+p ammo in a S&W 442?
- Thread starter boomstik45
- Start date
- Status
Guillermo
member
Gary
Regular 38 ammo is up 17,000 (some like Winchester actually are barely over 16,000) and "+P" is up to 18500.
This is WELL within the allowable pressures of any quality firearm.
http://www.lasc.us/SAAMIMaxPressure.htm
Regular 38 ammo is up 17,000 (some like Winchester actually are barely over 16,000) and "+P" is up to 18500.
This is WELL within the allowable pressures of any quality firearm.
http://www.lasc.us/SAAMIMaxPressure.htm
Guillermo
member
BTW
Saxon wrote a very nice piece on the subject
http://shootingwithhobie.blogspot.com/2009/01/p-phenomenon-by-saxonpig.html
Saxon wrote a very nice piece on the subject
http://shootingwithhobie.blogspot.com/2009/01/p-phenomenon-by-saxonpig.html
Guillermo, I appreciate your reply and that link. However, there is much discrepancy on the subject on the Internet and I believe that info to be outdated. Here is a link to a SAAMI PDF file on the subject. I can't quote the relevant pages exactly but check page 20 for .38 special plus P and note that it is listed as 20,000 psi and 17,000 for standard pressure.
http://www.saami.org/specifications_and_information/publications/download/205.pdf
The Internet is a wonderful source of information, both accurate and inaccurate.
http://www.saami.org/specifications_and_information/publications/download/205.pdf
The Internet is a wonderful source of information, both accurate and inaccurate.
Guillermo
member
Of course this is quite true
What do you think is the maximum allowable pressure for an airweight?
I don't know. I did notice, however, that reading a few pages farther in the SAAMI document shows another table listing 18,500 psi as the MAP of .38 Special plus p measured under a different system. This tells me I am in over my head and cannot draw reliable conclusions from charts, tables, Internet threads, or reading tea leaves unless I know what forms of measurement are used to produce whatever statement and argument I am reading. I am "reduced" to reading various recommendations and trying to determine which have the most credibility and, in my case, tending to err on the side of caution when it comes to pieces of equipment I want to preserve in good condition for as long as possible. No offense, but I still don't find the argument that "plus P is a weenie load that won't hurt your old airweight" to be convincing enough. I certainly have no issue with someone shooting it in their gun if it makes them happy.
At any rate, I hope you find the SAAMI document to be useful. I know I plan on going over it more closely.
At any rate, I hope you find the SAAMI document to be useful. I know I plan on going over it more closely.
Guillermo
member
what do you consider "hot"?
Guillermo
member
some do...some don't
Guillermo
member
what do you have that u have chrono-ed that projectile out of a 1 7/8 barrel?
jfh
Member.
And then, of course, there is the European standard for 38 Special--CIP. First standardized in 1981, it is (the equivalent of) 21,750 PSI.
That's it. there is no European 'standard' 38 Special or 'plus-p.' Just a specification, in metric terms, for the equivalent of 21,750 PSI.
In light of the fact that S&W and others have shipped numerous 38 Special firearms to Europe since 1981, do you suppose they are making THREE different cylinders to rate their firearms at THREE different pressures?
Guillermo, SaxonPig, ArchangelCD, and others have it nailed.
Jim H.
That's it. there is no European 'standard' 38 Special or 'plus-p.' Just a specification, in metric terms, for the equivalent of 21,750 PSI.
In light of the fact that S&W and others have shipped numerous 38 Special firearms to Europe since 1981, do you suppose they are making THREE different cylinders to rate their firearms at THREE different pressures?
Guillermo, SaxonPig, ArchangelCD, and others have it nailed.
Jim H.
Last edited:
There is no point in argument. If anyone feels nervous about using ammo that is loaded 3,000 PSI below maximum allowable pressure in his gun then he should not do it. I would not want anyone to do anything that makes him feel uncomfortable. As for me, +P concerns me not one bit.
Below is a photo of my 1942 M&P. I don't know how many thousands of rounds it fired before it came into my hands. Out of curiosity I fired 500 rounds of Remington +P through it. Empties fell from the chambers without using the ejector rod. Cases were smudged indicating a low pressure condition allowing blow-back within the chamber. Recoil and muzzle blast were negligible.
I then fired 600 rounds of my own +P+ loads through the revolver. My load is the same 125 JHP loaded to 1150 FPS. I did have to use the ejector rod to remove the empties but they were not binding in the chambers. The cases were clean indicating that they expanded upon firing and sealed the chambers (as is supposed to happen). Recoil was a tad more pronounced as was the muzzle blast but neither was objectionable.
Net effect to the gun was zero. Believe what you want about +P. I trust what I know.
Below is a photo of my 1942 M&P. I don't know how many thousands of rounds it fired before it came into my hands. Out of curiosity I fired 500 rounds of Remington +P through it. Empties fell from the chambers without using the ejector rod. Cases were smudged indicating a low pressure condition allowing blow-back within the chamber. Recoil and muzzle blast were negligible.
I then fired 600 rounds of my own +P+ loads through the revolver. My load is the same 125 JHP loaded to 1150 FPS. I did have to use the ejector rod to remove the empties but they were not binding in the chambers. The cases were clean indicating that they expanded upon firing and sealed the chambers (as is supposed to happen). Recoil was a tad more pronounced as was the muzzle blast but neither was objectionable.
Net effect to the gun was zero. Believe what you want about +P. I trust what I know.
Two general info points:
1- Some modern +P ammo does need to be taken seriously.
Speer 135gr +P is loaded to at least 20,000psi per Speer info. Speer originally published 21,000psi.
Buffalo Bore ammo is loaded to at least max SAMMI pressure and actual pressures are not disclosed. BB says their ammo won't harm any modern firearm in good condition but they don't talk about or don't know about accelerated wear.
2- Steel framed guns can take unlimited stress cycles (firing pressure) provided the stress is below a certain % of the frame steel's "proportional limit". Above that % the steel suffers fatigue and eventually will either crack or take a permanent set. If the frame is over stressed by pressure higher than the design then it will wear out.
Aluminum behaves differently. An aluminum frame basically degrades a bit every time it is stressed. The more severe the stress the more it reduces the life of the frame.
Modern aluminum frame materials are unlikely to suffer catastrophic failure with any in spec factory load but they will stretch sooner or later until they are unserviceable. The more often they are stressed by high pressure the sooner they will fail.
This is what the gun companies mean by "accelerated wear".
1- Some modern +P ammo does need to be taken seriously.
Speer 135gr +P is loaded to at least 20,000psi per Speer info. Speer originally published 21,000psi.
Buffalo Bore ammo is loaded to at least max SAMMI pressure and actual pressures are not disclosed. BB says their ammo won't harm any modern firearm in good condition but they don't talk about or don't know about accelerated wear.
2- Steel framed guns can take unlimited stress cycles (firing pressure) provided the stress is below a certain % of the frame steel's "proportional limit". Above that % the steel suffers fatigue and eventually will either crack or take a permanent set. If the frame is over stressed by pressure higher than the design then it will wear out.
Aluminum behaves differently. An aluminum frame basically degrades a bit every time it is stressed. The more severe the stress the more it reduces the life of the frame.
Modern aluminum frame materials are unlikely to suffer catastrophic failure with any in spec factory load but they will stretch sooner or later until they are unserviceable. The more often they are stressed by high pressure the sooner they will fail.
This is what the gun companies mean by "accelerated wear".
ArchAngelCD
Member.
I agree with Saxon completely...
I bought a 1948 M&P about 2.5 years ago and along with the target loads I shoot it's fired many hundreds of Remington FBI Load with no ill effects at all. That revolver was shot a lot before I bought it and a lot after I bought it but it still locks up like the day it was made.
I bought a 1948 M&P about 2.5 years ago and along with the target loads I shoot it's fired many hundreds of Remington FBI Load with no ill effects at all. That revolver was shot a lot before I bought it and a lot after I bought it but it still locks up like the day it was made.
Great thread. Great information. Only problem is the continued discussion of how well steel K-frames handle plus P as an argument why it is ok for the OP to use plus P in his aluminum-framed J-frame 442. Every thread I've ever read on tis subject follows the same pattern. No one, repeat, no one here has argued that plus P should not be used in steel K-frames. That whole line of reasoning is irrelevant to the OP's original question.
DBR is closer to the point.
DBR is closer to the point.
Guillermo
member
the hotter the round, the faster the wear.
guns wear out like any mechanical device.
but +P is WELL within the specs of maximum allowable pressure in any well made firearm. In fact, as Saxon. JFH, Archangel and others have explained (in Saxon's case, proved it)it is really not a hot round.
Re-reading the original post, the question was can the 442 "handle" plus P. of course everyone agrees plus P won't blow up his 442. Not everyone agrees it won't cause accelerated wear, perhaps fairly quickly. Depends on what he means by "handle" and how long the little aluminum gun will last using it. Again, it depends, as Saxon Pig pointed out on what he is comfortabling doing with his gun. Telling him it is inconsequential in an older Airweight is, I believe, disingenuous. There are caveats, accelerated wear being the main one.
Guillermo
member
so you think that it is "disingenuous" (meaning insincere - false - devious - hollow-hearted) to suggest that a gun is safe to fire with the same pressure ammo that it was built to fire.
Guillermo, the term "disingenuous" was a poor choice and does not convey my meaning and I thank you for calling my attention to that. I do not believe, however, that 442 no-dash Airweights were ever designed by Smith and Wesson to fire .38 Special plus P ammunition and were never factory-rated to do so. Disingenuous? No, and I apologize for the unintended implication. Incorrect? Yes, and imprecise, especially touting K frames as proof.
Last edited:
Guillermo
member
So you think that a pre 72 airweight was not designed to handle the standard ammunition of the time?
I don't believe the standard ammunition of the time was loaded to 20,000 psi. If it was not, then I believe the original airweight was designed to fire ammunition of around 16-17,000 psi. That's what I believe. I could be wrong. I have been wrong before. I will, no doubt, be wrong again. If I am wrong, then the manufacturers who told us the guns were not recommended to be fired with a steady diet of plus P ammo are also wrong, or liars, or fools. I don't know. I am left, as before, with the decision that I either follow my own best beliefs and/or listen to those who I deem to be more knowledgeable than I. When I find "responsible" sources who disagree, I must determine which to believe. The factories. Countless articles written over the years. Or, a small number of people who post a lot on the internet and stand in marked disagreement with conventional wisdom. I know what I choose to believe. Others might choose other things to believe. It matters little to me. If I had clear proof that you are correct and I am wrong, I promise you sincerely I would confess my error and thereafter remain silent. In the several years I have followed this debate, I have yet to be convinced that your argument has merit but I don't really want to pursue the debate ad infinitum. Once again, I do not believe the ability of the steel K-frame to digest hot loads has any bearing on the ability of the aluminum J-frame to do the same. I may be wrong. You may be right. We will simply have to agree to disagree. The best to you.
Last edited:
These latter models were designed around this so called +p rating. They took advantage of this new marketing strategy. Older revolvers were never stamped because they were already shooting the same powered loads before they were stamped +P. This gives the ignorant buyer the illusion he is getting a superior firearm due to the +p stamp.
This raises the question? If I take out my early 70's reload manual and load up some 38s that are within spec (before they were stamped +P), and then shoot them out of an early 70s or older 38 am I not being safe?
This is the kind of ignorance so many in this thread are trying to clear up.
This raises the question? If I take out my early 70's reload manual and load up some 38s that are within spec (before they were stamped +P), and then shoot them out of an early 70s or older 38 am I not being safe?
This is the kind of ignorance so many in this thread are trying to clear up.
ArchAngelCD
Member.
I posted my agreement about a 40's M&P being able to fire current +P ammo to draw a parallel to it and the Airweight revolvers that were also just marked .38 S&W Special ctg. You can't mark a barrel +P if there is no +P ammo being marketed when the barrels is stamped.
IMO the full power .38 Special ammo from the past is "hotter" than most current .38 Special +P ammo. I have sent Winchester and Remington .38 Special ammo from the 70's over the chrono and that ammo has consistently delivered more velocity than current +P ammo with the same weight bullet from the same manufacturer. (shot from the same revolver)
I'm not going to labor over this point. I gave my opinion but no advice. I'm done here because everyone will believe what they want to believe...
IMO the full power .38 Special ammo from the past is "hotter" than most current .38 Special +P ammo. I have sent Winchester and Remington .38 Special ammo from the 70's over the chrono and that ammo has consistently delivered more velocity than current +P ammo with the same weight bullet from the same manufacturer. (shot from the same revolver)
I'm not going to labor over this point. I gave my opinion but no advice. I'm done here because everyone will believe what they want to believe...
- Status
