.380 compared to .38 Colt

Discussion in 'P-3AT' started by Old_Bill, Jul 25, 2008.

  1. Old_Bill

    Old_Bill New Member

    193
    Jun 15, 2008
    I was digging around in a old box of gun stuff today and found some old .38 Colt rounds. These were purchased to use in a very old S & W .38 revolver many years ago.

    As you can see by the size of the rounds, the standard .38 was made before the .38 Special round was developed and is much shorter in size.

    I just thought you might like to see the .38 Colt round compaired to the .380 round used in the Kel Tec P-3AT.

    The .380 rounds are Winchester Ranger 95 gr T-Series. I'm not sure what the .38 round might be, however, I'm guessing the bullet is around 125 gr. The markings on the base is R*P .38 SH Colt.

    [​IMG]


    Old Bill
     
  2. Sassi

    Sassi New Member

    29
    Jan 10, 2008
    I wonder what the differences would be in FPS and energy levels between the two?
     

  3. Old_Bill

    Old_Bill New Member

    193
    Jun 15, 2008
    No doubt someone on this Forum knows, but, I'm afraid I just shoot the rounds and hope for the best! ::) ::)

    The only figures I could locate was for the .38 Short Colt. The muzzle velocity was listed at 777, the muzzle energy was 181 ft Ibf.

    From what I understand the .38 short Colt is a slower and less powerful round than most .380 rounds available today.

    Old Bill
     
  4. gvaldeg1

    gvaldeg1 New Member

    152
    Feb 8, 2008
    That is, indeed, the 38 short Colt. It was derived from the 36 caliber Navy round and has a bullet diameter of .360/.361 in contrast to the .357/.358 of 38 Specials and .357 magnums or the .355 of the 380 ACP and most 9 mm's. Remington still loads it with a 125 gr lead bullet. As you can see from this link:

    http://www.remington.com/products/ammunition/ballistics/results/default.aspx?type=pistol&cal=11

    At 150 ft-lbs of muzzle energy, it is pretty far behind most 380 rounds from a P3AT and WAY behind the Buffalo Bore loads.
     
  5. Old_Bill

    Old_Bill New Member

    193
    Jun 15, 2008
    Thank you for the information!