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

[mcb]

Short answer: no.

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.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.

It does appear that SAAMI might have changed 38 Special +P just after the transducer data was released. In the first publication with Transducer pressures listed, 38 Special +P was listed at 18,500 psi and it was later updated to the current 20,000 PSI. The crusher/CUP measurement did not change and has always been 20,000 CUP. The story I was told from a SAAMI representative was it was simply a correction due to additional data being gathered. But this all happened in the 1970's.

 

[Jim Watson]

1. Looking at my loading manuals...
In 1937 Phil Sharpe showed .38 Special 158 gr factory lead bullet + 5.4 gr Unique at 1000 fps 15000 psi (CUP) in a 6 inch barrel, presumably a PV testbed, per Hercules.

In 1967 Lyman 44 showed .38 Special 158 gr cast + 5.4 gr Unique at 1002 fps in a 6 inch S&W K38. Pressure not stated.

In 2008 Lyman 49 showed 38 Special 160 gr cast (same mold 358311) + 5.3 gr Unique +P at 956 fps 18500 CUP in a 4 inch barrel, presumably the SAAMI vented barrel simulating a revolver.

With all the differences in components and equipment over 71 years, I have trouble seeing a trend in anything but terminology.

2. It is commonly said that loads were reduced (I don't see it here, though, other than 5.3 gr Unique getting to be +P instead of standard maximum) because the piezoelectric transducer is a more accurate instrument than a crusher gauge.
But why? If the guns were holding up acceptably with CUP defined loads, why reduce the loads just because the reading for the same load in pizeo psi is a bigger number?

 

[Autodidactic]

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

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

Tests of Buffalo Bore show it’s still within safe pressure guidelines. I think, but maybe not for all per below.

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_list&c=263


“DOES BBA MAKE AMMO TO SAAMI SPECIFICATIONS?
Some of our loads do not have SAAMI standards. Loads such as 45 Colt+P, 9MM+P+, 45-70+P, 45 Super, 460 Rowland and there are many, many more, even though loading manuals produced by all the big bullet and powder manufacturers include data for creating such loads. If SAAMI does not even recognize such loads exist, then it would be impossible to make factory ammo that is SAAMI compliant for those loads.

However, our loads like 9MM, 9MM+P, 45 acp, 45 acp+P, 40 S&W, 380 auto, etc., etc., etc. are all SAAMI compliant.

In the last 25 years, there have been huge leaps forward in propellant development. We can get higher velocities at lower pressures than ever before, but if folks are stuck on using the older powders they learned on, they are missing this boat. Unfortunately, many of these cutting-edge powders are not available in canister form for the shooting public, yet.”

 

[243winxb]

1,040 fps (379 ft. lbs.) -- S&W mod. 60, 2-inch. Buffalo Bore ammo.

This is very doable without the gas check, i think? Standard load data using HS-6 158 GR LSWC should be ok bumped up to +P?

Residue left when i fired 6.3 HS-6 with mag primers.

 

[JohnKSa]

Some of our loads do not have SAAMI standards. Loads such as 45 Colt+P, 9MM+P+, 45-70+P, 45 Super, 460 Rowland and there are many, many more, even though loading manuals produced by all the big bullet and powder manufacturers include data for creating such loads. If SAAMI does not even recognize such loads exist, then it would be impossible to make factory ammo that is SAAMI compliant for those loads.

Some points for creativity.

Of course the whole point is that SAAMI DOES have ammunition standards for at least some of the calibers they mention. The fact that BB chooses to make loads that don't comply with those standards and gives them slightly different names doesn't bring them into compliance. The bottom line is that regardless of how they spin it, at least some of the ammunition they're selling is made for calibers that have SAAMI standards but is not SAAMI compliant.

In the last 25 years, there have been huge leaps forward in propellant development. We can get higher velocities at lower pressures than ever before, but if folks are stuck on using the older powders they learned on, they are missing this boat. Unfortunately, many of these cutting-edge powders are not available in canister form for the shooting public, yet.”

It is certainly true that it is possible to load higher performance ammo while still staying within pressure limits. The key is that we are seeing ammunition manufacturers do exactly that--they're making higher performance ammunition while still staying within the SAAMI limits. And yet they don't quite seem to measure up to what we see from some of the "boutique" manufacturers.

Maybe it's true that these boutique ammo makers have access to special powders and technology that companies like Hornady, Federal, CCI, Winchester and Remington can't get their hands on, but somehow, to me, at least, that explanation just doesn't seem like the most likely one.

 

[StrawHat]

In the 30s, S&W introduced the 38/44 as an improvement on the 38 S&W Special. It was to be used only in large framed revolvers, the S&W N frame and the comparable Colt revolvers. It was loaded to higher pressures than the standard fodder suitable for the K frame. Are folks comparing the current 38 S&W Special to this ammunition?


Kevin

 

[Jonesy814]

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.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.

That should have read 38 acp, not 380

 

[Autodidactic]

This site is a good source of info, thanks everyone.

Now ya'll got me worried about my Buffalo Bore +P in my 642 Airweight, HA! I've only shot maybe 20 rounds of the BB +P 125 grain out of it, but it's brutal. The 158 is supposed to be worse, which I also have. Normally I shoot standard pressure, wadcutters, or more normal +P (less than the standard pressure).

 

[Autodidactic]

Some points for creativity.

Of course the whole point is that SAAMI DOES have ammunition standards for at least some of the calibers they mention. The fact that BB chooses to make loads that don't comply with those standards and gives them slightly different names doesn't bring them into compliance. The bottom line is that regardless of how they spin it, at least some of the ammunition they're selling is made for calibers that have SAAMI standards but is not SAAMI compliant. It is certainly true that it is possible to load higher performance ammo while still staying within pressure limits. The key is that we are seeing ammunition manufacturers do exactly that--they're making higher performance ammunition while still staying within the SAAMI limits. And yet they don't quite seem to measure up to what we see from some of the "boutique" manufacturers.

Maybe it's true that these boutique ammo makers have access to special powders and technology that companies like Hornady, Federal, CCI, Winchester and Remington can't get their hands on, but somehow, to me, at least, that explanation just doesn't seem like the most likely one.

So you are saying they may be "cheating" by loading it above SAAMI pressures? Is the BB safe in an airweight? They say it is if +P rated.

 

[Jim Watson]

Isn’t .38 Super pretty much .38 ACP +P+?

There is no spec for .380 ACP +P.

 

[JohnKSa]

So you are saying they may be "cheating" by loading it above SAAMI pressures?

I really don't have any way to test their ammo, so I can't say. But I certainly am skeptical that a small ammo manufacturer has access to special powders that none of the major companies do. It's not like they're making their own gun powder--they have to buy it from a powder supplier and there's no reason that powder supplier wouldn't sell to the other companies too.

Is the BB safe in an airweight? They say it is if +P rated.

With liability the way it is, I can't imagine that they would be in business if they were blowing up guns.

I think it's "safe" in the sense that it's unlikely to turn your handgun into a grenade. I do think that if you like that gun a lot, you won't shoot any more of that ammo through it than you have to. I think Buffalobore would agree. Here's the caveat from their website on the "Heavy .38Spl +P".

These 38 SPL +P loads are generating low-end 357 Magnum, ballistics. If you have an older or more fragile 38 SPL, or if you are recoil sensitive, consider using our HVY Standard Pressure 38 SPL ammunition.

That should have read 38 acp, not 380

As Jim points out, there's no SAAMI +P designation for the .38 ACP/ .38 Automatic either. There is a cartridge that has the same dimensions and is much hotter, but it is called the .38 Super +P Automatic or the .38 Super Automatic +P. How's that for confusing?

It is true that when the .38ACP was introduced in 1900 that it was much hotter than it is today and they did dial things back a little. But the change didn't come in the 1970s, it came very early on (1920s?--certainly before the .38Super came out in 1929) when it was found that the Colt 1900 pistols would not stand up to the abuse the ammo was doling out.

 

[Pudge]

While the psi/cup comparison is interesting, all the .38 special loads listed in Lyman's 49th Edition are cup. I have a Speer manual from 1987 that lists standard pressure as 18,900 cup and +p at 22,400 cup. For the same powders, loads are reduced in the much newer Lyman manual, and never does a pressure reach 20,000 cup. The heaviest 158 grain Blue Dot charge in Lyman is 6.7 grains for 15,700 cup and 711fps. Speer's top is 8.4 grains for 1051fps (no pressure listed, but no loads exceed +p pressures).

 

[Autodidactic]

I really don't have any way to test their ammo, so I can't say. But I certainly am skeptical that a small ammo manufacturer has access to special powders that none of the major companies do. It's not like they're making their own gun powder--they have to buy it from a powder supplier and there's no reason that powder supplier wouldn't sell to the other companies too.With liability the way it is, I can't imagine that they would be in business if they were blowing up guns.

I think it's "safe" in the sense that it's unlikely to turn your handgun into a grenade. I do think that if you like that gun a lot, you won't shoot any more of that ammo through it than you have to. I think Buffalobore would agree. Here's the caveat from their website on the "Heavy .38Spl +P".

These 38 SPL +P loads are generating low-end 357 Magnum, ballistics. If you have an older or more fragile 38 SPL, or if you are recoil sensitive, consider using our HVY Standard Pressure 38 SPL ammunition.

As Jim points out, there's no SAAMI +P designation for the .38 ACP/ .38 Automatic either. There is a cartridge that has the same dimensions and is much hotter, but it is called the .38 Super +P Automatic or the .38 Super Automatic +P. How's that for confusing?

It is true that when the .38ACP was introduced in 1900 that it was much hotter than it is today and they did dial things back a little. But the change didn't come in the 1970s, it came very early on (1920s?--certainly before the .38Super came out in 1929) when it was found that the Colt 1900 pistols would not stand up to the abuse the ammo was doling out.

I know I'm dumb, but why did they make a .38 ACP if 9mm kinda is the same thing. What was the main difference? Isn't a 9mm a .38 ACP functionally, i.e. 9mm long? Or .380 ACP existing. Is the .38 ACP actually .38 caliber?

 

[mcb]

Isn’t .38 Super pretty much .38 ACP +P+?

There is no spec for .380 ACP +P.

SAAMI has two cartridge here. 38 Automatic and 38 Super Automatic +P, both cartridge reference the same page in the SAAMI spec for dimensions of the cartridge and chamber (standard and test). The only difference are the working pressures.

38 Automatic MAP: 23,000 CUP / 26,500 psi (trans)

38 Super Automatic +P MAP: 33,000 CUP / 36,500 psi (trans)

 

[JohnKSa]

...why did they make a .38 ACP if 9mm kinda is the same thing. What was the main difference? Isn't a 9mm a .38 ACP functionally, i.e. 9mm long?

9mm was designed in 1901 by Luger. The .38ACP had already been around for a year or so by then.

So the question is, Why did Luger come up with the 9mm when the .38ACP was already around?

The answer to that is he already had a gun to put the cartridge into, the Luger. That gun was designed to handle his previous cartridge, the .30 Luger (7.65x21mm) that he invented in 1898. He could have just changed over to the .38ACP, but it was a longer cartridge (9x23mm) and wouldn't have fit into his pistol without significant changes.

 

[mcb]

I know I'm dumb, but why did they make a .38 ACP if 9mm kinda is the same thing. What was the main difference? Isn't a 9mm a .38 ACP functionally, i.e. 9mm long? Or .380 ACP existing. Is the .38 ACP actually .38 caliber?

380 ACP (Technically 380 Automatic) and 9mm though similar in caliber are fairly different cartridges. 380 ACP case is 9 x 17mm and operates at rough half the pressure of 9mm Luger that uses a longer case 9 x 19mm. 380 Automatic has a MAP of 21,500 psi (trans) where 9mm Luger has a MAP of 35,000 psi (trans). 380 Automatic at the time it was designed was designed to be the most powerful handgun cartridge that could be built into a reasonable sized blowback operated handgun.

 

[Autodidactic]

380 ACP (Technically 380 Automatic) and 9mm though similar in caliber are fairly different cartridges. 380 ACP case is 9 x 17mm and operates at rough half the pressure of 9mm Luger that uses a longer case 9 x 19mm. 380 Automatic has a MAP of 21,500 psi (trans) where 9mm Luger has a MAP of 35,000 psi (trans). 380 Automatic at the time it was designed was designed to be the most powerful handgun cartridge that could be built into a reasonable sized blowback operated handgun.

Right I know about the .380 ACP being shorter and lower pressure. But, I was trying to figure out how the .38 ACP and Super came about. I read a Wiki on it a few minutes ago. Sounds like .38 Super is legit.

 

[fxvr5]

The answer to that is he already had a gun to put the cartridge into, the Luger. That gun was designed to handle his previous cartridge, the .30 Luger (7.65x21mm) that he invented in 1898. He could have just changed over to the .38ACP, but it was a longer cartridge (9x23mm) and wouldn't have fit into his pistol without significant changes.

The case length is not the proper metric here, it's the cartridge overall length. (Not x21 (or x19) versus x23.) The 30 Luger OAL is 1.175" (and 9mm is 1.169"), and the 38 Auto is 1.280". I make this distinction because you can use a x23mm case in a gun built for a cartridge with a 1.169" OAL. Example, the 960 Rowland was designed for a 9mm Glock 19. It's case is 9X23 Comp.

 

[Palladan44]

Just my personal opinion:

38s are the same. They burn a bit cleaner these days due to advancements in powder (thank you WW-231) and more use of jacketed or plated bullets vs. the almost exclusive use of swaged lead bullets of the past in. 38 specials. (Old 38 specials were dirty almost like 22LR or 12 Gauges) lots of grit.

357s in general, are weaker than the past. But there's a reason for it.
BUT BUT BUT some are the same or actually hotter than the past. Buffalo Bore or Underwood would be an example. These examples are marketed for hunting, in the hot form. They are in fact HOTTER than the old-day loads. By hotter, I mean higher velocity with the same grain bullet.

Ammo marketed for personal protection in caliber 357 magnum are going to try to adhere to gel/penetration protocols...which 357 magnum in full power forms, well.....are a bit too much.
Recoil, muzzle blast, accuracy, quickness of follow up shots, flash, etc. Are all excessive in smaller carry guns, from my experience. I wouldn't want to carry them for the above reasons.
357 Ammo Manufacturers all know this too, so loads designed for "personal protection", which is a good amount of the marketshare, are "Watered down" so they have better performance in several different areas. It's all for a very good reasons.
To simply call them "weak" is being extremely obtuse.

I've replicated as best as I could the original Kieth 357 (38/44 actually) loads using Herco 2400 in a 38 case, with a 158 LSWC crimped in the rear grease groove......They're stout, but not quite as stout as a WW296 load in a full length 357 Magnum case, which most modern factory ammo marketed for hunting is about that same level of velocity....and are just plain rediculous to fire from short barreled, smaller frame 357s.

357 loads of the past had nothing different than what's available today, in fact today has an edge over the past, if you want that kind of power.. Advancements in chemistry, and introduction of powders like AA#9, Lil Gun, WW-296, 300-MP (and the commercial equivalents that remain nameless)
all give the 357 magnum an edge today. All this being said, published load data tends to get more conservative with time too!!!

The original 357 Magnum was designed in 6" and 8 3/8" barrels, in an N frame Smith and Wesson...take that into account as well.

Chronographs and pressure testing equipment of the past were what they were. And nobody (unless they had a science lab) could argue them. Is it possible that manufacturers exaggerated the velocities in order to compete with other manufacturers??? There were no you-tubers busting out ammo Manufacturers on velocities, because nobody in the general public had a chronograph.

357 loads can be wild....and the myths can be even Wilder!!!!....And they didnt have Alliant Power-Pro 300 MP back in the day, either. Some say that the old recipe of 2400 powder was hotter than that of today's and they are correct.....it was slightly denser and slower burning....BUT not as much so as WW296 or 300 MP.

Yes, they dropped moose back in the day with 357 Magnums. And you still could today just the same, but since we now have 44s, 454s 460s and 500s it wouldn't occur to anyone to try.... From 1935-1955, the 357 magnum was "the most powerful handgun in the world".

The 357 magnum has had a change in "Niche" over its 86 year lifespan, and with that comes changes in load offerings. Lawyers may have had a say in it... But, you can get traditional full power (or slightly more than) out of the 357 magnum cartridge fairly easily with certain offerings or handloads.

 

[Master Blaster]

Could the Remington high speed load be .38/.44?
S&W made .38/.44 heavy duty and outdoorsman revolvers into the 1960's .38 special size ammo at near .357 pressure for the N frame .38 heavy duty.

 

[Speedo66]

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

Test methods change, same thing happened with auto horsepower ratings.

Manufacturers used to test engines on a stand, hooked to headers, tuned to the 9th degree, with no accessories attached, like A/C compressor, alternator, power steering, etc.

Finally the gov't called them on it, and real ratings appeared, with a drop of almost a third in horsepower. Attached to cat converters, you had Corvettes in the '80's rated at 180 hp.

I bought some Super Vels in the early '70's, you could definitely feel the difference with the test bed being your hand compared to stock ammo, especially with a J frame.

 

[JohnKSa]

The case length is not the proper metric here, it's the cartridge overall length. (Not x21 (or x19) versus x23.) The 30 Luger OAL is 1.175" (and 9mm is 1.169"), and the 38 Auto is 1.280". I make this distinction because you can use a x23mm case in a gun built for a cartridge with a 1.169" OAL. Example, the 960 Rowland was designed for a 9mm Glock 19. It's case is 9X23 Comp.

Correct. However, the case length does give us pretty good insight into the story in this particular situation. The .38ACP OAL is 1.28" which is 2.8mm longer than OAL of the 9mm while the case difference alone is about 3.75mm. The .38ACP has the bullet seated about 1mm deeper into its case than the 9mm, relatively speaking, but that still leaves it about 3mm longer overall.

Could Luger have designed a round that would work in his gun and still used a 23mm case? Yes, as you say the Rowland cartridge is an example of a cartridge like that. It leaves only about 1/4" of the OAL left over for the bullet which might cause feeding issues in an old design like the Luger. But I think the operative point is that if Luger had come up with a round that used a 23mm case and fit into his gun, it still wouldn't be the .38ACP. It would be some round with a different spec designed to fit the Luger rather than to fit the standard spec for the round.

 

[243winxb]

In the 30s, S&W introduced the 38/44 as an improvement on the 38 S&W Special. It was to be used only in large framed revolvers, the S&W N frame and the comparable Colt revolvers. It was loaded to higher pressures than the standard fodder suitable for the K frame. Are folks comparing the current 38 S&W Special to this ammunition?

Yes, the Hi-Speed is for the N frame. I learned something today. Ty. I should know this, but women & drag racing got in the way, at the time.

Googled https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_&_Wesson_.38/44-

Smith & Wesson .38/44 identifies a series of 6 shot, double-action, Smith & Wesson N-frame revolvers chambered for the .38 Special cartridge loaded to higher pressures than were considered appropriate for earlier revolvers chambered for that cartridge

The 38-44 is the N frame gun. It shot the 38 Special Hi-Speed ammo. Correct me if wrong.


Googled- "1964 Remington catalog pdf"

 

[Autodidactic]

Test methods change, same thing happened with auto horsepower ratings.

Manufacturers used to test engines on a stand, hooked to headers, tuned to the 9th degree, with no accessories attached, like A/C compressor, alternator, power steering, etc.

Finally the gov't called them on it, and real ratings appeared, with a drop of almost a third in horsepower. Attached to cat converters, you had Corvettes in the '80's rated at 180 hp.

I bought some Super Vels in the early '70's, you could definitely feel the difference with the test bed being your hand compared to stock ammo, especially with a J frame.

Right, I thought of the horsepower inflation or imprecise measurement while reading this thread.

As to Super Vels, I like the new ones I bought. 90 grain, 1300 FPS. For hyped-up .38, they are manageable out of an airweight, far more so than the Buffalo Bores and Underwoods.

But alas, it doesn't do that great in ballistics gel.

In this video, stellar expansion but insufficient penetration:

Super Vel Ammunition, .38 Special +P "Super Snub" 90 gr. JHP Gel Test - YouTube

Super Vel .38 Special+P "Super Snub" - YouTube
Hitting 1300 odd FPS in a snubbie.

Super Vel .38 Special+P "Super Snub" Part 2 - 4" Barrel - YouTube

Over 1500 FPS in a 4 inch barrel. Fragments in target.

Obsolete or Old School Wisdom? .38spl Super Vel +P 90gr JHP - YouTube

 

[Palladan44]

Yes, the Hi-Speed is for the N frame. I learned something today. Ty. I should know this, but women & drag racing got in the way, at the time.

Googled https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_&_Wesson_.38/44- The 38-44 is the N frame gun. It shot the 38 Special Hi-Speed ammo. Correct me if wrong.


Googled- "1964 Remington catalog pdf"

View attachment 1051286 View attachment 1051287

Cool info here. Reminds me of the warnings Buffalo Bore puts on certain 357 and 44 Magnum Ammunition stating the ammo should only be used in certain Firearms, such as Ruger, Dan Wesson, and a couple others.

That .38 "Hi Speed" stuff appears somewhere in between a .38 +P+ and the .38/44 in power. I believe they did away with that pretty quickly since it was such an easy engineering control to lengthen the case by a bit (so it couldn't physically be loaded into the old models) and just call it a new cartridge....rather than beat up all of the old, small frame .38 guns that were in existence, or worse, betting on that the users would read the "fine print".

I believe the .38/44 -N frame Smith and Wesson was manufactured until 1966, which is really surprising, due to the 357 having already existed for 31 years. But, we all know quite well that there is tons of Cartridge overlap out there, all for different reasons, that was just another example.
The 38/44 was not only obsolete by 1935, but also a liability.