Is .38 for self defense just a meme /k/? Is anything less than

>>32602156
Hurrrr. A post died for this you fucking idjit.

>>32602156

.38 special is ballistically similar to 9mm, there's not much point to it aside from being a relatively cheap plinker because with 9mm handguns you typically get greater capacity.

>>32602156
of course you dumb fuck, in fact there's hardly any noticeable difference in terminal ballistics between .38 9mm .40s&w and .45acp

File: 1unnamed.jpg (51KB, 879x659px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 879x659px

why not both?

but really .38 special is more than fine for self defense it has delivered death to many men and it will continue to for as long as its made.

File: IMG_20160624_164701.jpg (376KB, 3280x2460px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 3280x2460px

>>32602156
It's not when using the Buffalo Bore FBI load.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yPrw3B-8HjE

You guys have bar carry right? I'm jelly

>>32602256
Buffalo bore anything is not to be fucked with. I have some hard cast .32 acp rounds from them that are pretty fucking gnarly.

>>32602156
.38 is for fudds, as is .45.

>>32602762
9mm is 116 years old and has been down graded in power since then. You are retarded and you have fallen for the biggest meme.

>>32602256
>+p heavy .38 buffalo bore

at this point why not just get .357 magnum?

>>32602156
Hey anon, the .38 may have trouble reaching the 6-8 inch penetration suggested for instant debilitation on a very large heavily clothed male. I sometime wonder if the 17 hmr is neglected or inefficient as it has a lot of powder behind a sharp tip projectile

>>32602182
A thread you fucking humongleon.

>>32602156
The problem with .38 is that it's usually in a revolver that isn't sealed as well as most guns that use 9mm.

>>32602819
There's like a 100-300 fps difference between a +P and an average magnum. When I had a snub I'd carry the +P because the lighter recoil is easier for follow up shots. Expansion is about the same, gets about a foot of penetration, the magnum would get more, just another factor to consider.

>>32602949
i hadnt looked much at +p .38., thanks for the info. im planning to get a .357 lever gat and figure that .38 or .357 would get huge gains out of an extra foot or so of barrel

>>32602949
Meant to also state that's out of a 2 incher, anything smaller and I would go for an average load wadcutter.

>>32602973
For rifles definitely go for .357 hot stuff, and the cheap lead .38 for plinking.

>>32602182
yeah another worthless shitpost /k/eddit thread

>>32602973
Hornady makes leverevolution ammo in .357 for levergats, it gets about twice the velocity out of a rifle as it does from a 6" barreled pistol. Less than stellar out of handguns because it uses the slower burning rifle powder meant for longer barrels.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>32602156
Underwood is pretty good. They replicated the FBI load.

>>32602826
The thread began with a post. Big Bang.
>>32603602
Like this one.

So anons, poorfag noguns reporting in. Long story short, I'm moving to a kind of bad area, and I've been looking at guns for home defense and maybe even CCing. I have a buddy who is willing to sell me a Taurus Model 85 for 260, and I was wondering if that'd be a solid enough firearm for my situation. I'm new to shooting and don't have a lot of money, but I figure I could pick up the 85 and have a good chunk of change left over for a bunch of ammo to practice with plus get some quality defense rounds. With what is left over, I'd get a holster of course. I'm trying to cap out at about 500 bucks which I know really isn't a lot for someone looking to purchase a firearm, but I'm just trying to be realistic with my situation. Should I rethink my plan anons?

File: 1469359285026.jpg (256KB, 717x960px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 717x960px

>>32605398
>Anything Taurus
You might get some asshurt huehue's who will deny it, but Taurus is shit. Get anything else but a fucking Taurus, especially a used one.

>>32605398
The Taurus is $260 for a reason, and it's not because your friend is just a nice guy. Taurus revolvers are nowhere near as horrible as their non-Beretta clone automatics, but they are demonstrably inferior to revolvers made by Ruger or S&W in terms of their trigger and lockup. If you do buy it, just bear in mind that it's probably not going to be a "buy it for life" kind of gun and that Taurus customer service is like Taurus guns in general in that it tends to suck.

>>32605437
>>32605506
Thanks anons, I'll keep my eyes peeled looking for some solid deals on other guns then. Is there any models you'd recommend that I'd be able to find around that price range either used or new?

>>32605602
Oh and to correct myself, not the 260 price range, but something I'd be able to purchase while still atleast picking up some ammo to practice with?

>>32602156

Is the thing you are shooting it at
A: A fucking bear
B: Wearing armor?
C: Both?

If no to all of the above, it's fine.

File: 1480885109575.jpg (32KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 640x480px

I like compact handguns. .380 is my round by association. It's all I shoot. I don't like full size handguns, so I don't really care for 9mm or .45.. When it comes to self defense, caliber doesn't really matter. Just having the gun and shooting it at someone is going to deter them. How hard it fucks them up doesn't really matter. Really it's just personal preference and how much money you can shell out and what guns you like more.. but really .380 is the best. Anything more and it's a meme, anything less and it's not enough.

>>32605602
And since the other Anon added onto his post, I'll add on to mine. Fit and finish on a Taurus revolver is shit. It's not as severe as any mechanical issues, but when you can cut your finger open on certain parts of the crane, it's pretty noticeable. I actively steer any of my customers away from Taurus, because while they have a limited lifetime warranty, their customer service is such dog shit in a dumpster fire that you'd almost rather buy a new gun than call them for anything other than to call them a bunch of cunts.

>>32605602
You can buy a new Smith and Wesson 642 for like $330 shipped. It costs more than that Taurus, but you get a gun that has the same capacity, is structurally stronger despite being 25% lighter, and has extremely good factory support.

File: IMG_20170110_181916.jpg (2MB, 3280x2460px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3280x2460px

>>32605437
Pictured 1976 vintage Taurus was my first handgun when I was 16. Thousands of rounds over the years and was used when I bought it. Had one minor repair which the local gun store mailed to Taurus for free which repaired it for free.

>>32602156
No

>>32602825
>17 hmr
it's a beast

>>32605881
It goes through your body so fast that your body doesn't know why it died.

>>32605398
>Taurus
Stopped reading your post. Save your money. Get a 9mm M&P for a little more.

>>32602156
the whole purpose of .38sp is to get the first shot in on target so that you know where the enemy is, you know, where you should be aiming... and then follow it up with that .357hp killshot

>>32605838
I hope you're aware that showing yours to try and justify modern Taurus not being terrible isn't a very good argument, considering that Taurus was actually a decent company in the era when yours was made.

In the 70s, Taurus was owned by Bangor Punta, which also owned Smith and Wesson at the time. Smith and Wesson collaborated with Taurus at the direction of Bangor Punta to help them go from being a maker of saturday night specials to a maker of guns that were pretty good budget S&Ws.

>>32605941
Are you retarded as fuck? .38 and .357 have different POI.

>>32605602
You can get a Ruger SR9E for about $300US. Go to wally and get a 200 round box of 9mm for about $50US.

>>32605753
you're all a bunch of cunts!

>>32605991
>miss with your first 357
good luck with the second

>>32602156

The .38 Special was THE service round for nearly 100 years.

It will still put a jiggaboo in ground with ease.

>>32606038
Why the fuck would I miss? You are not practicing at all are you? First shot is best shot, why waste it by loading a mouse pussy round first...please stop being retarded.

>>32602787

Range FMJ is downgraded

Modern hollowpoints are sure as fuck not.

>>32602819

.357 Magnum is pretty much worthless in a snubnose revolver. It really needs at least 3", and ideally 4"+ of barrel length for any advantage over a .38 Special.

>>32605999
Trips confirm
Anon must buy the Ruger 9E

>>32606072
>t. i have 100% hit accuracy with high calibre pistols
keep larping at the range faggot. irl you would probably be pissing yourself

File: IMG_20161101_213136_zps1168ocxq.jpg (113KB, 463x579px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 463x579px

>>32605967

This

Same thing happened with Beretta. The brought the tooling for the 92, and low and behold the best gun Taurus makes is just a clone of the Beretta 92.

>>32606160
I've taken 4 lives, it's not a pants pissing moment. If you think I'm such a faggot I can't believe you're not at my door already trying to suck me off.

>high caliber
.357 is not.

Retarded and a faggot, you must be from California.

>>32605999

Plus the S&W SD9VE, and the Canik TP9 for the same price.

Fuck, I've bought mint Glocks and Berettas used for $400 that literally saw less than a box of ammo. So many better pistols that what Taurus can churn out.

>>32606115
>.357 Magnum is pretty much worthless in a snubnose revolver. It really needs at least 3", and ideally 4"+ of barrel length for any advantage over a .38 Special.


Ah yes, the old "there is no appreciable difference in power between .38 +P and .357 out of a 2 inch barrel if both rounds have identical bullet weights and are fired out of the same gun because the short barrel makes .357 lose all of its power" argument. In case you were not aware, this is pure fuddlore that is easily disproved by simply using a chronograph.

The reality is that a 125 grain .38 +P out of a 2 inch snubnose barrel averages ~840 feet per second, while a 125 grain .357 out of a 2 inch snubnose barrel averages over 1250 feet per second.

There are very good reasons to not use .357 in a snubnose, but "it only has the same power as .38 +P out of a two inch barrel!" is not one of them.

>>32605398
sccy is your friend.

>>32606219
>"What the fuck did you just fucking say about me" tier larping

t. autismo maximo

>>32605967
>Anything Taurus
>especially a used one
Replied saying my used one isn't shit.

>>32602213
And yet it's almost always more expensive than 9mm, sometimes much more expensive, unfortunately. I almost exclusively use it for fun plinking when shooting stuff chambered in .357 mag. Obviously it's still cheaper'n that.

>>32606301
I wasn't the guy who made the post to which you originally replied. I just wanted to throw it out there that I know your vintage Taurus is, like you said, not a piece of shit like so many of their other, later guns are.

>>32605999
You mean the Winchester white box? Those are good for target practice but I wouldn't use it for defense.

>>32606301
I AM the guy you originally replied to, and I stand by my post as far as CURRENT Taurus goes. Much like the other Anon said, Taurus was decent previously, but they're not anymore. You can't claim Taurus isn't shitty now by posting a gun from the 70's.

>>32606099
your wrong about that bud.
9mm +P is more like it but even then some +P's are not as hot.

also description "hollow point" is terrible for describing how hot ammo.

thats like someone asking how heavy something is and getting the response "dumb bell"

>>32602156
I tend to be more accurate with them as opposed to semiautomatic pistols for some reason, but that might be a personal thing. Also, any gun is better than no gun, and 38 has been used by cops for a long time period.

>>32602156
Does Smith and wessen make quality revolvers? Asking for a friend

File: lhc.jpg (39KB, 640x424px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 640x424px

>>32602156

.45-70 is the superior revolver cartridge

>>32606647
The answer to low capacity issue in revolvers is here

>>32602819

Because .357 magnum is still a lot more powerful than .38+P and many snubnoses only come in .38 for that matter.

Not to mention, you'd need at least a 4 inch barrel to get the most out of the power of the .357

>>32602825

Where I live, its hot even in the winter, so no one ever has winter clothing here, ever.

So definitely might be an issue for people who live in colder climates, but in colder climates you can also CC bigger guns so...

>>32602930

And yet it can shoot a 156 grain projectile at pretty good fps from a 2 inch barrel.

>>32605838

What holster is that? I WANT IT!!!!

>>32606064

I don't feel outgunned even with my 5 shot .38 s&w bodyguard. I've put the wilson combat springs in it, a nicer grip, it has a crimson trace laser, and I've gotten so good with it, I can cylinder dump all five shots into a head at 7 yards.

>>32606115

I wouldn't say useless, though I would not be carrying .357 on my snubbie even though it can, knowing that it CAN shoot 357 in a survival or shtf situation makes it pretty malleable as a firearm

>>32606219

Though I think you're retarded with your 4 lives comment.

I do have to agree with you that .357 is not even that hard to control (though to be honest I've only shot it out of a 6 inch barreled 686)

>>32606578

My dad is not really a fud, he likes all kinds of guns, but being that he is older, and was an undercover cop around the time dirty harry movies were popular, he has a love for revolvers that spilled on to me.

As a kid I grew up shooting his Smith and Colt collection. I remember the first time I picked up and shot one of his Glocks in comparison to a nice smith revolver trigger... I kind of just shied away from semi's (though I do carry a glock 26 occasionally) I just feel more comfortable with the revolvers that I can shoot more accurately and reload almost as fast from years of shooting revolvers.

I've never shot a 1911 but I heard the engineering behind those guns leds itself to nice triggers, it might be the only semi-auto I might like, but I've heard from many people you need to own a custom built one fitted by gunsmiths if you want any real reliability from it.

Unfortunately those go for around 2,500 to 3,500

>>32606611

Yes, they do. In fact, they probably make the highest quality revolvers from all major brand revolver making companies out there.

Though Ruger revolvers are sturdy and built like tanks. They don't have the triggers or attention added to detail that Smiths have.

If you're a big fan of shooting accurately get a Smith, if you just want a revolver for just having one, get a Ruger since it's practically unbreakable.

File: IMAG0711.jpg (452KB, 2688x1520px) Image search: [Google]

452KB, 2688x1520px

>>32608538
http://www.ebay.com/itm/RH-Black-Don-Hume-H715M-W-C-Clip-On-IWB-Holster-S-W-J-Frame-2-/391672117700
Done Hume IWB
Cheapest holsters around, have drawer full of custom brands but wear a Don Hume daily because it works while staying concealed and secure.

>>32602819
Your revolver might be .38 only, or you may not like the blast/recoil of .357, or you may be able to find shit cheaper.

>>32608486
>Need at least a 4 inch barrel to get the most out of a .357

That's the same for any magnum cartridge, anon. It doesn't change the fact that the .357 beats the shit out of a .38 at equal barrel length. 3 inch .357 is ballistically the same as a 6 inch .38 special +P, which should not be trifled with.

How it is so widespead that a .357 snub = .38 snub while nobody in their right minds would compare a .44 special snub to a .44 magnum snub or a .45 colt snub to a .454 snub will baffle me until the end of time. A magnum will always beat the special it's based on, cutting down the barrel only increases the necessity of the magnum in defensive situations.

>>32608679
Thank you so much. Gonna get one ASAP. I only like holsters that have thumb breaks, even the one for my glock has a thumb break,

And I've been carrying a snubbie lately but I haven't found a snubbie holsters with a thumb break until I saw this one from the pic you posted.

Super active and flexible guy here, so I need the thumb break or the gun might just fall out when I'm biking, skating, running, or climbing something.

>>32608681

Oh I understand that, I'm not an idiot that can't into simple logic. Obviously the .357 is still going to be stronger out of a small barrel than a .38 out of the equally small barrel. I'm not debating that.

But what I am saying, is that from a snubbie, even if it is a .357 snubbie, I would only load with .38+ because it's adequate enough, and there's less recoil and flash, and I don't feel like I'm wasting the rounds potential when I have 6 inch barreled revolvers lying around the house that can get my round up to 1700fps

File: 9mm38.png (36KB, 1092x316px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 1092x316px

>>32602156

>>32609163
what is this from?

>>32609292

I'm guessing from some private organization. The FBI has stated the complete opposite, that there isn't enough difference between handgun calibers to make a discernible difference.

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. For instance, the statement that there's not much difference between .38 special and 9mm, is definitely true.

But when that picture states that the .45acp is better at shooting at vehicles even though .45acp penetrates a lot less than 9mm... it starts to lose credibility.

Personally, I think the only handgun cartridges that start to see a good difference in "stopping" power, are .357mag, .357 sig, and other bigger magnum cartridges.

For instance, a 5 inch Beretta duty gun in 9mm, will shoot 1250fps with an 125grain projectile with the +P loadings.

While a .357 magnum revolver with a 5 inch barrel, can shoot an 164grain projectile at 1650fps, a whopping 400fps more, not to mention a heavier bullet with better sectional density. The added weight and velocity gives it A LOT more power/energy.

So basically, in the end, shoot whatever you're comfortable with. Because handgun calibers really don't make too much of a difference and shot placement is king.

(though, if you do think you'll most likely have to be shooting out of a car or into a car, I'd go with .357 sig)

>>32605991
At pistol engagement ranges? Unless its more than an inch I would have to ask how it matters

>>32606647
Expecting some bfr or similar revolver. ........ find something that makes me want to know more.