What manufacturers and model numbers would you suggest for a semi-automatic for an older (early 60s) man who is accustomed to shooting with a .38 Special Ruger revolver? We would like to stick with the .38 Special caliber since that what all his ammunition is in...thanks!
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
.38 Special Revolver ---> Semi-Automatic?
- Thread starter Loyalist
- Start date
I know of only only one semi-automatic pistol chambered for the .38 Special - The Smith & Wesson Model 52.
They don't make it anymore, and even used they're quite expensive (about $1000). They take a special kind of .38 Special ammo called a "mid-range wadcutter".
Perhaps a better choice would be something in 9mm. It's a very common caliber, and even more readily available than the .38 Special.
They don't make it anymore, and even used they're quite expensive (about $1000). They take a special kind of .38 Special ammo called a "mid-range wadcutter".
Perhaps a better choice would be something in 9mm. It's a very common caliber, and even more readily available than the .38 Special.
gerrycaruso
NES Member
Smith&Wesson made a semi auto in .38spl but I don't see it listed in the 2009Gun Digest. It only chambered the .38 wadcutter. Would you consider something ballisticly similar like the 9mm? If someone makes a .38 spl. semi auto it is unlikely to be Mass compliant.
Eddie Coyle is correct, the only semi-auto ever chambered in 38 Special was a very specialized target pistol for bulls-eye shooters. The problem was the fact that the 38s were a RIMMED round. Making rimmed rounds function through a semi auto reliably is a bitch.
I have in fact read that John Browning first developed the 25acp (rimless) round because even HE couldn't get the 22lr (rimmed) to function reliably through his new designs.
As someone who carried a double action revolver for many, many years; I faced the same problems you do. I ruled out any gun that had a manual safety and also ruled out any gun that switched from an initial heavy double action pull to a lighter single action pull after the first shot. (in addition to not liking the triggers, they require a manual decocker).
Reprograming yourself is just too damn much trouble.
In short, I wanted a flat, magazine fed, revolver. Point gun, pull trigger, and it goes bang.
Kahrs do this, and so do Glocks, and I own a few of each. Springfield XDs also do this, but they have a grip safety like the 1911s, and this is a feature I don't care for. YMMV. The new S&W M&P is another possibility.
I'm currently buying a Beretta 96D. It is the double action only variant and it's just like a revolver, same long, smooth trigger pull each and every time, no safeties, no decocker.
The SIGs with the DAK trigger option would also be a nice choice, if you can afford a SIG. Bit more than I can budget, right now, but I do like the trigger on them. Again, no manual safety, no decocker, no need to reprogram yourself.
As for ammo, the 9mm is about the same power as your 38 Spl, and right now the 9mm is about the cheapest centerfire ammo out there, selling for less per box than even the 380, as well as less than the 40 and 45.
In full metal jacket, the 9mm has a horrible reputation as a man stopper, but good hollow points, especially in Plus-P, should be every bit as good as, and probably better, than your 38 Spl.
Regards
John
I have in fact read that John Browning first developed the 25acp (rimless) round because even HE couldn't get the 22lr (rimmed) to function reliably through his new designs.
As someone who carried a double action revolver for many, many years; I faced the same problems you do. I ruled out any gun that had a manual safety and also ruled out any gun that switched from an initial heavy double action pull to a lighter single action pull after the first shot. (in addition to not liking the triggers, they require a manual decocker).
Reprograming yourself is just too damn much trouble.
In short, I wanted a flat, magazine fed, revolver. Point gun, pull trigger, and it goes bang.
Kahrs do this, and so do Glocks, and I own a few of each. Springfield XDs also do this, but they have a grip safety like the 1911s, and this is a feature I don't care for. YMMV. The new S&W M&P is another possibility.
I'm currently buying a Beretta 96D. It is the double action only variant and it's just like a revolver, same long, smooth trigger pull each and every time, no safeties, no decocker.
The SIGs with the DAK trigger option would also be a nice choice, if you can afford a SIG. Bit more than I can budget, right now, but I do like the trigger on them. Again, no manual safety, no decocker, no need to reprogram yourself.
As for ammo, the 9mm is about the same power as your 38 Spl, and right now the 9mm is about the cheapest centerfire ammo out there, selling for less per box than even the 380, as well as less than the 40 and 45.
In full metal jacket, the 9mm has a horrible reputation as a man stopper, but good hollow points, especially in Plus-P, should be every bit as good as, and probably better, than your 38 Spl.
Regards
John
One more thing about the model #52, the magazines only hold FIVE rounds.
So even if you did find one for sale, and wrote the big check for it, you still wouldn't gain any advantage over a J-Frame .38 in terms of capacity. Plus, it's bigger and heavier than a J-Frame.
