I know that has probably been posted a dozen times before, but could someone give me an idea of what S&W recommends about the use of +P ammo in their .38 revolvers? Dates etc..

It is just fine for sure. This info can be found on their website, click on manuals for modern revolvers, and go down to page 11. As long as the gun is model marked, and not an airweight, ti, scandium, or PD series, +p is okay.

Actually it gets asked a dozen times a week.

BUT Smith and Wesson's stance is that all Model marked guns are +P safe

You will probably get a reply from another member stating that all post 1930 guns are safe, which I tend to agree with, but being yours are model marked you are good to go.

My question back is...do you plan to shoot enough expensive +P ammo in your gun to make it an issue??

29aholic makes a very good point! I would buy a box of all the +P ammo of different brands that you can find and see which is the most accurate in your gun, and practice with the standard .38 loads. This way you will find which one of the +P loads that your gun is actually sighted in for and groups the best with your grip. If the pracitice loads don't hit where your carry loads do but close, that is fine. It all works out in the end.

Continues to amaze me.
]
Factory +P is loaded well below maximum allowable pressure and people still believe it is powerful and could be harmful.

In our lawsuit driven society, does anyone really think any ammo maker would sell a product that could in any way, shape or form be dangerous?

__________________
No life story has happy end.

Amen! Standard .38 special ammo SAAMI spec pressure is 17,000 psi.

+P is only 20,000 psi. Not much difference for any of todays guns.

Thanks for the info. I was more concerned about wear and tear on it than the ammo being so powerful that it would destroy the gun. I just didn't want to shoot the gun "loose" and start having timing issues and that sort of thing. I do not plan on shooting that much factory ammo in the gun. I would like to sight both of them in with it and then work up a reload that shoots to approximately the same point of impact.

That will depend on the day of the week and who you talk too, some say yes, some say no. I agree it is a non issue.

__________________
Dom

Yours is the 3rd +P post on this page at this time. There are some good replies in the other two threads also, you may want to take a look at them. Your 14 and 15 will be fine for +P if they are in good working condition.

I don't mean to sound like a grouch but I just cannot understand why someone would want to use +P in a 14. (Or15 for that matter.) If you like muzzle blast noise recoil etc. get an N frame and blast away. Do you really need that extra 50 fps or whatever it is you get?

A fine revolver is a precision instrument, and deserves respect and care. But then it's not my gun.

I agree with you. I probably don't need the small amount of velocity that I would gain. I just like the looks of the guns more than a m 19 and I would like to sqeeze a little more versatility out of the two when in the field.

I concur. If your model 14/15 is your only gun, by all means, use whatever you please within the designed safe limits. If you have others, or any other 357, then I don't understand why you would want to shoot anything other than safe and accurate target ammo, especially in the 14. It is designed as a target gun, and as such using target or plinker ammo is more appropriate IMHO.

I don't agree at all, at least in the case of the Model 15. Mine is a Combat Masterpiece, emphasis on the Combat...While it is a fun range shooter that makes me look good, it is also part of my HD selection. Since 38spl "+P" factory loads are barely scraping the bottom edge of performance potential, there is no reason not to use it. Even "an extra 50fps" might be the difference between a flesh wound, or punching an internal organ...maybe. I'd rather have than not.

I think it is more like 200 fps or so in some cases. Not to mention, try and find some decent ammo today in 38 special that is NOT +p...

A lot of today's +P loads are actually milder by a noticable margin than the standard loads of 30-50 years ago.


I'm calling BS on the issue of +P being hard on any 14 or 15. It just ain't so. There's just too much misinformation being passed around the internet and local gun clubs/ranges about this issue. A little research and a few phone calls will clear up most of it.

Do you have any actual test data to back that up? An interesting thread on the ammo section a month or two ago citing actual test data conducted by the posters led them and others to the conclusion that standard loads of yesteryear were just as mild as they are today. Quoting older -vs- newer published factory velocities does not prove it, as testing methods changed in the late 1970's, significantly reducing the advertised velocities.

Buy a subscription to Handloader magazine. Brian Pearce of Handloader has made mention of this fact in some of his excellent articles on the .38

Published velocity in some of the older sources I have was done in actual handguns, so I'd say that's valid enough.

How many of those in that thread had actual ammo from the 40's and 50's? That stuff is quite valuable now, so I rather doubt they were doing much if any shooting with it.

I'd say that it's up to someone to disprove the published velocities from days gone by, rather than questioning them because they have a hard time believing they could be true.

I wasn't there and can only go by referrrence sources I have available to read.

Ammo made a long time ago may or may not shoot just as well (fast)today.

I make my own so it does not matter to me, and my loads for my (fifty year old, and older) 14s is 2.8 grains of Bullseye behind a 148 grain lead SWC. I don’t know how fast it goes but it goes where it’s pointed. If I’m interested in fps I have lots of .357s.

To me the problem with hot loads is that you can get away with it for a while, maybe quite a while, maybe forever. But if the load was too much then you find out too late that you have an expensive repair job at best. They make guns to handle .357 velocities and that is what I use when I want that. Not that it matters but I think that .38 Special +P is a solution to a problem that did not exist.

Why do people reference reloading data on threads concerning factory ammo?

Can you provide actual info?

Actual old ammo was tested. Old ammo is not hard to find, or expensive for that matter.

That's what the thread below, and others, have done...

38 Special: The Vintage Ammo Test!!!!

i reload my ammo for my 14-2. if you reload you can make it to any spec you want. 38 spec. is one of the most popular target rounds in shyooting. it is an easy round to reload. i enjoy loading as much as i do shooting. scooter-2

"Can you provide actual info?" -stiab

Ask and ye shall receive.


Chart #1:

Some .38 Special velocities actually measured (not claimed by the manufacturer) from a 4" Colt Official Police:

Remington 158 grain lead made in the late 1960s-early 70s...840 fps
Peters 158 grain lead made in the 1950s...800 fps
Western Super-X 158 grain lead made in the mid-late1960s...810 fps
Western 150 grain metal-piercing made in the mid-late 1960s...1000 fps
Remington 158 grain lead "Hi-Speed" made in the 1950s...920 fps

The 158 loads from the 1950s-1970s are clearly more potent than the current offerings that achieve a claimed 730-755 FPS velocity. The observed 800-840 FPS is consistent with the manufacturer claims at the time of 870-910 FPS since they used a 6" "pressure barrel" to achieve the claimed velocities and actual velocities from 4" revolvers ran somewhat lower. But clearly not the huge difference some people claim in their assertions that factory .38 Special ammo has not been reduced in power. Also, bear in mind that the ammo being tested was all 30-50 years old and may have exhibited some deterioration in the powder which may have caused lower velocities than the ammo developed when new.

----------------------------

Call me a liar if you wish (you have done so, before) but there it is. Actual vintage ammo fired from an actual gun showing actual velocity superiority over current offerings. Sure, the difference isn't huge, maybe 50-80 FPS (discounting the specialty loads), but it is there. I would add that a 158 at 840 probably generates very similar, if not the exact same, chamber pressure as a lighter 125 bullet at 925 (and THAT is the +P that has so many folks all shook up).

PS: Note that the armor piercing load (150@1,000) carried no +P label or warning to use only in specific guns.

__________________
No life story has happy end.

One of my most-fired guns is a Model 14 I bought in 1978. It was used then but it didn't look like it had been shot much, if at all.

I used it to hunt ground squirrels, locally called "picket pins" or "pot guts." Well, shoot them rather than hunt them as there is no real hunting skills involved. My favorite load was a Sierra 110 grain JHP over 7.0 grains of Unique. The books today would refer to that as Plus-P.

I shot a couple of thousand rounds of that handload through that gun, in addition to probably that many more wadcutter target loads, plus other odds and ends.

The K-38 is still much tighter than a Model 15-4 I bought NIB about 15 years later.

I doubt that Model 14's were built with any higher degree of care than were Model 15's of the same period, same degree of fit and precision. You won't whack them "out of tune."

Todays Plus-P just isn't that hot. Shoot the same weight bullet from the same maker, standard velocity and Plus-P, side to side, one after the other and you will be hard pressed to feel much recoil difference. Plus-P is way more gentle than .357 Magnum.

There is a lot more difference between factory loaded .38 Special standard velocity and mid-range target ammo, than there is between standard velocity and Plus-P ammo.

You don't really seem interested in learning anything here. You do seem to intent on forcing others to believe what you do though. I reported what I have read. If you don't believe it, that's fine by me. I owe you nothing.

Saxon Pig posted some info contrary to the link that you put up. Is he a liar, wrong, or exactly what? His post is as valid as that of the guy you linked to above.

I have over a thousand back issues of various gun magazines dating back to the around 1982 or so. I also have Gun Digests going back to the early '50's and Shooter's Bibles going back as far as 1949. If you would like to come and dig through all of them and read, knock yourself out. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do it just to prove a point to you. Why should I do your research? Prove to me otherwise that current ammo is just as potent as earlier offerings were. I don't belive that the one thread that you linked (which I followed when it was posted) is proof of anything. It was decent of the guy to do it, but it still is from one source only.

There is nothing to be gained by trying to defend either position here. It really isn't that important. I simply commented on what I have read numerous times.

As far as older ammo not being expensive goes, tell that to the thousands of guy who collect it. We have several of them right here on this forum.

Tested by who? You don't claim to have tested them yourself. Why no source? Why do they all end in "0". Are they rounded?

When S&W went from test barrels to real guns for their own brand of ammo, many of their advertised velocities dropped by 20% or more in one year. That's a real difference.

Did you read the thread I provided? Those people (unlike you) gave the source of their results.

That's the problem. Other people are reporting what they have actually tested, and you are not.

But the huge difference is Saxon Pig does not give actual sources for his numbers, or claim to have tested the .38 Specials himself.

I have all the old books and know what they say, but those numbers were produced using unvented test barrels, not real handguns.

The problem is-

that you are dismissing the older data out of hand, with no proof or data of your own that you have provided or conducted yourself.

I have older sources as I already stated that say they used actual handguns for their testing. Instead of demanding that I produce evidence to prove my stance, why don't you produce some to bolster yours? I don't mean links to other threads either. Just cold hard facts that state something very close to what you have been saying. I am open minded, and willing to listen if you have something concrete to share.
If you have all the old books as you say, then you shouldn't have much trouble finding the data that goes with what I have said.

In Handloader #243, Brian Pearce gives early original ballistics for the .38 special on page 32 in his article on the .38/44 HD, as a 158 grain lead RN bullet at 860 fps, while that figure today is shown as 755 fps. Since they didn't have pressure barrels for a lot of the early data, it was fired in a revolver of the period and velocities recorded. The load listed for today is taken in a pressure barrel, so it looks like the ballistics back then were definately higher than today.

That's incorrect, see link below.

Again, see link below.

See link below.

This test was conducted because in Saxon Pig's statements about .38 Special being watered down, he also specifically stated the same thing has happened to 38 Super, and he stated current factory 38 Super is loaded at less than 1100 fps. I performed the following test to check that out. Also, I have made many other posts about actual ammo tests I have conducted, which are scattered throughout the ammo section.

Ammo Test Old -vs- New for 38 Super