quote:

Point well taken, Stiab. Note however that Speer #9 table has BOTH test barrel and revolver velocities.

BTW, I think we had this conversation before in Osprey's 1000 +P thread

Yes we did Mike! I'm continuing to accumulate older .38 Special ammo for testing, and have added three boxes since that thread. Mostly found them on Gunbroker, and it is pretty expensive. Soon I hope to do the older -vs- newer test of factory ammo and see how it falls out. Also am collecting 38 Super for the same type test, but it will only have a few boxes of old and new.

quote:

Originally posted by Spotteddog:
I think I've solved the dilemma you face Eric!
Your supposed to shoot them first with blanks as a less than lethal first step in the force continuum.
The morons!...

Don't laugh, this really happens. In the early 80's while a young cop, we had a a woman Council President, later Mayor - later dead (whew!) who wanted to cut the budget by having our guys requalify quarterly with blank ammo because it was cheaper! Of course she wanted to buy only eight pairs of new boots for the Fire Dept because that's all the guys regularly on a shift. Don't know what extra guys called in would use.

SmithMarine,
With such inspired leadership at the helm, it's no wonder you'd be a satisfied sworn member!
How'd she check out?
Fragged (I hope!)

quote:

Originally posted by rozenbem:
Gator,
Remington R38S12 are LSWC-HP and they are +P. Neither works for Erick...
Mike

R38S14 is the LSWCHP. R38S12 is advertised (and presumably marked on the box) as just a lead HP. Technically, that would seem to fall within the allowable regs if they only ban semiwadcutters. From what I remember, and it's been a bit since I bought any, R38S12 has a different bullet profile than R38S14.

If a new +P rated revolver is a potential purchase (or +P is used to a limited degree in an older revolver) this might be an option.

quote:

You get into so many gunfights that is a problem? A few for familiarization and practice with something cheaper.
I do not want any jacketed bullet in a non-magnum revolver, but at least Buffalo Bore shoots theirs in real guns so you can see what is going on.
Posts: 608 | Location

Never been in a gun fight, hope I never am, but if I ever am I will be prepared, there is my problem with the Buffalo Bore ammo being expensive, I shoot alot and I like to train with what I carry.

Stiab,

Gator, LHP is really confusing name for a bullet. Got this image from Stephen Camp's site; seems LHP is same as LSWCHP. At least this is how S. Camp calls it.



Mike

P.S Here is an idea. Since the box says R38S12 is LHP, technically it's not WC or SWC. Erick can make a case that it's allowed by his department regulations and use it. Case closed.

quote:

Originally posted by erickg:
Never been in a gun fight, hope I never am, but if I ever am I will be prepared, there is my problem with the Buffalo Bore ammo being expensive, I shoot alot and I like to train with what I carry.

If you're not a handloader, this might be a reason to start. You can create a handload that mimicks your carry ammo (same recoil/POI) and save a LOT of money. That's what I do, and that's why I started.

Not surprisingly, her liver was fried from to much self administered anesthetic.
Semper Fi

quote:

Originally posted by Spotteddog:
SmithMarine,
With such inspired leadership at the helm, it's no wonder you'd be a satisfied sworn member!
How'd she check out?
Fragged (I hope!)

quote:

Originally posted by stiab:

quote:

Without seeing any evidence I find it hard to believe that in 1970's a major manufacturer was unable to purchase reliable chronograph.

I don't think the issue is about them not having an accurate chronograph, but rather the fact that they were using long unvented test barrels, which produced higher results than the shorter vented test barrels of today.

My original point referenced claimed velocities from the 1940's and 1950's. Chronos were indeed few and far between. Even if the factories did have them, who could validate their numbers? Yes, unvented test barrels were in use in the 1970's.

SmithCrazy-your more recent post quoted pressure specs in PSI. I'm curious as to the date of that. There's been a lot of sloppy editing and/or assumption that pressure specs are PSI when in fact they were CUP.

Boy would I like to get the velocities published, with the charge listed by Winchester!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: WR Moore,

quote:

SmithCrazy-your more recent post quoted pressure specs in PSI. I'm curious as to the date of that. There's been a lot of sloppy editing and/or assumption that pressure specs are PSI when in fact they were CUP.

WR, If you notice I gave where the information came from. It's as current as their website data can be.

quote:

Their data page lists:

If there has been sloppy editing/assumption it hasn't been from me. I just quoted the information from the powder manufacturer's website. Now, if the powder maker posts goofy information who do you suggest we believe when handloading? We've had all kinds of discussion about bullet maker's data not being reliable or safe, i.e. Speer #8 threads.

My point was that IMR posted data with unrealistic results in velocity. Certainly not representitive of real world results anyway. I submit then that the pressure wasn't anywhere near theirs either. It would seem to me that I would only get the same pressure they got from the same powder they used at the same velocity they got.

Funny how for many many years folks used data that was listed as tested in CUP and didn't blow up their guns! Now that we know better....... right!

The ammo/load data folks aren't immune from mistakes. There was a thread here awhile back on pressures of 38+P ammo where one of the ammo companies copywriters gratuitously decided that all pressure specs were PSI. Apparently, the editors didn't know any better either.

I had an ATK load tech tell me that if I wasn't getting the velocity, I wasn't getting the pressures. The case head expansion with one lot of brass told me that the velocity with acceptable pressures was real marginal.

I agree that powder manufacturers data often "seems optimistic with respect to velocity". On the other hand, I've got an old Hercules load book that was revised within 30 days of issue. The loads for the then new 125 gr JHP were drastically lower in the later book-and with good cause.

This is an excellent opportunity to
sell/trade for a new S&W 640 .357 Mag
lots of options ammo wise from the best
Speer .38 Spcl +P Short Barrel 1135 gr.
Gold DOt Jhps or a Model 60 .357 Mag 3"
Bbl. both all steel but only 23-24 oz.

quote:

Got this image from Stephen Camp's site; seems LHP is same as LSWCHP

The following is not really on topic, but interesting I think: I have a newer and older box of that ammo pictured, with the same lot or product code. The newer box has ammo that is too long for my 1970 Model 60. The bullet heads are slightly longer than in the older box. The newer/longer rounds will chamber in both my M640 and M38. The older box with slightly shorter bullet heads will fit in the M60 and all the others. Weird, I think.

And Stiab,
That could explain why some lot's of the stuff, may tie up certain guns (Ti J's in this case) while other folks using other lot's of it may experience pull, with out tie up?
Curiouser and curiouser? Good catch!

back to the original inquiry at hand...may I offer a simple answer to your simple question:

quote:

My department dose not allow the use of wadcutters, and both of my J frames are airlights non +p rated. My question then is what ammo to use?

I interpret that you have a concern & want to use normal pressure ammunition in your firearms...here's my offerings: current production & normal pressure...(be aware that these might make some readers cringe since they are NOT in the top 3 'popular' defensive loads);

Hornady XTP 125gr jhp, Hornady XTP 158gr jhp, Federal 'Personal Defense' HydraShock 110gr jhp, Winchester Silvertip 110gr jhp, and I found info about Fiocchi loading 3 different 125gr jhp's (one is the Hornady XTP and 2 loads are semijacketed hollowpoints at different velocities)...

there's enough to chew on for now; good luck!