Is .38 Special Sufficient for SD ?

[someguy2800]

given the number of deer that I have shot through the heart with a 270 and still had to blood trail 200 yards, I don't think a bullet wound anywhere but through the brain stem is guaranteed to instantly kill something. My wifes uncle is 5 for 5 shooting deer with a 22lr so what the hell do I know?

 

[Blkhrt13]

I'm a little surprised no one has brought up hydrostatic shock yet. This would probably be the time since we've explored the less controversial and more scientifically verifiable aspects of the cartridge. If you're not aware of the theory of hydrostatic shock, it's basically a fancy term for stopping power, or more eloquently put, the purported ability of a bullet to remotely damage the nervous system and blood vessels via its shock wave. Under this theory, it is indeed possible to incapacitate and even kill someone without hitting a vital organ directly.

Army researchers in WWII confirmed the phenomenon, researchers in Vietnam questioned it, and studies out of Iraq then reconfirmed it, noting that remote wounding was significant in all cases of rifle wounds at close range.

Here's the thing: the researchers who believe in it say that remote wounding effects are measured as significant (i.e. capable of producing life threatening injuries to the nervous system and organs) at around 500 ft/lbs of energy. As we all know, .38 Special falls in around 200-250 ft/lbs, whereas duty calibers fall right at around 500 ft/lbs or more on average. Thus, there may in fact be a tangible reason to choose 9mm, .45, .40, etc. over .38 Special.

I would be interested to know how many people here believe in hydrostatic shock, and out of those how many believe it's a significant factor in stopping threats with standard pistol caliber cartridges. I myself do believe in it, but do not believe it's a big part of the equation in "stopping power" until you get to rifle calibers, or magnum pistol calibers at the very least. I've just seen too many videos of people being drilled repeatedly with everything from 9mm to .45 and seeming to be unaffected by it. Were hydrostatic shock a big part of the equation for pistol calibers, I would have to think that five rounds of 9mm to the chest would produce the desired result. I've come to believe that 99% of the time the only way to stop someone using a pistol is to hit them in the heart or the head, or in a large enough blood vessel that the sudden drop in blood pressure will cause them to lose consciousness, at least momentarily.

I would be interested to hear everyone's thoughts.

You make a valid point. The thing that had me wanting to stay with a 38 is the discharge in a pocket, easier to reload arguement. I wasn't wanting to try and load for an auto loader. I don't reload yet but want to. I have carried a 38 for a long time.

 

[RealGun]

Gunfights don't work like target shooting matches. Statistically, he who puts the most shots on target the quickest wins the fight. More shots equals more probability that one will land in the sweet spot. There's also something to be said for suppressive fire. You may very well indeed want to spray a few rounds to buy yourself enough time to dive for cover. There are also cases like the guy who got shot 30 times by police and was still shooting back right up until that last bullet that finally got him. I saw the xray for that and many of those rounds were in the center mass, just shy of the heart. There's definitely no one saying marksmanship isn't vital, but good marksmanship isn't a replacement for firepower.



That, IMHO, says more about the shooter than it does the weapon.

It doesn't matter what one might think...there is always someone ready to tell you how wrong you are.

 

[RealGun]

It is known as reductio ad absurdum, a time honored form of argument.

Probably not the best example of a logical fallacy.

 

[grampajack]

given the number of deer that I have shot through the heart with a 270 and still had to blood trail 200 yards, I don't think a bullet wound anywhere but through the brain stem is guaranteed to instantly kill something. My wifes uncle is 5 for 5 shooting deer with a 22lr so what the hell do I know?

I've consumed all the material I can find from coroners and ER surgeons and the like, and as far as I can glean the only reliable one shot instantaneous stop is to destroy the cerebellum (I think that's what it's called, don't quote me on that). A shot to the heart that disrupts the organ completely will reliably put someone under in about 10-15 seconds.

But, there are other possibilities that can drop someone. You can hit a blood vessel, or multiple blood vessels, large enough to cause a sudden drop in blood pressure that can make the person pass out. It looks like a one shot stop when it happens, but they tend to come to pretty quickly, so it's more or less like when you stand up too quick and pass out. That's why they warn people to disarm the bad guy even he looks dead as a doornail. I've seen videos of it happening and it's downright freaky to watch.

Then pretty much any solid shot to the head is going to ruin someone's day, even if it doesn't kill them, and make them pretty useless. Then there's hydrostatic shock that can remotely damage the nervous system enough to kill a person. There are documented cases of it happening, but I think it would be pure luck if it happened to you. Although according to the studies, shots to the chest were much more likely to produce remote wounding effects, so it may happen more often than we know. We might assume that it was a shot to the heart or a major artery that dropped the person when it was in fact remote effects on the nervous system. There are still so many things we don't fully understand about terminal performance.

 

[Sistema1927]

This was an eye opener:

http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/revolver-ballistics-test/

The "FBI Load" isn't doing the job in a 2" barrel. Looks like there are some good choices though.

 

[george burns]

You are correct. I am sure you have heard it said "Its the Indian, not the arrow". So he was armed with a 5 shot snub and stopped 4 attackers. Since he didn't kill anybody some might see this as a failure. I don't. He got the attackers off of him and lived to tell the tale. And I think this is a good example of a 38 caliber gun doing what it was supposed to do. Protect the owner.

And accoding to the article , did it in 1.6 seconds, He also demonstrated it in under a seond to fire 5 rounds on a tv show. For a guy who didn't shoot much, that's pretty impresive, Draw fure 5 rounds hitting 4 targets, and do it in 1.6. That's a good day.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Here is some real good info on .38 and .357 ballistics.

http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/revolver-ballistics-test/

Well it was till I looked up just two post above! And yes, it is very interesting.

Deaf

 

[george burns]

Well it make sense, if you can knock someone out momentarily with a punch or a strike to the head, or the liver, behind the ear through the jaw area. A bullett can hit the same preassure points harder accomplishing the sam momentary knock down. Only a shot that you see going through th head is unrecoverable. This is obvious when you see blood and brain matter fly out the back.

 

[grampajack]

Here is some real good info on .38 and .357 ballistics.

http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/revolver-ballistics-test/

Well it was till I looked up just two post above! And yes, it is very interesting.

Deaf

That is downright impressive. As an amateur web developer, I'm very impressed by how much work they put into this page. And that's not even saying anything about the actual testing. If the gun mags would put half this much effort into their articles then maybe people would start reading them again.

 

[leftymachinist]

Never felt under gunned with my .38s. Just do a lot of practice. Lyman 358429 cast bullets are my standard for 38/357.

 

[RealGun]

Never felt under gunned with my .38s. Just do a lot of practice. Lyman 358429 cast bullets are my standard for 38/357.

I believe that SD use is a good time to step up and spend the money for specialized bullets.

 

[leftymachinist]

I believe that SD use is a good time to step up and spend the money for specialized bullets.

Long as you got lots of money to spend on bullets.

 

[RealGun]

Long as you got lots of money to spend on bullets.

How many SD rounds does one need?

 

[Crowman]

I carry "store bought" loads and practice with hand loads that closely approximate the ballastics of the carry loads. Best of both worlds...

 

[.308 Norma]

How many SD rounds does one need?

It seems to me the answer to that gets argued regularly on almost every internet guns and shooting forum. I personally have never needed a single SD round, but that doesn't mean I don't carry any.

 

[RealGun]

It seems to me the answer to that gets argued regularly on almost every internet guns and shooting forum. I personally have never needed a single SD round, but that doesn't mean I don't carry any.

The point was that the cost of SD ammo is a weak argument for using lead, considering how much is actually consumed for SD purposes. I think it has more to do with a stubborn aversion to purchasing bullets as opposed to casting them..

 

[Walkalong]

Is .38 Spl good for SD? If you are, it is.

So he was armed with a 5 shot snub and stopped 4 attackers. Since he didn't kill anybody some might see this as a failure. I don't. He got the attackers off of him and lived to tell the tale. And I think this is a good example of a 38 caliber gun doing what it was supposed to do. Protect the owner.

Exactly.

 

[.308 Norma]

I think it has more to do with a stubborn aversion to purchasing bullets as opposed to casting them..

You could be right in most cases. But I don't think I have a "stubborn aversion" to casting my own, I used to do it, but I've grown lazy. So now I purchase my favorite cast bullets over the internet. I seldom use jacketed bullets in my revolvers.
But I totally agree that the cost of SD ammo is a weak argument for using lead. As I said, I seldom use jacketed bullets in my revolvers. I like cast lead bullets in revolvers. But when I'm carrying a revolver for SD (against possible two-legged predators) it's loaded with top notch, factory JHPs.

 

[Haywood]

I think with proper placement it will work fine.

 

[Crowman]

The bullets I use for antipersonnel loads are jacketed, either JHP or JSP and are 158 grain because this weight shoots to point of aim with my fixed sights. Hard cast SWC or WNFP are my preferred bullets for woods carry. In both cases, the lighter ones print a bit low for me, the heavier ones print a bit high, for me.

Casting preferences and aversions to purchasing jacketed bullets are a non-issue for me. I carry the best available ammunition that suits the given job within the limits of my lead dispensing tool.

HPR, Grizzly, or Hornady 38 Special 158 grain JHP are my preferred self defense loads.

All my 38 Special woods carry loads are +P hard cast SWC or wide nose flat point. Buffalo Bore 158 grain hard cast Keith style SWC "Outdoorsman" ammo is my preferred woods carry, along with a Speer shotshell. These BB +P babies (1027 fps from 1-7/8" barrel) are deep penetrating. Those are my "walking to the mailbox" loads (mailbox is located 1/2 mile down a dirt mountain road through the woods).

I purchase comparable bullets for full power SD hand loads for practice, and 158 grain cast SWC light "field loads" for plinking. Gotta match your bullet selection and power level to the job at hand. I have zero qualms about totin' a 38 Special to town, though I tote a 357 or a 44 when I go up ridge walking up in the Government land. Got bear & hawgs.