This is sort of a follow-on to the . 38 Special "Back in the Day". As a result some data will be repeated for a basis of comparison. Let's address some of the criticisms of that thread that came from readers not understanding the purpose of the post. Also some comments as a basis for comparison.

First, I shot what was available. I would love to have access to at least a box of Remington, Winchester and Federal .38 Special 158 Gr. LSWCHP +P ammunition from the mid-late 1970s, the "FBI Load". But, I didn't and don't, but if you have any of this ammunition I would be happy to chronograph it and report on the results. Until then we will have to content ourselves with what we have access to!

Second, as I remarked somewhere in the previous cited thread (.38 Special "Back in the Day" if you didn't see it) this is not intended to encompass the various ".38-44" aka "38 Hi-Speed", ".38 Super-Speed" etc. While these are high velocity loads for .38 Special they are not predecessors of the FBI Load. They are significantly higher pressure than the +P loadings! Likewise "Boutique" ammunition like "Super Vel", "Buffalo Bore", etc. In spite of their claims we have no way of verifying that they are actually loaded within SAAMI Standard Pressure or +P standards! Honestly, some of their claims seem a bit enthusiastic! I question that they actually have pressure testing equipment!!! And, finally, comparisons with "your" handloads, or some published loading data (See Speer #8) that is, bluntly, terrifying. None of these is the subject of the discussion!

Let's start with the basic testing protocol. All loads unless otherwise noted were fired from the same 6" Model 10-4. This is for consistency and direct comparison. All ammunition was fired at a range to the chronograph center screen of ca. 10 feet. Data is not corrected to the muzzle, but at this distance the correction for typical handgun velocity is to add ca. 3-5 FPS, so this doesn't create a large error, and is in compliance with SAAMI testing standards. Temperatures (ambient, not ammunition) ranged in the area of 65-75 degrees F for all testing, which spread over several years for some ammunition samples.

My intent is to inform you who do not have chronographs, don't have the ammunition tested, etc. of my experience, with my gun(s), and several specific factory loads. I do have data for several barrel lengths that were fired on the same day for some of this ammunition if you are curious. I will not post SD or ES, as, as they say, YMMV! The same ammunition, fired in the same gun on a different day, can give widely varying results for both of these factors, and velocity, let alone in different guns! Subsequent tests may vary by as much as 100 FPS in different tests. This is why, when I have posted the same load more than once, the velocities will vary somewhat.

I hope this adequately establishes the foundation for the following data and remarks. I realize there will be many who just look at the numbers and will not read any of the background information, they may be treated with if they post comments that make it obvious they have not read the background information!

First load, hand-loaded Black Powder 158 gr, 21.5 gr FFFg. Avg. for 6 round sample: 822 FPS Naturally this is "Standard Pressure".

Second load, W-W 158 RNL, typical "Police Service" ammunition. I had several boxes, same lot, dating to mid 1960s. Avg. for 6 round sample: 792 FPS

Same load, second test: 826 FPS

R-P 158 RNL, (sometime in the 1970s) Avg. for 10 round sample: 769 FPS

Federal "American Eagle" 158 RNL, (Purch. June 2016) Avg. for 12 round sample: 817 FPS

Note the really very similar velocity for the different ammunition! There is only an extreme spread of 57 FPS for commercial loads from 1960s, 1970s, current, and replica 1899 Black Powder loads! Any of these could vary anywhere within this range on a second firing, even from the same gun!

Now, recent Remington, Federal and Winchester 158 SWCHP +P "FBI" Loads. This is to show the similarity as much as anything! In no particular order:

Federal (White Box) Age unknown, fired 2010. Avg. for 6 round sample: 945 FPS

Fired May 30, 2016:

F-C Same box as above, Avg. for 10 round sample: 971 FPS

R-P Newly purchased May 2016 (RTP38S12) Avg. for 10 rounds: 970 FPS (So-called "New: HTP Packaging)

R-P "Old" version purchased a few months ago as a partial box (40+ rds) Old style yellow & green box, note hand written on the box Sept. 1989, so I assume that was when the original purchaser bought it! (Stock # R38S12) Avg. for 10 round sample: 969 FPS

It has been posted by others that the "new" Remington HTP load is significantly slower then the "old" R38S12 ammunition. As you can see that is not my experience. The new Remington, old Remington and Federal were all within 2 FPS for the 10 round sample fired of each! Published Velocity for both the Remington and Federal loads was 890 FPS. I have to assume this was from a 4" vent barrel as the SAAMI Standard Velocity for 158 gr. +P is 880 FPS from the 4" vented barrel. SAAMI Standard Velocity from the "solid test barrel", length not specified, is 1050 FPS. I have to say that, from my testing, both the R38S12 and RTP38S12 are absolutely identical! I did note that the "new Remington did "feel" somewhat softer, just enough to notice, but velocity was, again, identical!

Much of my previous shooting of the Winchester, Remington and Federal FBI loads was done from a 2" K-Frame to establish a base velocity for replicating the FBI load. I have 2 Model 12 2" and a Model 10-5 2". What I have seen from these loads has been 821 FPS for Win. & Fed. from the M 10-5 and 12 no-dash, and 811 FPS for the Rem. R38S12 from the 10-5. Not a statistically significant variation!

As my last post in the "Back in the Day" thread, and alwslate's remark it was in response to, I think that there probably, contrary to what many believe about modern ammunition being "dumbed down", is no real velocity difference between standard velocity .38 Special ammunition as originally loaded in the early 20th Century, including original Black Powder loads, late 20th century, and today! I see no statistically significant variation when fired from the same "real" gun! I believe the difference in published velocities for 158 gr. Standard Pressure .38 Special ammunition is from the change in publishing "test barrel" velocities (855 FPS) to publishing "4" Vented Barrel" velocities (755-770 FPS), not any difference in loading.

My last observation is based on the common claim that +P ammunition is only equivalent to "Standard Velocity" ammunition for .38 Special 40 years +/- ago. Chronographing the loads above puts the lie to this assertion! Yes, the samples are relatively small but I have several other tests that support what was posted! Of the "Old" ammunition posted for comparison the average velocity is ca. 805 FPS, and for the 158 gr +P loads that average ca. 963 FPS. To me 158 FPS, and the muzzle energy difference this represents, ca. 226 FPE compared to 324 FPE, a 43% increase, is not insignificant. Yes, these are 6" barrel figures, but they still translate to a significant difference in favor of the +P, regardless of barrel length!

__________________
Gunsmithing since 1961

Carry weapons usually have shorter barrels, 2"-4" is about right and most of the service weapons then were 4" I've done some reading on "Ballistics by the Inch". I am on the lookout for 3" to 4" .38 revolvers, preferably S&W but I'm not totally stuck on that. Ruger would be OK.

My present carry .38 is a S&W model 36 with a 2" barrel that I've had for a short time. I've only tested it with a Chronometer once. It was a 'standard' power reload but I do remember then bullet had to be at least 140 jacketed or may have been a 158 grain SWC. I know the powder charge was NOT intended as a defense type round because I was 'feeling out' the gun for what I might need. I'd like to use a heavy bullet with all kinds of velocity but it ain't going to happen. I'm going from memory here, but performance was pathetic. I don't even think it hit 600 ft/sec. Of course that would hurt, but not what I'm looking for in a defense round.

I don't mean to get off topic but my defense load that might equal the stopping power of the 'FBI' load is going to have to use a lighter bullet. I may make me some +P max loads with the 140 grain HPs that I have and test them, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to have to go with the old 125 grain JHP, preferably xtps or gold dots. I don't care about recoil being too heavy for defense in a small gun, I can take it and follow up quick (I think). If not I'll adjust. But I think the only way that I can even approach the golden 980 fps is with a lighter bullet.

I do have some factory 125 gr Hornady XTPs that I can test, but again, I'll probably end up with something close to max.

I would rather NOT go to 110 gr but take what I can get with the 125 gr.

PS I'm glad of your findings with the 'old' +P load. I didn't have a Chrony back then, but subjectively the rounds were somewhat more snappy back then in my model 10. I don't think there was much 'boutique' ammo back then, but I wouldn't know because I never was in the market for it.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Thanks - good information!

My way of getting the 'FBI load' in a carry weapon is a .357 mag with a low level 158 gr .357 load that I make myself. This beats any .38 +P or .38-44 load whether it's FBI, IRS, NSA, DOD or the National Weather Service.

I use those in my 686 for HD. Now to be on the lookout for a 'J' frame .357.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

The OP here is one of the best that I've ever seen in print on this matter. And I've read (and written) a great deal about this ever since the inception of Plus P ammo.

Many thanks for that post .

I won't argue a bit over this point, but again, this is outside the scope of the topic! It does raise the subject of a
.38 Spl vs. .357 Magnum "Snubby" post.

There is no question that .357 Magnum full-power loads provide significantly higher performance, even from a 2" +/- barrel length, than .38 Spl. +P from similar length barrels, contrary to many claims which have been made on this forum! I have the data for that too!

__________________
Gunsmithing since 1961

More power but a lot more blast and recoil. I think that they limited the power of handguns back in the 1800's because of that. Colt could have made their cylinders to accommodate 60 gr black powder charges of the Walker Colt but chose to downsize to around 30 grains in future .44's; same with the cartridges later on. Today, we think nothing of building handguns chambering over powered cartridges producing vicious blast and recoil, that are probably marginally more effective, just because we can.

I'll take an adequately powerful, mild recoiling handgun over something that damages my wrist while blinding and deafening me.

Thank you for the very interesting post.

Sorry, I know this is the Ammo forum, but checking through my old chronograph records from 2009, 5.2 grs Unique and Magnus cast RN gave me approx 970 fps from S&W Mod 10 6 inch. Perfect RTP38S12 duplication at least compared to your revolver.

Thanks. Good info, although your bullet won't expand. But if it's hard enough, it might be a good penetrator on large animals.

Why do you load that hot with a RN lead bullet? And why not use a SWC or SWC-HP?

I don't think factories load the 150 grain FMJ Hi-Velocity any longer. At one time, it had military applications and could be used on big, dangerous animals in a pinch.

Around 1980 I was a police office in Dallas. One day I was up at the Dallas Pistol Club Range when Allan Jones arrived. At the time Allen was one of two ballistics experts for the SW Institute for Forensic Science which was also I believe the Dallas County Medical Examiners office. He later left and you can find his name inside the cover of the Speer Reloading Manuals up till #13.

Allan used to test ammo and keep lists of what their office felt was the most effective rounds for LE work. On that day he had some of the Dallas PD issue .38 Special 158 LSWC-HP +P ammo to test but I don't recall the brand. They were tested in a Model 64 S&W 4" and clocked 940+- fps...

Bob

Haven't heard that name in a while, but Allan Jones was indeed knowledgeable on such matters, perhaps more than just about anyone else at the time.

After he retired from Speer /CCI, he wrote a column for SHOOTING TIMES. I haven't seen that excuse for a gun magazine in quite some time, but if Allan's still writing for them, he may be the one responsible for keeping the publication afloat.

...Sorry, my load duplicated the velocity of the Remington load only. I use it for practice to simulate the Remington round same bullet weight.

Probably would need a little more Unique with swaged HP ( i.e. Speer LSWCHP) to equal the Remington load.