[quote]paulwhite959 wrote:
Man. that makes me rethink my carry ammo–I use a .357 with a jacketed hollow point. Heck, it makes me think about trying to carry a blunt or edged instrument. [/quote]
There is a terminal ballistics thread with some useful links to ammunition selection.
If it is the holster/reholster deal, riding the hammer(positive thumb pressure) makes most revolvers very safe for administrative handling. The three biggest issues with revolvers, especially small revolvers, as I see them are limited capacity compared to some autos, slower reloads(moon clips are faster than speed loaders which are faster than speed strips which are faster than loose rounds, but magazines are faster than all), often small and fixed sights, and a heavy trigger pull.
I know that I found .38 plus P to be about my limit out of a lightweight revolver(I have since switched to a kahr CM9 as my “not quite a real” gun). Shooting .357 out of a j-frame size package was just too much. Even so, my split times (times between aimed shots) were poor compared to an auto. The capacity was a factor. My Kahr CM9 holds 40% more rounds and has better sights. Still the biggest issue for me was that I suck at managing the long, heavy double action trigger out of such a light pistol. I have done some decent shooting with large, heavy revolvers but the 12-14pound pull on an aluminum framed .38 coupled with the bad sights meant I missed more often, with a lower capacity weapon, that I took longer to reload. Just my level of shitty performance.
Depending on barrel length you may want to look at using a .38 load. Out of a 2inch or shorter barrel much of the extra powder that makes a magnum a magnum just gets dumped out the front of the barrel where it buys you flash and sound, but no huge bump in terminal effect. .357 is still hotter, but if you are carrying it in a short barrel the bullets may have been designed for much, much higher velocities and could fail to expand, especially through clothing.
The above links you to a brief by Dr. Gary Roberts, one of the true experts in the field of wounding, and deals with .38 vs .357 vs. .380 out of small framed handguns. Not that my opinions/experience should be given weight compared to his, but I can vouch for his findings about .357 in light weight hand guns and laser grips being a seriously valuable addition to a small revolver(The laser adds a night time/low light reference and gives much better feed back as you manage the trigger compared to the tiny sights. Honestly, if you carry a small framed revolver you would be foolish not to buy a pair. They will seriously aid you in making the most of your 5 shots.).
From the link:
[quote]Dr. Robert’s wrote:
Currently, the Speer Gold Dot 135 gr +P JHP, Winchester 130 gr bonded +P JHP (RA38B), and Barnes 110 gr XPB all copper JHP (for ex. in the Corbon DPX loading) offer the most reliable expansion we have seen from a .38 sp 2" BUG; Hornady 110 gr standard pressure and +P Critical Defense loads also offer good performance out of 2" barrel revolvers.
Any of the Airweight J-frames are fine for BUG use. The steel J-frames are a bit too heavy for comfortable all day wear on the ankle, body armor, or in a pocket. My current J-frames are 342’s and previously in my career I have used the 37, 38, 649, and 642. I like the 342 w/Lasergrips very much. Shooting is not too bad with standard pressure wadcutters and the 110 gr DPX, but not so comfortable with the Speer 135 gr JHP +P Gold Dots. Before the advent of the 110 gr Corbon DPX load, I used to carry standard pressure wadcutters in my J-frames with Gold Dot 135 gr +P JHP’s in speed strips for re-loads, as the flat front wadcutters were hard to reload with under stress. There is no reason to go with .357 mag in a J-frame, as the significantly larger muzzle blast and flash, and harsher recoil of the .357 Magnum does not result in substantially improved terminal performance compared to the more controllable .38 Special bullets when fired from 2" barrels.
For years, J-frames were considered “arm’s reach” weapons, that is until CTC Lasergrips were added. With the mild recoil of target wadcutters, officers are actually practicing with their BUG’s; when combined with Lasergrips, qualification scores with J-frames have dramatically increased. Now 5 shots rapid-fire in a 6" circle at 25 yds is not uncommon–kind of mind blowing watching officers who could not hit the target at 25 yds with a J-frame suddenly qualify with all shots in the black…
2" J-frames are great BUG’s and marginally acceptable low threat carry guns because they are lightweight, reliable, and offer acceptable terminal performance at close range–downsides are difficulty in shooting well at longer ranges because of sight design and sight radius limitations, along with reduced capacity coupled with slower reloading. Nonetheless, with the addition of CTC Laser Grips and an enclosed or shrouded hammer, the 2" J-frame models without key locks (I personally will NEVER own firearm with an integral lock) may be the best BUG’s and most reliable pocket handguns available.
[/quote]
Just something to think about. At the end of it all, YOU will be the deciding factor. The gun is just a tool, though we should try to make sure we have the best tools available.
Regards,
Robert A