I'm not familiar with .38 Super or .45 ACP, but I would guess that at 150 yards or 200 yards, the .38 Super with a heavy bullet would penetrate well. I guess that would mean 147 gr. I am convinced a 147 gr. .38 Super bullet would penetrate better at 150 yards than a 115 gr. at a higher velocity. I'm not sure it would do better than a 230 gr. .45 ACP. Certainly, the trajectory of .45 ACP gets difficult at 200 yards.
Old cars (1920's and 1930's) were built with 18 gauge steel body panels for the most part. Some components were thicker or thinner, but they weren't heavy gauge in general. It's a myth. They were all body-on frame construction so the structure was primarily in the frame rails. They were not bullet proof unless someone armored them and if they did, they would stop 38 Super and .357 Magnum also. Today, armoring a car would be easy and the result more effective, but because law enforcement have widespread communication networks and air assets, an armored getaway or smuggler's car doesn't have the same utility that it would have had in the 20's. Even so, and with more people in cars than ever before, we don't see a need to have a special handgun capability to penetrate cars more than ordinary handgun do already.
In 1934, law enforcement fired on Bonnie and Clyde's car with shotguns, handguns, and semi-automatic rifles including a .35 Rem. Model 8, a .30-06 BAR, a Model 94, probably .30-30. All of these are more powerful and penetrate better than today's M4. There is no reason to think they needed .38 Super or .357 Magnum because they didn't have M4's like we do now.
I still assert that automobile penetration as a justification for .38 Super or .357 Magnum was just empty rhetoric. I don't believe penetrating cars was ever a real problem. But the prevalence of cars was something very different at the end of the 20's than the way things were twenty years earlier and that was a way to pitch a "new" cartridge. We ought to look at these historical claims skeptically. We can find historical evidence that the claims were truly made, but the evidence that they were meaningful is just conjecture with no evidence.
In 1934, law enforcement fired on Bonnie and Clyde's car with shotguns, handguns, and semi-automatic rifles including a .35 Rem. Model 8, a .30-06 BAR, a Model 94, probably .30-30. All of these are more powerful and penetrate better than today's M4. There is no reason to think they needed .38 Super or .357 Magnum because they didn't have M4's like we do now.
I still assert that automobile penetration as a justification for .38 Super or .357 Magnum was just empty rhetoric. I don't believe penetrating cars was ever a real problem. But the prevalence of cars was something very different at the end of the 20's than the way things were twenty years earlier and that was a way to pitch a "new" cartridge. We ought to look at these historical claims skeptically. We can find historical evidence that the claims were truly made, but the evidence that they were meaningful is just conjecture with no evidence.
JTQ
Member
Since you've mentioned Dr. Gary K. Roberts, I've seen him post on other forums, if he were to be assigned as a patrol cop, and would have occasion to regularly deal with vehicle stops, he'd prefer the .40S&W for the improved auto penetration advantages (wind shield and body panels) over 9mm.
He has a general preference for 9mm, but much of that is based on capacity, ease of shooting, less wear and tear on the shooter and guns, and ammo costs.
wanderinwalker
Member
labnoti, with respect to penetrating hard surfaces, like automotive metal and glass, velocity is king, with bullet design being second. I agree that automotive bodies are effectively transparent to most common, modern handgun rounds.
Keep in mind, in the 20s and 30s the cartridges that were found lacking were not modern 9mm loadings. The common service revolvers were things like the .32 and .38 S&W and the .38 Special, all loaded to low velocity with soft lead round nose bullets. I literally can't think of a way to make a round LESS likely to defeat hard surfaces. You might get through the sheet metal with it but that doesn't mean it's going to have the desired effect on the inside of the car afterward.
I can state that at 50 yards neither the .45 ACP or .38 Super will penetrate an empty 25-lb propane tank. Even 9mm from a 16" carbine wouldn't reliably make an entrance and none exited. Yet a plain old .30-30 passes through like nobody's business.
As for rifle rounds, against hardened steel, modern 5.56 ball is more effective than a .30-30 or .35 Remington, purely due to its velocity. I have a couple of steel plates I will shoot at with a .30-30, but absolutely won't shoot with full-power 5.56 ammo. The 5.56 will at least crater the plates, if not pass through. In this case, speed does kill.
Keep in mind, in the 20s and 30s the cartridges that were found lacking were not modern 9mm loadings. The common service revolvers were things like the .32 and .38 S&W and the .38 Special, all loaded to low velocity with soft lead round nose bullets. I literally can't think of a way to make a round LESS likely to defeat hard surfaces. You might get through the sheet metal with it but that doesn't mean it's going to have the desired effect on the inside of the car afterward.
I can state that at 50 yards neither the .45 ACP or .38 Super will penetrate an empty 25-lb propane tank. Even 9mm from a 16" carbine wouldn't reliably make an entrance and none exited. Yet a plain old .30-30 passes through like nobody's business.
As for rifle rounds, against hardened steel, modern 5.56 ball is more effective than a .30-30 or .35 Remington, purely due to its velocity. I have a couple of steel plates I will shoot at with a .30-30, but absolutely won't shoot with full-power 5.56 ammo. The 5.56 will at least crater the plates, if not pass through. In this case, speed does kill.
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
In general you are more correct than wrong. But it was not quite empty rhetoric. It was sales rhetoric, as I pointed out, and it sold guns. It was also rhetoric that was a part of creating a panic atmosphere so that Federal law enforcement could "gun up" and extend their influence. When the feds and local police claim and say that "fast cars, machine guns and bullet proof vests are carried by the gangsters we need the same" it got results then as it does now.
It was also more difficult to penetrate a vehicle, especially hit at an angle, in those days with a 158 gr. lead round nose bullet moving at 830 fps than with more powerful ammo. Police in those days were mostly armed with standard velocity 38 spl. as well as lesser rounds. Jacketed ball ammo moving at close to 1300 fps from either the 130 gr. ball of the Super 38, the 158 gr. round nose lead bullet of the 38/44 at over 1100 fps or the lead semi wad cutter of the 357 mag at over 1300 fps from a 4" barrel made more of an impact and increased the terminal effectiveness of bullets.. More power makes a difference.
silversport
Member
I like the Super 38 and find it more mild to shoot than the 357 SIG which I also am a fan of...
Bill
Bill
Last edited:
barnetmill
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2006
- Messages
- 1,264
I guess the driver for this is that OP's motive is to achieve a high velocity in a design that was finalized in 1911 albeit with modern steels. Want not need is what makes america great. IPSC does have the major power factor and hitting a certain velocity and bullet mass combination is part of the way to complete to maximum advantage. But otherwise I wonder why.
Most people for handguns have no way of calculating pressure and even if one did, loading to the max without a large margin of error is not wise. 1500 fps does not sound like a good idea unless the pistol is specifically engineered to withstand such pressures with a suitable margin for error. The original goal of the .38 super loading was for shooting at bandits inside of autos or wearing the primitive vests of the day and also sell more 1911s. I have no problems as long as i am not on the same firing line with someone shooting such loads in a 1911.
For a more powerful cartridge for bears in a semiauto pistol there is the glock and others in 10 mm.
Most people for handguns have no way of calculating pressure and even if one did, loading to the max without a large margin of error is not wise. 1500 fps does not sound like a good idea unless the pistol is specifically engineered to withstand such pressures with a suitable margin for error. The original goal of the .38 super loading was for shooting at bandits inside of autos or wearing the primitive vests of the day and also sell more 1911s. I have no problems as long as i am not on the same firing line with someone shooting such loads in a 1911.
For a more powerful cartridge for bears in a semiauto pistol there is the glock and others in 10 mm.
- Status
