Buffalo Bore has always been amazing stuff. Long ago, I found their .38 Special +P semi-wadcutter round to be my choice for personal protection guns.
Last time I chronoed it, that 158gr bullet went over 900fps in my 2" Detective Special and an even 1000fps in a 4" Official Police.
I just ordered in another load and had the chrono at the club today.
I brought along two older Smiths, my much-beloved, second-gun-of-my-whole-life Highway Patrolman (bought new for $140!) with a 4" barrel and a terrific 2 1/2" Model 19 Combat Magnum from 1966, known to me to be slow over the screens but a great shooter.
I also have a .38 Super problem- if you have it, you know what I mean- and a supply of the staggeringly expensive CorBon DPX 125gr. loads. These clock about 1250 out of my '51 Commander and closer to 1300 in an old Government Model. Pretty decent.
The factory Super ammo also fits and shoots fine in .357 magnums. So I ran the DPX through the Smiths and got 1080fps out of the snub and 1175fps out of the N-frame.
The empties fall out without drama.
Advantage? Not too much, excepting more positive ejection, especially with the shortie rod on the 19. Moonclips would drastically alter the equation- much faster ejection and reloads than any .38 Special loadup could ever be.
On to the Buffalo Bore. I ordered in two loads, more of the old SWC HP 158s and then a box of the "Outdoorsman" 158 hardcast SWCs, which claim 1250fps!
Well, out of the 2 1/2" gun, they motored out at just over 1100fps! Wow! From a SAAMI-compliant +P .38 Special load. Must be some special powder in there. The empties fell out of the chambers on their own and the primers looked completely unruffled.
I didn't write down the 4" velocity, but memory suggests 1175. Zoom.
The "regular" SWC HPs were a bit slower, about 100-130fps less, but again, I missed the write-down.
Oddly, the felt recoil of the Outdoorsman load seemed less than the slower HP load. That was true in both guns; both are also heavy, so they were quite meek-shooting with this stuff.
Expensive, but what performance! I joked with my reloading-geek engineer buddy, who is known to carry an LCR when his Commander stays home: if he sees a deer on the way to work and has a tag, that snubbie could practically be his deer gun for this season with this ammunition.

Request: When posting it helps immensely to use spacing between paragraphs - for ease or reading. Just saying.........

Buffalo Bore ammo is the ONE & ONLY ammo manufacturer that ACCURATELY states what their ballistics are. In most instances you get EXACTLY what they claim from a said weapon with a specific load. Unfortunately they are about the only Company I know of who is "honest" about posting their specs. Speer is at least somewhat in the Ball Park, while I find Remington and Winchester to be way off spec. unless you use a (almost meaningless for the real world) test barrel as they do most of the time.

Yea, the BB ammo is pricey, but I can assume most of us here actually shoot it only on occasion for familiarity and testing, hunting or defense and use either reloads or promo ammo for punching holes in paper. That said, the cost is not a major factor as a defense or purpose bought round.

It would be very interesting to know what MAP BB 158 grain .38 special "+P" LSWCHP actually generates to achieve 1000+fps from a 1 7/8" barrel! Undoubtedly, in order not to mislead anyone, it should be labeled "+P+".

What leads you to believe that this load is "SAAMI-compliant"?

Near 1200 fps out of a 158 grain +P 38 special out of a 2 1/2 inch barrel, call me a skeptic but I don't think that is at all possible with a +P pressure level. In fact I would be doubtful if that is even possible at full Magnum pressures. Typical Magnum ammunitions achieve their velocity with the use of relatively slow burning handgun powders and those require a longer barrel in order to achieve the potential velocity.

To be blunt, I would want to see exactly what they are using to measure pressures in their loads and how recently that equipment was calibrated. I suspect that if someone pressed hard enough it may turn out they don't have any means of measuring pressure. Instead they are simply "reading" the appearance of the primer.

I have fired enough BB .38 Spl loads to know that they are not only fast, but they are one of the most accurate loads I've ever tested and that is probably because they are all so consistent! They vary only a few fps when ever I have Chronographed them. I have never had any malfunctions and
trust my life to them. I take my hat off to Tim Sundles and he has obviously found his niche.

I have not noticed any loosening, stretching, functioning problems or anything what so ever from firing them. IMHO they are the BEST SD .38 Spl. available. I view the Speer 135 grain Gold Dot +P as #2.

There is no effort by Sundles to be "SAAMI compliant." In fact, he offers loadings that are clearly not SAAMI compliant and seems to be proud of it; SAAMI compliant guns need to pass proof pressure testing 35-40% above MAP WITHOUT any failure and that's why many can "get away with" limited firing of some of these BB rounds.

What do you base your statement on?

Sundles' statements, physics, among other reasons.

This super velocity Buffalo Bore stuff... I don't know. I guess there is an old saying: "If you find a turtle on top of a fence post you can be reasonably sure he didn't get there by himself."

I've pretty much read most of his statements in the website, only thing I have found is for example: In the .38 LSWC-HP He states it is safe in any solid frame .38 Special. He does caution the +P use can cause acceleration of wear.

Not really seeing it.

Could be a blend of powder. For Example, ReLoder 17 pushes an 150 grain bullet at 3100 FPS out of my 24in barrel with the book recommended 58 grains. No pressure signs and accurate to boot.

I have no doubts that the laws of physics for all ammunition manufacturers, even the "boutique" ones, are the same. Marketing, however, may be significantly different.

You evidently missed my previous post where I mentioned the fact that any SAAMI compliant gun must withstand approximately 35-40% proof pressure above MAP -- without damage. Obviously then, even 25-30% pressure over MAP will probably not damage your gun even if you fire some one hundred rounds and is thus "safe" (won't blow up and hurt you but will surely "accelerate and how" wear).

I can see it.

It's highly doubtful that any known powder can accelerate a 158 grain LSWCHP to 1000+ fps from a 1 7/8" barrel at chamber pressures not significantly exceeding 20 kpsi (SAAMI MAP for .38 +P).

Sundles obviously makes no effort to comply with SAAMI as he offers .380 ACP +P, .40 S&W +P loadings (whatever MAP that may be), etc. That's also clear by reading his comments, on his website, about lack of necessity for "SAAMI compliance." BB, of course, is not a member of SAAMI and thus is unencumbered to offer his non-SAAMI compliant ammunition to those who want it. It's actually quite a marketing feat to convince so many that certain ammunition is SAAMI compliant when it isn't -- and it's not stated that it is, of course!

There is no "magic" or "special powder". BB is bound by the same laws of physics as the rest of us. The only way to increase velocity (for a given bullet weight) is to increase pressure.

If there were a "special powder" that could increase bullet speed but not chamber pressure, you can be sure a manufacturer would be offering it.

Indeed, for a given barrel length and some variation among powders. Mr. BB would be a very, very rich man if he could have come up with such "step function" special powder that that has alluded small arms ammo manufacturers world-wide for many decades. But, I give him an A for marketing.

I'd give an A only for "being willing to stick his neck out."

It's a big country and still relatively free. Buy whatever ammunition appeals and be happy, I guess.

Up front, I have never used any BB products, and have no information about BB or what the MAP is of their loads.

SAAMI chamber pressure limits do not have the force of law. They are voluntary standards, and can be used or ignored by any ammunition manufacturer. But there is a big "However," that being if someone's gun blows up in their face as a result of excessive chamber pressure from BB loads, and especially if someone is badly injured or killed as a result, it's almost certain that the injured party (or his survivors) would go running to a lawyer. And there are such things as "product liability" lawsuits. I think that the plaintiff's lawyer would contend that BB was reckless in its disregard of established industry chamber pressure standards, and that argument would be very likely to influence a jury. That would be a tough charge to defend against. It would also be very difficult for BB (or any of the other boutique ammo loaders) to obtain product liability insurance if it ignored industry pressure standards, as no insurance company would dare stick its neck out to insure against such practices.

What I would expect is that BB actually does stay within SAAMI pressure limits, but at the very top end of the SAAMI range. The major loaders typically do not load to SAAMI maximum pressure levels but somewhat below them to provide an extra safety margin. I have seen estimates of 15%-25% below SAAMI limits as being typical.
------------------------------------------------
Regarding firing .38 Super ammunition in a .357, I have done it and it is sometimes possible. I have found that SOME brands will chamber in SOME guns, and some will not. It depends on both the ammunition and the gun, and their manufacturing dimensional tolerances. It's not unsafe to do so if the .38 Super ammunition fits, but there is really no good reason or benefit for using it unless the correct ammunition is unavailable. Back during the days of ammunition shortages of not so long ago, I have one friend who was shooting .38 Super in his Ruger .357 because he had no trouble finding .38 Super ammo (he is not a reloader).

It's sort of like firing .38 S&W in a .38 Special revolver. Most of the time, .38 S&W is too large in diameter to chamber in a .38 Special revolver, but ammunition manufactured to minimum SAAMI diameter tolerances can be used in a .38 Special chamber having maximum diameter tolerances. I once did a little Monte Carlo statistical simulation exercise based upon random variations of SAAMI cartridge and chamber diameter tolerances, and found that there is about a 30% probability of a random .38 S&W cartridge fitting in a random .38 Special chamber. Purely an intellectual exercise, with no foundation in fact on what the actual percentage might be, but it is certainly mathematically possible.

It's amusing and amazing how many continue to believe that BB ammunition is SAAMI compliant when the proprietor of BB clearly states that he doesn't deem SAAMI compliance necessary or desirable. However, no ammo manufacturer, obviously, intentionally loads ammunition beyond proof pressures - so "boutique" ammo manufacturers do not often face liability of guns blowing up in people's faces -- but the guns using ammunition loaded significantly beyond SAAMI MAP certainly wear out or fall out of spec after firing far fewer rounds than if SAAMI compliant ammunition was used. Nevertheless, it is disingenuous to call a .38 special load "+P" when MAP generated by such a load substantially exceeds SAAMI defined "+P". Calling it what it should be called, namely "+P+" (meaning MAP could be anything beyond +P), would probably not be a good selling point. But, that's the "marketing of it."

Caveat emptor

Some amusing stuff here.
As to SAAMI compliance by Buffalo Bore- I confess I have never given that much thought or research. I concluded that, as DWalt suggests, no manufacturer is going to chance coloring outside the SAAMI lines.
I've fired a decent number of BB 158 SWC-HP +Ps out of my alloy-framed Colt Cobra, and no harm has yet been detected. Yes, it will eventually cause some, but since my regular practice load is a click down in pressure (my reloads with SnS coated 158s), I am not worried.
The gun can be replaced; in the event it's needed for its intended purpose, I want all the performance possible.
I will repeat a piece of what I wrote above: the +P 158 empties literally dropped from the chambers of the guns mentioned by simply tipping the muzzles up. Not sticking is still the best way to tell a round is not extravagantly overpressure for us Joe Blows with no pressure testing equipment. That the primers were not in the slightest flattened, while less reliable as a pressure sign, adds to my being convinced the rounds do not generate destructive pressure.
Ammunition manufacturers shop at different smokeless powder stores than we Joe Blows do. There's a chance BB is using retail-available powder(s), but the industry gunwriters all believe that not to be the case, and I find that credible.
Using .38 Super in a .357 has only a trivial advantage, more positive ejection with short-ejectored guns like the 640 and 2 1/2" 19; but when moonclips are introduced, there are several significant advantages in the reloading and carriage of spare ammunition areas.
I've competed quite a bit in action pistol sports with sixguns using both speedloaders and moons. In situations with short cartridges and cases, the moons produce an enormous advantage in both speed and reliable operation.
I hope to have the 19's cylinder mooned to see if the .38 Super thing works. That would bring the gun much further ahead as a self-defense tool.
I have an Ebay-ed spare too, that might get the 9x23 treatment someday if there's too much money in the Silly Account.

Then you shouldn't have stated that this so-called "+P" Buffalo Bore load is SAAMI compliant. Yes, this talk of BB ammunition being SAAMI compliant is amusing to me too, but that's because I don't and I won't use this kind of stuff in any of my guns where reliability and dependability matters.

It really is okay if the average consumer simply doesn't care to know the reality. It's your money, your guns, your life and the truth of the matter is... if you are using quality firearms, the tangible real-world risk is very low.

However, if you are the curious type, one who does like to be informed and the actual truth matters to you, it would be a fine idea to re-read every post that QED has made in this thread. Because he gets it.

Buffalo Bore builds and markets the same sort of thing that skilled handloaders enjoy investigating on their own benches with their own guns. This is not for the timid and it's not for dead-set diligent "black & white only" safety nuts. Much of the Buffalo Bore ammo simple runs outside of agreed upon and very well established industry standards.

And with certain particular firearms... it may be worth keeping in mind what the firearm itself is capable of versus what we may think or have been led to believe that it is capable of. My easiest example is the classic modern S&W Model 10 with four-inch heavy barrel. I can't imagine any reason that S&W's manufacturing process spits out K-38's in some radically different fashion than the K-frame magnum revolvers of the exact same production period.

I wouldn't expect a Charter Arms .38 revolver or an EAA/Weirauch to be spec'd or built to handle anything beyond 20-something PSI Max, especially for a run of 20-50 rounds. You are asking for a science project to run over-spec ammo in those firearms. But a K-38? I would imagine that S&W is running Model 10 cylinders and Model 13 cylinders and Model 19 cylinders through extremely similar if not entirely the same manufacturing process. Smith & Wesson wouldn't possibly even comment on such a subject if you ever asked them, they would have no reason whatsoever to do or suggest that. But it's the only thing that makes good sense in streamlined manufacturing and S&W is a model for streamlined manufacturing.

Buffalo Bore does indeed make quality ammunition, but they sell their product on the basis that the end-buyer KNOWS he's pushing the limits of what the manufacturer of his firearm had in mind when they produced that firearm. When everyone agrees upon this going in, I simply don't see a big problem.

Which is why I LIKE Buffalo Bore. I don't need businesses or government saving me from me.

Lots of folks enjoy being scared and told exactly what is SAFE. That's why we have seat belt laws and Velcro sneakers. They shouldn't shoot BB ammo.

I would just rather not waste my money buying ammo, but instead just develop loads comparable to BB on my own. To be used in guns that I am certain can handle them.

As far as the OP shooting this BB in his Colt Cobra, I would cease any more rounds going down range before you crack or stretch the old alloy frame.

I have shot +P and +P+ Hydra-Shoks out of my Detective before, but only a cylinder worth of the latter for testing. I have shot +P out of my Cobra before for testing, again not a lot though. After that testing, I would never fire +P out of the Cobra again. Too much punch to risk a nice old Colt with a old technology alloy frame.

To each their own though.

Sure, to each his own as long as it doesn't endanger or intentionally mislead (deceive) others. I have zero issue with some for-profit outfit loading .38 special rounds to proof or even magnum pressures -- just don't call it ".38 +P".

Does anyone actually know what the peak chamber pressures produced by BB ammunition are? Such as by actual laboratory pressure testing? Seems like there is a lot of anecdotal talk about BB pressure unsupported by any reliable data.

Anecdotal talk? It's more like common sense. Is there any velocity that a .38 special, 158 grain hollow point could attain when fired from a 1 7/8" barrel before you would start having some doubt about MAP not significantly exceeding 20 kpsi? However, with magic powder I suppose anything is possible.

Definition of ANECDOTAL:
"Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"

So where's the rigorous or scientific analysis? If there's any on this thread, I haven't seen it.

Yes this. All I've read so far is based on feels. "Common Sense" "everybody Knows" "You can tell"

All I see are assumptions based on emotion and none on hard facts. Until some hard data from testing labs are produced showing otherwise, BB is safe and will to be continued for use in my .38s for defense.

No scientist or engineer, rigorous or not, would have any difficulty strongly doubting that, short of magic powder that no one else but BB (or similar "boutique" outfit) knows about, a 158 grain LSWCHP can be fired from a 1 7/8" barrel with a MV of some 1040 fps (as is apparently advertised) without significantly exceeding 20 kpsi MAP. No known powder manufacturer knows of such a powder either! Do you? If so, which powder is it? If said bullet from said barrel was advertised to have a MV of 1200 fps and still purportedly generate a MAP not significantly exceeding 20 kpsi -- would you still believe it and thus still require "rigorous" proof to the contrary before doubting it? How about 2000 fps? What is your "I don't believe it anymore" muzzle velocity that doesn't require "rigorous" proof to the contrary? But, maybe you believe in magic, in which case science doesn't apply, of course.

If any of ya'll ever want to KNOW what your favorite load is doing pressure wise, we can help you out. We can and do pressure test everything from .22 to .50 B&M. Google B&M Rifles..I am the "B". We pressure test for several ammo makers that do special loadings in low volume. These folks don't always have the wherewithal to do these tests and we are happy to help out. You don't have to guess or debate, we can tell you absolutely. Billy

"No scientist or engineer, rigorous or not, would have any difficulty strongly doubting that, short of magic powder that no one else but BB (or similar "boutique" outfit) knows about, a 158 grain LSWCHP can be fired from a 1 7/8" barrel with a MV of some 1040 fps (as is apparently advertised) without significantly exceeding 20 kpsi MAP."

So what peak pressure does it take to get those ballistics? As you seem to have the common sense to know, maybe you can share it with all of us.

Or you might just rather debate it.

If magic powder is not a premise, I'll give it a limited try. As most here know, major ammo manufacturers have for decades made a 158 grain LSWCHP +P available, with typical MV from a 1 7/8" snub of some 820 fps. Now, even if one assumes that about 870 fps MV can be achieved (as once in a while had been done with some snubs with this type of ammo when it was tested in hot weather) from a 1 7/8" snub without exceeding 20 kpsi MAP -- it doesn't take fancy mathematics to get an approximate MAP that would be required if a similar powder was used to produce MV of 1040 fps from a 1 7/8" snub. Using basic physics reveals that approximately 43% greater average force (or pressure) pushing the bullet would be required. Obviously, that MAP would be substantially more than 20 kpsi and would actually be fairly close to proof load pressure for a +P rated .38 special revolver. Whether that matters to some or not is, of course, another matter.

As previously mentioned, no known powder manufacturer has listed or advertised a powder that can produce 1040 fps with a 158 gr. LHP fired from a 1 7/8" snub, at anywhere close to 20 kpsi MAP.

What would be required if I wanted to have the .38 LSWC-HP BB load tested by you?

Have you ever tested any BB ammo? Seems like a lot of this back and forth debate could be dispensed with if you have some actual results to share.

Consider it dispensed with, enough was stated on this matter for anyone who has a clue.

Re Dwalt 's comments on ammo fitting where it shouldn't, I've owned two S&W M-19's with chambers so large that each could chamber FIRED .38 S&W cases shot in a .38-200!

Both gave sticky extraction with full .357 loads, and I disposed of them.

...with a lot of testing and good quality control. This would help them make a CONSISTENT load at or above SAAMI specs with very little chance of a kaboom. As mentioned before there is a LOT of room between the SAAMI specs and the proof load of a gun. What WILL happen though is that a gun that can take the pressure and not explode will begin to strain and stretch and this will show more quickly than if more 'standard' ammo was used. I try to practice with a close approximation of a defense load, but one that I know is within the capabilities of the gun I'm shooting. Save the really heavy stuff for the real thing and practice with them sparingly.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"