The Gold Dot load in question is in fact a 135 grain, which out of a 2.5 inch barrel is probably doing around 900 FPS. The round's performance in this instance is about exactly what I'd expect from a 38 Special on a target like that, especially without a guaranteed CNS hit. I'd bet my hind teeth that if you'd recovered those rounds they would show zero expansion.
I carry the same load in my 586 L-Comp, because I know it will penetrate deep enough and it might expand, but I don't bet on it.
I respectfully disagree that militaries went to autoloaders due to increased reliability. My reading of the history is that in the 1890s many major powers were going to 8mm/.32 revolvers. By 1900 .32 ACP pocket autos had the same power and more rounds in a smaller and lighter package. The Browning 1900 and the like were not finely tuned watches, in contrast to the Luger which fired a much more powerful round like .30 Luger and eventually, 9x19. The C96 Mauser only had like 7,000 military sales until WW1; most were civilian sales.
Militaries that took the pistol seriously, namely the US and Britain, stayed with .45 caliber revolvers until 1911, and kept them in second line service for decades after. I think that the benefits of the S&W/Colt/Webley designs kept them in service while the Nagant/Rast-Gasser designs were obsolete earlier.
The 1909 US trials showed that nothing on the market was good enough to justify a change, and the US Army bought stop-gap M1909 revolvers. By 1908 (Luger in Germany) and 1911 the technology improved to the point where full sized duty pistols met expectations of militaries.
I’ve recently been down a .38/.357 rabbit hole, because, local vintage K-frame sales seem to keep popping up—a guy has to do what he has to do. So get this: over at the lucky gunner chrono tests, the .38 GDHP only did 821 average out of the test K6, and 890 out of the 4”.
With the clear/synth gel caveat acknowledged, .38 expansion wasn’t all that good, so, yeah.
The .357 load is in another league, so I have the .357 version in my revolvers (or Remmy GS; aside from barriers, I see the 2 .357 loads as interchangeable, and the .357 GDHP is harder to find). I personally prefer the .357 GDHP over the .38 load, and Chris B seemed to arrive at a similar conclusion, at least in terms of performance. The increased recoil isn’t commensurate with the performance jump, in my opinion—the .357 GDHP is still pretty mild.
I don’t have much use for the .38 version, in all. I’m either going with the .357 in steel guns, or just going with a wadcutter in the crazy light, 5-shot lounge-around guns. JMO, and the deer anecdote doesn’t do anything to make me rethink the choice.
We should also consider that Bill Jordan, who during his WWII service had at least some ability to select his own weapons, chose to carry a revolver. His was part of a unit that went into Japanese bunkers to make sure no enemy soldiers were hiding therein. He valued reliability highly, and switched from a pump shotgun to a Thompson submachine gun when the paper cartridges for the shotgun swelled up from moisture. The revolver apparently raised no reliability concerns.
Unless I'm misreading you, Bill Jordan didn't choose to use a revolver during his WWII service (at least that's not the impression I get from reading his book), he used a 1911 that he thought was very good for military service but when it came to "stopping power" for civilians and LE he preferred the revolver because of the choice of bullets (i.e. SWC vs FMJ).
" La rose est sans pourquoi, elle fleurit parce qu’elle fleurit ; Elle n’a souci d’elle-même, ne demande pas si on la voit. » Angelus Silesius
"There are problems in this universe for which there are no answers." Paul Muad'dib
I’ve seen where tunnel rats used revolvers in Vietnam. They even had silencers fitted.
Which book are you referring to? If I recall No Second Place Winner correctly, he commented that a semiauto is a fine military weapon against a large attack, but did not make a single comment about what he carried in WWII.
I recall reading in a magazine article - possibly written by Mas Ayoob but I cannot be sure - that he selected a .45 ACP revolver to take advantage of the readily available ammo.
No Second Place Winner did not present a favorable impression of carrying a 1911 cocked with the thumb safety on. If he needed his pistol, it would be in a bunker designed for people shorter than him, at close range, and in all likelihood would be needed RIGHT NOW because his long gun had gone down.
Guys, nobody on this forum is more pro-wheelie than me. That said, I’m having a bit of trouble following justifications of revolvers based on stuff that happened 50-110 years ago. All the historical badass guys we are discussing would have chosen a G17 (or G21) if it had been available.
Well, maybe not the tunnel rats in the case of the G17, but that would be due to first-hand 9mm ball ammo experience, and not reliability concerns. Probably G21 territory.
There’s a reason that I have multiple Js, Ks, and SA Rugers in my safe (they’re very cool), but one full-size Glock in my nightstand (mo’ betta).
Anyhoo, carry on, carry on.