Were .38 special and .357 standard loads much hotter originally?

[Autodidactic]

I've been reading a number of articles stating that both the .357 and .38 special standard loads were much hotter 40-50 years ago. Is that accurate? If so, why did they reduce their power so much?

Shooting with Hobie

"The factory ammo made back in the 1970s and earlier was hotter than that made today (see chart #1). I have seen the specifications for standard .38 Special ammunition from a 1940 catalog listing the velocity as 960 FPS with a 158 grain bullet. This load would clearly develop higher chamber pressure than the current +P load and yet it was used for decades in all models from Colt and S&W without incident. The current +P is really about what the .38 Special should be in standard form. But note that today's standard load is no longer what it once was, either. In 1940 it was the 158/960 that was considered standard. During most of my youth I recall the load as advertised at 158/870. I have a copy of the specifications for S&W/Fiocchi ammo that was packaged with new guns that appears to have been printed in 1970. It lists the 158 lead .38 Special load at 910 FPS. It also includes a 158 JHP at 1140 FPS (equaling the mighty 38/44 load), a 125 JHP at 1380 FPS and a 110 at 1390 FPS**. I have seen a ‘70s box of SuperVel .38s with the package labeled as containing a 158@955 load. This was the standard load in the early 1970s (although I didn’t recall SuperVel offering standard velocity ammo). Note that none of these loads were marked as +P, but were considered standard pressure and the ad bears no mention of not using this ammo in older guns or revolvers with alloy frames.
(...)
Current specifications on the lead 158 are pretty wimpy at 158/750 (some are now showing 730). Again, we see the ammo companies reducing the loads over the years. The current +P (which means +Pressure if you didn’t know) is really only +P when compared to current standard loads. Stacked up against past standard loads the +P looks pretty anemic and the current standard load is truly pathetic.

The fact is that +P is only called +P in comparison to the current standard .38 Special loading, not because it exceeds the pressure limits set for the caliber. I believe the SAAMI pressure limit for the .38 Special is 21,500 PSI (the .357 Magnum is 35,000 for comparison). The standard load for the .38 Special as offered by Winchester, et al, generates 16,500 PSI. This is so far below the maximum allowable as to be ridiculous but the ammo makers fear lawsuits from people using the ammo in cheap guns. The +Ps from these manufacturers run about 18,000 PSI. This is more than the standard loadings (hence the +P designation) but is still far below the maximum allowable pressure. Those "really hot +P loads" from the specialty manufacturers like Cor-Bon, etc., are simply loaded to the caliber's full potential of 21,500 PSI and should be perfectly safe in any quality arm in good condition. Sellier & Bellot sells a 158@975 load that is obviously more powerful (and therefore generates more chamber pressure) than the 125@925 +P yet this ammo isn’t labeled as +P. It’s likely simply loaded near the 21,500 PSI maximum allowed for the caliber and this company eschews the ridiculous +P label on ammo that is within industry standards."

 

[243winxb]

A change on how psi is measured, maybe?

According to the C.I.P. rulings, the .357 Magnum cartridge case can handle up to 300 MPa (44,000 psi) Pmax piezo pressure.
Looks like Tula runs at 43,511 Psi. SAAMI is 35, 000 Psi Transducer Pressure. (May be measured differently?) The chronograph would know?

 

[NeroM]

Not sure about factory cartridges for 38 Spl, as I very rarely purchased any - however I do hand load a lot.
A review of data in loading manuals, it does appear current suggested loads have lower velocities.
For example, in 38 Spl for 140 gr cast bullet the 1967 Lyman manual lists a top velocity at 1295 fps vs. the 2022 Hodgdon Annual manual lists a top velocity for a similar bullet as 1150 fps (+p load). Test systems and perhaps better measurement may be a factor in these data differences.
However, I am happy with the my 1000 fps loading of a similar bullet from a 4" M10.

 

[Autodidactic]

Not sure about factory cartridges for 38 Spl, as I very rarely purchased any - however I do hand load a lot.
A review of data in loading manuals, it does appear current suggested loads have lower velocities.
For example, in 38 Spl for 140 gr cast bullet the 1967 Lyman manual lists a top velocity at 1295 fps vs. the 2022 Hodgdon Annual manual lists a top velocity for a similar bullet as 1150 fps (+p load). Test systems and perhaps better measurement may be a factor in these data differences.
However, I am happy with the my 1000 fps loading of a similar bullet from a 4" M10.

Right, it's interesting. The same is said to be true for .357. In some original .357 tests, a guy was taking down moose with his .357 revolver with ease. But, they said it was loaded hotter back then.

It sounds as if the Buffalo Bore and Underwoods of the world are loaded to what these cartridges USED to be loaded to at the top end.

But why this is important was when I first got into shooting and firearms, .38 special was always compared as weaker than 9mm, .40, .45, and so on as if it was essentially so. More like the 250 foot pound range of energy, just above .380 ACP. People represented it that way really. Barely sufficient for SD.

This information to me is eye opening because it seems that's only because the cartridge has been lowered in power on average. Those Buffalo Bore and Underwood rounds are as powerful as all those service calibers.

Take these for example. I have the BB one.

.38 Special +P 158gr. Keith Hi-Tek Coated Hard Cast Hunting Ammo (underwoodammo.com)

TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• SKU : 734
• Cartridge : .38 Special +P
• Bullet Brand : Underwood Ammo™
• Bullet Weight (gr) : 158
• Bullet Construction : Hi-Tek Coated Hard Cast
• Bullet Model : Keith
• Bullet Material : Lead
• Brinell Hardness : 21
• Case Type : Nickel Plated Brass
• Supressor Safe : Yes

• 
  BALLISTICS INFORMATION
• Muzzle Energy (ft. lbs) : 548
• Muzzle Velocity (fps) : 1,250
• Sectional Density : 0.180

Heavy .38 Special +P Pistol & Handgun Ammunition (buffalobore.com)

Item 20A: 158gr., very soft cast, semi wad cutter, (Keith) hollow cavity, with a gas check. This bullet will mushroom violently on impact and will penetrate roughly 14 inches in human flesh. Again, this bullet is gas checked and will not lead your barrel.

➤ 1,040 fps (379 ft. lbs.) -- S&W mod. 60, 2-inch
➤ 1,059 fps (393 ft. lbs.) -- S&W mod. 66, 2.5-inch
➤ 1,143 fps (458 ft. lbs.) -- Ruger SP101, 3-inch
➤ 1,162 fps (474 ft. lbs.) -- S&W Mt. Gun, 4-inch

 

[Autodidactic]

A change on how psi is measured, maybe?

Interesting, but how would that affect the velocities on average? Or do you mean just the labels? The point of that article is that it appears +P now may be as powerful as standard pressure from 50 years ago.

 

[243winxb]

50 years ago.

Now - Transducer Pressure = psi.

50 years ago- Copper Units of Pressure = CUP.

I be wrong. SAAMI Cup & PSI 38 +P same velocities listed?

I was reloading 50 years ago. The Speer #8 manual had some over pressure loads. If brass stuck in the cylinder, harder to remove, that was maximum.

 

[Zahn]

Interesting, but how would that affect the velocities on average? Or do you mean just the labels? The point of that article is that it appears +P now may be as powerful as standard pressure from 50 years ago.

This! The measuring of FPS is not something that's changed. Chamber pressure measurements have changed, but speed is speed.

 

[dickydalton]

I've been reading a number of articles stating that both the .357 and .38 special standard loads were much hotter 40-50 years ago. Is that accurate? If so, why did they reduce their power so much?

Shooting with Hobie

"The factory ammo made back in the 1970s and earlier was hotter than that made today (see chart #1). I have seen the specifications for standard .38 Special ammunition from a 1940 catalog listing the velocity as 960 FPS with a 158 grain bullet. This load would clearly develop higher chamber pressure than the current +P load and yet it was used for decades in all models from Colt and S&W without incident. The current +P is really about what the .38 Special should be in standard form. But note that today's standard load is no longer what it once was, either. In 1940 it was the 158/960 that was considered standard. During most of my youth I recall the load as advertised at 158/870. I have a copy of the specifications for S&W/Fiocchi ammo that was packaged with new guns that appears to have been printed in 1970. It lists the 158 lead .38 Special load at 910 FPS. It also includes a 158 JHP at 1140 FPS (equaling the mighty 38/44 load), a 125 JHP at 1380 FPS and a 110 at 1390 FPS**. I have seen a ‘70s box of SuperVel .38s with the package labeled as containing a 158@955 load. This was the standard load in the early 1970s (although I didn’t recall SuperVel offering standard velocity ammo). Note that none of these loads were marked as +P, but were considered standard pressure and the ad bears no mention of not using this ammo in older guns or revolvers with alloy frames.
(...)
Current specifications on the lead 158 are pretty wimpy at 158/750 (some are now showing 730). Again, we see the ammo companies reducing the loads over the years. The current +P (which means +Pressure if you didn’t know) is really only +P when compared to current standard loads. Stacked up against past standard loads the +P looks pretty anemic and the current standard load is truly pathetic.

The fact is that +P is only called +P in comparison to the current standard .38 Special loading, not because it exceeds the pressure limits set for the caliber. I believe the SAAMI pressure limit for the .38 Special is 21,500 PSI (the .357 Magnum is 35,000 for comparison). The standard load for the .38 Special as offered by Winchester, et al, generates 16,500 PSI. This is so far below the maximum allowable as to be ridiculous but the ammo makers fear lawsuits from people using the ammo in cheap guns. The +Ps from these manufacturers run about 18,000 PSI. This is more than the standard loadings (hence the +P designation) but is still far below the maximum allowable pressure. Those "really hot +P loads" from the specialty manufacturers like Cor-Bon, etc., are simply loaded to the caliber's full potential of 21,500 PSI and should be perfectly safe in any quality arm in good condition. Sellier & Bellot sells a 158@975 load that is obviously more powerful (and therefore generates more chamber pressure) than the 125@925 +P yet this ammo isn’t labeled as +P. It’s likely simply loaded near the 21,500 PSI maximum allowed for the caliber and this company eschews the ridiculous +P label on ammo that is within industry standards."

#1. Yes.
#2. Lawyers.

 

[JohnKSa]

The test results I've seen using vintage ammo shows that it was loaded pretty much the same as current ammo.

As nearly as I can tell, this theory comes from:

1. Confusion about changes from CUP to PSI pressure measurements.
2. The fact that SAAMI gradually prevailed upon U.S. ammo manufacturers to (over a period of years starting in 1977) change their velocity figures for revolver ammunition from being measured in long unvented test barrels to vented test barrels with lengths that corresponded better to the barrel lengths people were actually buying and using.
3. The proliferation of chronographs which made it more difficult for ammunition manufacturers to "pad" their advertised velocities.

More information about #2.
This is an interesting catalog from 1977. On page 37, Remington discusses their changeover to using 4" vented test barrels for their revolver data and you can see that in some cases, they publish both data sets for comparison. In some cases, you can see that velocities apparently dropped by 300fps or more simply because they were measured more realistically.
http://cartridgecollectors.org/content/catalogs/REMINGTON/1977-Rem-DuPont-Retail Catalog.pdf

I think that this is one of those topics where people make up their minds based on issues having nothing to do with the real situation and refuse to be convinced by the facts because the facts don't really have anything to do with why they have chosen to believe what they believe.

Hypothetical example: Someone wants to load above book handloads or buy ammo from a company that somehow manages to achieve velocities way above what any mainstream ammo maker can do. When they find someone who claims that .38Spl and .357Mag have been watered down over the years, this provides excellent justification for what they wanted to do anyway. Never mind that the "evidence" may have come from someone who has the same motivation or that there's evidence to the contrary. None of that matters because they don't really care about those facts, what they care about is their original desire to use ammo that is much hotter than what is recommended without having to worry too much about it.

 

[UncleEd]

JohnKSa's above posting has the
answers.

Or as his point #3 suggests, don't
believe all those old ammo box
FPS postings.

 

[Jonesy814]

Plus P did not exist until 1970-71. At that time, SAAMI looked at a few vintage calibers, specifically 45 auto, 38 special and 380. They decided that there were a lot of older guns, often of questionable quality that might not hold up well if fired much with modern ammo, so they had better lower the pressures. Now I don't know why these old guns were suddenly a problem considering the ammo was the same, but maybe they were hearing of a lot of problems, maybe there is a completely different reason but here is what the did. They LOWERED the standard maximum pressure about 10% and then called the previous maximum pressure Plus P.
This explains some of the differences, but exactly how did they measure the pressure in 1930 compared to 1970, or now? I have a feeling some of the older stuff may have been over pressure if measured with modern equipment

 

[.455_Hunter]

I chronographed ~1977 and ~2007 Remington .38 Special +P 158 gr lead out of the same gun at the same range session and average velocities were only 3 FPS different between the two samples.

 

[LaneP]

I too have often read, "the old ammo was hotter" in more than a few places over time. The only way I can think to substantiate that is get some of the old stuff and run it through a pressure testing lab. Packaging label velocities can't be used as anything other than a vague reference point. Even velocities given in the component vendors data is often not even close to what my chronograph tells me, and this is to be expected given the wide range of manufacturing tolerances within handgun barrels and the effect of b/c gap, even when barrel lengths are comparable. If more power is needed than a given factory load or published data set provides, there's always the option of moving up to something bigger.

 

[JohnKSa]

At that time, SAAMI looked at a few vintage calibers, specifically 45 auto, 38 special and 380. They decided that there were a lot of older guns, often of questionable quality that might not hold up well if fired much with modern ammo, so they had better lower the pressures. Now I don't know why these old guns were suddenly a problem considering the ammo was the same, but maybe they were hearing of a lot of problems, maybe there is a completely different reason but here is what the did. They LOWERED the standard maximum pressure about 10% and then called the previous maximum pressure Plus P.

1. There is no official SAAMI +P designation for .380ACP.

2. I would certainly be interested to see documentation demonstrating that SAAMI lowered .38Spl pressure limits in the early 1970s. I would think that kind of information would be available but I've never seen anyone provide any sort of evidence like that.

I chronographed ~1977 and ~2007 Remington .38 Special +P 158 gr lead out of the same gun at the same range session and average velocities were only 3 FPS different between the two samples.

Thanks for sharing that. Pretty much any time I've seen actual results comparing vintage ammo with the current stuff it checks out the same.

 

[Pat Riot]

I recall an engineer coworker of mine I worked with back in the 90’s that pretty ate, drank and slept ballistics when he wasn’t at work with us.
He pretty much told us the same things that @JohnKSa mentioned above.

• Better technology meant more accurate measurements.
  
• More realistic test components (test barrels that matched reality)
• The availability of more affordable chronograph equipment meant more available information.
  
• Manufacturers padded numbers for better sales.

In my opinion one also has the “things were much better then” crowd hyping exaggerated memories of “the good ol’ days and how much better things were before (fill in the blank).”

 

[Autodidactic]

The test results I've seen using vintage ammo shows that it was loaded pretty much the same as current ammo.

As nearly as I can tell, this theory comes from:

1. Confusion about changes from CUP to PSI pressure measurements.
2. The fact that SAAMI gradually prevailed upon U.S. ammo manufacturers to (over a period of years starting in 1977) change their velocity figures for revolver ammunition from being measured in long unvented test barrels to vented test barrels with lengths that corresponded better to the barrel lengths people were actually buying and using.
3. The proliferation of chronographs which made it more difficult for ammunition manufacturers to "pad" their advertised velocities.

More information about #2.
This is an interesting catalog from 1977. On page 37, Remington discusses their changeover to using 4" vented test barrels for their revolver data and you can see that in some cases, they publish both data sets for comparison. In some cases, you can see that velocities apparently dropped by 300fps or more simply because they were measured more realistically.
http://cartridgecollectors.org/content/catalogs/REMINGTON/1977-Rem-DuPont-Retail Catalog.pdf

I think that this is one of those topics where people make up their minds based on issues having nothing to do with the real situation and refuse to be convinced by the facts because the facts don't really have anything to do with why they have chosen to believe what they believe.

Hypothetical example: Someone wants to load above book handloads or buy ammo from a company that somehow manages to achieve velocities way above what any mainstream ammo maker can do. When they find someone who claims that .38Spl and .357Mag have been watered down over the years, this provides excellent justification for what they wanted to do anyway. Never mind that the "evidence" may have come from someone who has the same motivation or that there's evidence to the contrary. None of that matters because they don't really care about those facts, what they care about is their original desire to use ammo that is much hotter than what is recommended without having to worry too much about it.

Thanks for the information. As I've said elsewhere, I'm still only a few years into gun ownership and research. Still learning.

This reminds me of the old horsepower inflation of yore for many muscle cars. It seems those were inflated sometimes too.

I'm okay with the power of my 642 .38 special, and I have it only for its intended purpose, which I hope to never use it for: short range self defense.

JohnKSa's above posting has the
answers.

Or as his point #3 suggests, don't
believe all those old ammo box
FPS postings.

Thanks, makes sense.

I chronographed ~1977 and ~2007 Remington .38 Special +P 158 gr lead out of the same gun at the same range session and average velocities were only 3 FPS different between the two samples.

Proof is in the pudding aye?

I too have often read, "the old ammo was hotter" in more than a few places over time. The only way I can think to substantiate that is get some of the old stuff and run it through a pressure testing lab. Packaging label velocities can't be used as anything other than a vague reference point. Even velocities given in the component vendors data is often not even close to what my chronograph tells me, and this is to be expected given the wide range of manufacturing tolerances within handgun barrels and the effect of b/c gap, even when barrel lengths are comparable. If more power is needed than a given factory load or published data set provides, there's always the option of moving up to something bigger.

I've heard this about the test barrels.

It does seem though that .38 is capable of hotter loads than often used, like those Buffalo Bore and Underwood loads going 1200 FPS. I have Super Vel .38 that is 1300 FPS, but I think it's 110 grains.

I recall an engineer coworker of mine I worked with back in the 90’s that pretty ate, drank and slept ballistics when he wasn’t at work with us.
He pretty much told us the same things that @JohnKSa mentioned above.

• Better technology meant more accurate measurements.
  
• More realistic test components (test barrels that matched reality)
• The availability of more affordable chronograph equipment meant more available information.
  
• Manufacturers padded numbers for better sales.

In my opinion one also has the “things were much better then” crowd hyping exaggerated memories of “the good ol’ days and how much better things were before (fill in the blank).”

That makes sense, and I'm sure that's right that we both have better measurement and testing technology and it's more available for people across the board to use for testing.

 

[wcwhitey]

Technology as most have stated, better, more accurate and precise ways or measuring factory ammo! SAAMI provided standards of measure and limits of pressure. I would think liability enters in also. A company is probably not as willing to produce loads pushing the SAAMI specs for legal reasons. Economic also. If you load thousands/millions of rounds in a run a tenth or a few tenths of a grain can help the bottom line. If you buy Standard Pressure .38 Round Nosed Lead at the counter I think the assumption is either you just want a cheap easy shooting round for that old gun or you are just target shooting. No need to push the limits. Also how many powders are available to manufacturers these days, once upon a time the makers are using probably the same dozen or so powders a reloader was. BB and others are offering cutting edge performance using powders not available to us as reloaders. Part of the reason for the high prices. Super Vel threw caution to the wind in essence, they plain pushed and exceeded standards. But, they only lasted for a short period. We will never know the damage done or the liability faced if they became mainstream and common over a long period of time. Quite a few of those J frames, Police Positives and M&P’s might not be around.

 

[Autodidactic]

Technology as most have stated, better, more accurate and precise ways or measuring factory ammo! SAAMI provided standards of measure and limits of pressure. I would think liability enters in also. A company is probably not as willing to produce loads pushing the SAAMI specs for legal reasons. Economic also. If you load thousands/millions of rounds in a run a tenth or a few tenths of a grain can help the bottom line. If you buy Standard Pressure .38 Round Nosed Lead at the counter I think the assumption is either you just want a cheap easy shooting round for that old gun or you are just target shooting. No need to push the limits. Also how many powders are available to manufacturers these days, once upon a time the makers are using probably the same dozen or so powders a reloader was. BB and others are offering cutting edge performance using powders not available to us as reloaders. Part of the reason for the high prices. Super Vel threw caution to the wind in essence, they plain pled pushed and exceeded standards. But, they only lasted for a short period. We will never know the damage done or the liability faced if they became mainstream and common over a long period of time. Quite a few of those J frames, Police Positives and M&P’s might not be around.

Super Vel is back! I don't know if it compares to old Super Vel.

.38 Spc. +P 90 gr. JHP "Super Snub" (20-count box) (supervelammunition.com)

I was wrong, earlier I said it was 110 grain. It's 90 grain. But, independent folks have tested it by chrono and apparently it is close to stated velocity of 1300 FPS.

 

[243winxb]

1970 Speer #8 info.

 

[243winxb]

CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The High Road, nor the staff of THR assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.

I used this 1970 Speer data to work up a load back in 1979. I still use it today in a S&W 337PD 38 +P 2" Not a every day target load.
The Underwood & Buffalobore is some HOT stuff. Would like to see the PSI ON THEM.

 

[wcwhitey]

“Super Vel is back! I don't know if it compares to old Super Vel.”

I think it is Lee’s son but may be wrong. There was a video a year or so back where he was testing rifle primers vs. standard pistol primers in his pressure testing equipment. Reason was he is a small boutique company and was having trouble getting primers himself. He was offering to make ammo with customers primers and showing how rifle primers could be used. Have never seen a new box of Super Vel on the shelf.

 

[243winxb]

Factory Ammo-

Todays 38 special has a +P pressure that is higher then 1970s ammo, that follows standard pressure.

My Conclusion- todays 38 ammo will record a higher velocity then 1970s ammo. Simply because of the higher pressure limits of todays +P ammo. New bullet coatings & powders may benefit the +P loads.


As can be seen by Speers test, the printed velocity, most times, does NOT match the Chronographs velocity.

Note that Remington had a "High Speed" 38 158 gr load listed at 1090/1025 fps. Not the norm.

 

[Autodidactic]

“Super Vel is back! I don't know if it compares to old Super Vel.”

I think it is Lee’s son but may be wrong. There was a video a year or so back where he was testing rifle primers vs. standard pistol primers in his pressure testing equipment. Reason was he is a small boutique company and was having trouble getting primers himself. He was offering to make ammo with customers primers and showing how rifle primers could be used. Have never seen a new box of Super Vel on the shelf.

It's shown up occasionally at the LGS I got my 642 at. I bought two boxes, one to shoot and one to be a collector box. But yes, these boutique makers rarely show up at any of my LGS, including Buffalo Bore and Underwood too.

 

[Autodidactic]

1970 Speer #8 info.View attachment 1051057 View attachment 1051058 View attachment 1051059 View attachment 1051060

This is good data and info. I think I'm back on the side of .38 special hasn't really been downgraded, the question I had.

 

[243winxb]

It seems underwood & buffalobore dont belong to SAAMI? Could this mean they dont subscribe to the standards?

https://saami.org/membership/member-companies/