38 Super, why bother

Hi, Joe---
I posted a similar question a year or so back (it's now on page 4 of The Venerable 1911, ".38 Super vs. 9MM") and got good feedback. Without getting into caliber-war issues, I think your basic contention is correct, that a hot nine performs as well as or better than the generally available .38 Super factory load, 115 or 125-grain JHP. There is, however, the Winchester Super-X FMJ at 130 grains, which is a very good range round with a MV of about 1300 FPS. I was also happy with the Georgia Arms 147-grain round (ca. 1200 FPS), no longer made, but you could hot-load the cartridge yourself to higher pressures than factory ammo, which might persuade you the .38 Super was worth it. I happen to like the .38 Super a lot, but I admit it's a sentimental choice, and not necessarily a practical one. Take a look at the other thread, in The Venerable 1911, which also includes a link to the relative performance of both rounds, which appears about equivalent. (I might add that the reason I like the Super, for a range gun, and I'm repeating myself from another thread, is that the .38 Super in an alloy-frame gun has the same felt recoil as the .45 in steel. I put 100 rounds or so through the alloy gun, which is harder to control than a heavier weapon, and I find I can shoot a lot better afterwards with the .45 stainless.)
All the best, David

I would agree that the .38 Super doesn't offer better enough factory ballistics to bother with. But the 9x23 Winchester, designed to the M1911 platform, is available in two defensive loadings: http://www.winchester.com/products/catalog/handgunlist.aspx?cart=OXgyMyBXaW5jaGVzdGVy

Basically a .38 Super with a thicker-walled case that can be loaded to higher pressures, the 9x23 Winchester is a very significant step up from the 9mm. Bob Forker's Ammo & Ballistics 3 lists 1,450 fps for the 125 gr. Silvertip. The same publication, which lists 36 9mm 124/125 gr. factory loads, shows only a couple at 1,250 fps, one at 1,220 fps, and all the rest under 1,200 fps.

Whether the 200 fps is significant enough to bother with the extra hassle of the conversion is open to discussion, but it "papers out" to a difference of 434 ft-lbs vs. 583 ft-lbs (if you use one of the two 1,250 fps 9mm loads).

Google and Yahoo "9x23 Win" and you will have hours of reading on the item.

There have been many articles published in gun magazines over the decades comparing velocities with the same ammo out of different handguns with different barrel lengths, but because there are other factors (principally the barrel/cylinder gap in revolvers, and chamber and barrel dimensions and bore roughness in all handguns) that affect velocity in a given handgun, such comparisons are of very limited value.

Having said that, the only way to validly determine velocity vs. barrel length in a handgun is to progressively shorten the barrel of the same handgun while chronographing the effect. I only have references for such in .357 and .44 Magnum. For the former it was found that there was, on average, a 35 fps/inch velocity loss, and for the latter it was found that, for from a 5" to a 4" barrel (with a 240 gr. load) the difference was 58 fps/inch.

As far as I've been able to find out, the factory chamber pressures of the 9x23 Win run at about magnum-revolver levels. So this data is probably at least approximately appropo for a comparison: From Bob Forker's laboratory-derived ballistic data for the 9x23 Win from 5" barrel, you would have a velocity loss from your 4.25" barrel of probably 26 to 44 fps. Nearly inconsequential.


The 9x23 Win pushes the limits of the M1911 platform pressure-wise (the 10mm only runs 37,500 psi), so be sure and do your homework before, when and if you do the conversion. The reputable aftermarket barrel manufacturer and the info you can find on the internet --- especially the former --- would be a good place to start.



P.S. Do pardon the detail and verbosity of this posting, but I felt it necessary to qualify the protocol and source of data in providing an answer.

I know I'm probably beating this to death, but I have to agree with Bob's last post. A) Competition shooters---read Doug Leatham---love the .38 Super because you can load it, or have it loaded, to your own particular specifications, and it qualifies for the "heavy" chambering category. B) It has sentimental value---correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the original design, the 1911 prototype, was built around the Colt .38 auto. C) Although it's been outdistanced, or outdated, or outgunned, as an LE round, cops who gravitate toward the 1911 will still gravitate to the .38 Super in that platform, because of penetration. And, yes, in the best of all possible worlds, 147-grain ammo is IMHO the best load for the gun.
David
PS---I have never, as in NEVER, had a malfunction with my .38 Super alloy-frame Commander. In itself, this is a recommendation.

I dont think I can claim that the Super .38 (Colt never put the .38 first - at least until the "age of the common man") is a huge step up from the 9mm ballistically (especially if we count 9mm +P+). However it does have some nominal improvements and, as someone pointed out above, the 9X23 can offer some interesting options.

Right now, using some hard to get powder, I can safely get a 147gr JHP to 1400 fps from my 9X23 (and over 1600 with a 125 gr). I dont labor under the delusion that either is more effective for unarmored targets than a standard 230 gr .45 expanding bullet but they certainly have some benefits at long range at at chance barrier penetration.

I have found that the 135 gr bullets in a .356 TSW seem to work slightly better than a 125 in 9mm +P or even +P+ but it is just slightly. Probably has more to do with the bullet design than any power level.

Just ramblin

Jim H.