.38 Special "Back in the Day"

[BUFF]

Great posts, ALK8944.

I too wonder about the Magnums, especially the .357 and .44. I started shooting handguns in 1974-1975, and like the average young American male, thought a lot isn't enough. Two of my earliest handguns were a 4" Model 66 that I still have and a 6-1/2" Model 29, long gone.

I shot a fair amount of factory ammo through both, and others back then, and a lot more .357 when I became a cop, and it did seem warmer then than it does now. The ammo catalogs seem to show much lower numbers, too, and I don't know how much of that is due to different testing methods and tools versus different velocity and pressure standards. I know my handloads, using old 2400 powder in both .357 and .44, seem to bark worse than the factory ammo I try now.

 

[Yorkie Man]

01/30/1969

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I'm not taking away from the work done here because I know what it takes to collect the data.

That said, testing only one load proves nothing. Add the fact that Winchester load was not known for high velocity, it was known for not leading the barrel. I had data from older .38 Special loads that showed higher velocities but I will not quote any numbers because the data was lost so I can't prove the numbers.

 

[OLDSTER]

>38 Special

Great thread and posts I have a question for you ballistics guys. I carry a scandium frame J-frame, and shoot it frequently at the range. I've noticed that my Hornady Critical Defense 110 grain has no more felt recaoil than my 130 grain plinkers ( neither in +P). Is this because the trade off between the lighter faster bullet, and the heavier slower bullet are giving me the same felt results ? Or is it more complicated ? Just curious . Thanks for any replies

 

[Krogen]

Great post, OP. Thanks for the effort you put into gathering data and posting it. I always appreciate real data and a conclusion. Of course we can always debate the conclusions, but we'd be discussion facts - real data, not simply impressions or "feelings."

As another wise person once said: "The plural of anecdote is not data!"

Thanks again, OP!

 

[scattershot]

Fascinating stuff. Thanks for taking the time.

 

[Nevada Ed]

I don't generally worry about 4" barrels or longer, over fps or energy.
It is hard to find ammo that will not be close to ball park figures
at these barrel lengths, no matter who the ammo maker is.

When a bullet gets to around 230 ft./lbs. of energy, I start to breath a lot easier,
if it is for SD work in the 38 special.

With the new Hi-tech coated bullets, I am just waiting to see if someone comes out with a soft lead,
125-130gr deep HP to replace the old Nyclad that worked well in the light J frames, in times past.
We could sweep a lot of old data under the rugs if that ever happens.

 

[gen3guy]

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."

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

With the new Hi-tech coated bullets, I am just waiting to see if someone comes out with a soft lead,
125-130gr deep HP to replace the old Nyclad that worked well in the light J frames, in times past.
We could sweep a lot of old data under the rugs if that ever happens.

I'm not sure that I agree completely with that. I have a reasonable supply of the old Nyclad (which, BTW, I believe is still being made) in my basement, and I have a number of J-frame revolvers whose front sights have been filed down to shoot those bullets to POA. They are probably excellent defensive tools in the summer. However, as winter approaches, and lack of outdoor time causes the mind to imagine other possible scenarios, the practicality of penetration reminds some that there are some advantages to 158gr bullets. In the last few years, I have replenished my supply of 158-launchers, and sometimes don't even bother changing over for summer.

Indoors is another place where 125gr HPs are perhaps safer, although the FBI load has never been, AFAIK, accused of excessive penetration.

 

[TripleLock]

Attached below are images of two pages, 36 and 37, from Remington's catalog of sporting arms and ammunition for 1977.

At the bottom of the second image is Remington's explanation of "what happened" to the reported velocities of .357 Magnum, .38 Special, .41 Magnum, and .44 Magnum ammunition. Information published in the Peters catalog for the same year was virtually identical. This was the only year the "side-by-side" comparison of data from the new 4-inch vented barrels and the old 6-inch non-vented barrels appeared in the catalogs, although the explanation continued for several years afterward. Winchester and Western catalogs also published data from 4-inch vented barrels that same year, but with no explanation for the change in testing for velocity.

This was three years after the appearance of .38 Special +P ammuniton in Remington's catalogs. Prior to 1974, what we now know as .38 Special +P was marketed by Remington as ".38 Special Hi-Speed", and by Peters as ".38 Special High Velocity".

The change to +P designation did not occur in Winchester and Western catalogs in 1975 - with the +P designation replacing "Super Speed" under the Winchester brand, and "Super-X" under the Western brand.

For those that may be interested, a large collection of ammunition catalogs/price lists/etc. dating back to the late 1800s is available for viewing and download - for free - here:
Ammunition Catalogs - International Ammunition Association

 

[38SPL HV]

Great post, and great information

 

[38SPL HV]

...and can't wait for the upcoming FBI load report!!! Thanks again

 

[Aircrewman]

I remember the Remington .38 rounds that we used in L.A.S.O. in the mid 70's. I started with LASO in June of '74. We were issued the Remington 38 Special "HV" round. "High Velocity" rounds preceded the +p. They were the "Core-Lokt" scalloped jhp. They seemed to be pretty stout. Our Model 15's didn't seem to have any trouble with them. LASO had just transitioned from the Super Vel ammo. Not certain why the department went away from the Super Vel. I think it may have been cost or that Super Vel was cutting back (or going out of business). In any case, I think that these were the first +p rounds and over the years the +p rounds haven't been as stout as the old HV rounds. Pretty h appy now with my duty rounds of +p+ 127 gr 9mm SXT. These definitely have some uuummph!

 

[DWalt]

Remington used the "Hi-Speed" moniker to mean the .38-44 load, and that is likely what you used back then. It was replaced by the +P .38 Special loading later in the 1970s.

 

[Alk8944]

I'm not taking away from the work done here because I know what it takes to collect the data.

That said, testing only one load proves nothing. Add the fact that Winchester load was not known for high velocity, it was known for not leading the barrel. I had data from older .38 Special loads that showed higher velocities but I will not quote any numbers because the data was lost so I can't prove the numbers.

ArchAngelCD,

You make a couple of points, but they are difficult to substantiate!

First, "That said, testing only one load proves nothing." You apparently failed to notice there were two old factory for which data was posted. Winchester and Remington. What was tested was limited by what was available. This does not invalidate the testing of what was available! Since Winchester and Remington were pretty much what was generally available in the 1960s-'70s and are therefore quite representative.

Second, "Winchester load was not known for high velocity". Since very few individuals had chronographs when the ammunition tested above was made I would challenge you to document this! Look at the Winchester/Remington differences in the original post, which was the slow one???

Finally, "I had data from older .38 Special loads that showed higher velocities but I will not quote any numbers because the data was lost..." Anecdotal without documentation!

"Boutique" ammunition like Super-Vel doesn't count, and neither does any "Hi-Speed", "Super Speed" etc. .38-44 type ammunition! The purpose of the exercise was to document basic, standard pressure/velocity ammunition "Back in the Day", not specialty ammunition! That was the reason for including replica Black Powder loads to compare with the 1960s-1980s standard ammunition that was available for testing!

I'm sorry you didn't understand the original intent of the post, I thought I explained it clearly enough!

 

[Pigirondan]

After looking at the Remington Catalog, it's clear why hand loading .38 Special was so popular. 158 grain SWC over 5 grains of Unique could duplicate or exceed factory ammunition for a fraction of the cost.

 

[rockquarry]

The original post probably makes a good point, or perhaps several, but it's difficult to follow as are some of the subsequent comments.

Maybe along similar lines regarding "high performance" .38 Special loads prior to the +P designation...there is an article in a HANDLOADER magazine around 1970 where velocity and pressure tests were conducted on a number of factory loads. The article and work was done by George Nonte and Neal Knox, the editor. Pressure measurements were done by Lee Jurras in the Super Vel lab. Anyone remember this piece?

 

[kaaskop49]

The original post probably makes a good point, or perhaps several, but it's difficult to follow as are some of the subsequent comments.

Maybe along similar lines regarding "high performance" .38 Special loads prior to the +P designation...there is an article in a HANDLOADER magazine around 1970 where velocity and pressure tests were conducted on a number of factory loads. The article and work was done by George Nonte and Neal Knox, the editor. Pressure measurements were done by Lee Jurras in the Super Vel lab. Anyone remember this piece?

I DO remember the ballistics chart on p. 188 in the L.E. Handgun Digest of 1972. Standard loads available at that time were chrno'd in actual guns, not test bbls. Our favorite (mine, too!) +P LHP ran 1014fps in a 4" Model 10. Compare that to the present day, claimed 880fps of modern loadings of this round. That original loading had some snap in a 4" K-frame; you really didn't want to fire off a box of 50 in one session.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

 

[Groo01]

Groo here
Now you know WHY the officers who could , went to the 357 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[alwslate]

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.