There you have it. My so-called "learned paper" on the results of the tests conducted on June 15th. My elbows have almost healed over. Some observations:

Lots of eye-opening stuff here. First up for consideration is the "magic ammo," Buffalo Bore's +P 158 load. Did I mention to y'all that it is hot? I cannot see how they do it! Empty cases just dribble out of cylinders. Primers don't look like they've had a bad case of the gas. Handily beats any wild handloading creation I've ever concocted. Probably exceeds the old .38-44 high-velocity load. Recoil is heavy but not really as bad as one would expect. Buffalo Bore caused even the long 8 3/8-inch Model 14 to torque a bit when fired and the N-Frame Model 27 was lively. I used a J-Frame Smith & Wesson Model 36 Chief's Special for the 2-inch portion of the test 30 years ago and it was a bear to shoot with various heavy loads. The 2-inch Model 10 I used on that Tuesday was much more manageable; an old softy by comparison. I was glad to have it along to use for testing this stuff. It is unimaginable that a 2-inch .38 snub can yield 400 ft. /lbs of energy with any load and it just gets better and better with longer barrels: 460 ft/lbs. from a 4-inch, 500 ft/lbs. from a 6-inch, and fully 580 ft/lbs. from an 8 3/8-inch! Velocities stayed pretty tight and didn't go all over the place.

SuperVel is still hot stuff. It also exhibited the flattest primers of the day. Velocity performance wasn't very tight overall and there was a lot of partially burnt powder crumbs getting all over everything each time I extracted a cylinder-full of cases and put them back in the box. Recoil paled in comparison with both the Buffalo Bore and the 200 grain handload that immediately preceded it on each revolver test.

I don't take light 110-125 grain bullets seriously enough in the .38 Special. I've not done a lot of testing with them. The PMC stuff was several years old and is now discontinued I believe. This performed about typical for the breed in my view. The light bullet +P loads offer neither the bullet weight nor the velocity to become a meaningful choice for the .38 Special in my view. I ought to obtain and test some of the latest and greatest ammo offerings in the 110-125 grain weight category of +P .38 Special ammunition. I hate to invest the money in the ammo just to burn it up and figure the newer offerings still won't exactly "set the woods on fire." I'm sure expansion characteristics are improved but I'll still take my chances with old technology of heavy, sharp shouldered lead semi-wadcutter bullets.

I had picked up a fresh box of Remington 148 grain target ammunition from the local Higginbotham's a few weeks ago just for this test. It turned in a nice performance. It seemed consistent through each revolver used.

Look at the interplay between the 4, 5, and 6 inch barrels. The Remington 148 grain load and the Sellier & Bellot 158 grain FMJ load gave more velocity from the 4-inch than the 5-inch. The 5-inch beat the 6-inch with the Bullseye fueled handload and the 5-inch came close to catching the 6-inch with the 2 different Winchester +P 158 grain loads and the Remington +P 158 grain load.

The .38 Special "walks and talks" when fired through the long-nosed 8 3/8-inch barrel. Now if only there was some way to conceal all that length of artillery.

SuperVel, Starfire, and the cheapo Independence brands all seemed more prone to wild velocity swings. For that matter the Winchester +P 158 grain loads threw a bullet that was "out there" on occasion, especially the ammunition in the gray box. Remington +P 158 grain was only fair. Perhaps these performance loads can't be expected to shoot like target ammo. Perhaps the guy running this test doesn't know what he's talking about. I've always considered any load that stayed under 50 fps spread in revolvers to be good.

I intend to expand this test to include some additional loads. I'd particularly like to test the Speer "short-barrel" loading...in the longer barrels, hah.