This isn't intended as an attack on anyone, but I do have to mention frequent posts by another member whose posts you will probably recall! His often made assertion is that compared to ammunition sold 40 years or so ago, current ammunition is "dumbed down". He continues by saying that compared to this early ammunition, .38 Spl +P is comparable to this earlier factory standard ammunition.

Let's look at this situation by comparing early .38 Spl., specifically W-W 158 gr. LRN Luballoy that was the typical Police issue cartridge up until the advent of loads like the "FBI" load ca. 1972. It just so happens that I still have (had) a nearly full box of the W-W load that was manufactured in 1962-1963. I had about a dozen boxes of this ammunition which I have chronographed several times in the past several years. I have had this in my possession continuously since it was obtained ca. 1973-74. I also had a box of the equivalent Remington load since the late 1970s or so. Both have been shot over my Oehler 35P several times, from both the same and different revolvers.

Let's look at the results, starting with the original .38 Spl. load, 158 Lead bullet, 21.5 gr. FFFg Black powder, that I posted before. This is to establish a base line velocity range for the cartridge. All data was fired at 10' to center screen, not corrected to muzzle. Typical vel. loss at this range is 3-5 FPS, so this is not significant!

Lyman 158 RNFP "Cowboy" bullet, 21.5 FFFg, 5" M&P ca, 1918. Velocity Avg for 30 rounds, 798 FPS.

Same load, 6" Model 10-4 ca. 1964. Vel. Avg. for 6 rounds, 822 FPS.

Lets look at the W-W and R-P ammunition that was from 35 minimum (R-P) to 54 years (W-W) old. This should satisfy the 40 years ago criteria fairly well, don't you think?

Published velocity for the following loads was 855 FPS.

W-W 158 LRN "Luballoy", 6" Model 10-4, 826 FPS for 10 rd. sample. Statistically identical to the BP load above!

Same Load, Slightly cooler day, same 6" Model 10-4, 792 FPS for 12 round sample. (2" 10-5, same day, 712 FPS).

Same Load, 7 1/2" ca. 1928 Colt Officers Model Target, 764 FPS for 12 round sample.

Same Load, 1948 6" K-38, 738 FPS for 12 round sample.

Same Load, 6" Model 28-2, 798 FPS for 8 round sample.

R-P 158 LRN ca. 1980 or earlier, same 6" 10-4, 769 FPS for 10 round sample.

Same Load, 2" 10-5, 671 FPS for 12 round sample.

The point to this is that the highly touted ammunition from 40 plus years ago seems to significantly less potent than apparently has been assumed! Actual velocity also varies significantly when fired from different "real world" revolvers. The second observation, not just from the samples cited, but from many sessions over the past 25+ years where I have chronographed the same ammunition in several guns at the same session, is that usually the older revolvers, made pre-1955 usually, produce significantly lower velocities than similar revolvers made after model numbering began ca. 1957-8. I have several 4-5" revolvers that are almost always "faster" than my older 6-6 1/2" revolvers when fired with the same ammunition.

Unfortunately I cannot find any R-P or W-W 158 LRN ammunition of current production to compare directly with the older ammunition. But, if current standard velocity 158 LRN Ammunition is much weaker that the tested ammunition, it is really anemic!!!!

Now, let's look at the second part of the famous assertion, that modern +P .38 Spl. is little more than the earlier .38 Spl. Standard Pressure loads documented above. There is no modern .38 Spl. +P ammunition equivalent to the 158 gr. LRN load, so we have to look at the classic "FBI Load" to compare. Same conditions, same revolvers mostly. This will be minimal, I am saving some of my data for a different thread on the FBI Load.

Note: From what I can find the published velocity for all of these FBI Loads is 890 FPS, barrel length not specified. (Maybe 4" vented barrel?)

Federal .38 Spl +P 158 gr LSWCHP, 6" Model 10-4, 971 FPS for 10 round sample.

Same Load, 2" Model 10-5, 821 FPS for 6 round sample.

W-W .38 Spl +P 158 gr LSWCHP, 6" Model 10-4, 936 FPS for 6 round sample.

Same Load, 2" Model 12, 821 FPS for 5 round sample. (Yes, identical to Federal!)

R-P .39 Spl + 158 LSWCHP, 6" Model 10-4, 960 FPS for 10 round sample.

Same Load, 2" Model 10-5, 811 FPS for 10 round sample.

As you can see, the average velocity for the 40+ year old 158 LRN Standard Velocity .38 Special will fall somewhere between 750 and 800 FPS (Ca, 781 FPS) from 6" revolvers, in one case only 671 FPS! By comparison the FBI Load, with only two exceptions which includes a Black Powder equivalent to the earliest .38 Spl. factory ammunition, the +P FBI Load always gives higher velocity even when fired from a 2" barrel, that the older standard Police Issue 158 LRN load gives from a 6" barrel!

The average velocity for the FBI Load is 66 FPS faster than the published velocity when fired from a 6" barrel. Fired from a 6" barrel is 175 FPS faster that the average velocity for the standard 158 LRN Police load from the same barrel length. This is 22% higher velocity, and 50% higher Muzzle Energy, plus a more effective bullet, for the FBI Load.

I hope this puts to rest the myth that the advantage of the FBI load over the standard pressure 158 gr .38 Special load is "insignificant"! Is the FBI, or any other +P .38 Special a .357 magnum? Of course not, but is is a lot better than some would have us believe. Is an additional 50% muzzle energy worth having? Absolutely!!!!

I don't want to hear how wonderful "Buffalo Bore" ammunition is! That wasn't the subject or purpose of this excercise! "Boutique" ammunition may well offer better performance than what is available from the majors, but I have more confidence in the testing capabilities of the major manufacturers!

__________________
Gunsmithing since 1961

I know someone will ask how I know the W-W ammunition shot for this exercise was dated to 1962-1963. Simple! The box has the "Child Warning" mandated in 1962, but does not have a ZIP Code on the box address. ZIP Code use began in 1963.

__________________
Gunsmithing since 1961

I agree with you. I bought my first chronograph back in 1977. Some
of my old chronograph data shows results with Federal 158 gr RN .38
special ammo out of three different S&W revolvers. My first mod 60,
long gone and replaced by my 60-7, 1 7/8" barrel, vel = 654 fps, my
old beat up 2" 10-5, vel = 721 fps and a mint 4" 38/44 HD vel = 774
fps. In contrast Rem +P 158 gr lead HPs, not new but recent enough
to be marked +P, avg almost exactly 800 fps out of my 60-7 and 900
fps out of my 4" mod 10-5.

This is why I only use standard pressure ammuntion in my older .38 Special revolvers.

__________________
Loyalty Above All.. but Honor

What is the lots number on the W-W box?

There have been some previous recent discussions here regarding how much difference the specific revolver used influences chronographed MVs. The answer is "A Lot" and probably a lot more than you imagine, even with identical barrel lengths. There is an excellent discussion of this topic to be found in Speer #9 (and possibly earlier or later editions) entitled "Why Ballisticians Get Gray." If you can get your hands on a Speer manual, it makes eye-opening reading, The message is that there is little real-world relationship between factory-provided MV data (or data provided in reloading manuals) and what MV you will measure from firing identical ammunition in your specific revolver, and also from revolver to revolver. If you want to do any ammunition MV comparisons, you must do it using only the same revolver (and it is preferable to even use the same chamber), as each gun is a law unto itself when it comes to MV. And even then, that data is valid for only that single revolver. And to complicate matters even further, there will be significant degradation of MV from the same revolver over time - the more the revolver is fired, the further the MV drops. The Speer lab data proves it.

Over how long a period of time, or rather how many hundreds or thousands of rounds?

__________________
CSM, U S Army(Ret) 1963-1990

I love this post, the OP did a great job. I have been shooting and reloading for over 40 years. I do know that new .44 magnum loads and new .357 magnum loads don't have that recoil and "sting" like the older factory stuff. What would your views on that be, I sort of think that the new stuff achieves the same velocity ,but with different powders and burn rates of today, they do it a little "softer" or more efficient. ALK899, do you have any older magnum stuff to compare to the new, I would love to see your results.

That 671fps out of the 2" barrel seems a little low.

With the Modern powders of today ......
I can use 3.4 grs of Bullseye in my M49 and get 670 +/- with
a 158gr Lswc.
Even 4.0 grs of Trail Boss will get 648fps with a LRN........ but
each weapon will give different results so I will accept your data.

As a note;
a 158gr lead bullet at 752fps has 198 ft/lbs of ME. Picked up to
812fps has 231 ft/lbs of ME, that can be a handful for a lot of shooters.

Thanks for posting all that data with the original ammo.
Has to be GREAT to have some of that still in stock.
SWEET.

Nevada Ed: My results chronographing 2" barrel loads are very similar to yours. I use 3.5 grs. Bullseye with a 160 grain H&G #51 SWC; muzzle velocities vary from 700 to about 730 fps, depending on the revolver. Good, accurate load that will usually shoot pretty close to point of aim.

One example given by Speer involves a 6-1/2" barreled .44 Magnum revolver (model not provided) used as one of their lab test guns. After "about 6000" rounds had been fired, the average MV for identical .44 Mag loads dropped by 138 ft/sec.

While there is a lot more test data provided, one example gives the results of firing ten different .357 Magnum revolvers (Ruger, S&W and Colt) all having 6" barrels with three different .357 loads with three different bullet weights produced maximum to minimum average MV spreads of 231 ft/sec (125 grain JHP); 275 ft/sec (140 grain JHP); and 249 ft/sec (158 grain JHP)

Very good information and thanks for posting it.

__________________
James
On the Llano Estacado

Posts like this are why I love this forum! I look at other forums from time to time, but this is the only one that I belong to. Thanks OP, this is a great topic. I like looking at different takes on the same subject, and that is what we get here. I, like some of the other posters above, have reloaded, and shot for many decades. My primary interest is shooting, especially the older vintage firearms that I collect, but I also carry for self defense. I view these as two different takes on shooting. For recreational shooting of vintage firearms, I am very conservative in load selection.

For self defense, I'm using modern firearms, and not so concerned about preservation. I think that we need to look at both sides of this debate, and to consider what the object of our particular shooting activities are.

Best Regards, Les

__________________
SWCA 3084, SWHF 495, PGCA 3064

Great report. I found it especially interesting since my EDC is a snubby revolver and I do carry the FBI load even in my snub 357s.
Although lately I've been fascinated with carrying a 32 HR Magnum. It gives me one extra shot:

Thank you, Alk8944, for taking the time to post this. And also a "thank you" to the others who likewise contributed their chronograph data.

There are some questions and remarks I want to address.

1) Badge 130. "This is why I only use standard pressure ammuntion in my older .38 Special revolvers."

???? "This" what? The fact that +P gives higher velocity than standard pressure loads? That is what it is supposed to do. The entire point behind +P in improved performance within a pressure range that will not do any direct harm to good quality and good condition firearms. Logic like this would dictate using only 148 gr. "Mid Range" wadcutter loads, or .38 Short Colt, to avoid slightly accelerated wear.

2) Yorkie Man. Lot 5CA03 (Corrected from 08)
3) apollo99. Short answer is no. Truth is I was never much of a .357 Magnum shooter, while I have owned at least a dozen, and currently have a mid '50s 6 1/2" Model .357 Magnum, a 5" 27-2, a 4" 19-2, a 2 1/2" 19-3, and a 340-1. At least that's all I can remember at the moment! I doubt I have bought more than 3-4 boxes of factory .357 ammunition in my life.

4) Nevada Ed. "That 671fps out of the 2" barrel seems a little low." This load is slow overall in all the guns it was fired in! I have several other comparisons in several barrel lengths that were all shot at the same time. That was from my record log and was shot in 2012. That's only 98 FPS loss compared to the 6" 10-4, just under 25 FPS per inch, which is generally considered as a normal loss per inch of barrel length. I find it odd you didn't remark on the 769 FPS for the 6" as being slow! Look at the +P difference between the 6" and 2" barrels. Two of these show a ca. 150 FPS difference for the 4" barrel length difference, and you didn't think this as odd! You are just looking at numbers, not data! With the 6" velocity the 671 is just about exactly what would be expected from a 2", maybe even slower!

Did I miss anyone?

__________________
Gunsmithing since 1961

Data beats opinions every time ! Nice post.

Okay, Nice test but you didn't show any test results from current production +P 158 LSWCHP. Most of the discussion I have heard and read is that the "dumbed down" is referring to the +P. I don't have anyway to check but I don't think the current production Federal 158 LSWCHP +P that I have goes as fast as the 40 year old stuff.

__________________
Support your Police, & NRA

Different subject, different post! Watch for it coming soon!

As far as 40 YO FBI loads, I don't have any and don't expect to be lucky enough to find any. The best we can probably do is look at old "Gun Digest" ammunition listings to see what was the published velocity for these. I can tell you that the current SAAMI nominal velocity for 158 gr +P .38 Spl at 20,000 PSI from a 4" vented barrel is 880 FPS, and from a non-vented barrel 1050 FPS. Bullet type is not specified!

__________________
Gunsmithing since 1961

Well, I don't have any 40 year old either, but I have some 30 year old. 30 years ago, I was still working in law enforcement. I was a firearms instructor for my department, and we ran joint drills and training exercises with a local federal agency. They were transitioning to semis in 40 S&W. Their instructor was "stuck" with a full case of their duty ammo that he wanted to trade for a case of 40. I bought a case of 40 out of my pocket, and traded him. Great part was, he didn't save brass, so I got to keep all the 40 brass that he shot.

Anyway, for awhile I just shot up some of that 38 158 gr +P LSWCHP stuff, and then I realized that it had become hard to find, and put it away. I still have about half a case of it. Some day perhaps I will have a chance to chronograph some of it. I carry it sometimes in the appropriate revolvers.

Best Regards, Les

__________________
SWCA 3084, SWHF 495, PGCA 3064

Great posts, ALK8944.

I too wonder about the Magnums, especially the .357 and .44. I started shooting handguns in 1974-1975, and like the average young American male, thought a lot isn't enough. Two of my earliest handguns were a 4" Model 66 that I still have and a 6-1/2" Model 29, long gone.

I shot a fair amount of factory ammo through both, and others back then, and a lot more .357 when I became a cop, and it did seem warmer then than it does now. The ammo catalogs seem to show much lower numbers, too, and I don't know how much of that is due to different testing methods and tools versus different velocity and pressure standards. I know my handloads, using old 2400 powder in both .357 and .44, seem to bark worse than the factory ammo I try now.

01/30/1969

I'm not taking away from the work done here because I know what it takes to collect the data.

That said, testing only one load proves nothing. Add the fact that Winchester load was not known for high velocity, it was known for not leading the barrel. I had data from older .38 Special loads that showed higher velocities but I will not quote any numbers because the data was lost so I can't prove the numbers.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

Great thread and posts I have a question for you ballistics guys. I carry a scandium frame J-frame, and shoot it frequently at the range. I've noticed that my Hornady Critical Defense 110 grain has no more felt recaoil than my 130 grain plinkers ( neither in +P). Is this because the trade off between the lighter faster bullet, and the heavier slower bullet are giving me the same felt results ? Or is it more complicated ? Just curious . Thanks for any replies

__________________
John

Great post, OP. Thanks for the effort you put into gathering data and posting it. I always appreciate real data and a conclusion. Of course we can always debate the conclusions, but we'd be discussion facts - real data, not simply impressions or "feelings."

As another wise person once said: "The plural of anecdote is not data!"

Thanks again, OP!

Fascinating stuff. Thanks for taking the time.

I don't generally worry about 4" barrels or longer, over fps or energy.
It is hard to find ammo that will not be close to ball park figures
at these barrel lengths, no matter who the ammo maker is.

When a bullet gets to around 230 ft./lbs. of energy, I start to breath a lot easier,
if it is for SD work in the 38 special.

With the new Hi-tech coated bullets, I am just waiting to see if someone comes out with a soft lead,
125-130gr deep HP to replace the old Nyclad that worked well in the light J frames, in times past.
We could sweep a lot of old data under the rugs if that ever happens.

This might be a little off topic, but the OP reminded me of an earlier experience. When I was a young man living in Denver in the early 70's there was a controversy over the local police using hollow point bullets in their 38s as opposed to the standard old RN lead heads. Activists were claiming that hollow points were "cruel". How times have changed. "Back in the day."

I'm not sure that I agree completely with that. I have a reasonable supply of the old Nyclad (which, BTW, I believe is still being made) in my basement, and I have a number of J-frame revolvers whose front sights have been filed down to shoot those bullets to POA. They are probably excellent defensive tools in the summer. However, as winter approaches, and lack of outdoor time causes the mind to imagine other possible scenarios, the practicality of penetration reminds some that there are some advantages to 158gr bullets. In the last few years, I have replenished my supply of 158-launchers, and sometimes don't even bother changing over for summer.

Indoors is another place where 125gr HPs are perhaps safer, although the FBI load has never been, AFAIK, accused of excessive penetration.

Attached below are images of two pages, 36 and 37, from Remington's catalog of sporting arms and ammunition for 1977.

At the bottom of the second image is Remington's explanation of "what happened" to the reported velocities of .357 Magnum, .38 Special, .41 Magnum, and .44 Magnum ammunition. Information published in the Peters catalog for the same year was virtually identical. This was the only year the "side-by-side" comparison of data from the new 4-inch vented barrels and the old 6-inch non-vented barrels appeared in the catalogs, although the explanation continued for several years afterward. Winchester and Western catalogs also published data from 4-inch vented barrels that same year, but with no explanation for the change in testing for velocity.

This was three years after the appearance of .38 Special +P ammuniton in Remington's catalogs. Prior to 1974, what we now know as .38 Special +P was marketed by Remington as ".38 Special Hi-Speed", and by Peters as ".38 Special High Velocity".

The change to +P designation did not occur in Winchester and Western catalogs in 1975 - with the +P designation replacing "Super Speed" under the Winchester brand, and "Super-X" under the Western brand.

For those that may be interested, a large collection of ammunition catalogs/price lists/etc. dating back to the late 1800s is available for viewing and download - for free - here:
Ammunition Catalogs - International Ammunition Association

Attached Images

	1977 Remington Ammunition - Page 36.jpg (87.6 KB, 126 views)
	1977 Remington Ammunition - Page 37.jpg (96.1 KB, 91 views)

Great post, and great information

...and can't wait for the upcoming FBI load report!!! Thanks again

I remember the Remington .38 rounds that we used in L.A.S.O. in the mid 70's. I started with LASO in June of '74. We were issued the Remington 38 Special "HV" round. "High Velocity" rounds preceded the +p. They were the "Core-Lokt" scalloped jhp. They seemed to be pretty stout. Our Model 15's didn't seem to have any trouble with them. LASO had just transitioned from the Super Vel ammo. Not certain why the department went away from the Super Vel. I think it may have been cost or that Super Vel was cutting back (or going out of business). In any case, I think that these were the first +p rounds and over the years the +p rounds haven't been as stout as the old HV rounds. Pretty h appy now with my duty rounds of +p+ 127 gr 9mm SXT. These definitely have some uuummph!

Remington used the "Hi-Speed" moniker to mean the .38-44 load, and that is likely what you used back then. It was replaced by the +P .38 Special loading later in the 1970s.

ArchAngelCD,

You make a couple of points, but they are difficult to substantiate!

First, "That said, testing only one load proves nothing." You apparently failed to notice there were two old factory for which data was posted. Winchester and Remington. What was tested was limited by what was available. This does not invalidate the testing of what was available! Since Winchester and Remington were pretty much what was generally available in the 1960s-'70s and are therefore quite representative.

Second, "Winchester load was not known for high velocity". Since very few individuals had chronographs when the ammunition tested above was made I would challenge you to document this! Look at the Winchester/Remington differences in the original post, which was the slow one???

Finally, "I had data from older .38 Special loads that showed higher velocities but I will not quote any numbers because the data was lost..." Anecdotal without documentation!

"Boutique" ammunition like Super-Vel doesn't count, and neither does any "Hi-Speed", "Super Speed" etc. .38-44 type ammunition! The purpose of the exercise was to document basic, standard pressure/velocity ammunition "Back in the Day", not specialty ammunition! That was the reason for including replica Black Powder loads to compare with the 1960s-1980s standard ammunition that was available for testing!

I'm sorry you didn't understand the original intent of the post, I thought I explained it clearly enough!

__________________
Gunsmithing since 1961

After looking at the Remington Catalog, it's clear why hand loading .38 Special was so popular. 158 grain SWC over 5 grains of Unique could duplicate or exceed factory ammunition for a fraction of the cost.

__________________
I believe in the wadcutter.

The original post probably makes a good point, or perhaps several, but it's difficult to follow as are some of the subsequent comments.

Maybe along similar lines regarding "high performance" .38 Special loads prior to the +P designation...there is an article in a HANDLOADER magazine around 1970 where velocity and pressure tests were conducted on a number of factory loads. The article and work was done by George Nonte and Neal Knox, the editor. Pressure measurements were done by Lee Jurras in the Super Vel lab. Anyone remember this piece?

I DO remember the ballistics chart on p. 188 in the L.E. Handgun Digest of 1972. Standard loads available at that time were chrno'd in actual guns, not test bbls. Our favorite (mine, too!) +P LHP ran 1014fps in a 4" Model 10. Compare that to the present day, claimed 880fps of modern loadings of this round. That original loading had some snap in a 4" K-frame; you really didn't want to fire off a box of 50 in one session.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

Groo here
Now you know WHY the officers who could , went to the 357 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I believe some of the confusion about .38 spl velocities stems from the
fact that some manufacturers used velocities taken from test barrels
in their product ballistics charts "back in the day".
Fast forward to recent times when the same company's listed ballistics
are much closer to actual velocities realized from typical revolvers.
Some folks that should know better will interpret this as watered down
modern 38 spl factory ammo.

Absolutely correct! Just like the difference between CUP (PSI Crusher) and PSIG/PSIA known now as "PSI Transducer" by SAAMI, aren't really different, just different methods of measuring the same thing which result in different units!

Since this started out about the .38 Special let's look at some interesting SAAMI figures for the cartridge from the 2015 SAAMI/ANSI "American National Standard Voluntary Industry Performance Standards for Pressure and Velocity of Centerfire Pistol and Revolver Ammunition for the Use of Commercial Manufacturers"

.38 Special Standard Pressure MAP* 17,000 CUP
.38 Special +P MAP 20,000 CUP

.38 Special Standard Pressure MAP 17,000 PSI Transducer
.38 Special +P MAP 20,000 PSI Transducer

* Maximum Average Pressure

Note the same numbers now for both measurement methods! As far as I can see .38 Special is the only cartridge that demonstrates this concurrence! Pressure measurements are taken using solid test barrels!

This is not to say that all Standard Pressure ammunition is loaded to 17,000 PSI, it isn't! It is loaded to what pressure, with the powder being used, it takes to give the desired ballistic performance without exceeding 17,000 (pressure units), regardless of which method is used! Any load exceeding 17,000 pressure units is, by definition a +P loading.

Same with +P as standard pressure loads. Not all are loaded to the 20,000 pressure units, but should deliver the ballistic performance the manufacturer has determined as their +P performance level, anywhere from 17,001 pressure units up, as long as it does not exceed 20,000 pressure units! If they cannot obtain desired performance within pressure limits they will change to a propellant that will give desired performance within pressure limits!

AND, in reality, I will bet there has been some +P labeled ammunition that gives what the manufacturer has determined to be +P performance, but does it at less than the defined 17,001+ pressure limits!

If we had access to the ballistics laboratories the major manufacturers and H.P. White Laboratories have available we would know!!!

__________________
Gunsmithing since 1961

Given all of this, in .38 Special it seems to me that the 148/150 grain DEWC is the way to go. YMMV

__________________
I believe in the wadcutter.

Very interesting info but generally not to me. I agree on the .38 wadcutter.

I know next to nothing about muzzle velocity, pressure or any of that stuff. I suppose it's interesting to some. I've reloaded for almost 50 years, recently with whatever appropriate powder I can find. I follow loading charts for the powder, caliber and bullet weight I'm using. I load a few and test fire to make sure the gun functions well. If the guns shoot the way I want them to I just keep on truckin'.

I'm sure the older ammo is different from what is offered today. The really big difference I see is the cost.

Happened in Dallas, too. I was asked to write a rebuttal to an article by a "community activist" who opposed HP bullets.

The articles never ran. My story made it clear that the other guy knew little of the matter and that his goal was primarily racial strife at the expense of the safety of police and citizens who were menaced by violent offenders.

I asked why the stories didn't run. My editor said that I used too many facts and overwhelmed his "points." The publisher just wanted to sell papers based on controversy, not to inform readers of the truth.

I didn't even get a "kill fee" for that story. But it kept the other guy from achieving further agitation in the matter.