Talk:.38 Special

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Firearms Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Tambayan Philippines Start‑class Low‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Dispute

" Few, if any, police departments in the U.S. still use .38 Special as a standard duty weapon" ...........Disputed.......... Almost all forces in the US still have .38 as an authorised duty cartridge and Michigan State Police, as well as some others still use .38 as a standard and issued platform. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/lema974b.pdf

The document you cite clearly shows that it's a minority of forces which authorise the use of .38 Special, not "almost all". Riddley 13:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, prop. change wording to; "Only a minority of US police depts. issue or authorise.

Image placement

Maybe if we moved the 2nd image way up high in the article, like after the 1st history paragraph, it wouldn't look so funny. I played with it a few places myself and couldn't find anything I really liked. Arthurrh 18:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Can't there be an image of the gun itself, instead of the ammo? Eye.earth (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.38 Special is a cartridge, not a gun.--LWF (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cartridge History and Date of Advent

Most reloading handbooks and references such as the cited Cartridges of the World date the 38 special to 1902. The cartridge was actually introduced in 1899 with the first model Military and Police Revolver. I have added a picture of one of these revolvers and the letter from Roy Jinks confirming the history of the 38 special round and the date of shipment in 1900. Please look at the letter before deleting this edit.--Mcumpston (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cartridge Effectiveness and/or Lack Thereof

Elmer Keith was an early critic of the effectiveness of the standard load. In his Sixguns Book, he said that the 38 Special" had cost many good men their lives." (sic) He developed higher pressure loads using his SWC with and without hollow point that he developed betwen 1928 and 31 deeming these loads effective. There has been much subsequent literature in the same vein but Keith seems to be the prime mover in this and his book would make a good reference in the places needing citation about inadequate power. I do not know how to add to the Ref list but this would be a good inclusion:

Keith, Elmer Sixguns by Keith New York,Bonanza Books 1955 and 1961

There have also been references to the Strausberg Goat material and studies by more recent stopping power researchers but these have become so controversial that using them as sources is guaranteed to start a fight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcumpston (talk • contribs) 13:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ive noticed that listed in this article, the 9mm Parabellum has more J energy transfered than the .38 special. I find that to be bollocks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.231.71 (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.38-44 Heavy Duty

It was S&W's .38-44 "Outdoorsman" that was the heavy-frame target pistol, which had fully adjustable target sights, and every surviving example I've ever seen has had the 6" barrel, though they did catalog other lengths. The .38-44 Heavy Duty was purely and completely a plain-Jane fixed-sight police service revolver (and the 5" barrel version was in the 1930 catalog as the "Super Police" model), with square notch rear sight milled into the topstrap of the frame and semicircular "half nickel" front sight pinned to a base atop the muzzle; every Heavy Duty model I've ever seen had the tapered 4" barrel though S&W listed others in their catalogs at the time. Imagine a S&W M1917 .45 ACP or Military Model .44 Special, but in .38 instead. That's a Heavy Duty.

And if anyone wants to verify that, just go to any of the online firearms auction pages and see for yourself which feature set went with which model name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.244.181 (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencingand appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. --dashiellx (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.38 Special +P+ table entry

The .38 Comparisons table in the Performance section raises two questions for me:

1) The max pressure listed for .38 Special +P+ is 25,000 psi. Where does this figure come from? Unless things have changed fairly recently, there is no SAAMI pressure spec for +P+ ammo. +P+ is usually used to denote ammo with pressures that could be in excess of +P loads, but not within a defined spec. Moreover, the article on overpressure ammunition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/+P) cites an article listing .38 +P+ at 22,000 psi, and claims a general industry agreement to load +P+ to 15% higher than +P, which would be 23,000 PSI. Given all of these conflicts and the lack of a SAAMI spec, I suggest replacing the entry in the column with "> 20,000 PSI" unless a source can be found for an actual max pressure. An explanatory footnote would be in order, too.

2) The sample +P+ load shown is a 147 grain bullet at 1150 fps. Is this an actual load? The most common 147 grain .38 +P+ loading (and the only commercial one, to my knowledge) is the Federal Premium Hydra-Shok law-enforcement-only load. From memory, that load was in the neighborhood of 950 fps--nowhere near 1150 fps. Can anybody document a 147 grain +P+ commercial load at a nominal 1150 fps? If not, I suggest replacing the entry with either the 147 grain at 950, or with the old "Treasury Load," which was a 110 grain at (IIRC) a nominal 1100 fps. The 147 grain load would be more current.