I have a copy of Remington's 1977 catalog which shows velocities for both vented and unvented test barrels. The subject is the 38 Special +P 158 gr LRN:

Factory vented 4 inch barrel velocity - 915 fps
Factory regular 6 inch barrel velocity - 1,090 fps (typical 38-44 velocity from 6 inch test barrels used by Remington for many years)

This 1977 38-44 type load (1,090 fps from 6 inch factory unvented barrel, 915 fps from vented 4 inch) as this Rem +P version can be duplicated at 915 fps (chrono confirmed) from my 4 inch revolver using 5.2 grs of Unique.

Any thoughts?

Interestingly, this load (5.2 grains Unique and a 158 grain lead bullet) is what is currently recommended for a .38 Special +P load. Speer #14 has this as their max load giving 919 ft/sec from a 6 inch K-38. Lyman #50 gives 5.3 grains under a 160 grain cast bullet at 985 ft/sec from a 4 inch test barrel (presumably unvented) with a pressure of 18,500 CUP.

I've fired lots of these loads (or their equivalent) over the years with excellent results in a variety of modern revolvers. These are not .38/44 loads, which are usually reported as developing 23,000-25,000 psi (20,000 psi is SAAMI max for .38 Special +P) and give 1100-1200 ft/sec in 6 inch heavy frame revolvers.

One thought. For some reason you just can't seem to grasp the simple
reality that +P 38 spl velocitys are NOT 38/44 velocities.

Someone give us a Amen?

OK

Amen

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

The older post 1952 38-44 loadings and 1977 +P version have the same 6 inch velocity figures (1,090 fps) - what is so hard to grasp that? numbers don't lie unless Remington was inflating its 1,090 fps listing in its 1977 catalog...

My FBI replica load is made with HS-6 but I guess Unique and do it too.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

No, but ammunition manufacturers published velocities do! Especially those numbers published until the late 1980s or so when consumer chronographs became fairly common and people started to complain that they were actually seeing velocities about 100 FPS lower than published figures! That is when published velocities for standard .38 Special were reduced from 850-855 FPS to 755-770 FPS, the same as 148 Gr. factory wad-cutter ammunition!

The ammunition sold in the late 1970s was not equivalent to the earlier .38-44 ammunition, even though Remington may still have been using the "Hi Velocity" designation for it! It is also unlikely that if you find any of that ammunition and actually chronograph it that that "1090 FPS" ammunition would show anything even close to to the claimed velocity.

Now, are you ready for a big surprise? A couple of weeks ago I found some Sellier & Bellot .38 Special 158 RNL ammunition at Sportsman's Warehouse. This is standard pressure ammunition they state is loaded to CIP standards. CIP does have a +P standard, just like SAAMI, but this is not so labeled. Want to know what velocities I got from this standard pressure ammunition? Well, here are the results:

Published velocity for this load is 997 FPS from a 7.5" barrel;

Model 10-5 2"; 881 FPS (Standard reduction of 25 FPS/inch of barrel a velocity of ca 860 FPS could be expected.)

Model 12-2 4"; 974 FPS (Expected ca. 910 FPS!) What I have seen from this gun I just bought it is fast for a 4"!

Model 10-4 6"; 1006 FPS (Expected ca. 960 FPS.)

These velocities are higher than Federal and Remington SAAMI 158 gr +P "FBI Loads" when fired from the same guns! This really makes me wonder about our SAAMI +P and standard pressure factory loads.

And PLEASE(!), no "helpful remarks" about Model 12s, cracked frames etc! I have fired loads much heavier from a Model 12 in the past with absolutely no damage!** They are not as delicate as some who have never owned or shot a Model 12, and who post dire "information" every time someone posts about just bought or is considering buying a Model 12! You all know who you are, and so does anyone who has been on the Forum for any length of time!

** I'll tell you about it some day when I am in the mood! It has to do with Speer #8!

__________________
Gunsmithing since 1961

Thank you for your detailed explanation, and interesting facts about ammunition claims. Proof is in the details as you rightly demonstrated.

I bought these 15-20 years ago from a now closed gun shop. The owner knew I reloaded and told me to buy these Norma 38 Specials +P for the brass. I shot one box years ago and still have a full box . I have no access to a chronograph my question is has anyone shot and chronographed these loads. They are 110 gr. Hollow Points. Norma lists velocity at 1115 fps and muzzle energy at 302 FP. Box states "Results obtained from 4" vented barrel".

Attached Images

image.jpg (58.0 KB, 13 views)

Hopefully this is a better picture.

Attached Images

image.jpg (64.3 KB, 19 views)

It has been my experience that Norma loaded their ammo on the warm side. I had a problem with Norma .357 Magnum ammo in which the primer extruded into the hammer nose hole in the frame, locking up the cylinder on my S&W Model 19. However, Norma ammo, when used in .380 ACP pistols, usually clears up erratic ejection problems as European ammo for pistols is loaded a bit more stout than domestic loads.

At one time, late '60s / early'70s, Norma had the hottest 110 grain .38 Special load on the market. I don't believe it was the one described above. Pressure testing showed around 27,000 CUP if I remember all that correctly.

So, this begs the question about the strength of K-Frames. There is an S&W Advertisement, that I think we have all seen, that clearly states that 38/44 ammo is safe to shoot in the K-frames of the day. This advertisement dates to post WW2 and pre-Model numbers. Pictured in the advertisement is a 2" snubby pre-M10 short action.

If this is.was true why do we all worry about a 20,000 psi threshhold?

__________________
Support your Police, & NRA

True,and if I may,I'd rephrase your question and insert the word ''lawyer'' somewhere into it.

ALK,I like your velocitiy findings and appreciate to the highest point your comment about the Model 12.I own one and I too have found it to be tougher than what people generally think.
Qc