 Join our Discord!
|
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Difference between revisions of "Talk:Smith & Wesson Victory Model"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
How does the .38 S&W compare to the .38 Special? I know it is less powerful but not how much less. -[[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]] | How does the .38 S&W compare to the .38 Special? I know it is less powerful but not how much less. -[[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]] | ||
:In terms of the ammo commercially available today, very poorly. The only ammo I can ever find (for my Enfield No.2s, Webley .38 Mk.IV and S&W Military & Police and Pre-Victory) is Remington 148 grain lead round nose that's loaded very light. The thing about .38 S&W is it was originally introduced in 1876 for the S&W Baby Russian, and it was used in a whole series of fairly weak and cheap pocket top break revolvers. Because of that, in the US the ammo you find is loaded light because the ammo companies are worried about it being chambered in these guns. But when the British adopted it as a service round, it was originally loaded with a 200 grain "manstopper" (basically a wadcutter) bullet, and then a 178 grain conical FMJ, both loaded to higher pressure then current ammo. I still wouldn't say it was as potent as a .38 Special, but definately better than current commercial loads. [[User:Nyles|Nyles]] | :In terms of the ammo commercially available today, very poorly. The only ammo I can ever find (for my Enfield No.2s, Webley .38 Mk.IV and S&W Military & Police and Pre-Victory) is Remington 148 grain lead round nose that's loaded very light. The thing about .38 S&W is it was originally introduced in 1876 for the S&W Baby Russian, and it was used in a whole series of fairly weak and cheap pocket top break revolvers. Because of that, in the US the ammo you find is loaded light because the ammo companies are worried about it being chambered in these guns. But when the British adopted it as a service round, it was originally loaded with a 200 grain "manstopper" (basically a wadcutter) bullet, and then a 178 grain conical FMJ, both loaded to higher pressure then current ammo. I still wouldn't say it was as potent as a .38 Special, but definately better than current commercial loads. [[User:Nyles|Nyles]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == Question == | ||
| + | Can .38 Special be used in .38 S&W chambered revolvers? --[[Special:Contributions/71.168.252.179|71.168.252.179]] 23:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 23:39, 5 December 2010
How does the .38 S&W compare to the .38 Special? I know it is less powerful but not how much less. -Anonymous
- In terms of the ammo commercially available today, very poorly. The only ammo I can ever find (for my Enfield No.2s, Webley .38 Mk.IV and S&W Military & Police and Pre-Victory) is Remington 148 grain lead round nose that's loaded very light. The thing about .38 S&W is it was originally introduced in 1876 for the S&W Baby Russian, and it was used in a whole series of fairly weak and cheap pocket top break revolvers. Because of that, in the US the ammo you find is loaded light because the ammo companies are worried about it being chambered in these guns. But when the British adopted it as a service round, it was originally loaded with a 200 grain "manstopper" (basically a wadcutter) bullet, and then a 178 grain conical FMJ, both loaded to higher pressure then current ammo. I still wouldn't say it was as potent as a .38 Special, but definately better than current commercial loads. Nyles
Question
Can .38 Special be used in .38 S&W chambered revolvers? --71.168.252.179 23:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)