The +P debate is nearly over, IMHO.

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SaxonPig

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Messages
4,787
Another forum member kindly sent me this ad that appears to date from 1970. It lists the specifications for S&W/Fiocchi ammo offered for sale. Note the 158 lead .38 Special at 910 FPS. Check out the 125 JHP at 1380!

1380 FPS? So just how does that current +P at 925 FPS generate so much fear and awe, anyway?

How about that 158 JHP at 1140 FPS. Am I kooky or does that just about duplicate the mighty 38/44 load?

Note that there are no warnings about using this ammo in older guns or in revolvers with alloy frames. Apparently in 1970 S&W had no problem with shooters using ammo this hot in their guns. Also, no +P tags or any hint that this ammo is loaded beyond accepted industry standards at the time.

The footnote does say a pressure barrel was used so an actual revolver will get slightly less velocity but it ain't that much difference.

I offer this as evidence supporting my contention that A: factory ammo has been seriously down-loaded in the past few decades, B: current +P is not powerful, and C: current +P will not adversly affect a quality revolver in good condition. Neither will substantially hotter ammo, either, according to this ad.

Also take a gander at that 125 JHP load for the .357 Magnum at 1775 FPS. This is 50 FPS greater than my top hand-load which I have said works fine in my guns but many forum members chided me for even discussing such obviously excessive loads.

I may be almost ready to rest my case.

S&W Ammo Ad
 
An ad from the 70s, and you believe it? That pressure barrel would likely be a 10 incher. :rolleyes: I got no dog in this hunt, shoot handloads almost exclusively, but I can tell you that back before chronographs were household items, ammunition manufactures took liberties, shall we say, with advertising and ballistic claims.

When I handload, I go by the manuals and use a chronograph and am careful about pressure signs. If anything don't look right, I back off. I approach max loads very carefully, too. Better safe than sorry. Some guns I know can handle more than others, too. I have a white hot .357 180 grain hunting load that I will only use in my Ruger Blackhawk. It's too hot for my rifle or other revolvers. Extraction is occasionally sticky in the blackhawk. No way I'm going to push it any hotter or shoot it in a lesser strength gun.

If you're going to push maximums, you need to be intelligent and careful about it. I don't know what your loads are, so I have no comment on them. I TRY not to give out max loads on this BBS, though, and don't ask others for theirs. I don't want some newbie hand loader stickin' my 180 grain load in a J frame revolver, then blaming me when his gun blows up.:rolleyes:

I have a pretty hot handload for my .38s. Out of a 2" barrel, I'm getting 850 fps with a 158 grain JHP and I really don't wanna push it any more than that. I ain't getting any pressure signs, yet, but it's up pushing the max loads in the manual and I'd rather be safe. I figure that's more'n plenty and my little revolver, while it's +P rated, is an alloy gun. I'm shooting a slow powder to do this, H2400. That load might get 1100 fps out of my 6.5" blackhawk barrel, but I haven't shot it out of that gun over the chronograph. I don't intend to use it in that gun. I don't really care what it does out of a 6" gun, I'm shooting it out of a 2" gun. And, if I'd wanted a .357 magnum, I woulda bought one. :rolleyes:

I have loaded the 125 grain bullet to about 1700 fps in the Blackhawks 6.5 inch barrel. It is a safe load. It won't clock that out of a shorter barrel, though. I don't know what gun you're claiming that velocity from, but I get 200 fps less in a 4 inch tube. The magnum is really effected by barrel length, one reason I bought a .38 snub and didn't bother with the magnum.
 
MCgunner- They generally used 6" pressure barrels so velocites are a bit lower from actual guns. But like I said in the original post, not THAT much lower. Chronographs were around back then. Not in the numbers you see today, but some folks had them so the ammo companies weren't going to get away with really outlandish claims.

DM- No, what it means is that we shouldn't be afraid to use real .38 Special ammo and we shouldn't fear the watered-down stuff that is currently being offered as high performance when it is actually very mild.
 
Vendors of that period often flat-out lied. Nobody else had chronys but them, there was nothing to stop them and an escalating "velocity in ads war" going on.

Truth is the first casualty of war :rolleyes:.

You've been told this for some time now. So how you think this is going to "end the debate" is beyond me.
 
Along with my 1973 chiefs special model 36 there was a brochure in the box for Smith and Wesson brand handgun ammunition. The .38 special numbers were like 1250 fps for a 125 grainer, and 1080 fps for a 158. There was no +p designation and the ad said fired from a 6" model 19.

I think the old stuff was loaded to what we now call +p and then some.

It probably did blow up some old guns, but then lawsuits then weren't what they are now.
 
I have a Lyman reloading manual from the late 60's that shows "Factory Duplication Loads" for the .38 special in 150 gr at 1015 FPS, 158 at 826 FPS and the 200 gr at 703 FPS. Lyman chrono'd factory stuff at the time at least that is my understanding. The 150's were advertized at 1065 fps, 158's at 855 fps and 200's at 730 fps by Winchester. Lymans data was (according to them) shot in a 6" K-38. I don't see where Lyman would have any reason to inflate factory velocities. I did have a Chrono in the mid 70's and the data in the Lyman manual was pretty much on the money as far as their load data. I personally think the .38 has been downloaded, the idea of a 125gr in the 900 foot second range as +P is ludicrous! My .02 Nick
 
I'm scratching my head here because...you're talking about almost 200fps speed difference and only 8gr of difference between the slugs?

Unless the 158 was jacketed and the 150 was lead?
 
Jim, chronographs existed and were owned by individuals in the 1960s and 1970s. Not as many as today but a few folks had them. I doubt that the ammo companies could get away with lying about 300 or 400 FPS.

You're right about the debate not being over. It never will be as long as people like you have made up their minds and that's it. Is there any, ANY evidence you will accept?
 
I keep looking at the original design information for 9mm Luger and .45 acp and as near as I can tell, the numbers are the same and HIGHER, not downloaded.

This gets to a critical point. At what pressures were the were the calibers designed to be and what length barrels were used.

Saxon Pig, no sir, there is no indication that companies in the 1970s necessarily advertised standardized velocities. The velocities seen in the add may very well have been for a much longer barrel, the justification being to show what the caliber and load are capable of doing in the right gun, not what they will be doing out of a standard gun or out of a customer's gun.

This is akin to what they did in the auto industry by advertising cars with outstanding performance characteristics and then providing a price for the car. The problem was that the price was for the stripped down and underpowered model. The advertisement showed the supercharged or beefed up version with all the bells and whistles.
 
I did this old post on another forum in reply to a pages long debate on the subject…

On the use of “+P” .38 Special ammunition in non- “+P” rated arms.

Any well made handgun, i.e. S&W, Colt, Ruger, etc., chambered for .38 S&W Special cartridge, will fire a LIMITED amount of +P loads with no ill effects that I have ever witnessed. (I have a Charter Arms Undercover, alloy frame, that is now 23 years old and, though I may have put less than 200 rounds of +P’s through it in its life, it is just tight and fine. I routinely carry 158 grn LSWCHP +P's in it.)

A steady diet of +P's, assuming you could afford them, wont blow up the gun, they will accelerate wear i.e. "shoot loose". Have you ever witnessed a .38 revolver blowing up from using a +P load?

The difference between a standard .38 special and +P load, for combat purposes, is so close that you can practice with the same weight bullet in standard, and carry the +P's. (This theory/practice did not work well with .38's and .357's however, due to a greater power difference between the two cartridges. It is acceptable with standards .38s and +P's nonetheless.)

The .38 S&W Special +P loading IS NOT A .357 Magnum. It IS a .38 Special with a little extra "juice" behind it. (The truth be know, from the older ammunition data that I have seen, the modern +P loads are about on par with the older standard loadings.)

As I said, this is MY OPINION based upon my research and experience. If you doubt my conclusions, and you should, research the topic yourself...I did.

Why argue the point...if you're against +P use...don't use them.
 
"I'm scratching my head here because...you're talking about almost 200fps speed difference and only 8gr of difference between the slugs?

Unless the 158 was jacketed and the 150 was lead?"

Jim--I don't know what the reasoning is behind the veocity spread. I have a 1966 Hunters Encyclopedia with ammo listings from Winchester showing 2 loadings of the 150 gr as both a Lubaloy coated lead and "lead bearing inside lubricated metal point". The 158 is a lead RN. Remington shows a 110 gr at 1330 fps out of a 6"bbl. Now we're talkin serious +P!
 
I'm not sure the purpose of the argument here. I mean, you can't buy Super Vel anymore. I reload to safe specs listed in a relatively recent (last 20 years anyway) manual. Probably need to get a new manual because you can't count on powder recipes staying the same over the years.

I'd love to get a new Ohler with the stress gauge/pressure thing on it to help me with determining safe loads over and above the methods I now use. Low priority, I suppose. Most of my loads I've standardized now. Haven't shot a new caliber in years.

I guess that Ohler stress thing wouldn't work too good on an autoloader, though. :rolleyes: :D Have to get a TC contender barrel in the caliber I guess, just to test pressures. Kind of stupid I reckon. Be hard even on a revolver depending on how thick that sensor is that goes over the chamber. Be great for rifles, though.
 
Ads aren't a source of trustworthy information. Doing your own comparison with vintage ammo, current commercial ammo, a single gun, and a chrono is a trustworthy source of information.

Chris
 
The 9mm and 45 ACP have not experienced this downward spiral of velocity (Jim, did they not lie about these calibers, only the revolver cartridges?).

The .38 Super has been downgraded and I know this for an absolute damn fact because I have been shooting this caliber for 20 years and I have personally witnessed and documented the falling velocities on Super ammo.

The Special came to my attention because of the never ending questions regarding +P ammo. So I undertook a serious study on the matter researching old printed material and shooting vintage ammo for comparison but it gets frustrating when some people simple wave their hands and dismiss the effort.

"Ammo hasn't been down-loaded."

"Velocities are the same."

"They used to lie about the claimed velocities."

"The barrel lengths for testing changed and that's the only reason for the decrease."

Maybe these people are right. Maybe I'm wasting my time. But at least I am trying to actually find out rather than repeat rumors, legends and myths. My research seems to indicate that ammo used to be hotter, but apparently some remain unconvinced. So be it.

I can see that I need to get my hands on some vintage ammo and see if it measures up as claimed. I'm sure no matter what I do someone will dismiss it. Oh well.
 
I was always under the impression that what they used to publish was not based on the modern stuff we have now. They used to use this device called a ballistic pendulum. From how far it moved, they could calculate velocity based on physics equations and for a certain push the bullet gave, they calculated velocity. Compared to more modern day stuff (last 20 years or so) they now have a different way to measure speed of a bullet, a Chronograph which measures the shadow of a bullet flying over two screens. Calculate the time difference between 2 screens and you can figure out fps.

Another thing that they used to use was a lead or copper crusher to measure pressure. That was the old LUP or CUP that you see listed in older loading manuals. They had special barrels that had this little lead or copper "pill" that when you fired the cartridge, it would crush the pill and then they would measure how much it crushed and based on some table they could tell you how many units of pressure based on the material. Modern day pressure is measured with a piezolectric strain guage. They attach this little thing to the barrel and it can feel the strain on the barrel and that comes up with a # in pounds per square inch.

I'm oversimplifying but they found out that loads that they thought were safe in the old days were actually exceeding barrel design criteria, hence the scaling down of velocity and pressure. That was one reason why the 7 mm magnum reloading data from 30 years ago is now very scaled down in the modern manuals. With new, more accurate methods of measuring pressure and velocity, they found out that they were loading things way too hot and have since scaled them down to SAAMI standards.

38 special ammo at regular pressure is supposed to max out at 17,000 psi
38 special +P ammo at it's regular pressure maxes out at 18,500 psi
357 Magnum by comparison, it's regular operating max pressure is 35,000 psi or a bit more than double that of 38 special.

These are all according to the Speer Reloading Manual # 12, printing # 3, 1995. So even this book is 10 years out of date but the methods for measuring haven't changed that much in 10 years. We still use chronographs to measure bullet velocity and they still use strain gauges to measure barrel pressure. It's probably all digital now, but the functions are the same.

They may not have been lying for their test barrels (which are held to closer tolerances than your every day run of the mill Charter Arms, Ruger, or S&W handgun). But it's like someone else said, they were also giving you test barrel velocities, not like Speer where they actually did some testing in real guns. The 38 spl ammo was tested in a 6" Model 14 S&W, the 38 +P was tested in the same 6" Model 14, and the 357 magnum ammo was tested in a 6" Model 19 S&W. Is it going to do the same out of your 3" snubbie? no way, how about that 8 3/8" Highway patrolman? Not on your life.

There are warnings and other tidbits in loading manuals that most people don't see. The main one is, "Just because we got this test data, doesn't mean you are going to get the same exact velocity in your gun with this ammo. All guns are different and you can have 2 identical firearms made on the same day that will shoot 1 kind of ammo to two completely different velocities and accuracies".

Something that handloaders tend to do is not trust what the manufacturers say. Our gun might be tighter or looser than what they tested with and the only way to know what X bullet will do velocity wise is to run it over a chrono and see if it's actually matching what they claim.

Sorry for the long post, but I hope it's been informative.

Vince
 
The velocity of factory ammo is inversely proportional to the number of product liability lawsuits filed by lawyers against ammo manufacturers.

The velocity of factory ammo is inversely proportional to the number of attorneys in practice.

There is a number that can be computed using either of the above.
 
Random thoughts

I guess you could consider some of the old Super-Vel to be +P, but a lot of it wasn't.

Lee Jurras was a pioneer in modern ammunition development.
He was one of the first to experimente with lighter than average bullet weights and more modern powders to get higher velocities with safe pressures.

I've transferred many a case of his great ammo from of his old Shelbyville location to the back of my old station wagon. (Ahhh those were the days)
I still have a small stash of yellow boxes and when I finally get another Chrono I'll shoot some for testing and nostalgia.

********

Some modern loading manuals still use longer than average barrel lengths for testing.
For example the IMR manual uses a reasonable 6" barrel for .38 Special and .357 Magnum.
And 5" for .45 acp and 4" for 9mm are the most common/average lengths.
But then they use a 10" barrel for .41 magnum and 8.25 for .44 magnum???

Then Hodgdon uses a 7.7" barrel for .38 Special and 10" for .357 to lure you into thinking their powders give you higher velocities.
They also use an 8" barrel for .44 Special!!! Now who in the hell carries a 8" .44 Special?

My 2001Accurate manual shows they used a 10" barrel for .32 H&R Mag! Oh come on guys get a clue!
They show the .38 through an 8.375" tube to give the impression of higher speeds. But they do show "new data" from a 6" 686 for their .357 mag loads.
But once again they use a Wilson 9½" barrel for .41 magnum. Who even makes a 9½" barreled gin in .41 mag? Contenders are longer and most revolvers are shorter!
Even the Accurate powder Cowboy action data was taken from a 8.375" S&W Model 14. Now we all know how common those are at S.A.S.S matches. :banghead:

The ammo companies have seen the light and started using real world barrels.
If Remington & Winchester can use four and six ionch vented test barrels why can't Alliant, Hodgdon (and their associated brands) and Accurate?

I wish the powder company (soon Hodgepodge will be a monopoly) would give us some data based on something we can really relate to.
Hell's Bells™ I'd actually settle for data obtained from some obscure 9.314159265358979323846" barrel just as long as they used the same length for every caliber.
The ammo companies saw the light years ago and started using real world barrels. If the dinosaurs Remington & Winchester can use four and six inch vented test barrels why can't Alliant, Hodgdon (and their associated brands) and Accurate?

********

The adoption of the strain gauge to test pressure enabled us to see the complete pressure curve.
The old crusher method only demonstrated the total maxium pressure.
The pressure curve is every bit as important at the total pressure.
This is why slower burning powders can achieve higher velocities.

Let's face it it takes a precise amount of total force to push a 158gr .358" bullet at 1000fps. No matter what powder/primer combination you use it will always take the same amount of foce to achieve that velocity.

It's HOW the powder/primer combo creates that force is the difference between satisfactory projectile launching and spontaneous dismantling of your firearm.

Slower burning powders like Blue Dot and 2400 create that force over a longer time span than faster burning powders like Bullseye and Universal.

********

I think in many cases +P is merely a marketing ploy when what they really should be using is +V.
Who cares if the pressure is high if the velocity isn't?
You can easliy load a bullet at lower than maximum velocity for a given cartridge that will exceed safe prerssure limits. It's only a matter of powder/primer selection.
 
The 9mm and 45 ACP have not experienced this downward spiral of velocity (Jim, did they not lie about these calibers, only the revolver cartridges?).
Click to expand...
Short answer? Yes.

In the 1970s, SAAMI "suggested" to the industry that they begin measuring the velocity of their revolver ammunition in 4" vented test barrels rather than the 8 3/8" non-vented test barrels they had been using.

It wasn't really a "downward spiral". It took awhile for all the companies to comply, but the change was pretty abrupt if you look at any particular company.

I already posted this information on one of your other threads.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=204900
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Autodidactic
  • Locked
Were .38 special and .357 standard loads much hotter originally?
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
Palladan44
Palladan44
T
  • Locked
Some notes on the +P .38 Special question.
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
Jeff F
J
S
  • Locked
This is why I am not impressed with +P.
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
5K
Guillermo
G
S
  • Locked
38 special +P question
Replies
2
Views
776
Scott13
S
S
  • Locked
My updated position paper on +P ammo (a bit long).
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
MCgunner
M
Back
Top