Real story of the .38spl???

Leo Tanner · January 30, 2008, 02:03:19 PM

I was quaffin a few with a new pard last night and of course the discussion turned to guns, an then to ammo. I related to him what I had read about the creation of the 45 ACP and why it was necessary in the Philipene war. He then proceeded to tell me the reason for the .38 spl.
According to this gent, the .357 was popular but the cops seemed to have a problem with firin at a particular bad guy, takin him out--along with whatever bystander happened to be standin behind him and sometimes the guy behind him as well. The story is the .38 came about as a cure to this problem in that it is effective on the primary target and then stops there.
It sounds logic like, but just wondering if anyone else has heard the same tale.

Leo

Russ T Chambers · January 30, 2008, 03:28:43 PM

I think your new pard got it slightly backwards. The .357 was developed as a .38 on steroids. The case was lengthened to prevent it from being chambered in older, less strong .38 special firearms. I'm sure there are some around here that can give a pretty concise history of the round. I think it was pretty much the same with the .44 magnum developing from the .44 special.

Leo Tanner · January 30, 2008, 03:37:05 PM

Thanks RTC,
I coulda sworn the .38 long and spl were around before the .357. This fella said he had been a small arms trainer in the Navy so I just nodded a lot and then figgered I'd sneak in here and ask you all.

Leo

Sir Charles deMouton-Black · January 31, 2008, 12:16:11 AM

Cartridges of the World, 3d Ed. says that S&W brought out the .38 Special in 1902 for the Military and Police model of that year. It was a military cartridge to replace the .38 Long Colt that had a poor reputation from the Spanish American war.

It is my understanding that the .38 Spl. was originally loaded with Blackpowder.

The .357 Magnum was introduced by S&W in 1935. The case was lengthened by 1/10". The .44 Mag was later, 1955.

Bow View Haymaker · January 31, 2008, 12:41:43 AM

I think the original story might have been about the .38sp +p. I seem to remember reading something to that effect in a magazine once. The +p was a compramise between the standard .38 wich wasn't quite enough and the .357 which was too much.
Just what my foggy mind remembers FWIW.

Professor Marvel · January 31, 2008, 12:57:19 AM

If I recall correctly, Major Douglas Wesson took the new .357 on a whirlwind hunting tour to promote it's power and efficacy. I seem to recall that he took Polar Bear as well as Elk and other big game.

Ed McGivern explored it's possibilities as a long-range cartridge in a handgun:
"McGivern demonstrated that with proper sights and use, the .357 Magnum could be used on man-sized targets at ranges of up to 600 yards. McGivern experimented with different types of iron sights, including peep sights, and telescopic sights. His preferred type of iron sight for this use was a small diameter rear aperture and a post with a gold bead for the front."

your humble servant
Prof Marvel

Arcey · January 31, 2008, 09:21:52 AM

Quote from: Leo Tanner on January 30, 2008, 03:37:05 PM
......so I just nodded a lot and then figgered I'd sneak in here and ask you all.

I've found that's the absolute best thing ta do with some folks. Like when ya go ta a gun show 'n some fools werkin' the table tellin' someone a .40 S&W is just a necked down 10mm.

Weren't around when either was developed so I dunno. What I've read o'er the years is the same. The .38 Special preceded the .357 Magnum. Guess I should brush up on it as the Mag is my cartridge of choice for the game. Carry a 9mm in the real werld.

Leo Tanner · January 31, 2008, 01:48:58 PM

Thanks all for the replies. I knew this would be just the right place to come for some real info. Next time I run into ole Doug, I'll be sure to have a grain or two of salt on hand. The conversation was a lot like the gunshow clowns Arcey was refferin to.
PM, I don't think I ever tried even close to 600 yards with the .357. I have always perferred it to the .38 but just reading your post boosted my love for the Mag even more.

Leo

Arcey · January 31, 2008, 02:24:00 PM

Quote from: Leo Tanner on January 31, 2008, 01:48:58 PM
I'll be sure to have a grain or two of salt on hand. The conversation was a lot like the gunshow clowns Arcey was refferin to.

Don't want salt, want pepper spray if I ever run inta this one again..............

Scroll 'bout half way the page. You'll see it.

http://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php/topic,17852.1110.html

Forty Rod · January 31, 2008, 02:47:59 PM

Quote from: Leo Tanner on January 30, 2008, 03:37:05 PM
This fella said he had been a small arms trainer in the Navy
Leo

That explains it right there. The Marines never could teach the Navy about guns that one person could use by himself. They always seem to need a few hundred people and a ship as big as a shopping mall, then they do right fine.

Elmer Watson · January 31, 2008, 03:13:56 PM

From what I have read the true story of the birth of the .38 special is "In 1890 When the military wanted to go to double action swing out cylinder revolver they went with a colt chambered in a new cartridge .38 colt. The model 1892/1895 This revolver cartridge proved a failure during the spanish american war. in 1902 S&W lengthened the case; increased the black powder to 21 grains from `18 and the bullet to 158 grains from 150. In testing it penatrated 21 pine boards instead of 11 for the colt .38 government cartridge. S&W renamed it the S&W .38 special."

My department (alameda county sheriff's deptartment california) issued that 158 grain RNL load until 1976 when we went to a 125 grain JHP .357 magnum. Due to issues in qualifying we were issued 110 grain JHP .357 ammo for our 4" S&W model 66's. We also changed from 00 buckshot to #4 buckshot for our remington 870 pump action shotguns.

Elmer Watson ACSD 1973-1979 medical retirement

Leo Tanner · January 31, 2008, 03:40:39 PM

Dang Arcey, hard to believe natural selection hasn't cured idiots like that. Unfortunately they're rarley the ones that take the damage--seems like some other poor bastard always ends up payin.
E.W.--Lived in Fremont for a spell. Worked as an engineer at the Newark Fremont Hilton in '90 sumpthin. Thanks for the additional info on the history.

Leo

Virginia Gentleman · February 05, 2008, 09:59:05 AM

US Marines-Department of the Navy-The Men's Department....

Just funn'n with you Navy guys.

Leo Tanner · February 05, 2008, 11:05:54 AM

Semper Fi!

WyrTwister · July 10, 2010, 10:37:40 PM

Quote from: Russ T Chambers on January 30, 2008, 03:28:43 PM
I think your new pard got it slightly backwards. The .357 was developed as a .38 on steroids. The case was lengthened to prevent it from being chambered in older, less strong .38 special firearms. I'm sure there are some around here that can give a pretty concise history of the round. I think it was pretty much the same with the .44 magnum developing from the .44 special.

Yep .

God bless
Wyr

Shotgun Franklin · July 11, 2010, 09:34:12 AM

The .38 Colt had failed. There were several mid-frame swing out cylinder handguns made by S&W so they hoped to salvage that market. They lengthened the .38 Colt and developed a smokeless load and called it the .38 'Special'. The US Military wasn't interested but the public was. Many years later several folks developed hotter loading with the .38 Spl. S&W again lengthened the case and called the new round the .357 Magnum. Over time many Peace Officers and civilians switched to the more powerful .357 round. There are some revolvers that are built for the .38 Spl that will chamber the .357 this can be very hard on the gun and dangerous to the shooter. The .38 Spl was designed for smokeless powder but like nearly every round of the time there were later some loaded with blackpowder.
BTW, eventually the Military, lead by the Air Force, adopted some .38 Spl guns. They were usually issued to Flight Crews, Guards or people who kinda needed a gun but weren't very likely to ever use it.
I would not want to be shot with a .38 Spl round but consider it the low end of a carry gun for Police or serious gun toters.

Leo Tanner · November 28, 2010, 02:20:01 PM

Haven't checked back in here for awhile. Personal experience...I have a revolver and a rifle that are stamped for both calibers. I preferred the .357 but got a good deal on .38 spl So I stocked up. Taking down a raccoon at close range took two shots if ya didn't want ta see it suffer and there were no exit wounds. Broke my confidence in the round a bit. I went back to the mag after having to do that on two different occasions.

Shotgun Franklin · November 28, 2010, 05:35:36 PM

My Wife, my Daughter and my Son all took their first deer with a fine little Marlin .357 lever action. For most folks the .357 revolver is about all the handgun they can handle. It's likely why my ears ring all the time.

Leo Tanner · November 28, 2010, 06:26:41 PM

Technically the 357 Marlin is my wifes. I have a 30-30 but we had an ammo shortage for a spell. That one will stop just about anything.

StrawHat · January 08, 2011, 05:41:49 AM

Quote from: Leo Tanner on November 28, 2010, 02:20:01 PM
Haven't checked back in here for awhile. Personal experience...I have a revolver and a rifle that are stamped for both calibers. I preferred the .357 but got a good deal on .38 spl So I stocked up. Taking down a raccoon at close range took two shots if ya didn't want ta see it suffer and there were no exit wounds. Broke my confidence in the round a bit. I went back to the mag after having to do that on two different occasions.

Leo, what load were you using that would not penetrate a raccoon? I load a hard cast wadcutter to about 900 fps and find it a great little cartridge that hits way out of proportion to it's appearance.