#RevolverCurious

[feudist]

What I don't quite get about the current wave of interest in carry revolvers is they're almost all going to use .38 not very Special.

I like revolvers and shoot them well but the .38 across it's life as a service weapon was considered marginal. Only a couple of loads ever got it off it's face and on to it's knees.

Notice that when discussed as a BUG load, a lot here carry and advocate softball wadcutters.

Had I been allowed to carry magnums, I would likely have stayed with the revolver a lot longer than most cops did. But magnums are plain nasty in carry sized guns,

and get characterized often as a .38 with a flashbang attached to it. Maybe...

But really, do people seriously buy into the "All handguns suck" "If you can shoot it doesn't matter" "mine handgun is to fight my way to my rifle" line so that you are going to

carry a 4 " 35 oz 6 shooter loaded with .38 wads? Or even "FBI" loads?

Do any .38s make Doc's list?

And why do I want an AIWB for my skinny model 10?

[rathos]

in the 380 and .38 thread in the ammo section:


Currently, the Speer Gold Dot 135 gr +P JHP, Winchester 130 gr bonded +P JHP (RA38B), and Barnes 110 gr XPB all copper JHP (for ex. in the Corbon DPX loading) offer the most reliable expansion we have seen from a .38 sp 2” BUG; Hornady 110 gr standard pressure and +P Critical Defense loads also offer good performance out of 2" barrel revolvers.

The 130 bonded seems to do well out of my 3 inch k frames as far as accuracy as well.

[JRV]

But really, do people seriously buy into the "All handguns suck" "If you can shoot it doesn't matter"

All handguns suck. I fought a guy on an EMS assistance call that had a 9mm Gold Dot deflect off the slope of his skull. Clerk at a convenience store punched him an inch above the T-zone, and it basically scalped him partially and riled him up.

We had an OIS with a guy at an assisted living facility. Son was trying to kill his father while high. Deputy put two .45+P HSTs in him, a lung shot and a gut shot. Guy continued to fight until restrained, then walked himself into an ambulance under his own power.

I went to college with Trooper Mark Coates’s son. He was a SC Highway Patrolman killed on US-17. Put five 125 gr .357 Mags center mass on an obese guy, and they all failed to penetrate. Obese guy shot the Trooper with a .22 short derringer, and it ricocheted off his humerus, went behind the vest, and capped his aorta.

Revolvers give you several advantages. They are not sensitive to contact shooting. The ammunition is not held in by a simple button that’s easy to actuate inadvertently on foreign objects or in a fight. They are difficult to ND under stress but (speaking of quality guns here) easy to shoot deliberately. They are not sensitive to ammo choice. .38 Spl gives, with good ammo selection, ample penetration with good controllability. Wheelguns conceal like crazy because of their rounded, organic shapes. There is a historicity (or character, perhaps, I couldn’t find a better word) to carrying one, especially for older or prior LEOs and their kids/friends/associates/trainees.

You give up capacity, but that’s the trade-off for having your ammo attached quite securely to your gun.


And why do I want an AIWB for my skinny model 10?

The siren’s song calls to all that sail into the fog.

[revchuck38]

...the .38 across it's life as a service weapon was considered marginal. Only a couple of loads ever got it off it's face and on to it's knees.

The same can be said about the 9x19. If it weren't for the boatloads of R&D money thrown at it recently, it would still be true. .38 Special hasn't benefitted from the same level of R&D.

Wadcutters are recommended for snubbies because they're more controllable and penetrate to FBI standards. I'm unaware of anyone who recommends them in larger guns.

There aren't any .38 Special loads on Doc's list because Doc's list is limited to 9x19, .40 S&W and .45 ACP. He mentions a couple in his .38 vs .380 thread, but that's specifically for snubbies. He has favorably mentioned the R-P version of the FBI load for use in 4" revolvers.

Though it's counterintuitive, some of us (including me) shoot revolvers better than autoloaders.

IMO, the biggest reason to choose an autoloader over a revolver remains capacity rather than ammo effectiveness. That's why I've switched, but I'm still comfortable carrying my 4" M10 stuffed with the R-P FBI load, and just ordered a JMCK IWB 3 for it to replace the leather IWB I used to use.

[JAH 3rd]

No matter what firearm one shoots, proficiency is what I am looking for. Putting holes on the paper so to speak. This takes practice with the firearm, shooting carry ammo, hand-eye coordination, controlling breathing....the list goes on. Shooting against a timer can add a bit of stress....just to show how groups can open up when timed.

So I don't care what handgun/caliber a person has on his/her person. Just be able to hit what you aim at. If a recoil sensitive person shoots and is proficient with a .22, well then bravo. If someone else wants to shoot a 44 magnum, and is proficient, well then, "Go ahead, make my day". My point simply is, no matter what you shoot, be a good shot! Have confidence in the firearm and your abilities.

[BehindBlueI's]

Had I been allowed to carry magnums, I would likely have stayed with the revolver a lot longer than most cops did. But magnums are plain nasty in carry sized guns,


Nasty how and what's carry size? If you want penetration, a .357 magnum from a 4" barrel seems to offer it in spades.

[03RN]

While I prefer carrying magnums I really dont feel undergunned with 130gr rangers or a 158gr swc at 900-1000fps.

I am planing on looking for a 125gr jhp (probably xtps) that I can push 1100fps from a 4" that still expands from a 2" gun.

[Inspector71]

I realize that the PF crowd is mostly interested in carry guns, but there is a segment of the population that I think is well served by a double-action, medium frame, .38 revolver. They are interested ONLY in home defense, not carry. They are generally not gun people, but open to learning the basics of safe gun handling. Who am I talking about ? Your 78 old grandmother, living alone, with hand strength issues and recoil sensitivity. I’m putting her in a S&W model 10, with factory wad cutters. When asked, that is my go to answer. FYI, I reside in a 55 plus community. I probably know your grandmother (LOL).

[03RN]

Nasty how and what's carry size? If you want penetration, a .357 magnum from a 4" barrel seems to offer it in spades.

My 2.75" gun actually shoots some loads faster than my m19 and the rest are nearly identical

[jetfire]

The logic behind wadcutters in the little j-frames is pretty straightforward. It goes like this:

1. Magnums offer marginal performance gains over +P JHP rounds in exchange for unacceptable levels of recoil and muzzle blast.
2. +P JHPs are unlike to expand when fired out of J-frame/LCR revolvers and offer harsh levels of recoil, plus sometimes don't hit to the fixed sights.
3. 148gr WC offer acceptable levels of recoil, and in 100% of tests will meet the FBI penetration standards after defeating 4LD. Plus, they frequently print right behind the front sight, which is what we want.

I carry wadcutters in my LCR, and 135gr +P Gold Dots in my L-Frames.

[revchuck38]

I carry wadcutters in my LCR, and 135gr +P Gold Dots in my L-Frames.

I'm curious as to why you've chosen the .38 GDs as opposed to the .357 version. I've only gone through a 20-round box of the .357s, but my impression was that their blast and flash wasn't that big a deal compared to full-power Magnums and not much more than the +Ps.

[jetfire]

I'm curious as to why you've chosen the .38 GDs as opposed to the .357 version. I've only gone through a 20-round box of the .357s, but my impression was that their blast and flash wasn't that big a deal compared to full-power Magnums and not much more than the +Ps.

With the dot on my gun, I like to have my practice ammo and my carry ammo hit to approximately the same POA/POI. Carrying Magnums and shooting 38s makes that almost impossible, so I decided to compromise and go with the 38s. The 135gr +P Gold Dot and my favorite 130gr FMJ American Eagle hit as near as makes no difference at 10 and 25 yards.

[revchuck38]

Got it.

[GAP]

The logic behind wadcutters in the little j-frames is pretty straightforward. It goes like this:

1. Magnums offer marginal performance gains over +P JHP rounds in exchange for unacceptable levels of recoil and muzzle blast.
2. +P JHPs are unlike to expand when fired out of J-frame/LCR revolvers and offer harsh levels of recoil, plus sometimes don't hit to the fixed sights.
3. 148gr WC offer acceptable levels of recoil, and in 100% of tests will meet the FBI penetration standards after defeating 4LD. Plus, they frequently print right behind the front sight, which is what we want.

I carry wadcutters in my LCR, and 135gr +P Gold Dots in my L-Frames.

Do you like the hardcast Buffalo bore wadcutters or mainly stick with the Federal gold medal target loads?

[Chuck Whitlock]

The same can be said about the 9x19. If it weren't for the boatloads of R&D money thrown at it recently, it would still be true. .38 Special hasn't benefitted from the same level of R&D.

Wadcutters are recommended for snubbies because they're more controllable and penetrate to FBI standards. I'm unaware of anyone who recommends them in larger guns.

There aren't any .38 Special loads on Doc's list because Doc's list is limited to 9x19, .40 S&W and .45 ACP. He mentions a couple in his .38 vs .380 thread, but that's specifically for snubbies.

Based on the initial reports of the Hydra-Shok Deep's performance in the .380 loading, I am cautiously excited to see what a .38 Special loading will do.

[blues]

I may try the wadcutters in the future, but for now it's Winchester RA38B since I have a pretty good supply. (130gr bonded +P)

[Rex G]

Had I been allowed to carry magnums, I would likely have stayed with the revolver a lot longer than most cops did. But magnums are plain nasty in carry sized guns,

and get characterized often as a .38 with a flashbang attached to it. Maybe...

And why do I want an AIWB for my skinny model 10?

1. If it is “nasty,” well, embrace the nasty. The user can be stress-inoculated, prepared for the sound and fury. Be Zeus/Jupiter. Proper grips/stocks, and a high hold, minimize muzzle flip.

2. Skinny-barrel revolvers are very comfortable, for me, @ traditional IWB and AIWB. Even a full-lug GP100 is OK, too.

[mmc45414]

I think it would be cool to have a 357 load with a 0.357" 147G2 going the same speed as our pistols with a fast enough powder not to light the curtains on fire. There have to be dozens of us that want a factory load like that!!!

[SCCY Marshal]

And why do I want an AIWB for my skinny model 10?

Because they carry great and, especially if roundbutted and bobbed, are probably the best dehorned medium frame handguns ever made.

Being generally agreeable with most ammo during a shortage, requiring less critical support gear (like magazines) than autos, probably having the best design ever for dryfire practice, and posessing a world class trigger all help.

I also like the comment about lack of an easily tripped magazine release while the ammo is also connected to the gun. I think paddle mag. releases mostly solve it
Heel clips certainly did long ago. And it's mostly a pocket gun concern if going by situations likely to cause a problem. But it is a fairly significant part of the revolver's appeal to me.

I'd also add to consideration to how well a revolver tucks away. Long, relatively heavy trigger, cylinder that binds under pressure (as from belts, legs, and cushions), dehorned profile, ability to run with a buggered grip on them, and lack of slide to bump out of battery all leave the revolver more open to unconventional carry modes than most-any autos. If it's under my thing at the bank drive-through, my .357 has the cylinder bound and won't try popping a mag. free like even a 92D as one quick example.

There's also the highly subjectibe yet absolutely vital metric of how well a gun fits your lifestyle on a holistic level rather than specific bits plucked for isolated intellectual comparison. My round butt model 10 snub tucks away in Baramis better than even a G42 while giving me a fistful of steel the size of a G26 with very similar capability to place shots out to 25+ yards. It is very easy to get along with on an administrative level, has the same cross-platform training familiarity between sizes as GLOCK, and I can hand it off to someone else with much more confidence it will work than any auto I've previously met. Plus it makes me feel good which has nothing to do with a performance board discussion but is real and does matter to me.

And I hunt in a state with 357 Magnum as a minimum handgun power level. Putting on a Model 57 carries much less additional practice concern for me than if I still carried an automatic day-to-day. Streamlining two very important bits of practice is super nice, especially when travel and ammo availability are compromised.

[Rex G]

What I don't quite get about the current wave of interest in carry revolvers is they're almost all going to use .38 not very Special.

I like revolvers and shoot them well but the .38 across it's life as a service weapon was considered marginal. Only a couple of loads ever got it off it's face and on to it's knees.

Notice that when discussed as a BUG load, a lot here carry and advocate softball wadcutters.

The late, great Pat Rogers seemed to regard the old NYPD lead SWC as performing adequately, if one shot it accurately. I take that to mean hit important things, not just somewhere in the vague big middle.

I do carry target wadcutters, in guns that would hurt my aging hands, especially my gimp right hand, if I used hotter stuff. Airweights and Airlites, in particular.

[jetfire]

Do you like the hardcast Buffalo bore wadcutters or mainly stick with the Federal gold medal target loads?

Federal Gold Medal Match for me. Best primers for max reliability.

[feudist]

Is there anyone who carries, or would carry, the 125gr. magnums of yore?

I know RexG used one to spectacular effect. A lot of the old guys in my Dept. when I started swore by it. "It blows motherfuckers up" is a direct quote. Pre-1980, when

a civil rights goober managed to get elected and hired an NYPD Captain to be our chief, the department had the second highest use of force in the US.

A couple of brothers had 30 kills between them. Lot's of old timers had 5 or more fatal shootings. One old gunsmith I knew killed 3 robbers on Halloween.

Point being, none of these guys considered .357 125s to be all bark no bite.


edit:and to RevChuck's point about 9mm development, will the .38 get similar development(can it be developed?) to raise it to a top tier round? Once Gropy Joe outlaws everything

besides sixguns and two shoots?

[03RN]

Because they carry great and, especially if roundbutted and bobbed, are probably the best dehorned medium frame handguns ever made.
.

Yes they do. This was my backup that I carried when my m19 was down. It'll be my daughters when she's older.

63920

[03RN]

Is there anyone who carries, or would carry, the 125gr. magnums of yore?

I know RexG used one to spectacular effect. A lot of the old guys in my Dept. when I started swore by it. "It blows motherfuckers up" is a direct quote. Pre-1980, when

a civil rights goober managed to get elected and hired an NYPD Captain to be our chief, the department had the second highest use of force in the US.

A couple of brothers had 30 kills between them. Lot's of old timers had 5 or more fatal shootings. One old gunsmith I knew killed 3 robbers on Halloween.

Point being, none of these guys considered .357 125s to be all bark no bite.


edit:and to RevChuck's point about 9mm development, will the .38 get similar development(can it be developed?) to raise it to a top tier round? Once Gropy Joe outlaws everything

besides sixguns and two shoots?

I wouldn't not carry them. Now that ive gotten better grips i can shoot them with no fatigue. They shoot to low in my m66 but my m19 with adjustable sight is fine. Now that Ive settled on a cd-2 iwb im not worried about the hp being smashed either.

[feudist]

I wouldn't not carry them. Now that ive gotten better grips i can shoot them with no fatigue. They shoot to low in my m66 but my m19 with adjustable sight is fine. Now that Ive settled on a cd-2 iwb im not worried about the hp being smashed either.

CD-2?

[03RN]

CD-2?

Safariland cd-2 at 12 oclock iwb

[03RN]

I think it would be cool to have a 357 load with a 0.357" 147G2 going the same speed as our pistols with a fast enough powder not to light the curtains on fire. There have to be dozens of us that want a factory load like that!!!

Kinda like my 140gr xtp at 1150fps

[SCCY Marshal]

Is there anyone who carries, or would carry, the 125gr. magnums of yore?

Several local agencies had very high opinions of Federal's loading for its track record against charging pit/rottie class dogs. Liked to step out with the 12 gauges usually stoked with 00, #1, or Foster slugs for larger problem critters. They never really shot people 'round here but covered a number of suicides and homicides with them that made them.comfortable enough with the selection.

I'd not feel bad about carrying hot 125 SJHP but have cast my lot with 158 grain SJHP for reasons from car-based carry and whitetail to stubbornly using the same bullet mold as for my .38 reloading. If going with 125 grain pills in a daily carry rig, I'd likely prefer to channel the late Stephen Camp and run midrange magnums (https://hipowersandhandguns.com/can_less_be_more.htm). Mostly to save wear and tear on the gun given it'd be reasonable to cook up a comparable practice handload. It'd also help the ol' splits on the ever-present timer.

[jetfire]

It’s a shame that actual science and calm analysis of real world results show us that 125gr JHP from a 357 Mag is exactly as effective as 124gr JHP from a 9mm.

[feudist]

It’s a shame that actual science and calm analysis of real world results show us that 125gr JHP from a 357 Mag is exactly as effective as 124gr JHP from a 9mm.

Have you a link to those results? Or search term?

[feudist]

Kinda like my 140gr xtp at 1150fps

What's recoil/blast/flash like on those?

[03RN]

What's recoil/blast/flash like on those?

Not bad at all. I can ring 10x12" steel pretty rapidly at 40 yards.

[SCCY Marshal]

It’s a shame that actual science and calm analysis of real world results show us that 125gr JHP from a 357 Mag is exactly as effective as 124gr JHP from a 9mm.

The Christmas season must be here since this popped straight to mind:

"'The sun would have risen just the same, yes?'
NO
'Oh, come on. You can't expect me to believe that. It's an astronomical fact.'
THE SUN WOULD NOT HAVE RISEN.
...
'Really? Then what would have happened, pray?'
A MERE BALL OF FLAMING GAS WOULD HAVE ILLUMINATED THE WORLD."

[jetfire]

Have you a link to those results? Or search term?

Actual heads up comparison done in a controlled environment under repeatable conditions by an industry expert.

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/

Pay special attention to where similar rounds are shot, like Critical Duty 357 Mag vs Critical Duty 9mm. Performance is exactly the same.

[mmc45414]

Kinda like my 140gr xtp at 1150fps

What's recoil/blast/flash like on those?

Not bad at all. I can ring 10x12" steel pretty rapidly at 40 yards.
Yup, exactly. What powder did you use?
In this case it would be tempting to carry reloads, something I try and avoid.

[feudist]

Actual heads up comparison done in a controlled environment under repeatable conditions by an industry expert.

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/

Pay special attention to where similar rounds are shot, like Critical Duty 357 Mag vs Critical Duty 9mm. Performance is exactly the same.

Very interesting. They use Clear Ballistics gel, is that kosher?

The Fed HST .38 looked pretty impressive. As did some of the all copper loads in .357.

[rathos]

I carry the barnes 125 in my 3 inch GP-100. They shoot pretty soft and after the tests lucky gunner did it seemed like a good round for 2 or 4 legged creatures. I did also test them out of my k6 and they were still very controllable, but didn't seem as close to POA/POI as the 135 +P gold dot 38s.


Very interesting. They use Clear Ballistics gel, is that kosher?

The Fed HST .38 looked pretty impressive. As did some of the all copper loads in .357.

[03RN]

Yup, exactly. What powder did you use?
In this case it would be tempting to carry reloads, something I try and avoid.

9gr unique.

I was shooting for 1250fps but it is what it is.

[03RN]

Very interesting. They use Clear Ballistics gel, is that kosher?

The Fed HST .38 looked pretty impressive. As did some of the all copper loads in .357.

No, i haven't been to impressed with the .38 hsts in organic gel.
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?31785-38-Special-Lead-Bullet-Gel-Test

[BehindBlueI's]

It’s a shame that actual science and calm analysis of real world results show us that 125gr JHP from a 357 Mag is exactly as effective as 124gr JHP from a 9mm.

Maybe. Particularly if loaded to the same fps or to meet the same penetration goals. However the .357 can certainly be loaded hotter and gain more penetration if someone wants it. That's rarely the same as more effective, but can be when heavier intermediate barriers are in place. I'm sure you are already aware, but many folks don't stop to think that the makers load "duty rounds" to meet a set standard that has both a lower and an upper specification so a lot of "potential", so to speak, is wasted in various cartridges so as to not go over that maximum desired penetration.




Pay special attention to where similar rounds are shot, like Critical Duty 357 Mag vs Critical Duty 9mm. Performance is exactly the same.

If we're talking purely physical results on target, I have yet to see a Critical Duty .357 Magnum stay in a human but have seen the 9mm do so in similar circumstances. The .357 is nearly 200 fps faster in the 135 gr category, and anecdotally it expands but not as much as the 9mm. If by performance you just mean "makes bad guys stop doing what they are doing", it's probably so close as to be a wash for what most of us are concerned with.


Very interesting. They use Clear Ballistics gel, is that kosher?


No. Well, I mean it might be literally kosher, but it's not the standard for FBI style testing.

[jetfire]

Very interesting. They use Clear Ballistics gel, is that kosher?

The Fed HST .38 looked pretty impressive. As did some of the all copper loads in .357.

No, it’s not the FBI standard.

The reason why it’s important is because it’s rare to have a table of actual, comparable data done in the same medium by the same people under repeatable conditions. That’s why it matters.

[Half Moon]

Very interesting. They use Clear Ballistics gel, is that kosher?

The Fed HST .38 looked pretty impressive. As did some of the all copper loads in .357.

FWIW, my understanding is the synthetic gel understates expansion somewhat and overstates penetration by about 20 to 30%. This is both from gel testers here at P-F and comparing organic tests at places that use organic, like Ballistics By The Inch, to synthetic tests from Lucky Gunner and others.

[revchuck38]

No, it’s not the FBI standard.

The reason why it’s important is because it’s rare to have a table of actual, comparable data done in the same medium by the same people under repeatable conditions. That’s why it matters.

This, and it's also the only data we have for old school ammo like the FBI loads, Remington's SJHPs, and Hornady's XTPs. I chose the R-P 158-grain load as my .357 Mag carry load based on this test and the fact that it hits POA from my 681.

[Lester Polfus]

No, it’s not the FBI standard.

The reason why it’s important is because it’s rare to have a table of actual, comparable data done in the same medium by the same people under repeatable conditions. That’s why it matters.

Yes. I think it is useful for comparing one load to another, but not for comparing it to the FBI standard.

It's still useful to know "X will penetrate more than Y"

[OlongJohnson]

I think it would be cool to have a 357 load with a 0.357" 147G2 going the same speed as our pistols with a fast enough powder not to light the curtains on fire. There have to be dozens of us that want a factory load like that!!!

Dozens. At least.


edit:and to RevChuck's point about 9mm development, will the .38 get similar development(can it be developed?) to raise it to a top tier round? Once Gropy Joe outlaws everything besides sixguns and two shoots?

It absolutely can be. Two things holding it back, likely. One is that there isn't the competition for LE agency contracts that will move tens to hundreds of thousands, even millions, of rounds to a single customer. The other is that there are still legacy 158gr loads available that likely work just fine. Also, there are 130-145 grain bonded loads from major manufacturers that are pretty comparable to their best bottom-feeder loads. They just already don't sell that many of them, so where is the payback to justify investing in slightly betterizing them?


Kinda like my 140gr xtp at 1150fps

I need to try some of that. Bet it would be nice from the GP MC.


No. Well, I mean it might be literally kosher, but it's not the standard for FBI style testing.

But is it halal?

[revchuck38]

...and to RevChuck's point about 9mm development, will the .38 get similar development(can it be developed?) to raise it to a top tier round?


It absolutely can be. Two things holding it back, likely. One is that there isn't the competition for LE agency contracts that will move tens to hundreds of thousands, even millions, of rounds to a single customer. The other is that there are still legacy 158gr loads available that likely work just fine. Also, there are 130-145 grain bonded loads from major manufacturers that are pretty comparable to their best bottom-feeder loads. They just already don't sell that many of them, so where is the payback to justify investing in slightly betterizing them?

Based on the Lucky Gunner tests, it looks like you could add ~20 grains to the 130-grain HST Micro design, still stay within +P pressures and get decent expansion, at least from a 4" barrel. As noted above, the market for them would be a tiny niche and they'd never recoup their investment. The main improvement of such a load over the R-P and Winchester FBI loads would be intermediate barrier performance...maybe. The development the ammo companies have done was on 125-135-grain bullets at snubby velocities and most of them seem to work pretty well and have produced good ROI for the companies that make them.

[mmc45414]

I think .38 is not all that underserved, I think .357 is the stepchild. A few years ago I found some of the Gold Dot Short Barrel stuff and it was still just nasty. All I want is 9mm performance without the flashbang concussion. Probably what I actually want is to get my 340 reamed...

[03RN]

I think .38 is not all that underserved, I think .357 is the stepchild. A few years ago I found some of the Gold Dot Short Barrel stuff and it was still just nasty. All I want is 9mm performance without the flashbang concussion. Probably what I actually want is to get my 340 reamed...

The .357 golden sabers are probably the closest. 125 @ 1200fps. Very mild to shoot.

[jetfire]

A lot of the talk about improving 38 Special terminal performance amounts to so many angels dancing on the head of a primer. Pat Rogers and DB have both noted in the past that 38 Special, even the shitty LRN loads, worked just fine when shot people in the bits that matter. To steal a phrase from Jared Reston, if you guy a kill in a gunfight, he doesn't get to come back just because you used the wrong load on him.

[mmc45414]

The .357 golden sabers are probably the closest. 125 @ 1200fps. Very mild to shoot.
Thanks for the tip. Now the hunt starts for not just ammo, but REMINGTON ammo... Hahahaha

[Rick R]

A lot of the talk about improving 38 Special terminal performance amounts to so many angels dancing on the head of a primer. Pat Rogers and DB have both noted in the past that 38 Special, even the shitty LRN loads, worked just fine when shot people in the bits that matter. To steal a phrase from Jared Reston, if you guy a kill in a gunfight, he doesn't get to come back just because you used the wrong load on him.

I’ve seen a few dead people from 158gr LRN, nobody got up off the autopsy table after the procedure.
But where’s the fun being satisfied with the same old thing?

FWIW This is the load I carry in my 3” GP100 WC which is the same 4.6” from breech to muzzle as the G20 they used in the test

https://www.luckygunner.com/10mm-auto-180-grain-v-crown-jhp-sig-sauer-20-rounds#geltest

Not all revolvers are .357” bore...

[JRV]

To steal a phrase from Jared Reston, if you guy a kill in a gunfight, he doesn't get to come back just because you used the wrong load on him.

I think you worded a switch.

[jetfire]

I think you worded a switch.

FRIG

[Guerrero]

I think you worded a switch.


FRIG

Dyslexia will auto-correct it

[TCinVA]

It's an interesting question, the .38.

A lot of bad people have been killed by .38 spl LRN bullets. If we go back in time and take a hard look at what the most accomplished gunmen of the pre-WWII era were using, we'd see a wide range of equipment. 1911 pistols shooting the sub-optimal FMJ, .44 caliber DA revolvers, registered magnums, Peacemakers, and plenty of .38 revolvers shooting LRN.

If we looked beyond the most accomplished gunmen we'd find contemporaries who used the very same equipment with poorer results.

No one would argue that 9mm ball ammo is a spectacularly good performer in terms of terminal ballistics, and yet there are a number of people in the military and the NYPD (before they allowed HP ammo) who killed bad guys deader than fried chicken on the spot with skillful application of it to the right pieces of anatomy.

The right pieces of anatomy are actually incredibly small. Reliably hitting them requires a much higher level of skill than is typically understood. If you look through some of the famous gunfighters from the pre-WWII era you'll find an awfully large percentage of them were accomplished competitive shooters. It was bullseye competition, but it still involved hitting a very small mark under competitive pressure. This experience seems to have come in handy when it was time to stop bad guys.

If we could talk to all those folks and get the facts and figures of their gunfighting experiences, we'd probably come to an aggregate conclusion that handguns are pretty bad at stopping the actions of bad people and that, with that acknowledged, even the sub optimal options by modern standards worked pretty good if you could shoot.

The people most famous for pushing the development of magnum rounds in handguns weren't really the gunfighters of the day. Elmer Keith was a hugely influential figure in the world of firearms, but he was killing game at ridiculous distances with handguns, not doing battle with bandits on the Mexican border. That said, if a magnum cartridge does a better job putting mule deer down at distance, the same factors will probably be useful in a gunfight, right?

Of course, anyone who hunts for a while encounters some of the realities of what projectiles do to flesh and figures out that most creatures don't really know how to quit. The last buck I killed wasn't one I set out to shoot. I had to shoot the animal before it could get up and run off yet again...this despite the fact that its guts were literally hanging out. Turns out that a 124 grain +P HST out of a Glock 17 delivered into the brain stem is immediately effective in a way that a .308 bullet sub-optmially placed in the chest was not.

Post WWII, police agencies increasingly sought out the new .357 magnum in hopes of getting better results than the .38 spl had yielded. Full power magnum loads were stout. The revolvers capable of handling those stout loads were few and generally heavy and expensive. Lighter guns were desired, and gun companies being in the business of selling guns people want to buy responded with medium framed revolvers. Those smaller revolvers didn't do so well with a steady diet of 158 grain loads stuffed on top of as much powder as the case would hold. The shooters using them didn't fare so well, either. So lighter bullets were used.

(Does this sound AT ALL familiar? Like maybe an almost identical description for how things went with a certain millimeter like 20 years later?)

A lot of lore and legend emerged around the capabilities of the .357 magnum. But I bet if we could go back in time and take the kind of look at police shootings that we have in modern times, we'd find that the .357 magnum in aggregate didn't do any better than the .38 spl. In theory the .357 magnum with a 125 grain JHP moving fast is better than the .38 spl. Except that the loads of the day often under-penetrated and/or failed to expand. Then there's still that whole thing about where, exactly, you put them.

If an officer put a couple of them in one of those small structures mentioned earlier, it worked pretty well. The .357 magnum ammo of the day didn't perform consistently while producing a lot more recoil and muzzle blast (which surely looked and sounded more impressive), but it still worked pretty good if you could shoot.

Today thanks to the application of scientific rigor to the pursuit of terminal ballistics (bringing it away from a pursuit more akin to alchemy prior to Miami) we have 9mm ammunition that out-performs the 125 grain .357 magnum loads of legend. The bullets have been tuned to reliably penetrate and expand at a specific range of velocity, and the designs have been refined to the point where they even offer that reliable performance through heavy clothing and intermediate barriers. Of course, we also have similarly well-designed loads in .40 S&W, .357 sig, and .45 ACP.

After more than 20 years of examining the results of police shootings using all those calibers, the people who crunched the numbers, performed the testing, and studied autopsies concluded that you have to hit those incredibly small pieces of anatomy with a handgun if you want to make somebody stop. In other words, it all worked pretty good if you could shoot.

When this reality was considered alongside the number of problems agencies were having with the most popular .40 caliber pistols (turns out they kept having problems with reliability and breakage on top of being more difficult to get people shooting competently), the number crunching agency decided to go to...a 9mm pistol. Because lots of real-world results show that it works pretty good...if you can shoot. And if you can't, there's no bigger bullet we can stuff into a handgun that will make a meaningful difference in the outcome.

On the rare occasions I leave the house carrying a revolver it's usually a lightweight J frame, usually loaded with match wadcutters. I stuff it with match wadcutters because I've done a lot of shooting with various loads in lightweight J frames and I've found that I am able to shoot with more precise accuracy at speed using wadcutters vs. the technologically advanced JHP's stuffed on top of as much gunpowder as they can cram in a .38 spl. casing.

JHP's that quite often fail to expand when fired out of said J frames because it turns out that even when stuffed on top of as much gunpowder as you can cram into a .38 spl case, the 1 7/8" barrel doesn't reliably let the bullet to get travelling fast enough to perform as intended. Especially if the temperatures are cold. In which case all that extra gunpowder just gives you more blast, flash, and recoil for somewhat worse performance in tissue than the wadcutters. But they still work...if you can shoot.

The wadcutters let me can shoot considerably better since they hit to the sights and don't try like the dickens to wrench the gun out of my hands. So it's an easy choice.

I put the +P JHP's in my model 12 snub because I can get a full grip on that gun and the sights, such as they are, are much easier to use. The recoil isn't really a factor thanks to the extra grip I can achieve on the K frame. Of course, the only time I'm carrying that is when I'm in my gym shorts at home and there's usually a 12 gauge a few steps away.

[BehindBlueI's]

A lot of the talk about improving 38 Special terminal performance amounts to so many angels dancing on the head of a primer. Pat Rogers and DB have both noted in the past that 38 Special, even the shitty LRN loads, worked just fine when shot people in the bits that matter.

I think that's a given and well understood, at least for most people here. The issue becomes more marginal hits. A round that would have penetrated into the brain instead glancing off the skull because the angle was a bit too shallow, or a round that rides a rib for the same reason. What would have been "into a bit that matters" is now not. There are only a few ways to give you more margin of error for skipping off bone. Weight, speed, and bullet construction are really all you've got. Lighter, slower, and more rounded bullets that work samey-samey in a shot into the bridge of the nose as their heavier, faster, sharper shouldered brethren will likely not fare as well when the angles start to open up, round bone is hit, intermediate barriers come into play, etc.

[03RN]

Ive fucked up shit with 855 and standard buckshot and trust their ability to continue to fuck shit up. My personal ARs are loaded with 77gr hpbt and my shotguns with 9pellet flight control.

[45dotACP]

I think that's a given and well understood, at least for most people here. The issue becomes more marginal hits. A round that would have penetrated into the brain instead glancing off the skull because the angle was a bit too shallow, or a round that rides a rib for the same reason. What would have been "into a bit that matters" is now not. There are only a few ways to give you more margin of error for skipping off bone. Weight, speed, and bullet construction are really all you've got. Lighter, slower, and more rounded bullets that work samey-samey in a shot into the bridge of the nose as their heavier, faster, sharper shouldered brethren will likely not fare as well when the angles start to open up, round bone is hit, intermediate barriers come into play, etc.IIRC Jim Cirillo was a user of .38 special and 158gr SWCs. Or maybe it was 110 grain Super Vel JHP rounds...i forget.

I think his partner Bill Allard used a Colt National Match in .45 with SWCs as well.

Those guys could shoot pretty well though. Both regularly attended PPC or Bullseye matches and they used their sights to get rounds on target and that's probably got a bit to do with why they did so well in gun battles.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[Rex G]

At the Snubby Summit, in 2005, Jim Cirillo gave a presentation on his preference for a full wadcutter type of bullet. He did not say that was what he used in his SOU shootings, and I do not remember whether he mentioned the load that he did use.

Buffalo Bore, and, IIRC, Underwood, load full wadcutter bullets, in .38 Special ammo, these days. I may have to order some, in .38 Special, especially if none of the usual dealers get any fresh Federal Gold Medal Match Wadcutters.

[Totem Polar]

At the Snubby Summit, in 2005, Jim Cirillo gave a presentation on his preference for a full wadcutter type of bullet. He did not say that was what he used in his SOU shooting, and I do not remember whether he mentioned the load that he did use.

Buffalo Bore, and, IIRC, Underwood, load full wadcutter bullets, in .38 Special ammo, these days. I may have to order some, in .38 Special, especially if none of the usual dealers get any fresh Federal Gold Medal Match Wadcutters.

Buffalo bore is a lot hotter than federal match. That said, I like it in my LCR.

All: you’re not a revolver connoisseur if you don’t have a stash of unobtanium .357 loads with a rep for working ok... just saying...

[revchuck38]

All: you’re not a revolver connoisseur if you don’t have a stash of unobtanium .357 loads with a rep for working ok... just saying...

The only Gold Dot I have is .41 Magnum, so there! :p

[Totem Polar]

The only Gold Dot I have is .41 Magnum, so there! :p

Post a photo of a box of 210 grain LSWC at 1050fps, and I will yield the floor...
:D

(Especially if the box is next to a model 58...)

[revchuck38]

Post a photo of a box of 210 grain LSWC at 1050fps, and I will yield the floor...
:D

(Especially if the box is next to a model 58...)

I wish I could on both counts. :) All I have is a measly nickled 4" M57 no-dash with Spegel grips. I do need to take a picture of it, just not tonight.

[Totem Polar]

I wish I could on both counts. :) All I have is a measly nickled 4" M57 no-dash with Spegel grips. I do need to take a picture of it, just not tonight.

Tease.

;)

[feudist]

At the Snubby Summit, in 2005, Jim Cirillo gave a presentation on his preference for a full wadcutter type of bullet. He did not say that was what he used in his SOU shootings, and I do not remember whether he mentioned the load that he did use.

Buffalo Bore, and, IIRC, Underwood, load full wadcutter bullets, in .38 Special ammo, these days. I may have to order some, in .38 Special, especially if none of the usual dealers get any fresh Federal Gold Medal Match Wadcutters.

IIRC, he started off with SuperVel but after his first shooting he noticed it had skidded off the perps skull a couple of times. He started experimenting and came up with

a sort of jacketed wadcutter designed to bite into the skull at an angle. Also he was loading pretty hot at essentially mid range .357 magnum pressures.

[mtnbkr]

Buffalo bore is a lot hotter than federal match. That said, I like it in my LCR.

All: you’re not a revolver connoisseur if you don’t have a stash of unobtanium .357 loads with a rep for working ok... just saying...

I like the BB load as well. When I'm lazy and tote the LCR in the woods instead of a "real" gun, I swap out the EDC Speer Short Barrel load for the BB Wadcutters.

As for being a revolver connoisseur, what if instead of boxes of factory ammo you have bins of brass, a huge stash of powder and primers, a lead furnace, a lubrisizer, and several hundred pounds of lead? :cool: #PreparedForTheZombieApocalypse

Chris

[TCinVA]

At the Snubby Summit, in 2005, Jim Cirillo gave a presentation on his preference for a full wadcutter type of bullet. He did not say that was what he used in his SOU shootings, and I do not remember whether he mentioned the load that he did use.

Buffalo Bore, and, IIRC, Underwood, load full wadcutter bullets, in .38 Special ammo, these days. I may have to order some, in .38 Special, especially if none of the usual dealers get any fresh Federal Gold Medal Match Wadcutters.

Best I remember, Cirillo spent a fair bit of time trying to get better terminal ballistics himself in the pre-Miami days. A lot of the accomplished gunmen who wrote seemed to express a feeling of considerable consternation at their first experience having shot bad guys with handguns only for the bad guys to have taken very little notice of it. That resulted in a lot of experimentation in search of something that would accomplish the intended result sooner.

It wouldn't surprise me if, after years of experimentation on his own and paying careful attention to wound ballistics, he settled on wadcutters for the snub in his use and that idea spread to others from him.

[TCinVA]

While we're on the topic of terminal ballistics and revolvers, we would be remiss if we didn't listen to Bob Stasch:


https://youtu.be/Yd3v_fssabI

Especially his account of engaging a perp with a .44 magnum multiple times...one who, prior to that, had taken an entire cylinder of .45 Colt AND a cylinder of .38 +P from another officer's primary and backup revolver...and upon seeing no useful result stopped targeting the chest and put two rounds into the dude's pelvic area to finally knock him down. And the dude took 10 days to die.

[TCinVA]

63996

A look at some JHP rounds Chuck Haggard fired at the recent Revolver Roundup in his 4 layers of denim test. Note that you don't really see expansion. Most of them penetrated adequately. Contrast that with the wadcutters:

63997

...which look pretty much the same. The hard corner of the wadcutters has a more pronounced cutting action in flesh than most of the JHP rounds when they fail to expand. In the typical 2" or less small revolver, you're just not getting anything extra apart from the blast and recoil.

[SCCY Marshal]

I'm not sold on gaining nothing with the jacketed bullets. Given my highly scientific back forty plinking, I'd wager things would look different with something like a couple layers of sheet metal car door between the gun and block. Those soft lead wadcutters are eventually going to meet a barrier that will stop them but the faster copper sheathed JHP would still clear.

Similarly, the rise of the individually owned automobile was another factor in the popularity of the 357 Magnum. There, the extra belligerence did tend to give more reliable performance. At least in the era of plain lead solids.

That said, I'd still take the easily realized accuracy and low recoil of the match wadcutter over whatever a JHP has to offer in the flyweights.

[TCinVA]

I'm not sold on gaining nothing with the jacketed bullets.

For clarity, I'm talking about the J frames with wadcutters. Once you get up to 3" the .38 rounds with JHP start to perform.

Performance of .357 magnum out of snubs is better, but the recoil is punishing.

[45dotACP]

While we're on the topic of terminal ballistics and revolvers, we would be remiss if we didn't listen to Bob Stasch:


https://youtu.be/Yd3v_fssabI

Especially his account of engaging a perp with a .44 magnum multiple times...one who, prior to that, had taken an entire cylinder of .45 Colt AND a cylinder of .38 +P from another officer's primary and backup revolver...and upon seeing no useful result stopped targeting the chest and put two rounds into the dude's pelvic area to finally knock him down. And the dude took 10 days to die.Ah that's a good interview.

I always figured the conclusions he arrived at (shoot for the head using the largest caliber you can handle and add XS big dots to your gun) didn't make sense to me until I realized that they were not all that crazy because Bob was actually advocating that you

1. Practice. He could hit a head sized target one handed at ten yards and while he admitted he wasn't a precision shooter, he still practiced more than most of his colleagues.
2. Carry a suitable caliber. Carry the most effective gun you can. He even suggested that 147gr JHP 9mm was good enough for him despite his preference for a .45
3. Use a coarse sight picture for close up targets because it doesn't need to be perfect when you're close enough. He calls it point shooting...but seems to understand that sight picture requirements are on a spectrum.
4. Aim for targets that will stop the threat

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[Malamute]

Best I remember, Cirillo spent a fair bit of time trying to get better terminal ballistics himself in the pre-Miami days. A lot of the accomplished gunmen who wrote seemed to express a feeling of considerable consternation at their first experience having shot bad guys with handguns only for the bad guys to have taken very little notice of it. That resulted in a lot of experimentation in search of something that would accomplish the intended result sooner.

It wouldn't surprise me if, after years of experimentation on his own and paying careful attention to wound ballistics, he settled on wadcutters for the snub in his use and that idea spread to others from him.

Cirillo may have helped spread the idea, but its been around a long time. Ive seen an old Colt advertisement from the 40s or 50s with I think a Detective Special and they were promoting the idea of wadcutters for mild shooting loads that had good effect. I was just searching for it and cant find it, I wish Id saved it when i saw it.

[TCinVA]

Cirillo may have helped spread the idea, but its been around a long time. Ive seen an old Colt advertisement from the 40s or 50s with I think a Detective Special and they were promoting the idea of wadcutters for mild shooting loads that had good effect. I was just searching for it and cant find it, I wish Id saved it when i saw it.

I don't doubt you.

I also don't doubt that Cirillo is one of those figures who brought a lot of wisdom from prior ages forward because in this business we tend to lose the lessons people learned in the past.

[feudist]

63996

A look at some JHP rounds Chuck Haggard fired at the recent Revolver Roundup in his 4 layers of denim test. Note that you don't really see expansion. Most of them penetrated adequately. Contrast that with the wadcutters:

63997

...which look pretty much the same. The hard corner of the wadcutters has a more pronounced cutting action in flesh than most of the JHP rounds when they fail to expand. In the typical 2" or less small revolver, you're just not getting anything extra apart from the blast and recoil.

Are those of different caliber or weights?

Or is it an optical illusion?

[revchuck38]

In the hollowpoint picture, the one on the top far right appears to be a 158-grain R-P LSWC-HP. Don't know about the others.

[feudist]

In the hollowpoint picture, the one on the top far right appears to be a 158-grain R-P LSWC-HP. Don't know about the others.

To clarify, I mean the wadcutters.

[mtnbkr]

To clarify, I mean the wadcutters.

The first three are probably hollow-based (like a shuttlecock), which would make them longer for their length. The 4th and 5th ones look to be hardcast DEWC, which would be shorter at the same weight due to lacking the deep hollow base. Most wadcutters I've seen or used range from 148gr-160gr, though there are others weights available.

Chris

[camsdaddy]

Is there any preference between hard cast and hollow base?

[SCCY Marshal]

Edit: You typed "preference" and I read "difference." Whoops!

I prefer hollow base just because, the apocalypse notwithstanding, Federal Gold Medal Match is relatively inexpensive, available, and soft shooting.

[revchuck38]

Is there any preference between hard cast and hollow base?

In the context of defensive use in snubbies, not to the best of my knowledge. Hollow-based wadcutters tend to be more accurate, but don't stabilize as well at distance in standard S&W barrels with their 1-18.75" twist. Custom PPC revolvers often had 1-10" twist barrels to mitigate this tendency. Colt Pythons, as well as Smythons, were popular too due to the 1-14" barrel twist.

Hard cast wadcutters can be pushed faster, but since the factory HBWCs penetrate to the desired depth from a snubby, I don't see how this matters.

[TCinVA]

Edit: You typed "preference" and I read "difference." Whoops!

I prefer hollow base just because, the apocalypse notwithstanding, Federal Gold Medal Match is relatively inexpensive, available, and soft shooting.

That's what I use.

[camsdaddy]

Edit: You typed "preference" and I read "difference." Whoops!

I prefer hollow base just because, the apocalypse notwithstanding, Federal Gold Medal Match is relatively inexpensive, available, and soft shooting.

I hope you don’t mind I copied and pasted the reply you deleted. This is one of the best explanations I’ve seen comparing the two.
Thank you

At the most basic level, hardness. Hollow base bullets need to be left soft for the skirt to obturate to the bore as intended. So the hollow base will more readily deform when hitting hard objects. A too-hard cast bullet can lead barrels with the best of them if missized to the gun's bore and also fragment if it hits hard objects. Buffalo Bore seems to have its hardness dialed in so frangibility is only a potential concern in other brands, components, and home casting.

On a common but not inherent point, hard cast tend to be designed with a slightly rounded shoulder and to be loaded proud of the case versus sharp shouldered and flush with a hollow base. The rounded, exposed shoulder make reloading a hair smoother as it is not only round but also narrower by two case wall thicknesses when meeting the charge hole.

Out of a snub and into a person, the difference has more to do with loading than the bullets themselves. Hard cast deforming less readily and tending to be parked over a stouter powder charge usually sees them penetrating further than the usual target loaded hollow bases.

[feudist]

What's the thinking on bobbed hammer vs, being able to cock?

[revchuck38]

What's the thinking on bobbed hammer vs, being able to cock?

The bobbed hammer is usually indicative of a DAO revolver; the spur is then considered superfluous. For a pocket gun, a spurless hammer makes it easier to draw from the pocket without snagging.

IMO, there's no need for single-action capability on a defensive revolver. OTOH, there is a use for the hammer spur on a defensive revolver, even one that's been rendered DAO. It permits the shooter, during an administrative load/reload, to pull the hammer back far enough to free the cylinder to rotate and verify that the rounds are seated and that there are no high primers. There isn't universal agreement on the usefulness of this, but I find it useful.

[SCCY Marshal]

What's the thinking on bobbed hammer vs, being able to cock?

For a fixed-sight carry gun? Team Bob:

https://i.imgur.com/xlmzSXDl.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/KrvuTv4l.jpg
That 2" Model 10 wouldn't jive with the Baramis if it had a spur.

There is also the compromise of a partial bob to leave enough of a nub for disengaging the cylinder stop and allow checks for high primers/proud case heads. Though I'd still prefer the slick nature of a full bob on a social M10:

https://i.imgur.com/aNEvEcgl.jpg
An N-frame but gives the idea. Having the snaggy adjustable rear, I didn't mind leaving some spur.

[BillSWPA]

The bobbed hammer is usually indicative of a DAO revolver; the spur is then considered superfluous. For a pocket gun, a spurless hammer makes it easier to draw from the pocket without snagging.

IMO, there's no need for single-action capability on a defensive revolver. OTOH, there is a use for the hammer spur on a defensive revolver, even one that's been rendered DAO. It permits the shooter, during an administrative load/reload, to pull the hammer back far enough to free the cylinder to rotate and verify that the rounds are seated and that there are no high primers. There isn't universal agreement on the usefulness of this, but I find it useful.

If the design of your holster requires a retention strap, there is little for that retention strap to hold without a hammer spur. As long as your holster can retain the gun without the hammer spur, the hammer spur does more harm than good on a concealed carry revolver.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Malamute]

I guess Im in the minority, but I like having a hammer spur. Ive never been able to shoot DA as well as SA on small targets or at distance. I also shoot SA revolvers, and have nothing at all against SA in a DA revolver. I consider most of my guns as general purpose, even short ones and like the capability of being able to shoot them to the best possible ability if I wanted to. I do grind target hammer spurs down to service size though, the long Smith target spurs infringe on hand space when cocking them SA. Comparing both in use, the service size is plenty. De-burring the edges and excessive sharpness of the hammer checkering or knurling reduces wear on clothes etc.

[mmc45414]

Depending on what you end up with (it is for the newer guns), Apex makes this replacement hammer:
https://www.apextactical.com/k-l-frame-hammer-kit-1

It is a alotta cash for something you can cut off with a grinder, but it would be reversible. And it comes with a spring kit including their extended firing pin. It is completely flush with the frame contour, what I think is a cool look. It believe it is also made of a more dense material, and lacks some of the material saving reliefs that are not visible when the hammer is in the gun. That factory hammer is MIM, and I am sure modern MIM is fine but we all like to hate MIM. All these are advantages to help justify to myself that I spent $159 on something months ago that is still in the package, but it is an option.

[BehindBlueI's]

For me part of the draw of revolvers, at least "classic" revolvers, is the aesthetics. I prefer the look of a shroud to a bobbed hammer. I also like the increased tactile feedback of the spur while thumbing the hammer to holster. This is not an argument based on science and logic, of course. Unless the removal of mass reduces the reliability of the gun (some Colts come to mind) then I'd say dealer's choice.

[Rick R]

What's the thinking on bobbed hammer vs, being able to cock?

DA/SA spurred hammer for me. I shoot all my guns at various sized targets and SA is part of that when targets are smaller and further away. My wife’s LCR is our only DA only gun.

[Stephanie B]

What's the thinking on bobbed hammer vs, being able to cock?

For me, it depends on the mode of carrying. IWB, where it's possible that there's a cover garment that could interfere, bobbed hammer. I have a couple of snubbie bobbed-hammer K-frames and that's what I carry most of the time. When it's OWB, then I may go for a K or L frame gun with a longer barrel and a spurred hammer.

I'd love to carry my snubbie Model 19 in a Miami Classic holster, but it has a bobbed hammer. Galco doesn't make a holster for it. I guess I could get some accessory to get the strap hangars if I knew someone here who could do a custom holster with the same sort of retention strap used in a NY Model 64, but that's for another day.

[Zeke38]

For me, it depends on the mode of carrying. IWB, where it's possible that there's a cover garment that could interfere, bobbed hammer. I have a couple of snubbie bobbed-hammer K-frames and that's what I carry most of the time. When it's OWB, then I may go for a K or L frame gun with a longer barrel and a spurred hammer.

I'd love to carry my snubbie Model 19 in a Miami Classic holster, but it has a bobbed hammer. Galco doesn't make a holster for it. I guess I could get some accessory to get the strap hangars if I knew someone here who could do a custom holster with the same sort of retention strap used in a NY Model 64, but that's for another day.

Ritchie leather still makes the old shoulder rig that Alessi made with the "pull through snaps" in the trigger guard. Clears the way for a bobbed hammer.

Kimber also makes the two inch now in a DA/SA with external hammer.

[Dave T]

Depending on what you end up with (it is for the newer guns), Apex makes this replacement hammer:
https://www.apextactical.com/k-l-frame-hammer-kit-1

It is a alotta cash for something you can cut off with a grinder, but it would be reversible. And it comes with a spring kit including their extended firing pin. It is completely flush with the frame contour, what I think is a cool look. It believe it is also made of a more dense material, and lacks some of the material saving reliefs that are not visible when the hammer is in the gun. That factory hammer is MIM, and I am sure modern MIM is fine but we all like to hate MIM. All these are advantages to help justify to myself that I spent $159 on something months ago that is still in the package, but it is an option.

I have an Apex installed in my 386 NG carry gun. I am completely pleased with it, and not just because I got it from Brownells for $128.95. I was ready to spend the big bucks for the N-frame version for my 4" 325 PD but the Scandium frame cracked and killed the need for one.

Dave

[03RN]

For me, it depends on the mode of carrying. IWB, where it's possible that there's a cover garment that could interfere, bobbed hammer. I have a couple of snubbie bobbed-hammer K-frames and that's what I carry most of the time. When it's OWB, then I may go for a K or L frame gun with a longer barrel and a spurred hammer.

I'd love to carry my snubbie Model 19 in a Miami Classic holster, but it has a bobbed hammer. Galco doesn't make a holster for it. I guess I could get some accessory to get the strap hangars if I knew someone here who could do a custom holster with the same sort of retention strap used in a NY Model 64, but that's for another day.

My galco miami classic retains k frames with bobbed hammers

[03RN]

I appreciate spurs and havnt hung up on my shirt yet and I draw/dryfire everyday.

I've bobbed a couple hammers and dont really feel that hindered. I do like to check primers and shoot SA for headshots on grouse.

I have trimmed a couple hammers so i can still use the spur but its half as long.

Missed the head:o
64235
64236

[BehindBlueI's]

I appreciate spurs and havnt hung up on my shirt yet and I draw/dryfire everyday.


The only time I ever recall a hammer causing an issue on the draw for me was a Sig P220 while I was experimenting with a vertical shoulder holster. I was doing a bunch of draw strokes trying to get things situated where I liked them, drawing the empty gun from the holster with a suit jacket on and then adjusting the straps to get it more better. Until I drew and damn near ripped my left nipple off. Or at least that's how it felt. That sucked.

I eventually gave up on the vertical shoulder holster.

[HeavyDuty]

The only time I ever recall a hammer causing an issue on the draw for me was a Sig P220 while I was experimenting with a vertical shoulder holster. I was doing a bunch of draw strokes trying to get things situated where I liked them, drawing the empty gun from the holster with a suit jacket on and then adjusting the straps to get it more better. Until I drew and damn near ripped my left nipple off. Or at least that's how it felt. That sucked.

I eventually gave up on the vertical shoulder holster.

Well, it was worthless, so...

[Rex G]

What's the thinking on bobbed hammer vs, being able to cock?

Some hammer spurs never seem to get in my way, such as Ruger SP101, Speed/Service/Security Six, and GP100. S&W J-Frame hammer spurs, in the other hand, are extremely fish-hooky things.

I am unlikely to cock a hammer, for a precision defensive shot, so the need for the spur is not there. There are ways to check for high primers, other than slightly pulling the hammer, to free the cylinder to rotate. I went through a phase of preferring bobbed hammers, but, it now matters less, one way or the other, except perhaps for those darned hooky things on J-Frames.

Interestingly, once upon a time, I bought a 2.25” SP101 with a hammer spur, so I could use a specific horizontal shoulder rig, only to discover that Sam Andrews makes his excellent Monarch holster bodies in a way that will retain a spurless SP101 well. I am not complaining, as that particular SP101’s action is SO VERY smooth, as delivered from Ruger, and, sooner or later, I may want to use a different holster, that may need that spur, for secure retention. Plus, that spurred SP101 filled the third slot in my “pair and a spare.” ;)

Notably, the Mlt Sparks 200AW holster has a hammer shroud, to keep one’s cover garment from contacting the hammer spur.

[Dave T]

Notably, the Mlt Sparks 200AW holster has a hammer shroud, to keep one’s cover garment from contacting the hammer spur.

It is also a solution for those who like adjustable rear sights. The S&W variety are almost a catchy as their hammer spurs. I had an S&W rear installed on one of the Commanders I carried as a detective. The Commander hammer and long tang grip safety (this was before beaver-tail safeties were a thing) did not snag but those blasted sights tour up the liner on two sport coats.

Dave

[mmc45414]

This thread inspired me to get offa my butt and install the Apex hammer and C&S rear sight, the PO installed the plug:

64323

And I have a spiffy JMCK AIWB for it:

64324

[03RN]

This thread inspired me to get offa my butt and install the Apex hammer and C&S rear sight, the PO installed the plug:

64323

And I have a spiffy JMCK AIWB for it:

64324

Cant tell if thats a 60 or 686.

Looks good.

How do you like the c&s with the red ramp?

[feudist]

This thread inspired me to get offa my butt and install the Apex hammer and C&S rear sight, the PO installed the plug:

64323

And I have a spiffy JMCK AIWB for it:

64324

What's the trigger like?

[mmc45414]

Cant tell if that's a 60 or 686.
That is a 686+, like you are/were contemplating. The 3" come with a full lug.

How do you like the c&s with the red ramp?
I like it OK, but should mention my eyes are old and do not give me an exactly distinct view so really shouldn't render an opinion. My plan is to shoot it until I can make an estimate on a front sight height and then get a Dawson F/O. I have them on my M&P I shoot weekly and like the distinct smaller dot, and they make them in a ton of height options:

64328


What's the trigger like?
It is nice, but nothing is probably ever gonna be like my M-19 (old enough to be pinned and recessed). The hammer came with two rebound springs and I went with the Duty/Carry version, and I say it is plenty conservative. I have a Wolfe mainspring someplace, but I left the original (if it is, just whatever the PO had in there). I should reserve judgment till I have some more time with it, but I say it is good for something drop in, just not OhMyGodBecky like my M-19. One aspect may be that is just feels different, maybe because I really do not have that much L-Frame time, and I wonder if things feel different because it is 7 shot? And I think it could probably tolerate some lighter springs but I am not gonna go there yet (maybe ever). Now I am kicking myself that I didn't weigh the hammer before I put it in, the factory hammer had some cavities that lighten it, so I am speculating the Apex might at least be comparable weight without the spur. But for sure this is a workable defensive setup, probably not the one I would grab if a black helicopter landed in front of the house and the crew said "we need a salesman that knows how to shoot but cannot run very far to come help save the world", but I would pity the fool that might choose me at the ATM (except I never go to a walk up ATM, why do I have all these guns?...).

[03RN]

mmc45414

My poi was a little to one side with my c&s rear so I used a small file on one side. It fixed my poi and open up the rear to allow more light around the front sight which is my preference.

I think the sight is designed for 4" barrels and the width would be fine for them.

The meprolight front I use worked out perfectly for the loads I use most. Hot 125s shoot low so I dont bother. Everything else shoots to the dot or the tip of the front sight which suits me perfectly.

[Stephanie B]

My galco miami classic retains k frames with bobbed hammers

You've mentioned that, but I'm kind of leery of spending $100 on a new holster that the maker says isn't for the gun.

[HeavyDuty]

You've mentioned that, but I'm kind of leery of spending $100 on a new holster that the maker says isn't for the gun.

Can you get it from Amazon, where they have a generous return policy?

[Stephanie B]

Can you get it from Amazon, where they have a generous return policy?

Good thought. I'll look there.

[Salamander]

All: you’re not a revolver connoisseur if you don’t have a stash of unobtanium .357 loads with a rep for working ok... just saying...

This made me curious enough to inventory the stash:

64443

Maybe hard to see some of it, so the Barnes 140gr XPB and the Underwood xtreme penetrators to the left are 357 woods loads here in non-lead California, plus some GDHP-SB, XTP, and Buffalo Bore 180gr hardcast 357; The Blazer and AE boxes top center are old leftover 357 JSP boxes, old enough that the price tag on the AE says $11.59/50. Everything from there down and right is 38 special, the Gold Dot SB and the Black Hills 148HBWC are carry loads in four-inch and snubbie guns, respectively. The plastic boxes on the far right are a small part of my wadcutter practice reloads, mostly 148 HBWC Precision Delta loads over Bullseye or W-231, there's a bunch more of that in the reloading room.

[revolvergeek]

Yes they do. This was my backup that I carried when my m19 was down. It'll be my daughters when she's older.

63920

Is that a chromed Model 10, or a SBRB model 64? Either way very nice!

[03RN]

Is that a chromed Model 10, or a SBRB model 64? Either way very nice!

Its a m64 I chopped up

[kjr_29]

This thread inspired me to get offa my butt and install the Apex hammer and C&S rear sight, the PO installed the plug:

64323

And I have a spiffy JMCK AIWB for it:

64324

Drooling. This is the exact model my LGS has sans the Apex and fixed rear sight. With the Dawson FO, exactly how I want to configure one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mmc45414]

Drooling. This is the exact model my LGS has sans the Apex and fixed rear sight. With the Dawson FO, exactly how I want to configure one.
I have been slacking on getting much time behind mine. I have plans that are postponed, to set up the 650 and make up a nice batch of hot 38s (I have more brass) for it, but now bullets are on backorder. I want to settle into a load before I start shopping for a Dawson.

[kjr_29]

I have been slacking on getting much time behind mine. I have plans that are postponed, to set up the 650 and make up a nice batch of hot 38s (I have more brass) for it, but now bullets are on backorder. I want to settle into a load before I start shopping for a Dawson.

I’ll be following with interest. I was able to find some Starline brass and HSM 158gr hardcast locally.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk