.38+P ammo is the same as pre 1972 ammo?

[JP@AK]

Why the FBI chose .38 special.

Iggy. The link does not seem to work. I'd like to read this.
JP

 

[Iggy]

Iggy. The link does not seem to work. I'd like to read this.
JP

Try going to this great thread about the FBI posted by lw (Larry Wack)

Click on the link about Application of Frank Baughman and the Dusty roads.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-ha...282722-fbis-frank-baughman-new-documents.html

Scroll down .. way down in the links on the right to Handguns prior to 1933.
there will be a link to a letter about the choosing of the .38 special.

 

[JP@AK]

Found it Iggy. Very interesting memorandum from Mr. Keith.
Thanks for helping me find it.
Jack

 

[mkk41]

As listed by the manufacturers +P generates 18,500 PSI of chamber pressure. This "+Pressure" is only so when compared to the current standard load at 16,000 PSI. The +P isn't really + at all, being 3,000 PSI below maximum allowable pressure for the caliber.

I believe the older "standard" loads with a 158 at 850 FPS were likely generating around 20,000 PSI. Starting in the late 1970s the fear of lawsuits caused them to reduce the loads and +P was created to fool consumers into thinking that high performance loads were still being sold by the mainstream ammo makers.

C'mon, just read the chart. Since when is a 125 grain bullet at 925 FPS any sort of hot load? I am totally perplexed at how shooters keep thinking +P is some sort of powerful load.

The pressures you quote are SAAMI pressure limits for .38 and .38 +P , but who's to say just what pressure the ammo makers are actually loading to today?

We might assUme they're loading near max , but unless one has actual pressure testing equipment , it's all a mute point.

And as made clear in loading manuals that list pressure , we see that higher chamber pressure does not always equal higher velocity.

 

[Beemer-mark]

For what it's worth -
My 1973 Hornady manual lists a 158 gn hollow point loaded with 5.1 gn of Bullseye @ 900 fps (we can assume the testing was done pre-1973).

My current Hornady lists the max as 4.2 gns of Bullseye for 750 fps. the +P load is 4.5 gns for 800 fps.

Quite a difference.

Besides liability I wonder how much the gun manufacturers have toned it down. When you give an unlimited warranty you sure don't want guns coming back with stretched frames or other issues from firing thousands of hot loads.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

Having chron-ed a bunch of "vintage" ammo all the way back to the 30's, I can say that "in general" older ammo was close to the quoted velocities. Not always but more often than not.

So, I stand in the crowd that all 38/357 rounds have taking one full step down in power level since I started reloading in the 70's. Essentially a modern 38 special is about the power of a 38 S&W was, a 38+p today is about equal to a 38 special of days gone by. A modern 357 Magnum is about equal to a 38/44 of old. etc.

This is just based upon my shooting of vintage ammo over my Oehler 35p chrono.

Draw your own conclusions.


As to my standard 5.0 grns of Unique with a 158 lead SWC in 38 special. That used to be the standard default load for Unique for decades. Now it is past plus P in some books. I still shoot a bunch of them.

 

[DWalt]

Take it for what it's worth, but the Wikipedia page for .38 Special does make the statement that ammunition chamber pressures and velocities were reduced by the manufacturers in 1972. And I believe that it is true. This is what is said: "It is important to recognize that SAAMI changed the specifications for the 38 Special in 1972. Prior to that time the standard .38 Special was very close to today's "+P" cartridges."

I have understood that the principal reason for this was that different laboratory methods for pressure testing (the old copper crusher vs the new Piezoelectric pressure gauges) were incorporated about that time, and provided a far more precise means for measuring chamber pressure vs. time. The old copper crusher method could not come close to matching the precision of the piezo gauge, and in fact was incapable of measuring peak pressure at all. With this tool at hand, the whole concept of maximum chamber pressure was re-visited, resulting in lowering chamber pressure maximum limits across the board.

If anyone from any of the ammunition companies or SAAMI is reading this, perhaps they could supply a more complete explanation as to what happened 40 years ago.

 

[Wiregrassguy]

S&W used to provide a number of the 7/8" pine boards (IIRC) their cartridges would penetrate. I don't have any of their ads in front of me, but someone here probably does. Why not just run a test of current ammo and see how many boards it penetrates? If they don't penetrate as deeply as the old S&W ads say, you have your answer.

 

[DWalt]

There's Pine and there's pine. Different varieties, different moisture content, different age, etc. Hardly comparable to some factory information from 1960. Such a test might work in a comparative sense if someone had ammunition from, say, the 1960s and some of exactly the same type and manufacturer made recently. Measuring MVs of both rounds using a chronograph and the same gun would be far better, and that's what I suggested in a posting quite a way up the list. I'd do it, but I don't have any old .38 Special ammunition that would be suitable.