Plus-P 38 special in older guns

A very timely thread. My grandson wants to borrow some of my
snubbys to teach a girlfriend how to shoot. S&W Model 10-5, S&W 642-1,
and Colt's Agent. I was concerned about him maybe buying some +P.
I don't think it would be a problem for the 10-5 or the 642-1, but I think
I will let the Agent stay home.

I'm getting something of a nostalgia buzz from this thread.

OK, back when, chronographs were owned by ammo manufacturers, a few labs and the DOD. SAAMI practice allowed whoever developed a cartridge to establish the standards for it, including the length of test barrels. IIRC, the .38 Spl test barrel was 8 in and the .357 was 10 inch. So, most chronograph testing was done with test barrels in universal receivers. Once chronographs became more widely available, it was obvious that real world velocities out of real guns wasn't close to that claimed by the factories. SAAMI finally stepped in and handgun velocity tests were done with real world barrel lengths and revolver test barrels had vents to duplicate the barrel cylinder gap. Claimed velocities dropped.

Now then, about pressure. Back in the 1980's piezo electric pressure sensors replaced the old copper crusher system. The greater sensitivity of the new system allowed real time pressure readings and some loads that were safe under the old system showed short term pressure spikes above the SAAMI limits and had to be backed down. IIRC, 200 gr SWC bullets in .45 ACP load data showed some frightening spikes.

Finally, a lot of folks here seem to believe that each and every cartridge is loaded right up to SAAMI max. That's just not true. The SAAMI max most folks refer to is the Maximum Average Pressure of an ammunition lot. The vast majority of the ammunition makers load to a velocity spec slightly under the MAP. This makes sure that the MAP of however many thousand round lots of whatever stays under the SAAMI specification.

This may have started as an ancient thread, but this very subject comes up regularly, always with pretty much the same responses. Seldom, if ever, does anyone mention shooting skill, something far more important than another 100 fps in a snub nose or other revolver. Nor do these folks frequently mention quick recovery from recoil, or severe muzzle flash and blast. Shooting +P loads, particularly in a lightweight snub nose is a handful, to say the very least.

It's hard to imagine what you can't do with standard pressure ammo that you can do with +P. I'm not an easy chair gunfighting theorist consumed with jello testing, FBI reports, and other trivialities of questionable worth, but I do like to shoot a lot, particularly .38 Special revolvers from snub noses on up.

I'm still working on becoming a good shooter using standard pressure- equivalent handloads with a 158 grain cast semi-wadcutter bullet. If I do become a skilled shooter someday and feel a real need to move up to +P loads, I may do that, but probably not out of necessity.

I carried a .357 Magnum service revolver for years. My backup guns were .38 Specials, sometimes I carried +P ammo in my backups, sometimes not. In deference to my 1963-vintage S&W Model 12-2, the only .38 ammo I carry now is the standard pressure Winchester Defend 130 grain JHP. Look at the Lucky Gunner Labs results and you'll probably see why.

The only other thing I have to say about this is good luck finding any.

I think what you pay for......

medic15al said:

Every Batch of BB 38 Spl ammo I've chronoed has met the advertised velocities. their loads are within SAAMI pressure specs, but are right at them. Lawyers and product liability has ammo makers scared of lawsuits and the ammo is loaded under specs.

A batch of 1951 38 spl RNL police issue load tested by a agency I worked for at the time showed that ammo was at at 21,000 psi spec, while the latest (2004) Rem 158 LSWC-HP +P was at 17,500 psi ave.

This was a large security and armored car agency that was limited to .38 spl revolver only by the state law at the time. Now 9mm is allowed as an option.

Click to expand...

I think what you pay for with primo ammo is very tight quality control and testing, where they can afford to cut the safety factor to a minimum and produce ammo the is just within saami specs.

New subscriber to this forum and a novice gun owner. I purchased a Smith & Wesson 38 special (model 10-5 with 3 inch barrel) about 30 years ago for basic home protection. Its rarely been used (local shooting range a couple times). After reading through this thread I assume its OK to load +P ammo (home defense load) in the gun only if needed to be used for protection. I can't really find non +P home defense loads. About every 10 years I take it to my local gun shop to be cleaned and test shot and every time they say the gun is in good condition (as it should be since its had less than about 200 shots fired).

cristphoto said:

New subscriber to this forum and a novice gun owner. I purchased a Smith & Wesson 38 special (model 10-5 with 3 inch barrel) about 30 years ago for basic home protection. Its rarely been used (local shooting range a couple times). After reading through this thread I assume its OK to load +P ammo (home defense load) in the gun only if needed to be used for protection. I can't really find non +P home defense loads. About every 10 years I take it to my local gun shop to be cleaned and test shot and every time they say the gun is in good condition (as it should be since its had less than about 200 shots fired).

Click to expand...

A Modern K-frame which is what your Model 10 is can handle all the factory +P .38 loads would could afford to feed it. Go easy on the .38-44 level loads in quantity, though.

Thanks for the reply - reassuring to hear. Is a 38-44 load a +P? Not familiar with the caliber. Again novice here.

cristphoto said:

Thanks for the reply - reassuring to hear. Is a 38-44 load a +P? Not familiar with the caliber. Again novice here.

Click to expand...

The .38-44 load was a higher pressure .38 Special cartridge dating from before the .357 magnum that was intended for the heavier N-frame Smiths chambered for .38 Specials that could handle the increased power. Thus the name - .38 for a .44 frame gun.

The "Heavy Duty" N-frame Smiths designed for it were made well past the half-century mark. There were also the adjustable-sighted "Outdoorsman" revolvers that could handle this round.

These were the predecessors of the .357 magnum guns, and many Heavy Duties and Outdoorsmans were re-chambered for the slightly longer .357 round and handled it easily.

Here's an article I did on the Heavy Duty revolver:

Examining the .38/44 Heavy Duty (Model 20) revolver...

John

BlueLineNYPD said:

I have posted my question which is - Can I shoot +P Ammo in a S&W 640 Centennial that was purchased in 1991? in many forums and got different answers. What I will say is that when I asked S&W that same exact question (3 different times), I was told by all that S&W DOES NOT RECOMMEND using +P Ammo in ANY of their guns produced before 1997. I myself (as another member posted in this same thread) am a retired Police Officer who was given +P Ammo by my department to use in my 640. I sent the gun to S&W a few months ago just to get looked over being that it’s 30 years old, not because I’ve had any issues. The gun is currently still there and I’m being told that the cylinder needs to be replaced because of expanded chambers due to the use of +P Ammo. Whether that’s true or not I don’t know but what I am going to do is use standard pressure for practice and +P for carry.

Click to expand...

Have you had any further follow up on this brother?

My 640 No Dash is from '94, and like yours, all it ever shot was +P from the factory and for the same reason. Also like yours, mine seems perfect, and I would have no reason to think it was otherwise.

Smith is saying that one or more chambers are out of spec diameter-wise? That seems very hard to understand with a stainless cylinder, especially when the early 640s were +P+ rated (-I've expressed my theory on that here before) and that the same cylinders in other guns (e.g. the 642) are +P rated.

I'd be interested in hearing BigBoku's thoughts on this as well.

Time to put up the BB signal!

Ah yes;
the Quest for the perfect SD bullet/load for the little 38 special revolver.

Over the years I have tested lead in 125, 148 and 158 gr weights as well as several makes and types of 110, 125, 135, 140 and 158 gr JHP and SP bullets to see what turned out to be the best SD load for my little friends.

I have piles of paper with holes in them that go from tight little groups, all the way to "Swiss Cheese" posters and even some where the bullet missed the whole darn target!!

Well, right now I am looking at the other side of the coin and not looking for maximum fps, just a nice low recoil load that will work and place the bullet in Gel, within the FBI spec's and meet the speeds of factory loads, that are safe, even in my small J frame revolver.

I am working on the new 130gr Federal HST JHP bullet and am almost through with my testing. Today or tomorrow, I will go out and fire my loads for my "Finals"........... I hope.

Later.

transit said:

Have you had any further follow up on this brother?

My 640 No Dash is from '94, and like yours, all it ever shot was +P from the factory and for the same reason. Also like yours, mine seems perfect, and I would have no reason to think it was otherwise.

Smith is saying that one or more chambers are out of spec diameter-wise? That seems very hard to understand with a stainless cylinder, especially when the early 640s were +P+ rated (-I've expressed my theory on that here before) and that the same cylinders in other guns (e.g. the 642) are +P rated.

I'd be interested in hearing BigBoku's thoughts on this as well.

Time to put up the BB signal!

Click to expand...

This would be a first for me, I also have a 90s vintage No Dash that has been fed nothing but +P Duty Ammo and has no discernible wear on the internal or external components of the weapon.

Over my 20 years at Rodmans Neck I have seen plenty of model 36, 60 and Colt DS revolvers that had timing issues which can be attributed to the +P duty ammunition diet (especially the Colt DS). I also have seen more than my share of 640 revolvers which in my experience are the M1A Tanks of the J Frame line. I have personally shot ALOT of +P ammo through my personal 640 and several of the Department owned 640 revolvers that have been in the armory forever. The Department owned revolvers all have unknown +P round counts and I have never seen anything that would require a cylinder replacement directly related to +P ammunition.

Even with the use of duty ammo for off duty qualification the 100 rounds a year over 20 years would only add up to 2000 rounds which is still below the 3000 rounds of +P ammunition factory rating of post 1972 Colt DS revolvers.

Again, I am hard pressed to attribute the cylinder replacement to excessive use of +P ammunition as there are many other parts that would also be in need of replacement a lot faster then the cylinder.

Just my 2 cents worth, Stay safe!

BigBoku said:

This would be a first for me, I also have a 90s vintage No Dash that has been fed nothing but +P Duty Ammo and has no discernible wear on the internal or external components of the weapon.

Over my 20 years at Rodmans Neck I have seen plenty of model 36, 60 and Colt DS revolvers that had timing issues which can be attributed to the +P duty ammunition diet (especially the Colt DS). I also have seen more than my share of 640 revolvers which in my experience are the M1A Tanks of the J Frame line. I have personally shot ALOT of +P ammo through my personal 640 and several of the Department owned 640 revolvers that have been in the armory forever. The Department owned revolvers all have unknown +P round counts and I have never seen anything that would require a cylinder replacement directly related to +P ammunition.

Even with the use of duty ammo for off duty qualification the 100 rounds a year over 20 years would only add up to 2000 rounds which is still below the 3000 rounds of +P ammunition factory rating of post 1972 Colt DS revolvers.

Again, I am hard pressed to attribute the cylinder replacement to excessive use of +P ammunition as there are many other parts that would also be in need of replacement a lot faster then the cylinder.

Just my 2 cents worth, Stay safe!

Click to expand...

Have you ever handled a loose as a goose revolver with end shake, sloppy rotation, or much yoke play?

stiab said:

I think most of the old ads significantly overstated the velocities on factory loads back then. I can't speak to published data from 1900, but the info from the factories in the 1960's and 1970's was surely exagerated. There is a thread on this forum from a year or so ago where several LEO from that era (including myself) expressed this opinion. That changed in the 1978/79 timeframe with the new testing requirements for revolvers ammo. This may be why for many years the Secret Service loaded their own ammo in the basement of the Treasury building in DC. Just my opinion.

Click to expand...

Yes! As recently as the 1980's or so most of the published testing (velocity and pressure) was done in laboratory test barrels, frequently 10 or 12 inches in length and mounted in a closed-breach mechanism. In more recent years we have seen testing done with barrels down to 4", and in the case of revolver calibers these test barrels may be vented to simulate the barrel-cylinder gap typical to revolvers. Major differences in results!

When comparing results for .38 Special ammo fired in nominal 2" barrels the major differences are not in velocities, but in muzzle blast, muzzle flash, and recoil. Just not enough barrel length to achieve full ignition prior to the bullet exiting the muzzle. A load that may regularly deliver 1000FPS in a 6" revolver might develop less than 800FPS in the snub-length guns.

I have owned a S&W Model 37 Airweight Chief Special for many years. I use standard pressure .38 Special ammo exclusively. Any minor increases in velocity are not worth the added blast and recoil, in my opinion.

pantannojack said:

Have you ever handled a loose as a goose revolver with end shake, sloppy rotation, or much yoke play?

Click to expand...

Our qualifications are semi annual with all firearms being presented for inspection prior to shooting. As is commonly known, most cops are not avid shooters so the vast majority of off duty/back up weapons are shot 50 Rounds of service ammunition twice a year and do not exhibit any of those issues.

I have of course also come across revolvers that have one of or all the problems you mentioned which were typically the model 36, 60 or DS and not the 640, 64 or Ruger SPNY.

I also have to say that some of those revolvers issues were not ammunition related but impact related with hard objects.

As a avid shooter with +P duty ammunition readily available for practice my Model 36 and Colt DS have needed some TLC in regards to timing a few times over the years where my 640 has not.

Other than the above the 36 and DS have never needed anything replaced and have fired thousands of +P rounds.

It’s not to say that a 640 is infallible my point is that other parts would exhibit a need for repair and or replacement just as you described before just the cylinder as stated.

I also retired my Colt DS from any +P ammunition long ago when I still had hair.

pantannojack said:

Have you ever handled a loose as a goose revolver with end shake, sloppy rotation, or much yoke play?

Click to expand...

Back in 1959 my father had a S&W M10 that was so old and beat up from LE service that I was amazed that it could still hold the cylinder shut !!

Yet it cold still hit a target at 25 yards with standard 38 special lead ammo.

Not saying that it was old but...
the bluing was sort of a brown color.

Nevada Ed said:

...I am working on the new 130gr Federal HST JHP bullet and am almost through with my testing. Today or tomorrow, I will go out and fire my loads for my "Finals"........... I hope.

Later.

Click to expand...

-And I am REALLY interested in this report!