Greetings!

There is always a back and forth discussion about whether ammo companies continue to detune there products over liability concerns, etc.

Here is my input for the debate…

While I don’t have access to much vintage .38 special ammo, I did happen to a have full box of Remington’s (now discontinued) +P loading of a 158 gr. LRN made in 1977. Actually, the date code is technically for the box itself and was stamped on by the manufacturer who did the printing. It indicates a date of 4/77. Of course, that does not mean that the ammo was loaded the same month, but I am willing to bet that Remington's box backlog was on the order of months, not years ("Just-In-Time" manufacturing was already in place during the 70's).

FYI- The nomenclature for the 70's load tested is "38 Special (+P) 158 GRAIN LEAD R38S8"

The best comparison would be to the current +P loading of the 158 gr. LSWC-HP (FBI load), bought from Bass Pro Shops in 2007.

Here are the results, out of my 1942 production Colt Official Police with the 6” heavy barrel (Sorry guys, my old Smiths are in .32 Long and .32/20, not .38):

1977 Remington .38 Special +P (158 gr. LRN)

Average Velocity (3 shots) = 1007 fps
Average Energy (3 shots) = 356 fpe

2007 Remington .38 Special +P (158 gr. LSWC-HP)

Average Velocity (3 shots) = 1000 fps
Average Energy (3 shots) = 351 fpe

Surprise!

1007 fps vs 1000 fps

It appears that Remington has maintained the exact performance of their +P lead loads very well over the past 30 years. Any difference between them is purely academic due to the low number of shots fired. Out course different ammo lots/guns could yield different results, but that’s OK.

Please comment!

I know somebody will complain that I should have done the testing in a 2” j-frame because nobody uses 6” .38 revolvers anymore. Funny thing is that I DO carry my 6” .38 for real defensive use.

Take Care,

Hunter
__________________
Mechanical Engineer
Captain, US Army Ordnance Corps 1998-2002
Eagle Scout 1994

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away..."

Currently located along Colorado's glorious Front Range enjoying hiking, shooting, hunting, snowboarding and rock concerts!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: .455_Hunter,

Interesting. Thanks!

Thanks for the info. It is appreciated. Be interesting to also have a comparison with the old pre +P 38 Special High speed loads which were supposedly specifically intended for the old N frame 38-44 S&W as well as the large frame Colts in 38 Special chambering.

It has been my understanding that those loads were well above +P pressure specs. Per the old ammo lists in Gun Digest they were supposed to do 1090 FPS, I believe from a 6" barrel.

Even those are way below some of the loads in Speer #8 which went to a claimed 1250 FPS with a 158 grain lead SWC from a 6" S&W.

This was a very interesting post. I like that lead HP ammo, and wondered how it'd fare in a six-inch bbl.

Thanks for posting. I have always thought that the claims that loads have been wimped down were a load of web BS often based on a comparison of old velocity claims from manufacturers using unvented longer barrel data compared to the more realistic standardized manufacturers' data used today. And all blamed on those notorious mythical lawyers.

Lets see?
How does that go?
Something about the placement of Kings and Queens penetrating one another?
But wasn't there an angel balancing the video-cam on the pin head?

Thanks very much .455_Hunter!
(And as well for your service!)

Not that I think they are, but it could be possible that Remington loaded those down a bit in order to avoid leading. Both loads use lead bullets. What ever the case, it's obvious that Remington has a tried and true system and has had one for some time.

BTW, I don't find it hard to believe that you carry a 6" gun, .455. I prefer a five or six inch gun myself. Welcome to the forum, and thanks for sharing.

Well, to make it really interesting it would be fun if we could test the 6 rounds of Super Vel .38 special I have!

I was amazed once to see a Forum member reveal his six-inch Heavy Duty that he was at that moment carrying concealed. It can be done and if a person had to get into a gun fight, the larger gun could be a comfort for accurate shot placement

I'd prefer that Remington load or one similar to any 9mm loading.

Nice report. Thanks. I've long been confident that the major ammo makers are pretty consistent with their better products. Your test tends to buoy my confidence.

I must say that when I am armed with the 6" OP, it is either open carried in a belt holster, or contained in my Mountainsmith lumbar pack.

quote:

Thanks for posting. I have always thought that the claims that loads have been wimped down were a load of web BS often based on a comparison of old velocity claims from manufacturers using unvented longer barrel data compared to the more realistic standardized manufacturers' data used today. And all blamed on those notorious mythical lawyers.

+1, I personally put it into the urban legend category, but will let the numbers fall where they may when I do my old -vs- new chrono comparisons. Hope to do that when the temps fall to about 75 degrees, as it will require several hours on the range with no shade. I have accumulated 6 more boxes of old .38 Special ammo, including a box of the 200 gr. loads, and some additional new ammo as well.

stiab,

Please post your results. I am especially interested in the 200 gr. stuff and any .38/44 you might have...

The main reason that many seem to think that factory ammo has been reduced is because the ballistic data in the older published charts generally show higher velocities than the current charts. The reason that seems to escape most people is that they're comparing apples to oranges as the testing conditions where different 30 years ago.

The old data velocities where generally obtained from 8" non vented test barrels or 6 to 8" revolver test guns. Of course the data showed higher velocity when compared to current test procedures using a 4" vented test barrel to simulate a 4" revolver.

Your experiment confirms what I've been saying for years, that the loads and pressures have remained basically the same, only the test methods have changed.

quote:

any .38/44 you might have

Will do on the posting .455, so far the 38/44 has eluded me. I though I found some at the Harrisburg PA gun show a month ago, but upon closer examination it was the correct box with a few reloads. For the test comparison I will be using only rounds from full boxes that appear to match the box.