Starting New Project Street Gun

Starting New Project Street Gun - (see links below - added 9-4-06)

A Critical Look at the Springfield Mil-Spec

By Stephen Camp

It is a safe bet to say that 1911 pattern pistols are extremely popular with American shooters. There are many reasons for this and 1911 type pistols are sold in various price ranges. Enter customized pistols or truly custom 1911's built from the frame and slide up and costs can soar. One can spend from a few hundred dollars to about as much as he can afford for this classic pattern pistol.

The focus of this article is the somewhat spartan Springfield Armory Mil-Spec in .45 ACP. The Mil-Spec is a "no frills" 1911 A1 type forty-five. It does not have an internal firing pin safety ala Colt Series 80 pistols or the Kimber II guns. Its titanium firing pin has passed the drop tests mandated by some states. No longer news, the front grip strap on more recent SA 1911 pistols is rounded.

The Mil-Spec .45 ACP can be had in the following variations.

Parkerized (Product Number: PB9108L)

Stainless (Product Number: PB9151L)

Bi Tone (Product Number: PB9104L)

OD Green (Product Number: PB9609L)

For this report, a parkerized version was used.

This Mil-Spec is as it came from the box with the exception of a drop-in Pachmayer grip safety. There will be more discussion of this in the text. The Mil-Spec has a lowered ejection port with the "scallop" at the rear and fixed sights that are easy to see at speed.

As can be seen on the box, another version of the Mil-Spec is available. Now called the "GI .45 1911-A1" by Springfield Armory, it has small fixed sights and the traditional non-lowered ejection port. These can be had for about a hundred dollars less than the Mil-Spec and the main differences between the guns have been mentioned. I prefer the larger sights. The GI .45 as shown here is designated by product number PW9108L. The Mil-Spec and the GI .45 come with spur hammers and the more narrow GI type grip safeties. The Mil-Spec has slide serrations angling slightly forward while the GI gun's are vertical. If the sights on the Mil-Spec are not satisfactory and a change is planned, the WWII Mil-Spec aka "GI .45 1911-A1" might be the way to go as these run about a hundred bucks less. The one shown ejects reliably without dented cases with its smaller, non-lowered ejection port.

Specifications:

Barrel Length: 5"

Pitch: 1:16 with left hand twist

Weight: 35.6 ounces

LOA: 8.625"

Trigger: short, serrated

Trigger Pull: 5-6 lbs.

Hammer: Spur

Grip Safety: Standard GI

Stocks: Black checkered plastic

Thumb Safety: Single side, not extended typical GI

Mainspring Housing: Arched, grooved and with "safety" lock

Recoil Spring & Guide Rod: Standard GI

Barrel Bushing: Solid

Magazine Well Beveled: Yes

Loaded Chamber Indicator: Yes. It is a small slot in the top of the barrel hood.

Forward Slide Serrations: (Mercifully) none

Throated for JHP: Yes

Sights: Fixed 3-dot style (Rear sight dovetailed with front sight staked)

Firing Pin: Small diameter as for 9mm/.38 Super and made of titanium

The barrel on my pistol is stainless steel with an average barrel OD of 0.570" until you get to 0.60" from the muzzle. At that point, the OD is slightly greater, measuring 0.578". This allows for tighter lock up in battery and generally provides greater mechanical accuracy assuming that the bushing is tight.

Here you can see the stainless steel barrel in the Mil-Spec from SA. Note the "loaded indicator" slot in the barrel hood. Chambered cartridges are easy to see. I can live with or without it but it has caused no problems. Initially I had thought that this was a one-piece barrel, but barely visible about midway between the "O" in "Auto" and the end of the chamber area of this barrel you can see the hairline where the two pieces are joined. I have heard of one or two of these barrels coming apart, but have never seen it. I suspect those instances were flukes. Browning Hi Power barrels have been two-piece for decades as are current aftermarket match barrels for them from BarSto. I believe it to be plenty durable and have no intentions of changing it.

The SA Mil-Spec front sight is not serrated and is staked to the slide. This is a slight change from earlier versions of the gun that had a post front sight. While I prefer the post for sight pictures, they can be a problem if the pistol is carried in the waistband without a holster. In a proper holster that clears the sight, I've found posts to be no problem. For a carry gun this gently sloping front sight is probably a better choice.

The rear sight is plain but in conjunction with the front sight provides an extremely nice sight picture. The front sight measures 0.12" while the notch in the rear sight is 0.11". This combination allows for plenty of light with the pistol's sight radius of 6.25".

Slide-to-frame fit on this gun is very good, better than expected, in fact. There is very little lateral play and none vertically. Likewise, the barrel fits the slide tightly. In battery there is no detectable movement. The bushing is snug, but can be removed without a bushing wrench. The bushing-to-slide fit is quite satisfactory, but it is not flush fitting or as nicely done as would be the case with one hand-fitted to this individual slide. It is plenty good for my purposes and never noticed by many.

Springfield Armory rates the trigger at 5 to 6 pounds. While I didn't measure it, mine is heavier than that and I'd estimate it at about 8 pounds initially. It has lightened up to a bit less after shooting. It does not break as cleanly as a 1911 having a proper trigger job, but is usable. (More on this later.)

Some tool marks are evident inside the gun, but nothing excessive and nothing that cannot be cleaned up if desired by the owner. Slide-to-frame fit at the rear of the gun is not perfectly blended as in the case of a custom gun, but neither is it "bad" or excessive. The degree to which the slide is not flush with the rear of the slide is minute and while not "acceptable" on a custom 1911, it really doesn't affect reliability for a "street gun". Most folks never notice it unless extreme; in this instance it is not.

Shooting: This pistol has had approximately 600 rounds fired through it without cleaning. Ammunition included Sellier & Bellot 230-gr. FMJ, Remington 185-gr. MC Flat Nose, Winchester USA 230-gr. FMJ, and various factory JHP's and handloads. Distances were 10, 15, and 25 yards.

During one session in which 300 rounds were fired, the web between my thumb and trigger finger got pretty chewed up, as has been my plight with GI grip safeties for decades. My problem with the SA was that the edges of the GI grip safety were sharp, real sharp, and cut two parallel lines along my hand. Combine that with the tip of the hammer nipping like a piranha in a feeding frenzy and it became more than evident that a change was in order. It is for that reason that I removed the grip safety before any further shooting and replaced it with a "drop in" from Pachmayr. It worked properly and being the shorter version of the two sold by this company, it worked fine with the spur hammer. Another approach might be to gently bevel and round the offended edges of the GI grip safety and bob the hammer spur approximately 3/16^th to 1/4". (For many this is never an issue, but for me the traditional grip safety and spur hammer have always been a significant problem.)

10 Yards: This was done standing w/two-hand hold from a Weaver stance and simply consisted of controlled pairs along with a few failure to stop drills involving head shots.

Starting at a low ready each set of controlled pairs was fired in a bit under a second. There are some shots farther out than I like and part of that is due to the somewhat heavier trigger pull and the fact that while no longer being "bitten" by the gun, the scabs were wearing off and discomfort growing with each shot. None the less, results were encouraging.

15 Yards: These groups were fired standing and in slow-fire using a two-hand hold.

The Mil-Spec is plenty accurate for my purposes and I have no intentions of changing the barrel, bushing, or sights.

25 Yards: At this distance, I fired sitting and with my wrists braced. Two hands were used and shots were fired with no effort at speed. I simply wanted to see how the gun grouped at this distance.

This group was fired using a Precision 200-gr. CSWC loaded over 5.0-gr. of Bullseye powder. It averages around 860 ft/sec from most 5" 1911 pistols. Due to rain, I did no chronograph work, but will in the future. Other Springfield Armory 1911's have normally provided no surprises in velocity in my experiences with them.

Federal 230-gr. HydraShok remains popular with a great number of 1911 shooters so I fired a few groups with it at 25 yards from a rest. The ammunition used was the early truncated cone version of the load that was changed to have a more rounded ogive for better feeding. This load usually clocks about 870 ft/sec from a 5" gun.

Groups shown are the best fired, but those that were not so nice were due to me, not the gun, as I knew before looking when a shot was going to be bad. The "piranha" had taken its toll.

Observations: The gun is a keeper and one that will have different "guts" in the near future. I've not yet decided whether to retain the arched mainspring housing or go with a flat one, but I noticed no real difference in shooting. I will probably go with a long trigger. I will use a spur hammer (bobbed) as I would kind of like to have a 1911 with one since all of my others have ring hammers. The SA hammer could be used but I simply don't care for the half-cock "shelf" vs. the more traditional notch. With the SA hammer in the half-cock position, a press of the trigger will drop it. With the lightweight titanium firing pin, primers were not dented and barely marked, but not each and every time. I simply prefer the hammer not to fall from the half-cock position should the trigger be pressed.

Trigger pull will wind up being about 5 pounds and will break cleanly. The standard thumb safety that came on the gun is satisfactory as I do not shoot high thumb.

I was most pleasantly surprised that the POA vs. POI was dead bang "on" for me. Sometimes this relationship in fixed sight pistols is rather casual, but I'm more than happy with the sights on this pistol as they are and do not intend to change them.

Here are some of the rounds that were fired in the SA Mil-Spec that differ from 230-gr. ball. From left to right: 200-gr. Precision CSWC/5.0-gr. Bullseye, Speer 230-gr. Gold Dot/6.3-gr. Unique, Hornady 230-gr. FMJFP/6.3-gr. Unique, Remington 230-gr. Golden Saber/6.3-gr. Unique, Federal 230-gr.HydraShok (old style), Federal 230-gr. Classic JHP, and Remington 185-gr. MC-Flat Nose.

The Mil-Spec was used with several different magazines. Some are shown here with the ammunition fired using each. From top to bottom: Springfield OEM 7-round magazine, Randall 7-shot with Tripp Cobra Mag follower and spring, and an 8-shot McCormick PowerMag. The gun was also fired using Mec-Gar 7 and 8-shot magazines, Wilson 7-shot mags, and some 7-shot Colt magazines.

With just over 600 rounds fired, this Mil-Spec has had exactly zero malfunctions. Feeding and extraction have been smooth and positive. (I'd checked the extractor and it seemed to be tensioned properly. I left it alone.) The slide stop never failed to lock back after the last shot was fired and it never locked the slide back with rounds still remaining in the magazine. It did this with all magazines tried.

None of the magazines fit too tightly in the magazine well and all dropped freely when released.

Ejected cases do strike the slide, but recovered cases showed no dents.

The ejector is pinned in place and measures 0.99" from the top of the rear to the front upper tip. A solid steel pin is used. All ammunition used was easily cycled and ejected by hand without hang ups and none of the primers were marked by the tip of the ejector.

With the full-power mainspring, the titanium firing pin had no problems with primers not being set off. I have not yet decided whether or not to change this. So far it has not been an issue.

Depending on where one looks, this version of the Mil-Spec can be found at around $500 or a bit less and I believe it is money well spent if a person's looking for either a base gun for further enhancement or to use as is. I'm satisfied with the parkerized finish as I prefer dark guns, but the pistol can be had in stainless steel construction and other finishes are certainly available.

My plans for this particular Mil-Spec are for it to become a trusted carry gun. I have a Norinco that meets such duties now and while in the same general price range with its minor upgrades, they are getting hard to come by. The Mil-Spec is not and neither does it cost so much that it is out of too many folks' financial reach. While I cannot say that each and every Mil-Spec will function as flawlessly as this one, I do believe that they can with very little effort. This one worked perfectly with or without shock buffs in place.

The SA Mil-Spec can be a very good carry gun and one that doesn't break the bank if dinged up a bit as is normally the case when a pistol is carried daily. Should a person have to use it against another human being, the time that it is in evidence might be a bit less traumatic than were it a 1911 costing several times as much. Do not misconstrue my last sentence. There is absolutely nothing wrong with carrying an expensive sidearm for the very important business of protecting one's hide, but for many of us, this pistol is capable of being a most satisfactory defense gun.

This Springfield Armory "low end" 1911 is neither my favorite nor best looking 1911, but it is proving to be one that I enjoy, will use, and more importantly, trust. Many of us have some really nice custom and customized 1911's...and I fall into that group. At the same time I really like "using guns" that perform well and this gun is proving itself to be perfect for such perceived needs. When I eventually get through with the changes necessary to suit me, it will still look very much like an out of the box Mil-Spec but I suspect that it will perform at a level that belies its "basic" look.

..............................................................................................................................

Mr. Stephen Camp and I are going to start taking names of very intertested sincere people for our fifth Project Street Gun Class. You can email me at tjacobson@houston.rr.com or you can call me at 281 565 6977.

Teddy
http://www.actionsbyt.com

www.actionsbyt.com

www.actionsbyt.blogspot.com

www.tacticalknives.blogspot.com

www.actionsbyt.typepad.com

www.actionsbyt.wordpress.com

www.actionsbyt.eponym.com

www.truthaboutparts.blogspot.com

www.commentsbyt.blogspot.com

www.tjofsugarland.blogspot.com

http://www.survivalblog.com

http://hipowersandhandguns.com

www.hipowersandhandguns.com

Corbon .45 ACP 185-gr. DPX from SIG-Sauer P220 & 5" 1911

By Stephen Camp

Speaking of their newest ammunition line, Mr. Mike Shovel of Corbon advised, "All calibers in DPX will penetrate 12 to 16" in denim-covered ballistic gelatin." He went on to state that this line of ammunition is designed to meet the FBI protocols for bullet performance and said that DPX also works very well after encountering barriers other than denim. The few test results that I'd seen on this new load fall midway between the penetration depths mentioned by Mr. Shovel when fired into gelatin covered with 4-layers of denim.

I asked what the velocity threshold was to start expansion. He stated that in .45 ACP, it is 800 ft/sec. Mr. Shovel went on to say that the Corbon .45 DPX round works fine in the short barrel forty-five's as well.

The .45 ACP DPX load uses a 185-gr. copper Barnes X-bullet and the cartridge is loaded to 1.23" LOA. The hollow point measures 0.225" wide by 0.37" deep and the wall thickness at the front of the hollow measured 0.02" thick.

The .45 ACP Corbon DPX round is fairly "traditional" in appearance but uses a homogeneous bullet made from a copper alloy. The load is rated +P and is so noted on the case head stamp. The load is nominally rated at 1075 ft/sec. With no jacket and no lead, fragmentation does not occur.

The shortest barrel .45 ACP pistols I own have 4 1/4" barrels. I opted to use a pistol having such a barrel length instead of the very common 5" 1911 pattern pistol for informal expansion testing. The handgun chosen was a SIG-Sauer P220.

Two pistols were used to evaluate the .45 DPX load. On the left is a SIG-Sauer P220 w/4.25" barrel. Next to it is a Kimber Classic Custom with the usual 5" factory barrel. The P220 was fired using factory 7-round magazines. The Kimber used Wilson 7-round magazines, a McCormick 8-shot PowerMag, and a Colt 7-shot magazine using Virgil Tripp's Cobra Mag upgrade kit. The P220 was used for expansion testing.

Fired into water from the SIG-Sauer P220, this 185-gr. DPX expanded to 0.81" x 0.83" x 0.55" tall. The recovered bullet weighed 184.3 grains. Note how "long" the expanded bullet remains; it doesn't flatten out as much as conventional JHP's known to be aggressive expanders. Corbon has long manufactured ammunition to very high velocities for respective calibers. Their 165-gr. PowRball +P is such a round. Weighing 20 grains less than the DPX. It is advertised at a considerably higher 1225 ft/sec.

Here we see the expanded .45 DPX compared to the expanded PowRball after both were fired into water from a SIG-Sauer P220. The side view graphically shows how the DPX retains a longer expanded bullet that is more likely to penetrate than the PowRball "pancake". The PowRball expanded to 0.80" and with the jacket fragments weighed 161 grains. (PowRball averaged 1189 ft/sec from the P220.)

Here is the expanded DPX (middle) compared to some conventional .45 ACP JHP's. Clockwise from the top left we have Federal 230-gr. Hydrashok, Remington 230-gr. Golden Saber, Federal Classic 230-gr. JHP, and Winchester (law enforcement only) Ranger 230-gr. RA45T.

Two expanded Corbon 185-gr. DPX bullets flank Winchester's excellent 230-gr. RA45T, which evolved from the original Black Talon of the same weight. Where the heavier bullet has more weight to aid in obtaining sufficient penetration, the DPX has length and spaces between the rigid copper petals. I suspect that damage from either is both significant and similar in "soft targets".

Shooting was done at 15 and 25 yards with the DPX ammunition. All shooting was slow-fire and single-action only while using a rest. Felt recoil was very similar to Corbon's conventional 185-gr. JHP +P, which uses the Sierra Power Jacket Hollow Point bullet.

These 15-yard groups were fired while sitting and using a two-hand hold. The ammunition proved quite good for its intended purpose. POA was the center of the gray bullseye.

A great number of .45 fans routinely use 230-gr. ball for practice as it almost always has the same POI vs. POA as the 230-gr. JHP ammo most carry. I thought it might be useful to know where the Corbon 185-gr. DPX strikes the target from a gun with its sights regulated for standard velocity 230-gr. ammunition. The Kimber was used for this at 25 yards.

Winchester USA 230-gr. FMJ was fired as the "control" load to compare the DPX load's POI for the same POA in a gun set for standard pressure 230-gr. ammunition. Ten shots were fired with each load. The lines through holes mark the Winchester's impacts. The lighter and faster 185-gr. DPX strikes slightly lower at this distance. Whether or not it matters depends upon the degree of precision the shooter finds necessary. For most of us, there is not enough divergence in points of impact to matter.

As distance increases, so can differences in points of impact. At 25 yards, I fired a group using the SIG-Sauer P220.

POA was the center of the bullseye. Shooting was done slowly, seated, and using a two-hand hold. My wrists were braced. Is there enough difference in the POI with the DPX at 25 yards to matter? It depends on what the ammunition and pistol is being used for. If the intended target is a couple of inches in size, it is two much. For center chest hits on a moving human aggressor, probably not.

The ammunition was chronographed from both pistols. Each set of figures is based on 10 shots fired approximately 10 feet from the chronograph screens. Figures are in ft/sec.

Corbon 185-gr. DPX +P Chronograph Data:

Pistol	Low Velocity	High Velocity	Ave. Velocity	Extreme Spread	Std. Deviation
SIG-Sauer P220	1044	1085	1062	41	15
Kimber Classic	1078	1117	1100	39	15

The DPX proved itself consistent and accurate on targets and over the chronograph.

DPX feed smoothly in both guns and there were exactly zero failures to feed, extract, or eject. The slides on both pistols locked back upon firing the last shot. Cycling the same round from a full magazine 3 times in each pistol resulted in no measurable bullet set back; there was absolutely no hesitation in this ammunition chambering.

These Corbon DPX cases were fired in the Kimber (left) and SIG-Sauer (right). Neither shows the classic signs of excessive pressure, but one can see very minor primer flow beginning on the primer fired in the Kimber. Neither case exhibits flattened primers. The telltale firing pin "wipe" is present on the primer fired in the SIG-Sauer. This is typical and to be expected. The SIG-Sauer pistols purposely have a bit slower firing pin retraction to help thwart debris from entering the firing pin channel.

I was pleased with the performance of this ammunition. It proved reliable in expansion and accuracy was more than adequate. Over the chronograph, DPX displayed good uniformity and the ammunition performed to nearly the same extreme spreads in two entirely different 45-caliber handguns. Standard deviations were the same.

You can see that the expansion of these seven 185-gr. DPX +P bullets is pretty consistent. These were fired into water from the SIG-Sauer P220 and impacted at an average velocity of 1062 ft/sec.

Did this ammunition meet my expectations? Yes. I noted that while the 4 1/4" barrel on the P220 averaged velocities barely under the advertised 1075 ft/sec, 5" average velocity from the Kimber slightly exceeded it.

If you prefer "light and fast" in the .45 ACP but have had concerns over penetration, I suggest that you give Corbon 185-gr. DPX a look. I've not yet shot any animals with it, but it appears to provide accuracy, consistency, and more penetration than most other 185-gr. expanding ammunition.

BE SURE TO SEE THE LIST OF STEPHEN CAMPS SUPERB BOOKS THAT ARE AVAILABLE ON HIS WEBSITE. THE LINK IS AT THE VERY TOP OF THIS ARTICLE.

www.hipowersandhandguns.com

Corbon .38 Special 110-gr. DPX Ammunition

Tested in 3 Different Barrel Lengths

By Stephen Camp

In recent years, a hue and cry for expanding ammunition that doesn't fragment and penetrates at least 12" in 10% ballistic gelatin has been the new beat to which high-performance ammo makers have been marching.

From Remington, we see the Golden Saber while Speer has the bonded Gold Dot line of hollow points. Winchester's law enforcement Ranger SXT line represents yet another entry as does Federal's new bonded version of the old Hydrashok.

Corbon, a maker of fast, aggressive expanding ammunition, continues with the type loads that made it famous, but has also been exploring other possibilities. First came their PowRball, a +P round in several calibers that expands massively and penetrates a bit more than the Sierra Power Jacket Hollow Points used in their traditional defensive line of ammunition. Corbon has the manufacturing rights to a relatively new bullet. It is a copper hollow point "X bullet" made by Barnes. Corbon calls this new load "DPX" for Deep Penetrating X (bullet). I have seen the X bullet used with great success in rifle calibers.

The copper bullet used in the DPX ammo is homogeneous; in other words there is no jacket to possibly separate from the core. Copper is more malleable than typical gilding metal and less likely to break off during expansion. The copper content on the very well respected Winchester Ranger line of JHP's has a higher copper content than normal for jacketed hollow points.

Corbon offers the DPX for the .38 Special. What' more is that it is offered in a standard pressure load! The bullet has a longish profile and weighs 110 grains.

This is the 110-gr. DPX standard pressure load. It is advertised at 1200 ft/sec. A crimp is evident on the case mouth and there were no bullets that worked loose from recoil during firing.

Examining the .38 DPX cartridge, I noticed that the virgin cases are from Remington and are so head stamped.

The Corbon DPX .38 Special cases are from Remington. The hollow point is massive and approximately 0.135" wide and 0.335" deep. The cartridge is longer than most 110-gr. JHP's. Copper is not as dense/heavy as lead so the bullet must be longer for the same weight.

Corbon wisely chose to offer a .38 Special round in standard pressure. Lots of +P ammunition exists for the caliber, but in light guns, some people just don't care for the snappier recoil. Others don't wish to use high-pressure ammunition in their standard-pressure-rated revolvers.

It's probably a safe bet that the majority of .38 Special revolvers being used for defense are snubs in the role of either primary or secondary weapons. For that reason, I used a 1 7/8" S&W for checking velocities, expansion, and accuracy. I then recalled that more than a few folks have mentioned liking their 3" .38's and .357's, so they might be interested in how this load might perform from their guns. Since 4" guns do defense duty in more than a few households, testing really needed to be included for that barrel length, too!

Corbon's 110-gr. DPX was fired from three Smith & Wesson .38 Special revolvers. The snub was a Model 638. The 3" used was a Model 64 and a 4" Model 10 rounded out the trio.

These three S&W's were used to test the 110-gr. DPX.

Ten shots were fired approximately ten feet from the chronograph screen for the average velocities provided in the following table. Velocities, extreme spreads, and standard deviations are in feet per second.

Corbon .38 Special Chronograph Data:

Gun:	Bbl. (in.):	Low:	High:	Average:	Extreme Spread:	Std. Deviation:
S&W M638	1 7/8	1005	1045	1077	40	16
S&W M64	3	1073	1157	1118	84	27
S&WM10	4	1088	1160	1122	72	25

It is interesting to note that in these particular revolvers, the ammunition performed most consistently in the shortest barrel! Notice also that the velocity differences (average as well as high and low) are practically identical for the 3 and 4" guns. None hit the 1200 ft/sec mark, but out of the longer barrels, they were in the ballpark.

No apparent signs of excessive pressure can be seen on this fired case or primer. I could literally shake the empties from any of the revolvers without using the extractor rod.

Most defensive scenarios for private citizens are measured in feet or inches rather than yards. Nevertheless, I decided to shoot a slow-fire, double-action group at 10 yards with the Model 638.

This group fired with the snub consists of two cylinder's worth of ammunition or ten shots. Notice that at both 7 and 9 O' clock the bullets hit the target at an angle. I fired another group of five shots using a Model 642 and this did not occur.

Six shots were fired single-action at 15 yards using the 3" Model 64. There was no evidence of key holing and the group is more than satisfactory in size for self-protection needs. Most of us cannot shoot groups of this size at speed and under stress. Groups fired with the 4" Model 10 were practically identical. I did not shoot this ammunition farther than 15 yards today.

Recoil felt considerably less than with my usual carry load, Remington 158-gr. LSWCHP +P. Out of the same gun, the 110-gr. DPX shows to average between 6 and 7% less; it felt like the recoil was considerably less than the figures indicate. Someone sensitive to recoil might very well appreciate this load.

On the left is the front view of the Remington 158-gr. LSWCHP +P compared to the 110-gr. DPX. The former is my usual "carry load" in the snubs, but recoil is sharp and many do not find it pleasant. Felt recoil is subjective but to me, the DPX felt recoil is much less than the 6% reduction it shows on paper.

Recoil from the Airweight J-frame was the "greatest" of the three, but it was not bad at all. I think even a new shooter would have no problem with it. Out of the heavier all-steel guns, it was pleasant.

Corbon advertises that the DPX should meet or exceed the 12" depth desired by many when fired into ballistic gelatin whether bare or passing through 4 layers of denim. I fired several of the rounds from each gun into water.

Here's what I got:

Most of the rounds looked like the "best examples" shown on the left. The single "worst example" is shown at the bottom right. It partially expanded and its recovered dimensions are 0.48 x 0.44". Most of the time recovered bullets averaged 0.67" across and were very uniform. They were also about 0.51" tall. The bullets lost essentially no weight. I didn't pull the bullets and weigh them before firing, but the recovered weights were never lower than 108 grains. Most were right at 109.

The two sideways hits on the J-frame's target were disappointing, but may be peculiar to that particular revolver. It did not happen at all with a different snub I happened to have in my pocket nor was it seen from either the 3 or 4" guns.

I see this standard pressure load as an option for those wanting a lower recoiling lightweight snub defensive load that offers both expansion and penetration. With Federal's 125-gr. standard pressure Nyclad hollow point no longer being available to the general public, DPX might be a viable option. It does offer a few more inches of penetration than the 8 to 10" generally reported from those doing ballistic gelatin tests.

This Federal 125-gr. standard velocity Nyclad hollow point was fired into water from a 4" barrel at an average velocity of 938 ft/sec. Its recovered diameter is 0.42 x 0.49 x 0.54" tall.

Here is the expanded 125-gr. Nyclad hollow point fired from a 4" barrel flanked by an expanded DPX (left) and the "worst" one in today's test (right). The two DPX loads were fired from a 1 7/8" barrel.

I am not privy to the engineering details at Corbon concerning the DPX, but I think if the bullet can be made a tiny bit shorter, the key holing problem will disappear. It is not an issue at all in barrels longer than 1 7/8".

The expanded petals are tough and have sharp edges but soft enough not to be brittle. The longer overall length of the bullet contributes to its ability to penetrate deeper than if it flattened out more. So does having the gaps between the petals. This lessens the "parachute" effect of the solid wide mushroom, but still damages tissue effectively.

The pointed profile of the Corbon DPX made the use of a speed loader a snap. Under stress, finding the relatively large revolver chambers should be easier for shaking fingers with the smaller diameter meplat of this bullet.

Whether by choice, official mandate, or other circumstances, the snub .38 is sometimes the choice for defending life or property. Is it the best? No, probably not, but it has the advantage of being there when needed due to its compact size and light weight.

If you or someone you know uses the .38 for "serious" purposes but have issues with recoil, this load might be worth a hard look. If you cannot or will not use +P in your revolver, this might be worth a try. Will it be replacing my usual +P carry load in my snub? The jury is out on that one. I want to see problems with stabilization have eliminated in the ammo or know that they were specific to my revolver. In a 3 or 4" barrel, I'd have no qualms about using this ammunition right now.

BE SURE TO VISIT MR. CAMPS WEBSITE AS HE HAS SOME EXCELLENT BOOKS THAT ALL OF YOU SHOULD HAVE http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com

www.hipowersandhandguns.com

A "Short" Look at Snubs

By Stephen Camp

Popular now for well over a century, the snub revolver continues being produced by several manufacturers in a fair number of calibers. Some "gun people" really like them while others side with the compact automatics. I prefer the snub-nosed revolver to all others for pocket carry.

Why is it that the snub continues to be used and available from the small J-frame Smith & Wesson's and Taurus revolvers to large frame giants from S&W? Why is it that some of us continue to use the limited-capacity snub in this age of autoloaders?

In short, what is the appeal of the snub? Which are the best? What's the best caliber to get?

I won't be able to cover each and every version made, but will pass along that which I have learned through long-term use. I'll try to be objective as I can, but I'm sure some subjectivity will creep through. Please forgive an old man his transgressions!

While this piece will focus on double-action revolvers, it's probably a fair bet that the cut-down Colt Peacemaker was one of the first snubs used in this country. Sans an ejector system it was slower to reload than those having longer barrel lengths. This unfortunate description holds true with the 1 7/8" barrel snubs of today as well as those having 2 1/2 to 3" barrels, depending upon caliber. It is ironic that a last ditch panic backup or in some cases, primary defense arm would be somewhat diminished in rapid-reload capability, but such is the case. That does not mean that they cannot be reloaded quickly. It does mean that practice is essential.

Uninformed individuals have stated that the snub is "inaccurate." It is not, but that statement is. Mechanically, the snub-nose is generally capable of very good accuracy. The rub is in the gun's practical accuracy. They are more difficult to shoot well. The very things that make them convenient as easily concealed carry guns work against them in being able to make precise shots quickly. Short sight radius allows for more gross sighting errors. Reduced weight results in greater felt recoil, which can lead to flinching. Compact size can make for a less comfortable gun to hold. On the smaller examples of the gun, sights can be difficult to see. None of these characteristics aid the shooter in getting precise hits as easily as he or she might with another type handgun.

Let's take a look at some of the snub-nose revolvers frequently used today.

S&W J-Frames: In my opinion these are the ne plus ultra of the breed. There are more than a few versions of these little guns from which to choose. So far I have found no gun that suits me as well as one of these, but that comes with a caveat: I will not own one having the key lock. Though I have not heard of any locking up when being fired, I abhor the way these guns look and what that lock represents. Others will feel differently.

Though they can be had in scandium and other super lightweight materials, I do not recommend going lighter than the aluminum-frame "Airweight" series. The slight reduction in weight offered by the more modern J-frames (titanium) simply does not balance well with me when there are limitations on both allowable bullet weight as well as cleaning procedures that can harm them. The steel, stainless steel, and aluminum frame revolvers avoid all this.

I strongly prefer the Airweight J's. The steel guns are probably stronger and capable of a greater number of hot loads and have less felt-recoil, but I prefer the ease of pocket holster carry with the Airweight. I find the steel guns just a bit too heavy for such. Having said that, either will do and some very informed shooters I have known went with the heavier steel J-frames.

Model 36 Chief's Special: Introduced during the middle of the last century this is the one that started the S&W J-frame .38 Special "craze". This 5-shooter sired the rest of the Smith & Wesson J-frame flock. I strongly suspect it was much more popular than the less potent "Terrier" chambered in .38 S&W. Frequently said to have "2-inch" barrels, the actual length is 1 7/8". I've owned more than a few of these in both the standard 1 7/8" barrel to the 3" versions, both "skinny" and "heavy" barrel. Usually found with fixed sights, some versions have been offered with adjustable ones. The revolver was chambered for .38 Special, but could be had with square or round butt. Designated by different model numbers, essentially the same guns could be had in .22lr or .22 magnum. These usually bore "Kit Gun" somewhere in their descriptions.

Model 37 Airweight: This is an aluminum frame Chief's Special sporting the same external hammer, DA/SA capability, and 5-shot capacity. Like the Model 36, these could be had with steel parts blue and the aluminum frame dark anodized to match or nickel-plated all over. They too were available in round or square butt. These weigh in at about 15 ounces, about 5 ounces less than the Model 36.

Over the years I carried several Model 36 or 37 revolvers as a working police officer. Either worked fine inside the pocket of the old "tuffy jacket" worn by most uniformed officers, but I began to have fewer of the "heavy" snubs and more of the Airweights. These days all I own in J-frames are Airweights. Nestled in an ankle holster as a second or even third gun, they are barely noticeable in my experience.

Model 38 Bodyguard: This is just an Airweight with a hump back. It has a shroud as part of the frame that covers all but the tip of the hammer allowing for thumb cocking if desired. I have never seen one of these having a square butt.

The Model 638 is popular with folks wanting to be able to thumb cock the gun as an option but still have a hammer not prone to snagging.

I tried a few over the years and currently own one. It is the stainless version and is designated as a 638. The "6" denotes stainless steel for the non-aluminum parts. The aluminum frame is anodized a light silver color to better match the stainless steel parts. I have no real complaints with these guns, but do find that they gather lint from pocket carry pretty rapidly in the shroud area behind and on both sides of the hammer. I have never seen this jam one. I've never seen one jammed with a dime wedged between the hammer and the shroud, but do recommend the use of a pocket holster in a pocket in which only the holstered gun is carried. While I carried one of these for about a year, I most often carried a Model 37 with the hammer spur removed.

Over 25 years later, I've changed my preference in J-frame S&W revolvers:

S&W Model 642: I hate the looks of stainless steel and originally began carrying a Model 042, a blue Airweight having the internal hammer. The 042 is essentially a 442 (the common blue version of this Airweight). It was originally intended for a run of 642's. In these early production days the frame color couldn't be matched good enough for S&W and the frames were to be scraped. Someone came up with the idea of stamping a "0" over the "6" and simply dark anodizing them for use with the blue versions. I carried it in a pocket for several years. Wear is inevitable, but summers here in Texas are hot. Sweating through my pants and even the pocket holster sometimes, fighting rust became a daily issue. I succumbed and bought the stainless version.

This Model 042 was my primary carry gun for several years. It has since been replaced but still sees some carry and range use.

The 042 and my 442 have different finishes. The former has the slick anodized finish while the latter has more of a matte finish. Both of these have the shorter version of the J than that currently used. It popped up when S&W began offering .357 magnums in the small frame. All of the .38 Special J-frames use the "long" J-frame now. It is sometimes called the "magnum J-frame".

The Model 642 is my current "all the time" gun. Practice is essential. The ejector rod must be used forcefully to completely eject fired hulls.

So far I have not found a pocket gun that suits me better than the S&W Model 642. It remains my pick of the litter in this 15-oz. snub.

Colt Snubs: I could never really warm up to these little things. I owned a few of the all-steel Detective Specials, Colt's competition to the Chief's Special. Slightly larger, they did offer 6 shots rather than 5. They shot well enough for me, but I could never get used to the trigger-stacking inherent in the design. Currently I own one like-new Colt Agent. This is an aluminum-framed 6-shot Detective Special with a slightly shortened grip. I shoot the thing now and again, but mainly have it just as a representative of police "plain clothes" guns from the past. I never owned the Cobra, which was the lightweight Detective Special w/o, the abbreviated grip of the Agent. These can be carried concealed nearly as easily as the S&W J-frames. I find the sights on the Colts better and easier to pick up at speed. More recent Smith & Wesson's have thicker front sights, but they still do not match the Colts in my opinion.

Being but little larger than the S&W J-frame, the Colt Agent provides 6 shots between loading.

Ruger SP101: Offered in several versions, I most often saw and shot the 2 1/4" barrel version sporting fixed sights. I've not shot one in other than .357 magnum. I don't have the weight, but this fairly compact little 5-shooter is all stainless and fairly heavy for size. I see it as a belt gun. The fixed sight version has very useable sights out of the box and they've been pretty well "on" in my experience. I believe them to be more durable for loads of magnum shooting than are the J-frame S&W three-fifty-seven's. In the short barrel-length, this little thing suffers a lack of full case extraction as do the rest unless the ejector rod is vigorously depressed.

The SP101 is a durable, compact revolver for concealed carry using a belt holster be it IWB or out. It probably won't have as smooth a double-action as the S&W, but the ones I have shot have been extremely "decent". They can be had with or without a spur hammer. The SP101 has proven itself a dependable snub in my admittedly limited experience with them. I would choose this gun over the S&W J-frame if the bulk of my shooting anticipated magnum usage. If staying with .38 Special, I opt for the S&W Airweight's.

The SP101 is a tough little critter capable of 5 shots of .357 before reloading.

Larger Snubs: So far we've looked at a few of the smaller examples of the breed. Let's take a look at the larger K-frame Smith & Wesson snubs as well as the GP100 from Ruger.

S&W Model 10: Whether in 2" or 4" barrel lengths, these have been favorites of mine over the years. These .38 Specials have served in police (and military) holsters for decades, not to mention service as home defense guns for millions of Americans. I carried a 4" Model 10 for a few years in uniform before switching to another K-frame, the Model 19 .357 magnum. The Model 10 2" snub filled more than a few detectives' holsters in years past and I observed about as many square butts as round in this role. These 6-shot revolvers have flat mainsprings rather than the J-frame's coiled ones and are capable of extremely smooth double-actions and "hair trigger" single-actions. At the current time, S&W no longer offers the blue or nickel 2" Model 10. It can still be had in the 4" version, but the snub substitute is the stainless Model 64. It weighs between 30 and 31 ounces and can be had in both 2 and 4" barrel lengths. I may be wrong, but I think some Model 10's and 64's were offered with 3" tubes. Long discontinued, Smith & Wesson offered the Model 12. This was merely an aluminum-framed Model 10. Some versions have a slightly thinner frame and grips for the steel version will have about an eighth-inch gap. Not made of as tough of alloys as more recent S&W revolvers, I do not suggest using +P in these. I've personally seen two with cracked frames. One had fired exactly 3 rounds of the old Winchester .38 Special Armor Piercing factory ammunition. The other managed 12 shots before suffering the same fate. The cracks occurred in the frames below the barrels. The Model 12 revolvers I've seen were either the 2" round butt snub or 4" square butt.

This old Model 10 snub once filled more than a few lawmen's holsters. They're still favorite shooters of mine.

The Model 10 remains one of the easiest snubs to shoot well in my experience. While the barrel is still short, the increase in frame size results in a longer sight radius. Combine that with more visible fixed sights and a smoother trigger pull and you have a snub capable of more easily putting bullet holes where you want them.

These guns were and are popular today. Model 10's are not so easily found used as they were in year's past. It seems that people who have them are keeping them. I think I just named one reason why in the proceeding paragraph.

Yet this K-frame snub makes no sense! The four-inch version is much easier to hit with having but a 2" longer barrel. It's been argued that an advantage to the snub is that its shorter barrel makes it harder to be lost in a struggle with an attacker. The short barrel cannot so easily be grabbed and used as a lever to torque the gun from the shooter's hand. I reckon that's true enough, but I suspect that part of it has to do with "snub-nose means defense" as well as the panache of the old things. Other than when just sticking in the waistband sans holster, I find the 4" no harder to tote than the snub.

I still like old Model 10 snubs. Right now I have but one. It's a '60's vintage square butt that's had the hammer spur removed. It appears to be "all handle" but like the Colt Agent, I enjoy shooting it now and again and remembering an era now passed, one of which it was a representative.

I would not be afraid to use this gun for serious purposes.

S&W Model 15 Combat Masterpiece: Some have called this the "overlooked" snub and I agree. A K-frame Model 10 having S&W adjustable sights and a square butt is a decent description. Not as popular as the Model 10 in my experience, I did know a couple of detectives who frequently toted them. The ones I fired in snub version shot no better or worse than the fixed sight Model 10, but the adjustable sights allowed for a very precise POI vs. POA. The stainless counterpart to the Model 15 is the Model 67. I don't think it's available in snub-length barrels today.

S&W Model 13 & Model 65: These are merely Model 10's capable of handling the .357 cartridge in addition to .38 Special. I enjoyed and used both of these over the years in the 4" heavy barrel version. For this article we'll concern ourselves with the 3" guns. I've never seen one with other than the round butt in the latter barrel length. These were very popular with detectives and several FBI agents I met carried them.

These are capable of better ballistic performance than the snubs having barrels in the 2" range, but they are belt guns and just not well-suited for pocket carry due to barrel length and weight. With a slightly reduced trigger pull and a shrouded ejector rod, the Model 65 is also available as the Model 65 Lady Smith. I like the shroud and think this would be my choice in 3" S&W .357 magnums. (I'd have to get the "Lady Smith" inscription removed though!)

S&W Model 19 Combat Magnum 2 1/2" barrel: This gun was very, very popular with plainclothes officers. It offered a K-frame magnum with the adjustable sight capability of easily matching POA to POI. It remains one of the classiest looking defense guns in my subjective view. Until you move into the 140 to 158-gr. bullet weight, it actually provides terminal ballistics comparable with the 9mm +P from service size automatics.

In this or any other K-frame, I'd limit my use of 125-gr. full-house magnum loads. The forcing cone in these guns has a flat at the 6 O'clock position and it's reported that heavy use can result in its cracking. This has not been a problem when using mid-range magnums such as Remington 125-gr. Golden Saber.

Mine is loaded with 145-gr. Winchester Silvertips.

The S&W Model 19 Combat Magnum snub remains a favorite of mine for belt carry. Its popularity has diminished somewhat now that more compact and powerful autoloaders are plentiful.

In the J and K-frame size revolvers, full-house magnums are "noticeable" when fired, especially in the smaller J-frame. Some find them just too much even in the mid-size K and opt for a hot .38 Special instead. While the .38 may not have the same ballistic delivery as the magnum, the ability to be better placed due to lower recoil can still result in some pretty decent terminal effectiveness. For those willing to work at it and practice a bit, the K-frame can be handled effectively with magnums.

S&W offers a stainless steel version of the Combat Magnum designated as the Model 66. It is the same revolver excepting for the nature of its steel and many coming with a plastic orange insert in the serrated ramp front sight. A few were offered with 3" barrels for a particular federal agency but most of those having less than 4" barrels were the 2 1/2" versions. I've only seen the 2 1/2" guns offered with round butts.

S&W Model 686: The snub version of this L-frame weighs in at about 35 ounces with a 2 1/2" barrel. A bit larger than the K-frame, this series of revolver is intended for constant use of full-house magnum ammunition. It is definitely a belt gun and it's definitely a shooter. I've never shot either the 2 1/2 or 4" versions that did not group exceptionally well. Recoil is less than with the K-frame. I do not own an L-frame S&W. I prefer the J, K, and old N-frame guns. That does not mean that these are not extremely popular with revolver shooters. I think the 4" version is more popular than the 2 1/2".

There are S&W large N-frame's available in snub barrel lengths, but I really believe that in this size revolver the snub makes no sense in less than a 4" tube. The rest of the gun is large enough to preclude pocket carry and the abbreviated tubes offer only reduced ballistics and shorter sight radiuses in my view.

Exceptions might be the older versions of the S&W Model 625 in .45 ACP that had 3" barrels as well as the Model 27 with its classic 3 1/2" tube. I see no use in the N-frame Model 625 made of stainless and scandium, but sporting only a 2" barrel. With the large frame I truly believe a bit more barrel hurts nothing and is more appropriate for that size gun. This is purely subjective and evidently some folks do like the things as I'm told they're selling. I have only shot the Model 625 in the 4" and 5" barrel lengths. While I have a 5" that is not going anywhere but to the range now and again, I have no desire for one having less barrel length. The Model 27 remains a classic and a favorite. I don't think there's a "meaner" looking revolver made. To me it exudes capability, but it's only a half-inch shorter than the uniform standard 4" revolver. They can be carried concealed, but there are more comfortable choices in my estimation.

Ruger GP100: My limited experience with these has been but a few guns in both 3 and 4" barrel lengths. They are built like tanks and I like the fixed sight picture better than that offered by the fixed sight K-frame Smith & Wesson's. Ruger refers to this as a "medium" size frame. I think it's tougher than the medium size S&W and more closely approximates the L-frame. I have never seen one out of the box with an action to quite match that of the S&W, but triggersmiths can make them mighty nice.

This GP100 has just fired approximately 100 rounds of .357 magnum handloads. It has been a very good performing revolver.

I own but one GP100. It is the 3" stainless short shroud/short butt version and it is a revolver that has pleasantly exceeded expectations. I like its factory grip and find it easier to control than the S&W Model 19 or 65 when shooting full-house .357's. I bought this one as a substitute for a clean, used Model 65 3". I'm no longer looking for one as the GP has proven itself a most capable performer. Its "serious load" is also Winchester 145-gr. Silvertip.

Power Levels Between .357 & .38 Snubs: Some say there's no real difference in power between these two. I have not found this to be true. The .357 simply packs more than does the .38 Special with most loads.

If interested in more, it can be found here:

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/38vs357snub.htm

Comparing the Snub .38 to Its Competitors: The snub .38 faces competition from small autos in .380 ACP and 9x18mm Makarov. I believe the .38 Special +P to be the better load. I also find it to be the hardest to shoot well when using hot, defensive loads. It is still my first choice between the other two rounds mentioned. In all but one loading that I've seen, the 9mm exhibits superior performance compared to the snub .38 Special.

Here are some observations on this:

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Comparisonof9x18mmMakarovetc.htm

Conclusion: What is the "best" snub and in what caliber? Why choose a snub revolver when more potent compact automatics holding more shots can be easily concealed?

I think the best answer comes in two parts:

· The best snub for pocket carry, and

· The best snub for belt carry

I think the best snub for 24/7 carry using a pocket holster is the S&W Model 642. I won't argue with anyone opting for the blue version, but the 642 is the one best meeting my needs. I live in a low crime area and am not faced with much threat from gangs. My most likely scenario would involve one or two aggressors. In my state (Texas) I can carry different concealed handguns. On occasion, I do carry something more potent, but the Model 642 is still on me. Caliber of course remains .38 Special.

For a short-barreled belt gun, I'd go with either the S&W Model 65 LS or the 3" Ruger GP100. Both of these have shrouds and both have very good fixed sights. The Ruger sight picture is superior to the S&W in my opinion, but the S&W normally has the better DA out of the box. With these medium frame revolvers, .357 is just right and still allows the use of hot .38's if desired.

I didn't get into Taurus revolvers as my experience with them has been limited to less than a half-dozen revolvers in calibers ranging from .22 magnum to .44 Special. Results have been mixed with the Model 85 .38 Specials I tried. Some worked fine and others went out of time, broke firing pins, or just locked up. I have not bought a Taurus revolver in several years. I cannot accurately comment on the quality…or lack of it in current revolvers. Frankly, I'll stick with either Ruger or S&W.

My only Taurus snub at the moment is this Model 432, a fixed sight .44 Special.

Assuming that you have a snub or have picked one for protection, there are some things that must be addressed when using such guns for serious purposes.

· We must be able to get the hits. That means that we have to be able to shoot the gun well at speed and this means practice. Some say, "these are for carrying a lot and shooting a little." I disagree. The snub .38 remains a relatively difficult handgun to shoot well and carrying "lots" and shooting "little" does absolutely nothing to enhance competence. Not being capable and just carrying it because it's comforting is not enough if push comes to very hard shove. We need to practice with these guns. I try and shoot mine at least 50 rounds every two weeks at the minimum. I generally shoot mine mostly at about 10 yards, but throw in some one-handed shooting at very close range as well as more deliberate aimed fire out to 15 or 20 yards. Include two-hand, strong-hand, and weak-hand practice. Try to make each shot mean something and learn from it. Practice does not make perfect. Perfect practice does. Include reloading drills. Be sure you can eject fired cases. This requires practice with the little guns.

· Routinely carry at least one extra reload. I've used both speed strips and speed loaders. My preference is for the HKS speed loader. It doesn't present telltale bulging except in tight-fitting pants like jeans and I find it considerably quicker than the speed strip.

A snub in the hand is worth more than two .45's at home.

The .38 snub is not going to be as potent as a super hot .357 from a 4" barrel nor as easy to deal with multiple opponents as a slick 1911. It cannot match the "firepower" of a high capacity 9mm or even with the neutered 10-round limit! What it can do is be unobtrusive yet instantly ready for close combat, particularly if using pocket carry. One can shuffle along a dark parking lot with the strong hand unobtrusively grasping the butt of the snub. To the rest of the world it appears that some old guy is walking along with his hands in his pocket. Being able to instantly produce a reliable weapon of at least adequate power coupled with the ability to place the shots might mean more than having a "better" performer on the belt if surprised. (Nothing says we cannot have both.) It is certainly better than a .44 magnum at home.

To be able to count on the .38 snub for serious matters, shot placement must be quick and accurate. Practice is essential.

Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch says that guns are not meant to be comfortable. They're meant to be comforting and there is truth in his statement, but realistically it needs to be balanced against the perceived threat level. The gun that is convenient to carry more likely will be than one that's a chore to tote unless the

threat level warrants it. Most of us have insurance policies on our homes, cars, and person. I consider the 24/7 gun another form of insurance and prefer to have my "policy" in effect all the time. The snub .38 allows this. Sometimes I have a more potent "policy" in force, but the little gun is always present. It rides daily in a Galco pocket holster in my right front pants pocket. It's just as much at home in the pocket of a robe on cool winter evenings and it takes up hardly any space when covered by a towel when I'm soaking in the tub. It is comfortable because I've practiced lots with it and comforting because it is there.