38 Short Colt in a J frame?

[Eastex]

I have a 642 Talo II J frame that came from the factory cut for moon clips. I don't use them because the length of the 38 Special cases makes them awkward to handle at best. It is my EDC and I usually carry it with 148 grain wadcutters and a reload of Speer Gold Dot in a speed strip.

When I first heard of using Short Colt brass it was about how the competition guys liked it for speed of reloading. My question is, what kind of velocities are you able to get out of them in a modern revolver ? I know all of the published data is for the older ones that came chambered in that. Any information you could share on bullets used, overall lengths loaded to, anything on how you load them would be greatly appreciated.

It seems to me that if you can load them to something approaching lower end 9mm velocity the ease of loading and unloading would be great. Then the extra length you would save in the cylinder might have the same positive effect as the 9mm round gets in the Ruger LCR that has the same length cylinder as the 38 Special model.

Thanks for any input.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Carmoney]

I sometimes carry a loaded speed strip in my other pocket, but truth be told, I don't really plan to reload my snub in a defense situation.  If he's still up at that point, I think I will begin negotiations.

[mchapman]

Just what Carmoney said, but yes you can use short colts and I load mine to 9mm spects, just find and use a comparable weight bullet and use 9mm data.

[underlug]

2 hours ago, Carmoney said:

I sometimes carry a loaded speed strip in my other pocket, but truth be told, I don't really plan to reload my snub in a defense situation.  If he's still up at that point, I think I will begin negotiations.

If he can keep up with me

[Carmoney]

21 hours ago, underlug said:

If he can keep up with me

[varminter22]

On ‎1‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 10:11 PM, mchapman said:

Just what Carmoney said, but yes you can use short colts and I load mine to 9mm spects, just find and use a comparable weight bullet and use 9mm data.

I agree.  Completely "doable" - and practical. 

 

Of course it relegates you to carrying handloads for defense as Short Colt factory ammo is quite anemic.  There are those that claim you shouldn't carry handloads for defense, but when queried they virtually never point to a case wherein that was an issue.  I don't want to cause a lengthy discussion on that subject, but suffice it to say I would have NO qualms about carrying a good .38 Short Colt handload. 

[Eastex]

Thanks, I'm a little behind on my 9mm load data. I know the Speer 124 grain hollow point is well thought of and the HST in 124 and 147 are as well. I'm hoping to find a load that will have enough velocity to work well with hollow points out of the snub without having so much recoil that it slows down a second shot too much.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Bamboo]

I use short colts in a 5" 627 and find that using the same load data for 9mm is usually a good starting point, but because of pressure losses the same load in short colts compared to the same load in 9mm out of a 5" 1911 is 50 to >100 fps slower.  So, it is completely doable but I'd recommend using a chrono to work up any load. 

 

I had a 3" ladysmith with bobbed hammer that I sold in a moment of weakness....wish I hadn't now.   The j-frames are good guns. 

[toothguy]

2 hours ago, Eastex said:

Thanks, I'm a little behind on my 9mm load data. I know the Speer 124 grain hollow point is well thought of and the HST in 124 and 147 are as well. I'm hoping to find a load that will have enough velocity to work well with hollow points out of the snub without having so much recoil that it slows down a second shot too much.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Some good Long Colt loads in this thread using 150 gr round nose profile bullets.  With a short barreled, 14 oz., 38 you are not going to, or want to, be able to get the velocities required for reliable real world expansion using a light hollow point bullet.  The 150 gr round nose will more closely mimic the heavy bullet, fast powder efficiency of the wadcutters but load easier.  Here again using more of a competition load for self defense but I think you should be able to find a good balanced load or sweet spot.

 

I think the snub 38 has many of the same issues as the .380.  Due to the relatively low velocities you can't get reliable expansion from a light HP and if there is any it downgrades penetration.  Due to expansion, penetration and feeding issues with the .380 many just carry hardball.  An interesting solution is the Lehigh Defense Extreme Penetrator that doesn't rely on any expansion.

 

     

[PatJones]

I have a 642 Talo II J frame that came from the factory cut for moon clips. I don't use them because the length of the 38 Special cases makes them awkward to handle at best.

I've considered getting my model 60 cut for moonclips. Not for feeding ammunition in, I'd like to have a moonclip in the gun so that all 5 rounds eject as a single unit.

[Eastex]

It's not bad for the one piece ejection but I still can't load them at anything close to fast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mchapman]

Excluding Magnum loads, I have not seen that any standard or +P loads go fast enough to have any reliable expansion, that said a study I once read that most gunshot victims that survive center mass shots [study said 58%] was due to lack of penetration and failure to disrupt major internal organs, this was a ER doctors survey from FBI. I prefer to get the most penetration that I can and would use TC"d or RN projectiles  similar to what they have found with people using 380's. This is also critical this time of year with people wearing so many layers of clothing to keep warm. Got to get threw all that stuff to STOP THE THREAT!

[pskys2]

17 hours ago, varminter22 said:

I agree.  Completely "doable" - and practical. 

 

Of course it relegates you to carrying handloads for defense as Short Colt factory ammo is quite anemic.  There are those that claim you shouldn't carry handloads for defense, but when queried they virtually never point to a case wherein that was an issue.  I don't want to cause a lengthy discussion on that subject, but suffice it to say I would have NO qualms about carrying a good .38 Short Colt handload. 

FWIW Massad says that one reason is the ability for investigators to use a copy of your load to establish powder blast & diffusion rates.  Can help determine actual distance, if close enough.  I think he even had an example in his American Handgunner series a few years back.  Of course another reason would be the ability to pick up identical sighted in loads from the shelf.  Recently that little advantage has gone by the wayside.

[pete627]

If this has already been mentioned and I missed it then ...  Otherwise ... it looks like a 642 is a 38 special +p ... not a 357. 

357s and 9mms both are rated at 35000 psi  ... but ... 38 specials only at 17000 and +p 20000 psi.

They might drop in but if you loaded them like 9mm ... IMHO ... they would be too hot for the 642.  

[Dr. Phil]

I have read that some of the "experts" in the penetration/expansion fields like the penetration/wound channel effects of the sharp shouldered Keith style bullet. It gives FMJ type penetration and a good, sharp, open wound channel, kind of similar to a truncated cone type of bullet. There was an article in American Handgunner awhile back concerning penetration from snubbies up through rifle velocities, in both 38 and 44 calibers. Sorry, I don't remember the issues. I shot lots of hard cast 160 gr Keith 38s and 44s at "special" velocities for several years and got great penetration in water jugs and wet newspapers... Or, you can hollowpoint them and they will fragment at magnum velocities.

[toothguy]

10 hours ago, pete627 said:

If this has already been mentioned and I missed it then ...  Otherwise ... it looks like a 642 is a 38 special +p ... not a 357. 

357s and 9mms both are rated at 35000 psi  ... but ... 38 specials only at 17000 and +p 20000 psi.

They might drop in but if you loaded them like 9mm ... IMHO ... they would be too hot for the 642.  

 

Definitely a concern when working up a load.  I think the limiting factor would be the frame.  Basically trying to make a 940 with a light weight frame.  The 340 has had scandium added to the aluminum frame for strength.  Maybe just a lot easier and safer to get the LCR in 9mm.  It's a little heavier but better sights, grip and trigger.