.38 Special "Back in the Day"

[Alk8944]

I believe some of the confusion about .38 spl velocities stems from the
fact that some manufacturers used velocities taken from test barrels
in their product ballistics charts "back in the day".
Fast forward to recent times when the same company's listed ballistics
are much closer to actual velocities realized from typical revolvers.
Some folks that should know better will interpret this as watered down
modern 38 spl factory ammo.

Absolutely correct! Just like the difference between CUP (PSI Crusher) and PSIG/PSIA known now as "PSI Transducer" by SAAMI, aren't really different, just different methods of measuring the same thing which result in different units!

Since this started out about the .38 Special let's look at some interesting SAAMI figures for the cartridge from the 2015 SAAMI/ANSI "American National Standard Voluntary Industry Performance Standards for Pressure and Velocity of Centerfire Pistol and Revolver Ammunition for the Use of Commercial Manufacturers"

.38 Special Standard Pressure MAP* 17,000 CUP
.38 Special +P MAP 20,000 CUP

.38 Special Standard Pressure MAP 17,000 PSI Transducer
.38 Special +P MAP 20,000 PSI Transducer

* Maximum Average Pressure

Note the same numbers now for both measurement methods! As far as I can see .38 Special is the only cartridge that demonstrates this concurrence! Pressure measurements are taken using solid test barrels!

This is not to say that all Standard Pressure ammunition is loaded to 17,000 PSI, it isn't! It is loaded to what pressure, with the powder being used, it takes to give the desired ballistic performance without exceeding 17,000 (pressure units), regardless of which method is used! Any load exceeding 17,000 pressure units is, by definition a +P loading.

Same with +P as standard pressure loads. Not all are loaded to the 20,000 pressure units, but should deliver the ballistic performance the manufacturer has determined as their +P performance level, anywhere from 17,001 pressure units up, as long as it does not exceed 20,000 pressure units! If they cannot obtain desired performance within pressure limits they will change to a propellant that will give desired performance within pressure limits!

AND, in reality, I will bet there has been some +P labeled ammunition that gives what the manufacturer has determined to be +P performance, but does it at less than the defined 17,001+ pressure limits!

If we had access to the ballistics laboratories the major manufacturers and H.P. White Laboratories have available we would know!!!

 

[Pigirondan]

Given all of this, in .38 Special it seems to me that the 148/150 grain DEWC is the way to go. YMMV

 

[Krell1]

Given all of this, in .38 Special it seems to me that the 148/150 grain DEWC is the way to go. YMMV

Very interesting info but generally not to me. I agree on the .38 wadcutter.

I know next to nothing about muzzle velocity, pressure or any of that stuff. I suppose it's interesting to some. I've reloaded for almost 50 years, recently with whatever appropriate powder I can find. I follow loading charts for the powder, caliber and bullet weight I'm using. I load a few and test fire to make sure the gun functions well. If the guns shoot the way I want them to I just keep on truckin'.

I'm sure the older ammo is different from what is offered today. The really big difference I see is the cost.

 

[Texas Star]

This might be a little off topic, but the OP reminded me of an earlier experience. When I was a young man living in Denver in the early 70's there was a controversy over the local police using hollow point bullets in their 38s as opposed to the standard old RN lead heads. Activists were claiming that hollow points were "cruel". How times have changed. "Back in the day."

Happened in Dallas, too. I was asked to write a rebuttal to an article by a "community activist" who opposed HP bullets.

The articles never ran. My story made it clear that the other guy knew little of the matter and that his goal was primarily racial strife at the expense of the safety of police and citizens who were menaced by violent offenders.

I asked why the stories didn't run. My editor said that I used too many facts and overwhelmed his "points." The publisher just wanted to sell papers based on controversy, not to inform readers of the truth.

I didn't even get a "kill fee" for that story. But it kept the other guy from achieving further agitation in the matter.