Saw an old S&W advertisement (attached) which lists the velocities of various 38 Special and 357 Mag loadings from their registered 357 Magnum with 8 3/8 inch barrel.

Shows both a 38 Special S&W Super Speed loading at 1,100 fps and 38-44 S&W Special 1,226 fps. Looks like the Super Speed version became what we know of 158 gr lead 38 Spl +P rounds today (38 Spl +P 158 gr lead rounds make about 1,100 fps from the 8 3/8 longer tubes). The 38-44,at its higher velocities from the 1930s, were most likely reduced and disappeared after WW2.

Attached Images

IMG_2118.jpg (102.3 KB, 71 views)

The .38 Special Hi-Speed, High Velocity, Super Speed, and Super-X all refer to the same .38-44 cartridge but from different manufacturers. There may be slight velocity differences dependent on manufacturer and bullet type and weight. The .38-44 went out of production in the early 1970s, more or less replaced by the +P loading. Published MVs of the .38-44 did drop a little beginning in the late 1960s.

DWalt - I agree that the manufacturers reduced the 38-44 velocities but I always struggled to determine when absent data.

The only data I have of pre +P loadings are from the late 60s and early 70s (pre 1973) which indicate velocities near today's Rem/Fed/Win 158 gr lead +P loadings (970 fps - 1,000 fps - 6 inch revolvers).

I'm surmising that once the manufacturers started using strain gauging did they realize the old 38-44s were indeed too hot. However, their catalogs still showed same velocities (1,090 fps in 6 inch test barrels) from early 1950s till the +P designation was established in the 70s.

Ammo manufacturers started to use piezoelectric gauges in the mid-late 1960s. I worked for Hercules (long before Alliant took over), and we were using them for pressure testing (and other measurements) at that time. There is no good way to compare piezo pressure measurements with the ancient copper crusher method. The CC method doesn't measure chamber pressure at all, only something which is roughly analogous to average pressure.

I used to measure pressures with an oscilloscope equipped with a Polaroid camera to take a picture of the screen. Instrumentation was fairly crude at that time, computerization and solid state electronics were in their infancy. We didn't have anything even comparable to a pocket calculator back then. Best we had in our labs were slide rules and mechanical calculators, nothing programmable until the early 1970s, and even then it was crude.

DWalt, thank you for your detailed inputs, and your knowledge of this great cartridge.

Going back to the 1970's and earlier ammunition manufacturers offered published data for their ammo that was usually developed under ideal conditions (temperature, humidity, other variables) and done using unvented test barrels of relatively long length (10" or more were common). There really wasn't any direct relationship between the published data and what could be expected in commonly used handguns.

Another interesting observation on those times is that ammo makers frequently provided tables indicating how much penetration could be expected, expressed in terms of the number of 1" pine boards were penetrated during test firing of the calibers and loadings offered. It seems that penetration was considered to be a desirable quality; somewhat different than today's standards for performance.

Then again, back in the day there were automobile manufacturers making performance claims (top speed, acceleration rate, fuel economy, etc) that were seldom, if ever, attainable in the real world. There were also cigarette manufacturers touting the health benefits of their particular brands.

Anyone care for a little snake oil?

A fellow gunsmith of some repute was given an order from a well known ammunition manufacture of both pistol and rifle ammo for a group of new "Test Barrels" for the pistol ammo line. The barrels were of quality blanks but with special very unobtrusive rifling. They were to be threaded for a common small rifle action. The chamber reamers were supplied by the ammo manufacture. The lengths were 10" for the larger calibers and 8" for the smaller calibers. Since the turn around time was short my friend asked if I could come to his shop and help for about 3 or 4 days. I did so. I questioned, "Short rifle barrels for pistol ammo?" My fellow gunsmith explained that the client was bringing out a 'new' line of ammo that would be extensively advertised and the MVs had to be much better than anyone else. I caught on quickly. Tight chambers, not much rifling, no cylinder to muzzle gap, longer than usual barrels all added up to a questionable ethics situation. But, their money was good and we turned out the order.

That ammo line was accepted fairly well, but over the years I saw many complaints from end users that the claimed muzzle velocities were very very optimistic. The gun porn magazine writers pretty much ignored the discrepancies. And that my friends is the way some ammo manufactures do business. .........