I would argue that the .38 is more versatile. It's normally tough to run wadcutters, and snake shot, and 158gr hard cast Keith style SWCs....., etc., from a 9mm.Originally Posted by Haraise
For purely anti-personnel use the 9mm is clearly more developed, bullet wise.
Oh yeah, totally agree with that. No question. But 'everything that 9 can do and more?' That's a bit of an oversell.
What can a 9mm do that a .38 Special can't? I'm honestly curious, not contentious.
Men freely believe that which they desire.
Julius Caesar
The explanation of that was quoted in the post you quoted. And stated in the one above that. And in the post before that one. More highly developed anti personnel ammunition.
Is the 9MM 124g +p GoldDot more developed than the .38 Special 135g +p GoldDot?
Nobody is impressed by what you can't do. -THJ
I don't disagree with Chuck's assessment. I think he's spot on. The 9mm has more highly developed bullet designs available. I asked what a 9mm can do that a .38 can't which I thought was a rather specific question.
Men freely believe that which they desire.
Julius Caesar
That's a really good question, in general. Has Gold Dot been updated since the late 80's/early 90's when it was introduced? I couldn't find a year. I know HST is at least a second generation product that superseded the hydrashocks which were developed about the same time (from what I read), but no idea if Gold Dot has been updated. Maybe DocGKR would know?
EDIT: Doing some research, looks like in 2004 the short barrel line of Gold Dots was added. .38 special was included but 9mm was not. So that might make the .38 special the more developed round of the two. There are cartridges loaded for the 9mm short barrel, but there isn't a separate bullet product number listed on Speer's component website, so the actual bullet might be the same for 9mm short barrel with a different powder.
Wheeler: I can't pick up a box of those more highly developed bullet designs (HST) and shoot them in a .38. I'd say bullets are an important part of a cartridge, personally.
Last edited by Haraise; 06-12-2014 at 01:24 AM.
I recall DocGKR saying that the 9mm 124+p load was not updated or changed for the short barrel line because it was already an excellent performer and didn't really need any tweaks (paraphrasing). I may dig up the citation later, or perhaps he'll chime in.
This is an interesting discussion.
Like many (most?) of the members here, I carry a high-cap 9mm most of the time. However, there are instances when carrying a 16 shot handgun is not practical.
While I'm sure no one is going to suggest a J frame is the same or better than a SIG 228 with everything else being equal, perhaps when speaking about the individual projectiles being launched by the J frame equality with the high-cap 9mm becomes possible.
Or maybe this whole discussion is putting way too much focus onto the minutia.
At any rate, it's interesting.
Last edited by JDM; 06-12-2014 at 03:57 AM.
Nobody is impressed by what you can't do. -THJ
This.Or maybe this whole discussion is putting way too much focus onto the minutia.
At any rate, it's interesting.
Think about it… we're comparing two cartridges whose main differences are case design (rimmed vs rimless) and case (powder) capacity. Both take .36 caliber bullets. From what I've seen in the lab, its all about what is hit, and where. No doubt that 9mm projectiles are more highly developed; but they have to be, because lead semi-wadcutters don't work so hot in most self-feeding actions.
But to take this to next step, exactly what are we comparing? Velocity plays a BIG part. Are we talking a .38 snubby, or a four-inch "service revolver"? Standard pressure 9mm, or +P/+P+? I regularly see both 9mm FMJ and .38 RNL bullets that have killed with one shot. But I certainly wouldn't put those type bullets in my defensive handguns if I could get a good expanding type.
We see more than a few 124gr +P Gold Dots, because that's what the local PD issues for those officers carrying 9mm. They are usually very consistent, unless bone is hit. When that happens, ALL bets are off. The only constant I've observed is that bonded bullets tend to stay together better; this is one of the big claims about HST, even though they are not "bonded" in the true sense of the word (they have a cannelure, as opposed to a chemical bond between core and jacket).
The State Police and local Sheriff's Office have begun issuing HSTs in .40 and 9mm. The only shootings with this ammunition we've had so far have not involved hitting meat, although conversations I've had with lab rats in other parts of the country indicate it does well in that medium. But judging from what I've seen them do in the water tank, HST is what my carry autos are loaded with. The water tank is like ballistic gelatin; a comparator, nothing more.
My J frames have the 135gr Short Barrel Gold Dot. But I also have a quantity of 158gr LSWCHP which I would carry in a heartbeat (and did, for many years). And I have a bunch of .38 target wadcutters that I would not hesitate to load up with. In a snubby revolver, I don't think it really matters; because unless the ammunition is really "hot", you're not going to get much, if any, expansion from a 2" barrel.
In my semi-autos, I'm looking primarily for reliability, and accuracy at longer distances (25 yards +). Bullet design and/or "development status" is secondary. Bottom line, I think, is that both cartridges are fully developed and viable. Simply pick the offering that best suits your purposes/needs.
.
Reply With Quote