# revolver .38 special or 357 magnum



## sargentbash

Hi there i would like to know weather a .38 special p+ is as effective as a 357 magnum? Will a .38 have a similar stopping power as the 357? i am looking at 4'' revolvers. i will be using Hollow-point bullet's. I will be using the gun for self defense. i know that a 357 has a bigger recoil than the .38.

thanks for taking the time to reply.


----------



## 1jimmy

suggestion is to go to bullet school, local ranges, gun dealers its a real education. you can go to federal ammo on line and they will give you the weights and speed of the common calibers. 4 inch is nice but most of them are big and bulky for carry


----------



## sargentbash

kwl i will go take a look online now ,still tad new to all of this so i hope i will understand it.


----------



## TedDeBearFrmHell

lets say the chamber pressure for a .38 special is 15000 and the pressure for a +p runs at 18000.... and a .357 mag at 
30000.... definately NOT the same.

in my 2in colt cobra i carry +p because its the hottest round i can safely shoot in it.

in my 4in smith 586 i practice with .38s but carry .357mag in it because i prefer to have the stopping power it affords me. (the last few cylinders full i do mix .38 and .357 randomly to remind me that no matter what gun i pick up, the recoil and report will vary) 

so, they are not the same, not close to being the same


----------



## denner

The 357 magnum is a much more powerful round than 38 special +p. I'd opt for the 357 magnum if in a 4" barrel as you can have the best of both worlds; you can fire either 38 special, or +p and 357 magnum at your discretion. I don't have a problem with the 38 special load however, it does the job well and has for the past 60 years.


----------



## sargentbash

thanks for the comments im getting the picture much better now


----------



## Packard

The .357 is considered by many experts to be the single most effective service caliber available. The 125 grain Federal pushed at 1,400 fps is one of the most effective man-stoppers available. 

But the .357 is difficult for many to shoot from a small revolver and the small revolver has limited firepower.

The .38 is easier to shoot with (I believe) the 158 grain +P being the preferred loading.

I would buy a .357 revolver and try it. If you can handle the .357s use them. If you can't then try the .38 +P or the .38. The .357 offers a lot of flexibility in that regard. You can even use target ammo which is lightly loaded if recoil is an obstacle.


----------



## DavidLaPell

What you don't say is the kind of gun you will be using. Will it be a K-frame Smith revolver like a Model 19 or a heavier N-frame like a Model 28? Will it be a Ruger or lightweight gun? I personally have a love affair with .357 Magnums. I would tell you this, in the 1986 Miami FBI shootout where both bad guys were shot numerous times and were still able to kill two FBI agents and wounded almost all of the rest, they were being shot at with 9mm and .38 +P. While JHP's do work, you can use a heavy cast bullet in your .38 like a do, a 170 grain bullet which has a track record of great penetration and expansion. A good .357 is a 158 grain JSP which I use alot in my .357's. Hollow points do work, and do offer great expansion without over penetrating. 
The best thing I can tell you is to shoot both and see which one you can do the best with. Remember that the .357 arrived because LEO's of the day could not do the job on the bad guys with the .38 Special. Go with the most powerful round you can.


----------



## denner

DavidLaPell said:


> I would tell you this, in the 1986 Miami FBI shootout where both bad guys were shot numerous times and were still able to kill two FBI agents and wounded almost all of the rest, they were being shot at with 9mm and .38 +P.


On a further note, it was poor shot placement by the agents as the major factor coupled with going up against a semi auto Ruger Mini-14 in the shootout. I don't care what caliber pistol you have but going up against a semi-automatic 223 in the hands of a trained Army veteran your going to be at a strong disadvantage using pistols, especially with poor shot placement. That being said, a S&W 38 Special +P revolver put an end to both of the bad guys which resulted in stopping the fight. Likewise, pistol ammunition has improved dramatically since 1986. P.S. I read the full official report by the FBI concerning the 1986 Miami shootout. The most crucial factor of that day was not waiting for agents and officers armed with heavier firepower before closing in to make the arrest, especially after knowing they both were heavily armed, and at least one of the bad guys was armed with a 223 semi-auto.


----------



## Packard

denner said:


> On a further note, it was poor shot placement by the agents...


I'm sure that some people will claim devine intervention here, but I will deal with just the facts.

In 1982?? Pope John Paul II was shot by a lunatic Turk carrying a 9mm handgun. He fired from just a few yards away (less than 20 feet). One of the several bullets that hit the Pope passed within a few millimeters of his aorta. A shot such as this would normally be called "good shot placement". The distance was close--under 20 feet. The Pope survived. (And we are all pleased that he did).

But the facts remain:


Close in shooting distance
Well-placed shot in the kill zone
Victim was a frail older man
The victim suffered several wounds
The weapon was a 9mm 
The victim survived


----------



## denner

Packard said:


> I'm sure that some people will claim devine intervention here, but I will deal with just the facts.
> 
> In 1982?? Pope John Paul II was shot by a lunatic Turk carrying a 9mm handgun. He fired from just a few yards away (less than 20 feet). One of the several bullets that hit the Pope passed within a few millimeters of his aorta. A shot such as this would normally be called "good shot placement". The distance was close--under 20 feet. The Pope survived. (And we are all pleased that he did).
> 
> But the facts remain:
> 
> 
> Close in shooting distance
> Well-placed shot in the kill zone
> Victim was a frail older man
> The victim suffered several wounds
> The weapon was a 9mm
> The victim survived


On a further note regarding FBI facts. Do do you know what caliber is responsible for more officer fatalities in the line of duty (ten fold) according to FBI statistics, including all rifle calibers for the past 30 years to present? I'll give you a hint, it's not; .45, .40, 10mm, 357, or 38 special? I'll give you one more hint, the caliber begins with a 9; Germany used the 9mm to great effect during WWII, presently NATO forces and the U.S. military use 9mm, therefore, I would presume the 9mm to be a fairly lethal round no less. As mentioned, current premium 9mm loadings are comprable to those offered in .40 .357 and .45 with generally more capacity and less recoil, give or take a few mm's of expansion. So if you believe a 9mm round won't kill a human being with good shot placement, you may wish to reconsider that observation.


----------



## Packard

denner said:


> On a further note regarding FBI facts. Do do you know what caliber is responsible for more officer fatalities in the line of duty (ten fold) according to FBI statistics, including all rifle calibers for the past 30 years to present?...


Let's see the 9mm is the official NATO round; it is the official caliber of the Chinese military; a 9mm round is the official round of the Russian military; until about 1987 or a bit later it was the official round of the FBI and most police departments, all of which means there were a hell of a lot more 9mm weapons out there than there are any other caliber, including the full automatics that some gangs like to use.

So it would be my expectation that more people would be killed by 9mm rounds than by any other.

But that is not a meaningful statistic. A meaningful statistic would be "of the people shot with a 9mm round what percentage died? And how does that percentage compare to the percentages experienced by other calibers?"


----------



## denner

Packard said:


> But that is not a meaningful statistic. A meaningful statistic would be "of the people shot with a 9mm round what percentage died? And how does that percentage compare to the percentages experienced by other calibers?"


Well, I'll leave that up to you, it would be a more meaningful statistic to bring more than the Pope shooting to denounce the effectiveness of the 9mm cartridge. So, I presume "Let's see the 9mm is the official NATO round; it is the official caliber of the Chinese military; a 9mm round is the official round of the Russian military" does that not warrant it's effectiveness? Or are they just fools that wish to put their soldiers in harms way? I don't believe the Nazi's would have used the 9mm throughout WWII and the German military and police force at present if the 9mm were so ineffective.


----------



## TedDeBearFrmHell

i love the made up statistics based on anecdotal evidence ..... junk"science" for dullards


----------



## denner

TedDeBearFrmHell said:


> i love the made up statistics based on anecdotal evidence ..... junk"science" for dullards


Probably so! but, I believe the 9 is just fine in high end hollowpoints, hardball, well mediocre.


----------



## Packard

denner said:


> ... Accordingly, of all those officers killed in the line of duty for the past thirty years none survived...


Really? Now that is a statistic I can believe in.


----------



## TedDeBearFrmHell

denner said:


> Probably so! but, I believe the 9 is just fine.


my comments were not aimed at any particular person here, its just a common trait, people hear of 17 incidents of something happening and it becomes a statistic even if the events were only similar in the outcome but not in any other way. a statistic is based on scientific study or experiments.


----------



## denner

Packard said:


> Really? Now that is a statistic I can believe in.


Yea, I don't know where I'm going statistically here? "If your killed more than likely you didn't survive". I think I'm gonna retire my statistical argument and should have known better than to get into a 9mm caliber effectiveness debate from a 38 Special, 357 magnum thread?


----------



## TedDeBearFrmHell

when viewed as a percentage the group of people who survive getting killed are but a trace and have zero effect on the overall percentile. the ability to scientifically study those survivors is hampered by their unwillingness to die. although the majority eventually do pass on, it is rarely in a manner worth consideration here.


----------



## denner

Packard said:


> I'm sure that some people will claim devine intervention here, but I will deal with just the facts.
> 
> In 1982?? Pope John Paul II was shot by a lunatic Turk carrying a 9mm handgun. He fired from just a few yards away (less than 20 feet). One of the several bullets that hit the Pope passed within a few millimeters of his aorta. A shot such as this would normally be called "good shot placement". The distance was close--under 20 feet. The Pope survived. (And we are all pleased that he did).
> 
> But the facts remain:
> 
> 
> Close in shooting distance
> Well-placed shot in the kill zone
> Victim was a frail older man
> The victim suffered several wounds
> The weapon was a 9mm
> The victim survived


Well, from what I've researched, if you can believe "wikipedia": John Paul II was struck by four bullets, two of them lodging in his lower intestine, the others hitting his left hand and right arm. The weapon used was the Browning High power 9mm. I didn't see missing the aorta by a few millimeters, but it's possible, maybe the lunatic Turk shot from a very high angle.


----------



## TedDeBearFrmHell

denner said:


> Well, from what I've researched, if you can believe "wikipedia": John Paul II was struck by four bullets, two of them lodging in his lower intestine, the others hitting his left hand and right arm. The weapon used was the Browning High power 9mm.


John Paul II , according to wikipedia , is currently dead.


----------



## Packard

TedDeBearFrmHell said:


> John Paul II , according to wikipedia , is currently dead.


Yes, but not from bullet wounds.


----------



## Packard

denner said:


> Well, from what I've researched, if you can believe "wikipedia": John Paul II was struck by four bullets, two of them lodging in his lower intestine, the others hitting his left hand and right arm. The weapon used was the Browning High power 9mm. I didn't see missing the aorta by a few millimeters, but it's possible, maybe the lunatic Turk shot from a very high angle.


The plot to kill the Pope

This from he Catholic Education Resource Center:

(Discussing the assassination attempt similarities between Pope John Paul II and Ron Regan.)

_...The bullets entered both bodies, moved toward the hearts, and either stopped or passed within a few millimetres of the central aorta..._

I have no way to determine the veracity of this report but it seems like a legitimate resource.


----------



## denner

Packard said:


> The plot to kill the Pope
> 
> This from he Catholic Education Resource Center:
> 
> (Discussing the assassination attempt similarities between Pope John Paul II and Ron Regan.)
> 
> _...The bullets entered both bodies, moved toward the hearts, and either stopped or passed within a few millimetres of the central aorta..._
> 
> I have no way to determine the veracity of this report but it seems like a legitimate resource.


I would tend to believe your source more so than "wikipedia". However, I believe this account to be more factual than both. DOCTORS CALL POPE OUT OF DANGER - DOCTORS CALL POPE OUT OF DANGER - DISCLOSE DETAILS OF MEDICAL CARE - NYTimes.com


----------



## Packard

denner said:


> I would tend to believe your source more so than "wikipedia". However, I believe this account to be more factual than both. DOCTORS CALL POPE OUT OF DANGER - DOCTORS CALL POPE OUT OF DANGER - DISCLOSE DETAILS OF MEDICAL CARE - NYTimes.com


I agree. And it makes for some fascinating reading.

One quote (and I paraphrase here because the link is giving me trouble) "there is barely room for the bullet to travel without hitting vital organs".

Perhaps the shooter was using FMJ ammo which would account for the apparently narrow wound cavity. You would expect far larger wounds with jacketed hollow points. (I'm reading between the lines here as the "barely room for a bullet" would indicate a very narrow wound cavity.


----------



## tconroy

I have a Ruger sp 101 3 1/16th " revolver in 357. I shoot 38's at the range but always follow up with some 357's. It is more acurate with them but the sting after 20 or more is noticeably more than the 38's. It is quite a handful if you are not use to it. 357 in 110 grain are mild.and easy to handle. Get the 357 and shoot 38's if you need to. at least you will have the option of 357. when I carry CW I always have the hornaday 357 hollowpoints with the polymer filled tips. They are called critical defense. anyway it is like having 2 guns.


----------



## berettatoter

I would go with the .357 myself. I would use .38 Specials for most practice, then use the .357 for carry. JMHO.


----------



## Hurryin' Hoosier

My preference is for .38 Special non - +P. To me, .357 Magnum is too hot for any extended range time. It's also too expensive, and would be far too likely to go through a bad guy and hit my neighbor. I do my target shooting with 158 grain FMJ in my S&W Model 64, and 158 grain LRN in my S&W M&P (pre-Model 10) snubby. My home-defense rounds for both guns is Buffalo Bore 158 grain LSWCHP "Chicago loads".


----------

