I'm gonna do it.

I think lawyers and shooters with skirts are taking over. I long for the days where men were men and guns were guns.

I've aquired some old vintage reloading manuals and the 38 Special has been so wimpified the last few years, it's embarrassing.

My RG40 has eaten about 150 rounds of +P ammo to date, both 125gr and 158gr. No explosions, no cracks, no signs of undue wear. Its got a double proofed cylinder like any other german firearm, and it will hold up to loads of reasonable stoutness.

I think lawyers and shooters with skirts are taking over.

Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth! Never more evident than when flipping through my new 1969 NRA Handloading Guide and finding Keith's .44Spl load with pressure data. I long for the return of personal responsibility.

Saxon, what powder are you going to use?

My 1970 Sierra manual has AL-7 at 9 grains, 158 gr JSP, for 1100fps. As AL-7 is no longer available??? what is a good sub?

By 1974 they were already starting to wimp down the 38 special. My 74 Hodgdon's manual has 6.5 gr of HS6 at 986fps, for a CUP pressure of 14,400 (158gr bullet)

I have some old (60') Dominion (Canadian) ammo that says 986fps on the box. I've shot several boxes of that through my 1926 officers model with no ill effect.

conversion of CUP to PSI: CUP is .927 of PSI as per SAAMI that is: PSI X .927 = CUP or CUP X 1.079 = PSI Or, the 14,400 in the Hodgdons manual comes out to 15,538 PSI...

Interestingly the Hodgdons top load is less than the current published .38 special max pressure of 17,000 psi, and considerably less than +p at 18,500 psi. Too bad Sierra did not publish pressures with their loads.

I'm gonna do it.

Click to expand...

Wow, you've gone way over the edge now...(tongue firmly planted in cheek)

Somewhere there was a VERY long thread about someone shooting a couple thousand rounds of hot 38's through an old model 12 (aluminum K frame), and kept track of the wear and tear on the gun.

After a couple of thousand rounds, the gun was still doing just fine as I recall.

The last thing I'm going to do is worry about modern Plus P in any high quality steel framed .38 Special revolver.

To put this in perspective, many years ago I wrote to then-sales manager Fred Miller at S&W.

I asked if I might safely fire .38-44 (Plus P was yet to come) in a Model 10 or 15. He replied that it was safe, but that gun wear would be substantially increased, and that I should use that ammo in a .38-44 or a .357 if I anticipated shooting much of it.

Item 2: The USAF cited wear to their S&W .38's as being a prime cause why they wanted a 9mm auto. That led to the adoption of the Beretta M-92, of course. The Air Force armorers had rebuilt most of their .38 inventory as much as three times per gun, and the weapons were reaching the end of what could be expected of them.

Now, they were not using conventional Plus P. They had a hot round that they decided was needed for proper lethality. I think it gave about 1050 FPS. May have had a 130 grain bullet, not 158 grain. I do know that at least one base used unit funds to buy commercial (I think I saw Winchester) High Velocity .38 ammo in the mid 1960's. That was well before commercial Plus P.
We carried that, but qualified with target wadcutter ammo. So, I can't say how long the guns would have stood up to it.

I don't hesitate to carry modern Plus P in even S&W J-frames made in the 1970's or later, and some late ones are actually Rated for it...whatever that means! They do have improved metallurgy and heat treatment. I would hesitate to fire Plus P much in any M&P/Model 10 not stamped with the model number in the frame. In an emergency, yes, but not routinely. I would not use Plus P in guns made before WW II ended. I know that Dr. Pig thinks that any made from the 1930's-on are okay with it. I'm not as sure. I don't know what proof pressures were then, and S&W didn't heat treat cylinders until about 1919, although I believe Colt preceded them.

As for firing handloads that greatly exceed factory limits, that just seems unsound and intruding into the safety margin built into guns. (I'm speaking here of .38 handguns, not of cases like hotrodding a 7x57mm round in a modern rifle, because factories load the ammo down for old Mauser 93 and 95 rifles.)

I think that at least, hot ammo will result in early cylinder endshake and timing problems. The softer steel in older .38's reacts to the shock of the gun firing sooner than will modern, tougher steels. Yoke - frame looseness (cylinder endshake) occurs. The gun will need repair sooner than if it was shot with more suitable ammo. If you need .38-44 or .357 ballistics, get a gun made for that use. Or, buy a 9mm auto, like the Air Force did!

The exception here is that I understand that Ruger .38's use the same parts as their .357's. They are just chambered for the shorter round. That is not gospel, and Ruger may or may not confirm it, if asked.

Saxon Pig knows me as Texas Star on the S&W board, where we've had this discussion several times. Although I wouldn't do it to my guns, I find his experiments fascinating. They will provide considerable information about this matter. Any guns he ruins will be his own.

Lone Star

My 2" 10-11, 4" 64-8, & 642-2, my entire .38 Special collection, is inherently '+P' rated, so I have few worries re their diet. I have even less worries with my other '.38-ish' revolvers - they are .357Ms. Why purposely buy .357M revolvers for .38 use? Try to find a 7 or 8-shot .38! The old rule of thumb for S&W was that any recent CS/SS .38 would handle a modicum of +P's - shoot regular, carry +P's. I guess that can be amended.

Interesting about the original .38 S&W Special - the original 'M&P'. It was thought to be 'too much' by many LE agencies - they used .32 S&W - .32 S&WL for years.

Stainz

because some of us have 38's that were built before any +p or 357M existed? That is my 38 is a Colt from 1926, 357M wasn't born before 1934

I recall reading some period info from the 1930s where the FBI was issueing the .38/44 Ammunition for use in their Colt 'Police Positives' and early Colt '
Detective Specials'.

I believe Colt also advertised them as being alright for that Ammunition.

I have not tried it myself, but, I imagine an early Detective Special or short Barrel Police Positive would have a memorable recoil with that loading.

I will try it at some point, once I either obtain some period .38-44 Ammunition, or, re-load some myself to as close of spec as possible.

It ought to do just fine to my mind, out of an S&W Model 10, at least as a now and then thing.

I would not have the Heart to do it to an early ( pre war ) S&W 'M&P' though.

There were some recommendations for using .38-44 loads in guns not considered strong enough to handle them. However, you must remember that most folks weren't putting several thousand rounds through their guns every year. I guarantee that if you put several hundred rounds of .38-44 loads (158gr SWC or 173gr Keith over 13.5gr 2400) through an old Police Positive it will begin to loosen up.

I can't wait to hear what your results will be SaxonPig, as I have always wondered how legitimate this old add really is.




As to the 13.5gr of 2400 over the 358429 however that is above a .38/44 load IIRC. That is when ol' Elmer was experimenting with magnuminzing the .38 SPL, just as he did with the .44 SPL. .38/44 ammo from what I've read about was always a 158gr bullet moving around 1100fps. The above load (13.5gr 2400 and 358429) is a true magnum loading in every since of the word, just housed in a .38 SPL case instead. That load will clock north of of 1200fps as can be read here.
http://www.handloads.com/articles/default.asp?id=30
http://www.handloads.com/articles/default.asp?id=31

My 1980 Hornady manual has all the max load marked with an * pointing to the ledger = +P. I never really noticed until this thread because all my 38's have been 357's. The only time I ever loaded 38's was for plinking and didn't really care about the power. Sad for all those people that depend on the 38 alone, I can see why all the frustration. I have the newer Hornady and Speer and they are even worse.

Looks like PC has crept into our Manuals. I cherish the older ones and will never get rid of them....If anyone is interested you can find the 1970 speer manuals on ebay for about $15 to $25. I think they're worth the money and they are completely safe. These new manuals are written for lawyers not reloaders.

I've been sitting here going through my Speer #9 trying to find those 2400 loads, but they're not present. 2400 isn't even listed.

So I checked, and mine's a 1974. Interesting that the load data got changed so much. There are resources online that show much higher velocities than the manuals I have. Very interesting!

My 1953 'Lyman' No. 39 Loading Manual, under the heading of ".38 Special High Vel. for Heavy Frame Guns Only"


Has...

150 Grain Thomson Gas Check or 150 Grain Wadcutter - 6.4 Grains Unique for 1,150 FPS, or, 13.5 Grains 2400 for 1,227 FPS.

For 148 Grain Cast Hollow Base ( I assume, Wadcutter ) - 7.7 Grains Unique for 1,285 FPS, or, 14 Grains 2400 for 1,330 FPS.

For 158 Grain Cast Plain Base, 13.5 Grains 2400 for 1,220 FPS

For 160 Grain Keith Hollow Point and Hollow Base, 12 Grains 2400 for 1,228 FPS.



It certainly makes sense to me that heavier Loadings such as those associated with the .38/44 or 'Heavy Duty' sort of the 1930s, in small frame Revolvers of the 1930s to 1950s, whether this heavy or not, would best be limited to SD Carry Rounds with only a little test practice once in a while, and, not more than that, for fear they would harm or stretch or strain the Revolver.


In an N-Frame or New Service, or, maybe, in an Official Police, one could definitely get away with more of it I am sure.


I like the 148 Grain HBWC Loading which claims 1,330 FPS ( But I do not know what length their Test Barrel was )...

But, it hurts just thinking about putting that through any of my pre-war Colt 'DS' or S & W 'M&P' Snubbies.

I'd run those through my Model 10 Snubby as a once in a great while sort of thing or for Carry, and, not feel any worries.


Maybe I worry too much when it comes to the 'Old' Revolvers..?

Lol...

I would just feel so bad if I hurt one of them.

Tell you what; I would NOT chose those +p loads in a model 12 S&W !
I shoot plus power 158 grain in Colt Cobras and an old Model 37 Airweight flat latch with no problem other than my hand tingles!
13.5 Grains of 2400 under a 158 or more (Keith liked the 173 grin bullet with that load!)grain bullet is TOO MUCH except for Colt SAA .38, New Service and S&W N frames .38s or all .357 chambered guns IMHO.

it is amazing that folks think that +P 38 specials are hot.

the ammo manufacturers cut down the pressure of regular ammo and called what HAD been regular ammo "+P"

P.T. Barnum was right

Has anyone got Loading data for what in the 1930s and 1940s had been the .38 HD or .38/44 Cartridges?


Or, as far as we know or can surmise, were thay about as the older 'Lyman' data I posted above?

It would be nice to have some idea of what the pressures are with those.

I would have to guess they are around 20,000 PSI or a little more.

I think I will also guess that the old S&W FPS claims regarding the Heavy Duty or .38/44 Cartridges ( as shown in the period advertisement for the 'M&P' Snubby, ) and, likely, the Lyman Data I referenced, presumed a 5 inch Barrel...unless anyone happens to know different?

There are still some pretty good loads on handloads.com. I think I would use cation on some. With a Ruger.... I would not worry too much.

Bear in mind that data from those old manuals can't be 100% trusted with today's powders. I've got a Speer #8 which has some rather interesting loads that I keep for reference. I do know that they have had formula changes in common powders (Like Red Dot and 2400) and they are stronger now. They are not so strong as to preclude working up from known good levels, as any responsible handloader will know.

I've been experimenting in 32 S&W Long and from my cautious experiments in modern steel guns I believe that the cartridge should be able to easily run in 32 H&R Mag territory if not beyond.