i was just looking at the .38 vs. 9x18 makarov thread, and it got me thinking about round choice for .38. i searched around a bit on here, but it always seems like ballistics tests are done with longer barrels. for self defense i have a 125gr speer gold dot JHP in my .38. it was recommended by someone...i have no idea what the velocity and energy out of a 2 inch barrel are for this round. any info on that particular round? any better suggestions?
best round choices for .38 snub nose
- Thread starter carlrodd
- Start date
- Status
Check this site out. 
All tests were done from a 2" snub.
http://www.handgunsmag.com/ammunition/pocket_dynomite/index.html
All tests were done from a 2" snub.http://www.handgunsmag.com/ammunition/pocket_dynomite/index.html
ChristopherG
Member
The two current, widely available loads that are recognized as best bets in a .38 snub are (in no particular order):
The classic FBI load, the 158 gr lead semi-wadcutter hollow-point, +P, as loaded by either Winchester or Remington (not Federal); or,
The 135 gr. Gold Dot Hollow Point +P by Speer.
If you search and read the maybe 2,000 threads on this subject, you'll see that these are recommended again and again with research and testing to back them up. Other loads come up with such helpful input as, "I carry x," but I assume you're looking for the actual best load, rather than a random poll--and these two are it.
The classic FBI load, the 158 gr lead semi-wadcutter hollow-point, +P, as loaded by either Winchester or Remington (not Federal); or,
The 135 gr. Gold Dot Hollow Point +P by Speer.
If you search and read the maybe 2,000 threads on this subject, you'll see that these are recommended again and again with research and testing to back them up. Other loads come up with such helpful input as, "I carry x," but I assume you're looking for the actual best load, rather than a random poll--and these two are it.
atlctyslkr
Member
I like the Federal 129gr JHP +p as well. My mom has an old Smith Airweight snub and we found that Magtech 158gr JHP (non +p) seems to work real well.
Jkwas
Member
My snub seems to like the 125gn JHP the best. It shoots most brands accurately with minimal recoil. I currently use the Gold dot or Starfire, but any good quality brand should do the job. Even the "non-premium loads" from the major manufacturers loaded to about 950fps will leave one heck of a mark on someone.
Given that pretty much every fixed-sight .38 snubbie ever made is sighted for that FBI load, and that it's probably the most real-world-proven short-barrel handgun load ever created, what does the Speer offer to justify it's (assumed) higher price?
Why would you choose the 135 GDHP over the 158 LSWCHP, if you would?
--Shannon
bpisler
Member
I use the Black hills 125gr +P's which is loaded
with the gold dot bullet in 38spl.ompared to
the 158gr LSWCHP +P it shoots to POA.It's
faster by 150fps from my 642-2 and it's a lot
easier to reload from speed strips/loaders.
with the gold dot bullet in 38spl.ompared to
the 158gr LSWCHP +P it shoots to POA.It's
faster by 150fps from my 642-2 and it's a lot
easier to reload from speed strips/loaders.
ChristopherG
Member
I don't, myself; I make and carry a version of the LSWCHP +p. But I can think of a couple of reasons one might prefer the Gold Dot.
1) Better terminal performance after penetrating barriers. From tests I've read about, the soft nose of the LSWCHP can get deformed when banging through hard things, whereas the bonded/jacketed Gold Dot has a reputation specifically for performing well through barriers.
2) Bullet creep in a superlight gun. In a 12 oz Airlite, for instance, and in the hands of a particular shooter, the recoil of the FBI load might cause the bullets to jump crimp and grow in OAL to the point that they actualy tie up the gun. The higher friction of the Gold Dot in the case prevents this.
(I shoot an airlite and do not have this problem, but I make and crimp my own LSWCHP's and have tested them thoroughly)
3) Leading. Gold Dots don't lead, the FBI load (typically) does. I don't mind cleaning it up, but some may.
Agreed on the POA/POI issue, still. Most every .38 does shoot the 158's better, IME--but some folks just like lighter bullets, I guess.
ps--bpisler adds another potential reason--reloading speed. Hadn't thought of that one.
Cosmoline
Member
Skip the 125 grain plinkers, they're a marketing scam. Go with the classic LSWCHP in 158 grains.
StrikeEagle
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2004
- Messages
- 709
This reflects my views as well. I use 158 +P SWCLHP in my 642. For 30+ years this round has been my choice in snubbies, and I used to favor the Winchester loading. But in the last year or so, I've noticed that the Remingtons have more downrange whammy, so I've switched to them.
I just TRUST this full-weight bullet, traveling at decent velocity. The soft lead WILL expand. Heck they deform if you drop them on the sidewalk or give them a really good poke with your thumbnail.
Nothing tricky here, just an older, well-proven design.
Highly recommended.
jad0110
Member
Speer Gold Dot 135 +P
Darned if they aren't hard to find though.
Darned if they aren't hard to find though.
MICHAEL T
Member
The FBI load Its proven time and time again . It works !!!
ChristopherG
Member
No; that's the problem; they won't.
A snub .38 is a marginal gun, in terms of getting bullets to function (i.e., expand, which any 'top of the line' load is going to claim to do). Lots of testing and some anecdotal experience shows that, at the low velocities of a .38 snub, most jacketed hollow points do NOT reliably expand. (I would particularly single out the Federal load mentioned by a couple of people above. The whole Federal 'personal defense' line is gutless [i.e., underpowered] and rides on the coattails of an old and gimmicky bullet design. Here's a specific 'top of the line' load that is just flat out a bad choice, once one has all the data.)
Now you COULD say that if you put it in the right place, it will still do it's job, even though it does fail to expand; but in this case, you're admitting that a FMJ would do just as well. So what's the point of using a 'top of the line' load?
The point is that we want to maximize the potency of a tool, the .38 snub, which we acknowledge at the outset is not a powerhouse. The marginality of the tool, however, properly urges us to consider our ammo choices MORE carefully, and that's what carlrodd is trying to do. Handing him uninformed generalities and platitudes about marksmanship is a waste of bandwidth, and could only be considered 'high road' by dint of their regrettable frequency around here.
weregunner
Member
Clarify the post on Federal loads being garbage. I have seen no data on this. If there is valid and verifiable data lets see it. This doesn't mean info isn't out there,but I would like to know the source on this. Marksmanship is important with any firearm, so going back over that caveat for reinforcment is viable. Having kept track of real world use of combat loads through Sanow,Marshall,Ayoob,and Spaulding and other sources one can keep up to date on performance in actual use. Not gelatin. Gelatin works up to a point as is confirmed by the author of the mag article. Layers of denim are used for the heavy clothing testing in a lot of tests. People wear heavy clothing made of various other materials. Yes, I realize that JHPs can be plugged by fibers. This is a good start on testing.In depth firing into a medium similar to human flesh also works up only to a point.Recreating the organs and bone in humans has so far escaped cartridge testers abilities. This can skew data.So can the denim test.In several experiments many layers of denim have been used. As dense as denim is too many layers can also skew data. A wide number of rounds,say 20 or more would have to be fired to get a more balanced idea of performance. A few shots are interesting and somewhat enlightning,but no more than that. Someone with the right resources,time,money, and knowledge in ballistics would need to accomplish the project. Since approximation to humans and clothing is all one can get here saying one has solid scientific evidence is hard to back up.Science is built on exact standards. All the factors have to be constant and exact. Not similar. No substitutions or guesses. So actual use is what we have left. Never been attacked by a pan of jello. Have you? Since no one has the monopoly on what makes up the total criteria for the physical as well as mental personal makeup of the person who is shot we have to judge very carefully what works and what doesn't. Even patholigists and scientists can't agree totally on criterea for wounding and its total effects on the body. For instance,no one can completely explain why a martial arts blow will stun or stop someone completely,shutting the body down,for long periods of time.There are some ideas. And some of the factors are understood but not completely. Try to use science to explain what data you don't have or explain. I will stick with 125gr and 158gr JHPs in +P . The track record show these work.Anecdotal evidence won't cut it. I was in the service and know how reliable hearsay is. If someone has corroberated evidence different of something better,I'm open to it.The 158 gr LSWC lead JHP has been shown to work well out of even snubbies due to soft lead and no jacket for the lead to work against in expanding. Use what you like folks. Your life depends on it. Again, nothing is for sure.
I personally carry a 152gr Hardcast full wadcutter. It is a handload, I'll take my chances in court thank you very much, with a BHN of 20 travelling at 920 fps from a 2" barrel. I'm not counting on expansion, only penatration and a .358" hole.
ChristopherG:
"Handing him uninformed generalities and platitudes about marksmanship is a waste of bandwidth, and could only be considered 'high road' by dint of their regrettable frequency around here."
Sir, you most certainly have an abrasive presentation.
Regarding my reply, marksmanship and training will always be more important than the load selected. Too much time is spent wringing hands over this load or that instead of getting quality training and practice.
Select a quality expanding round and spend the rest of your resources on training and practice. Encouraging good marksmanship is most certainly NOT a waste of bandwidth.
"Handing him uninformed generalities and platitudes about marksmanship is a waste of bandwidth, and could only be considered 'high road' by dint of their regrettable frequency around here."
Sir, you most certainly have an abrasive presentation.
Regarding my reply, marksmanship and training will always be more important than the load selected. Too much time is spent wringing hands over this load or that instead of getting quality training and practice.
Select a quality expanding round and spend the rest of your resources on training and practice. Encouraging good marksmanship is most certainly NOT a waste of bandwidth.
ChristopherG
Member
Photoman--Sorry for my harsh tone; it's generally a sign I've been spending too much time on the board.
I take it for granted that someone asking a question like this one already understands that quality hits count and misses don't. My abrasive response arises from the fact that any thread discussing ammunition choice (not an unreasonable kind of discussion to expect to have on a forum like this one) is apparently required to be peppered with reminders of the importance of accuracy that seem blindingly obvious to me.
Perhaps there are people out there who think missing with the right bullet will do something--but I haven't met them.
weregunner, you said about my claim that Fed loads are underpowered,
Chronograph some.
I take it for granted that someone asking a question like this one already understands that quality hits count and misses don't. My abrasive response arises from the fact that any thread discussing ammunition choice (not an unreasonable kind of discussion to expect to have on a forum like this one) is apparently required to be peppered with reminders of the importance of accuracy that seem blindingly obvious to me.
Perhaps there are people out there who think missing with the right bullet will do something--but I haven't met them.
weregunner, you said about my claim that Fed loads are underpowered,
Chronograph some.
weregunner
Member
I have seen chronographed Federal at IDPA events and the users wanted to know if their carry loads velocity was as advertised. The Fed 158gr LSWC +P loads were low. However the 38 Specials were in the ballpark as the other brand of 38s were. So was the 9mm. ammo. Granted their were only 5 or 6 loads tested but did not see large deviation from other brands. I have no chronograph or ablity to borrow one. I do keep an eye out for when someone at an event or if a writer does it.Gun Tests, Combat Handguns,and Swat normally can't be accused of fudging numbers.
Jkwas
Member
Something to take note of: Make sure you shoot whatever you settle on. I've shot about 15 different types of rounds thru my snub. Some didn't shoot to point of aim, some would be flyers and just disappear, some would tumble and hit the target sideways. All of these were name brands. If you can't hit what your aiming at, you could be shooting uranium tipped bullets, and it won't be any better than lead round nose.
weregunner
Member
Jkwas has a good point. The 158gr. loads whether they were +P or standard pressure loads shoot to almost the same point on the target. There was a shift left or right, but nothing one couldn't compensate for. Remington 158gr SWC lead hollowpoints shoot to perfect center in my snub revolver. The others are just 1 inch or less left or right. The 125gr. +Ps are another story. Those hit several inches lower. So each load has to be range tested to see the impact point. The closer to point of aim,the better. I like the 125 grainers due to less recoil,but the 158gr.rounds are better for the job. Not having to compensate for drift is a big help.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
