The Modern Combat Revolver

[BehindBlueI's]

Just my general takeaway from real world shootings, and more of a gut thing then a numbers thing: .38 works but .357 works better. We've discussed it before, and several of us have come to the conclusion independently, that the blast is adding to the psychological effect and making the .357 magnum more effective then just the numbers would indicate.

That said, I don't shoot .357 from my LCR because it's unpleasant to do so. A fact I reminded myself of on my last outing where I didn't have any .38 in the range bag after all. From the MC, it's fun. From the LCR, it sucks.

[Chuck Whitlock]

If one were to buy a Ruger GP100 Match Champion as a defensive revolver, should one get the model with fixed sights or the one with adjustable sights?

There are trade offs either way (such is life). Revolvers generally, and a .357 Magnum especially, offer extreme flexibility in bullet weights and loadings. Without adjustable sights, though, you are limiting your ability to take advantage of that. The sight picture on adjustable sights is also frequently better than the traditional trench type fixed sights. On the other hand, adjustable sights are another potential failure point. Adjustables are also typically higher profile and sharper edged than traditional fixed sights. This increases the potential for a snag when drawing. A lot of gunfighters from the revolver age leaned towards fixed sights for defense and adjustable for hunting. Either way you have to decide what compromises best suit your intended use.

In context of the GP MC, the rear fixed sight is a Novak dovetailed sight. So it's not the gutter in the top strap, but it's still a little less snaggy than a factory or Bowen sight. It is drift-adjustable, and you can always get a taller or shorter front sight and shorten it, etc. to get elevation what you want it to be.

But yeah, as I said much earlier in this thread, my MC has a Bowen rear and I replaced the FO on the front with a brass bead.

You could bridge the gap with an adjstable Novak rear:

https://www.novaksights.com/Products.aspx?CAT=9509

Im not familiar with the SP101 rear sight, is it similar to the other Ruger adjustable sights? The common Ruger adjustable sights have a little quirk thats a weakness, the sight blade is held in place with a spring, the windage screw just allows it to move a certain distance one way, the spring holds from the other side. If theres much room, you can push the blade sideways against the spring and pop the blade out. Sideways pressure on the blade against the spring may allow the windage screw to move if theres no spring tension against it. One could check that to be sure. The elevation can also be changed if a holster or whatever pushes down on the sight assembly, then nothing is holding the elevation screw in place, it can move or even come out and be lost. I had it happen with a poor holster design that pushed on the sight when out in the hills as a kid alone in the Uintahs. You can test it, push the sight body down and see if you can turn the elevation screw with a fingernail, if it turns freely, its possible it can be lost if pushed on somehow. Some holsters have sight cutouts, some have a piece that bears on the frame ahead of the sight so theres no pressure on the sight itself. If the sight bears tightly against the holster, the potential exists to have problems.

Couldn't this be mitigated by using a threadlocker, such as VC3, on the elevation screw?

[Chuck Whitlock]

I love .38s, but I'll be the first to admit it. If you're running a 2.5"-3" gun, you're fine, use Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel. But if you're running a 2" gun, then it doesn't matter how much tech we throw at it, the simple fact is, physics wins.

It seems all but impossible to make a round that will reliably penetrate 15", fully expand, pass through an intermediate barrier, AND be shootable in a 2" gun that you'll carry (i.e., an Airweight or Scandium gun). Since the bulk of .38s out in circulation are of the 2" snub-nosed variety, this is the place for manufacturers to focus their ammo development. And no one has cracked the code. I thought Federal was going to do it with their HST Short Barrel, but they came up short in the penetration department (phrasing??).

The closest is the Short Barrel Gold Dot, but the low velocity from 2" guns, tends to make them not expand. At least the penetration is there and as a result, it's the round I've chosen for all of my .38s. But it's not ideal nor perfect.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....Deep-380/page8

Based on Posts #77 and #88 in the .380 Hydra Shok Deep thread, I'd be interested to see it applied to the .38 Special.

[jh9]

Thanks for finding that, its what I had seen and mentioned previously.

This was also interesting, 75,000 wadcutter rds through a Smith 27, no work, no problems.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...-in-a-Model-27

It seems theres a balance point of various guns and loads as regards longevity or maintenance work. From back in the days it was common, I dont know what higher volume K and L frame guys shooting light or medium loads considered normal for needing timing work (which isnt necessarily that difficult if fitting a hand is all thats needed, or with later Smiths, replacing the star.) In 22 cal, the Ks seem to run a long time, with 38 wadcutters, I dont know.

The question of high round counts classes or practice hasnt bothered me in questioning if my guns are reliable in defensive use, as I dont usually carry enough ammo to shoot them that much in a short period in potential defensive use. Used within the parameters of my habits of use and neglect, living outside for extended periods in the past, with only occasional cleaning, Im satisfied they work when expected to. Thats somewhat curmudgeonly sounding looking at it. Everyone makes their choices for their own reasons. Darryl commented once he felt revolvers were reliable in the sense of expecting them to work when sitting a long time with only moderate care, autos were more reliable in long term heavy round counts, but sometimes stopped even when cleaned recently.

The 1980s results where timing work was needed every 1500 rounds sounds more like a problem with the short lived floating hand that was introduced and canceled in the same time frame than it does anything else.

The six shot extractors haven't needed fitting since 1992, when they deleted the pins. Fitting a hand to a CNC cut, drop-in extractor is, like you say, not a huge deal. But in any event it won't be needed every 1500 rounds. I've got between 7500 and 10k through a few different 90s era Ls and none of them have needed a hand more than once. And that's with cranking hard on dry fire trying to get splits from 0.2s into the teens. There's more on benos on that topic, stop notches and MIM cylinder stops if people want to research further.

[Malamute]

Couldn't this be mitigated by using a threadlocker, such as VC3, on the elevation screw?

I think it could. Im not familiar with the VC3, but if its movable, it would probably work. However, some of the guns, like my 357 blackhawk, zeroed with the rear pretty high up. I ended up turning the elevation screw down all the way, backing it off a few clicks, then zeroing for elevation by filing the front down, then reshaping to look decent. I had a little elevation adjustment room left, had some tension on the elevation screw clicks, and it wasnt sitting way up high. Ive done the same with any other Blackhawks ive had since.

[Malamute]

Just my general takeaway from real world shootings, and more of a gut thing then a numbers thing: .38 works but .357 works better. We've discussed it before, and several of us have come to the conclusion independently, that the blast is adding to the psychological effect and making the .357 magnum more effective then just the numbers would indicate.

That said, I don't shoot .357 from my LCR because it's unpleasant to do so. A fact I reminded myself of on my last outing where I didn't have any .38 in the range bag after all. From the MC, it's fun. From the LCR, it sucks.

I recall LSP552 commenting that the 357 was the one round that he had confidence in to end an issue (I dont recall quite how he stated it besides singling it out as being consistently more effective than other stuff he saw). Some may well be psychological, but I also think the plain old school exposed lead jacketed hollow point loads worked pretty well with enough velocity. In shooting a somewhat small amount of smaller game with 357s, my usual impression was it seemed to do much more damage than expected. The commercial 55 gr SP 223 loads killed jack rabbits well but didnt tear them up, the 357 tore them up. I never liked the muzzle blast compared to medium 44 loads, but it worked rather well.

[ECVMatt]

I love my Glocks, 1911's, and other autos, but am a big fan of the .357 as well. In addition to several GP100 I also have a couple of SW 27's and a Blackhawk. I also have several rifles in .357. I agree that it is a good killer of small to medium game animals. My experience would be with deer and hogs less than 250 lbs or so. When I am hunting animals that I know to be larger, I go to the .44 or .45 Colt.

Within 50 yards the >250 lbs animals rarely take more than a few steps. They show considerable shock and generally get knocked off their feet (especially deer). All this gives me confidence that similar results would be achieved similar sized targets. When fired from a rifle the results are out of proportion for the size of the cartridge.

For these reasons I always keep a good amount of .357 on hand. I reload, so I just crank out 50 or 100 rounds every now and then until I have probably more than I need.

I love my .40+ caliber revolvers, but feel for the MCR the .357 is a good balance of power, size, and controllability. An argument could be made for a .41 Special.....which I guess in real terms is the 10mm.

[Rex G]

Just my general takeaway from real world shootings, and more of a gut thing then a numbers thing: .38 works but .357 works better. We've discussed it before, and several of us have come to the conclusion independently, that the blast is adding to the psychological effect and making the .357 magnum more effective then just the numbers would indicate.

That said, I don't shoot .357 from my LCR because it's unpleasant to do so. A fact I reminded myself of on my last outing where I didn't have any .38 in the range bag after all. From the MC, it's fun. From the LCR, it sucks.

Well-said.

I learned to embrace the blast. I knew that I was ready for it, and that an opponent would probably NOT be ready for it. Notably, I had used .44 and then .41 Mag duty revolvers, in the Eighties, so the actual muzzle flip, of a GP100, firing full-pressure .357 Magnum, was comparatively easy, especially compared to .44 Mag, fired from a 4” 629.

I doubt that I would shoot a full-pressure .357 Mag through an LCR, for any amount of money. At least, not my my arthritic right hand. (Holding those N-Frames, in the Eighties, with that compromised grip, to enable getting enough K/L/GP100-sized index finger on the trigger, for a DA pull, was one of my life’s most-stupid acts. I actually carried a 9mm duty pistol, for six months, to heal, after a year of using that .44, but then I used .41 Mag for five more years. Sigh. I now wish I had been a very-much-earlier adopter of the GP100.)

Flash? No problem. Premium duty ammo, by the latter half of the Eighties, was loaded with flash-retardant in the powder. Orange flame. No loss of night vision.

My one line-of-duty shooting is a sample of one, but seeing the effect of a Federal Cartridge 125-grain JHC Hi-Shok, on a human opponent, I think that yes, the “.357 works better.” I saw quite a few entrance wounds, in 33+ years of big-city policing, but nothing caused by a handgun bullet looked anything like that gaping hole. The exit wound was not visible, to me, as he was clothed, and he ended up on his back, but the plume of blood, tissue, and bullet jacket, on the pavement behind the actor, was also like nothing else I had ever seen a handgun bullet accomplish. He was a small person, physically, being extremely thin. The main part(s) of the fragmented bullet exited the torso, and entered an arm, where they stopped, but bits if gleaming copper jacket were visible, in the blood plume that had exited from between his torso and upper arm.

Kinetic energy is “the ability to do work.” That .357 125-grain Hi-Shok JHC did a notable amount of work.

His hostile actions immediately ceased. How much of that was psychological, well, nobody can say. This was so very likely “suicide by cop,” as the actor had been sawing on his own trachea, before my arrival. He may have been “satisfied,” rather than stopped, but his immediate reaction to the shot did appear involuntary.

Hi-Shok was not a typo. I did not intend to type “Hydra-Shok,” which is a different product. JHC = JHP. The bullet had plenty of exposed lead, and a relatively huge hollow cavity. This was 1993, before “controlled expansion” was a thing.

For any haters reading this, the actor had two contact weapons, and we were just beyond contact distance. His left hand held a knife, chambered for a thrust, while his right hand held a heavy SL-20 light, held high for a downward swing. The SL-20 had been snatched from one of my colleagues, before I and my rookie partner arrived. Nothing in my training had prepared me for dealing, in a less-lethal manner, with an opponent armed with TWO contact weapons. The local Houston Chronicle had no problem with what happened. (Of course, a national magazine printed a fictionalized narrative.)

[revchuck38]

@Rex G - Another old guy up early, eh?

From what I understand, the R-P and Winchester versions worked about as well.

When I carry a .357 Mag, it's loaded with .357s. My 681 shoots 158s to point of aim, so I carry the R-P version of it and have the sights zeroed for this load on my 27 and 28.

The 681 hasn't seen the light of day for a while, might be nice to wear it to breakfast.

[vtfarmer]

I recall LSP552 commenting that the 357 was the one round that he had confidence in to end an issue (I dont recall quite how he stated it besides singling it out as being consistently more effective than other stuff he saw). Some may well be psychological, but I also think the plain old school exposed lead jacketed hollow point loads worked pretty well with enough velocity. In shooting a somewhat small amount of smaller game with 357s, my usual impression was it seemed to do much more damage than expected. The commercial 55 gr SP 223 loads killed jack rabbits well but didnt tear them up, the 357 tore them up. I never liked the muzzle blast compared to medium 44 loads, but it worked rather well.

Back in the 80's and 90's Evan Marshall and Massad Ayoob each did separate studies on handgun round effectiveness. Marshall published his results, Ayoob didn't, but he commented a number of times that his results were very close to Marshalls'. They both found the 125 SJHP .357 , specifically the Federal and Remington versions, to set the standard for what could be done with a handgun in terms of stopping power. ( Marshalls' numbers were : Federal and Remington= 96%, CCI=93%, Winchester=87%.) I have a magazine article in which Ayoob stated about the Federal and Remington versions, that if you had only one round to save your life, "That may be the load you want."