Over on another forum, I mentioned that I have been shooting 130 grn FMJ in my 1940s M&P and Colt Official Police. I was advised that the FMJ could be hurting my bore because it is harder than LRN. I just assumed the lead would make cleaning more of a nightmare. I doubt I'll be shooting more than 2-300 rounds per year through either of them. Should I start with the LRN?

Why is FMJ good for military weapons? Those weapons see hundreds of thousands of rounds, right? Is it just a revolver thing? If so, what about my 1917 Army?

Just curious about what this group of experts has to say.

The 130 gr fmj will not hurt your older colts & smith & wessons.

The military uses them for its own reasons. Long story short, the army has to use fmj. Police agencies, civilians can use non-fm.

__________________
and what his trumpet saith

For combat and overseas use, FMJ complies with international conventions. Stateside guards can use HP.

I didn't like the USAF issued 130gr FMJ in the Model 15 because accuracy beyond pitching distance was noticeably worse than ordinary 158gr RN or SWC. Still, the 130gr was good enough to shoot possibles in the USAF qualification course.

As to wearing your barrel out with 300 rounds a year of any commercial .38 cartridge.....your grandkids will still be shooting them.
The number one cause of barrel damage in military guns is shooting rapid fire with the barrel red hot, which is tough to do in a revolver.
Really easy in full auto to erode the barrel ahead of the chamber.

__________________
Science plus Art

The military uses FMJ because of the Hague Conventions and its prohibitions on expanding bullets. At .38 special velocities lead bullets are unlikely to cause a leading problem unless they are seriously undersize or the bore is rougher than a waterfront whore. Back when .38 special revolvers were in common use in the Army (aviators and female MPs, primarily), Ball, M41 was used in combat zones. Plain old 158 grain round nose lead ammunition was often issued to MP Stateside, just like was used by generations of city cops.

The 130 grain FMJ loading commonly available duplicates military M41 ball, which redifines anemic. It is not as stout as the .38 Long Colt that was chambered in the Army's 1892 series of revolvers.

Mostly, it is a matter of pole vaulting over mouse turds, either way. Lead bullets won't take any more effort to clean up after than the FMJ you are shooting now. Unless you are shooting the FMJ ball ammo by the rail car load, you are likely to cause more damage to the bore with a ****** cleaning rod.

As for the 1917, same story. The military put good old GI hard ball through them for the same reason they issued M41 ball, the Hague Conventions. Lots of folks have shot cast lead bullets through them as well.

Here is more info on Army Small Arms ammo http://www.koreanwaronline.com/history/Ammo/1.pdf

So expanding bullets are a no-no but you can blow clouds of poison gas at the opposition? Sounds fair. Thanks for the info.

Nope, poison gas was outlawed in 1926. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Genev...gue_Convention

But like many things, simply making it illegal doesn't mean people quit doing it if it suits their purpose.

Yes, but evidently the ammo was outlawed in 1899 or 1907. And it took them 8 years after WWI to add gas to the list. Odd thought process IMO.

Until the Germans used chlorine gas for the first time, just about a hundred years ago (Ypres, Belgium, 22 Apr 1915) they hadn't thought about it yet.

[QUOTE=old tanker;139051307]The military uses FMJ because of the Hague Conventions and its prohibitions on expanding bullets.


Not Quite. The Hague Convention of 1899 Article IV, 3 outlaws the use of bullets that can easily expand in the human body. However it only restricts signatory countries that are involved in declaired armed conflict with each other. Also the USA never signed Article IV ,3. As it seems extreamly unlikely that the USA will sign now or it will be in a declaired armed conflict one of the other signators. I suspect the reason that we always used FMJ because habit, cost, armor percing and reliability in automatic weapons. Alumni 3rd Armored Division, M60A3 crewmember. 1982-1985. I found out about this when I was reading about the Army adoption of a new pistol to replace the M9 and a cartridge more effective than the 9mm. An expanding 9 seems the answer.

[quote=Scott in NCal;139051605]I was on "The Rock" from 72 to 75. and I already had something that fired a cartridge more effective than 9mm.

The whole Hague issue came out of the fact that modern smokeless military cartridges could cause such incredible damage in comparison to the old slow blackpowder loads, with expanding bullets. At closer ranges, dum dums could create hydrostatic shock, as any hunter knows, and far out damaged the old, big, slow, black powder cartridges of yore, which in any case, weren't slouches in the killing department to begin with. Arguments have been made that some nations sought to give themselves an advantage in war by banning the other guy's bullet while making exemptions for his bullet. In the end, almost the entire west decided to go with the fact hat most civilized western combatants will quit fighting after being shot with high power rifle without the bullet expanding, and decided on being humane.

The US may not have signed, but like many international agreements and precedents, the US went with the flow, and agreed on following it anyways to not damage its image and relations with the international community. You may not be legally bound by international law, but nobody wants to be an outcast either, it also would put American troops in danger in war, where opposing nations may simply execute American soldiers for using expanding ammunition. Nothing like ending the rules of civilized warfare like raising the black flag and going no mercy; show no quarter, get no quarter, and all that.

The Hague Convention also let open nations to use expanding bullets on non nations, meaning putting down rebels and savages. I've heard reports here and there of troops in certain locals using non Hague ammunition where it was legal, but then again, you hear a lot of things. Armies that issue standard non expanding ball aren't usually going to go out of their way to acquire non standard ammunition. There were many situations in which dum dums would have saved lives, that's for sure. I read somewhere about Egyptian troops being given standard FMJ bullets for .303 British that failed them against Dervishers in Sudan, and the US troops fighting against determined and drugged up Filipino rebels are fine examples of where every last bit of firepower one can get can come in handy, and why nations reserved the right to use them in certain conditions.

In any case, after the thread derailing, let's try to get back on track. Low pressure, low velocity FMJ in your older revolvers won't hurt them. However, it is true on some level that lead bullets are better for them, to what effect is hard to determine. The other case for lead bullets in older revolvers is that some of them are not of exact dimensions, and softer lead bullets will often expand into the rifling and might improve accuracy. Definitely worth the time to try .

As stated above, the 130JHP won't hurt anything for the number you are shooting but you might see some accuracy (and minor financial) gains by shooting lead.
Similarly, for the few rounds you are shooting the lead won't be any more work to clean up. Perhaps even less since you don't have any copper to remove.

Lead is dirty and full metal jacket is not. I avoid LRNs in all my handguns. And at the rate you shoot those guns I agree, your grandkids will shoot them, too.

Now, about the Hague convention..........NAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And keep in mind, during WWII, it was 158 grain FMJ .38 Special ammunition that was issued, not 130 grain FMJ. That came about with the Air Force, which as we know, didn't start until 1947.

__________________
I believe in the wadcutter.

I have a Colt from the same era as yours. I shoot anything that says 38spl. It's shoots just fine. I don't worry about the fmj vs lead. Both work fine especially considering that today's mass produced 38spl is loaded down compared to the 60s, 70s, 80s when it was the #1 police and self defense round

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

I stick to lead bullet ammo in my older revolvers whether it's my
handloads or factory loads. I don't know about Colt but S&W has
stated that jacketed bullets will cause more bore wear. At 200-300
rds per year it's going to take a while to wear out your bore, or one
of mine, but I prefer shooting lead bullets for plinking loads anyway.
Hundreds of thousands of rounds through military weapons?, maybe
some guns like machine guns with replaceable barrels but not
revolvers. The 1917 models were used with jacketed .45 ACP ammo
because 1911 semi autos weren't being produced fast enough to
satisfy the demand. Barrel life wasn't a consideration back then with
the military arsenals in operation. Things are far different today and
the rifling in the old 1917 barrels is shallow and replacement barrels
are very hard to come by. I have a 1917 S&W and Colt and a 1937
Brazilian and shoot only lead bullets through them. The old revolvers
are quality guns but they are not immune to wear as some owners
seem to think. I prefer to treat them gently.

"And keep in mind, during WWII, it was 158 grain FMJ .38 Special ammunition that was issued, not 130 grain FMJ. That came about with the Air Force, which as we know, didn't start until 1947. "

The .38 Special ball ammunition from WWII did use a 158 grain FMJ bullet (same ballistics as the commercial load), and was obtained from Remington packed in commercial civilian boxes which did not have the normal index number. There was also red tracer, used for emergency signalling. Later, starting in the 1970s, the USAF used a fairly powerful .38 Special load, with somewhat higher performance than the M41. The early 130 grain USAF M41 loads were wimpy because of the infamously weak M13 revolver with aluminum alloy frames and cylinders. Later, after the M13 was eliminated, the M41 was brought back in a heavier loading with the same bullet, comparable to the commercial .38 Special load. There's always confusion because there are actually two different M41 loads.

By the way, the WWII Victory revolvers used a more wear-resistant steel alloy (AISI 1045) for barrels than all earlier S&W barrels, precisely because of the military's need to use jacketed bullets.

If you shoot enough 130 grin ball ammo to wear out a quality revolver, you've spent enough money on ammo to buy a very nice house!

Just buy another gun if it becomes an issue.

Shoot and enjoy.

As others have said, it would take more than a lifetime to wear out the bore of a modern revolver (which includes your 1940's S&W and Colt) with 300 rounds per year of a low pressure, low velocity cartridge like the 130 grain FMJ .38 Special. I think S&W's warning about jacketed bullets was about the .357 Magnum and is a technically true statement, but they don't say how many rounds you'd have to fire to wear out the barrel.

I shoot one of the oldest .38 Specials in existence (S&W .38 M&P, serial #225, shipped in 1899) and the bore still looks good. This is in spite of the fact that the nickel finish shows signs of black powder use and the previous owner did use 130 grain FMJ ammo in the gun. I only use swaged lead bullets in my own hand loads at 600-700 ft/sec., but the steel was much softer in these early revolvers.

About 99% of the time, standard velocity lead bullet loads will do anything you need done. And are both cheaper and easier on the gun than anything else.

Old tanker, like your knowledge of WW1, that Ypres gas attack/German offensive, was to disguise Germany's major offensive against the Russians on the Eastern Front (they even moved troops from Western Front to strengthen the German attack in the East - which ultimately made major gains for the Germans against the Russians)

Sorry, but concerning the topic. Those 130 fmjs are a great way to remove leading! I would use 3.2 grs Bullseye and 158 gr lead out of those old 38's.