Ok this has been beat to death...

[tech]

Ok I understand that handgun loadings have been neutered down over the years. Loadings now are actually less stout than years past for legal reasons.
Would say a Ranger +P+ 38 special today = say a standard 38 of the 1950's-60's?

Mike

 

[P95Carry]

Without comparitive figures hard to say accurately - but strongly suspect that a modern +P (as against +P+) would match an early original 38 spl.

Same with 9mm I think too - early 9mm's would now probably make +P.

 

[tech]

Yeah I guess its not a fair question... to vague. I would like to see some numbers from back in the day to compare to todays loadings. I would like to use the +P+ in a 70's model 36 for carry. I am hesitant though as I like to shoot what I carry from time to time. Don't want to damage my insurance policy.

Mike

 

[pcf]

Ok I understand that handgun loadings have been neutered down over the years. Loadings now are actually less stout than years past for legal reasons.
Would say a Ranger +P+ 38 special today = say a standard 38 of the 1950's-60's?

Do NOT fire Ranger 38+p+ in a 38spcl revolver. That paticular round is loaded to near .357 mag pressures and will destroy a .38 revolver. (They're loaded that way for political reasons) The 38/44 rounds of yesteryear would be similar to 38+p+.

Ranger 38+p+ totally outclasses any standard factory loading of the 50's or 60's.

 

[RecoilRob]

Back in 'Ye Olden Days' the ammo makers used Copper Crusher pressure measuring devices...as they were state of the art and pretty much the only thing available.

It consisted of a copper slug of known density that was compressed by a piston that was forced against it by the pressure formed in the case during firing. The piston cylinder was pressurised when the cartridge brass blew out into the hole holding the piston.

Depending on how much the copper slug was compressed (crushed) it could be determined how much pressure was needed to accomplish the task.

The resulting pressures were referred to as CUP (copper units of pressure). When more modern piezo-electric strain gauges came into being, they found pressure spikes that the CUP method couldn't see as it really only sort of showed an 'average' pressure.

While a very brief over-pressure spike normally won't destroy a gun, it CAN cause damage over time. Modern loads will not over-pressure the cartridge rating...even briefly, and so some are not quite as hot as they used to be.

 

[Sistema1927]

Another thing to remember is that even though some loadings aren't as potent as they used to be, bullet design is better than ever.

In the 60's and 70's, a standard rule of thumb was that you needed 1,000 fps terminal velocity for hollow points to expand. Today there are those that expand reliably at ~850.

 

[James T Thomas]

poignant

That is one of the things I enjoy at THR the most.

Informative posts, like the ones from 'Systema1927 and RecoilRob.'

Appreciated.

 

[tech]

Thanks guys for all the info. I guess I will shoot the +P+'s out of my model 65.

Mike

 

[JohnKSa]

It's hard to make conclusive assessments of cartridge power going back past the 1970s given that the industry made some significant changes in how velocity was measured during that timeframe.

Prior to that time, it was not unusual to see velocity measurements for revolver cartridges being done in 8.375" unvented barrels. That was changed to 4" vented test barrels for .38spl and .357Mag and the velocities naturally came down.

Add to that the fact that chronographs were very rare and expensive prior in times past which meant that some manufacturers "rounded up" their velocity numbers without fear of being contradicted.

This topic (focusing on the .357MAg) was investigated in a recent magazine article and the conclusion was this: If chamber pressures have come down over the years, it has been primarily due to improvements in propellant technology--not as a result of performance decreases.