Now just to clarify (since you didn't answer my queries or my outrageous statement of adulation) you think that current +P as well as old style regular 38 Special are too hot?
Ah, the eternal quest for a straight answer…
Going back to the 1950’s I have found that often there are disparities between what the ammunition companies print in their tables, and the performance one sees out of a particular gun – and this is especially true if you are dealing with a revolver with a (give or take) two-inch barrel.
Today, most of the larger manufacturers use barreled test fixtures that have strain gauges located at various points so they can measure chamber pressure and the pressure curve over the length of the barrel while using various combinations of powder and bullets. At the same time the velocity of the bullet can be measured at (whatever distance) using a chronograph. All of this can be very precise, but the data reflects what a particular barrel produces, and not necessarily what you will get out of a particular gun.
Now back when so-called “standard loads” were supposedly hotter ammunition companies didn’t always check handgun loads for pressure, and determined performance by shooting into 1” thick pine wood baffles to see how many were penetrated. The test fixture was a real revolver, often with a maximum length barrel to get the best results.
Then we have people that try to make a case by presenting data in various old and new reloading handbooks. All of this is interesting, but again the information has nothing to do with factory ammunition performance, and everything to do with what was worked up using a particular gun and barrel length with a certain bullet/primer/canister-lot powder combination.
Also the cartridge makers and handloading book writers during earlier days didn’t have to worry about some slick lawyer hitting them with a lawsuit because someone blew up or otherwise damaged Uncle Elmer’s old six-shooter that was made in 1903 – or thereabouts.
So now we have some who have chronographed some old and new ammunition and claim that the old stuff was hotter then current Plus-P ammunition. They may be correct to a point, but the old stuff may be better performing because of powder deterioration caused by the nitro component in the powder leaching out. Not much you understand, but just a little – but then maybe the stuff that was made back then was indeed hotter then advertised. Either way I wouldn’t bet on it.
As for today’s Plus-P stuff. Some of it is notable for being on the wimpy side, where others are indeed at the top of allowable standards. Shooting these loads EXTENSIVELY in an older aluminum-framed revolver might not be wise, and even questionable in one with a steel frame. One constant we can depend on is that with a little variance it takes a certain amount of pressure (force) to drive a bullet at a certain velocity. You can make the bullet go faster or slower by increasing or decreasing the pressure. Other factors don’t mean a whole lot if velocity is the main thing you’re looking at – or for.
If you are deeply concerned about all of this you need to get a chronograph for yourself and see what various ammunition (commercial or handloaded) does in your particular gun(s). If you want to say that Plus-P ammunition is safe to shoot EXTRNSIVELY in older handguns you need to know EXACTLY what pressures are being generated by the PARTICULAR ammunition in question.
The Old Fuff should make it clear that in his view the performance of older ammunition vs. today’s Plus-P doesn’t really impress him. In the real world it’s too small to make a practical difference. As always, bringing an attack to a quick conclusion is mostly dependent on bullet placement, and to a degree cross-sectional area.
But given what I have explained, the Old Fuff is not going to say that unlimited quantities of ANY Plus-P ammunition can be fired in ANY older revolver, without having possible negative consequences.
