« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Historical question . . .  (Read 644 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Old Griz

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2030
  • Gender: Male
Historical question . . .
« on: June 23, 2006, 09:03:25 PM »
:cb2: I was reading an article on the web in Guns and Hunting, "Single Action Self-Defense" by Dick Williams. I was curious about a statement he made, and I was hoping that you guys could either confirm, or correct it.

"At the end of the 19th century the U.S. Army returned to the single-action .45 Colt because the double-action .38 Special revolvers then in service failed to stop enemy combatants before they inflicted serious harm on our troops."

I know that our troops were using a .38 caliber revolver in the Philippines, but I thought I read somewhere that it was the .38 S&W, and not the .38 Special. Did I just have a mild to moderate brain fart, or did they actually use the .38 Special. (Also, what type of revolver did they use?)

Thanks yawl!
Logged
Griz
<*}}}><

I Cor. 2.2 "For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified."

Offline dubber123

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 435
Historical question . . .
« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2006, 01:44:05 AM »
Well, we'll see if I can remember anything.  I don't believe it ws either.  I always thought  it was a .38 Colt long(?), which I believe is more powerful than the .38 S&W, but less powerful than the special.  If I'm wrong, I'm sure they will let me know!
Logged

Offline Flint

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1053
Phillipines
« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2006, 06:41:44 AM »
The Colt revolvers were chambered in 38 LC.   Smith & Wesson developed the 38 Special from the 38 Long Colt (rather than the 38 S&W), but that was not used in the Phillipines.
Logged
Flint, SASS 976, NRA Life

Offline Dusty Miller

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2271
  • Gender: Male
Historical question . . .
« Reply #3 on: June 24, 2006, 08:17:26 AM »
Quite frankly I don't think it would've made a bit of difference if it HAD been the 38 Special!  Is there really THAT much difference between the two?  I say this because I know how difficult it is for cops to stop drugged up criminals today and they're using forty caliber guns of one variety or another.  Just my  :money: worth.
Logged
When seconds mean life or death, the police are only minutes away!

Offline dubber123

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 435
Historical question . . .
« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2006, 10:42:10 AM »
Dusty, I doubt it, I think there is only about 100 fps. between the two.  Apparently the government agreed, because they went back to the .45 cal.  Kind of like they are doing now.  Funny how everything old is new again.
Logged

Offline timothy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 267
Historical question . . .
« Reply #5 on: June 25, 2006, 08:37:54 AM »
The switch back to 45LC was breif. The 38LC pushed a 150gr bullet with 17grs BP, the 38special pushed a 158gr bullet with 20gr BP giving a 100fps advantage I think. The special was in service from 1902 -1911 with the advent of the 45acp. The 38lc was in service from 1889-1900. Ironically when the 38lc was switched to smokelss performance suffered and its original BP load was pretty close to current 38special. This is all from bad memory but I think thats how the story goes. :)
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »