I don't think its such a great article. It claims that because guns can take proof loads on rare occasions, the author seems to insinuate that guns that can handle a tiny handful of proof loads in their life can handle a steady diet of them. This isn't true at all.
Proof loads are meant for one time testing for new guns, or another one time testing for some armory repair jobs. Overloading a gun for a test drive is a long standing tradition going back to the earliest days of gun making, and we should understand the purpose and background of what it is and what is. Also, what it ISN'T.
Guns need not only survive one test shooting, but safely fire tens of thousands without any metal fatigue that could lead to failure. This is why SAAMI standards must be followed, and not cheated.
The fact a firearm or barrel can handle a proof load is no proof that a steady diet of those rounds will not destroy the barrel, chamber, gun from constant repeated use. Indeed, many chambers, barrels, actions, guns fail from abusive constant use of hot rounds, not single overcharges. The reason why SAAMI keeps those proof test numbers almost secret and not published openly is because these numbers are never meant as a base standard for MAP for reloaders or ammunition manufacturers. In fact, the proof test load has NOTHING to do with what is safe +p pressures for a firearm. The fact that a hot round is less than the test proof charge means absolutely zero, because it not some sort of secret hidden highest MAP allowable, thus +p cannot simply be "OK because it is less than a proof charge, hurr hurr".
No mention of older firearms, prewar steel, some guns of lesser construction, and the fact many SAAMI standards are focused on pressures that are safe for all guns for that caliber, not just new ones. No mention of old 38 Special revolvers, weaker designs, ect. The author seems oblivious to these important facts and history as well. +p 45 ACP in an original 1917 is extremely bad advice, not just a little extra wear and tear. Many other examples can be made.
The author makes no mention of auto loaders and cycle times. Guns are made to cycle at a certain speed, and with higher pressure loads in some guns, they can cause catastrophic failure, and not just the type of Glock failure he mentions. If the bolt operates before pressures drop safely, this can cause a massive blow up. Hot rounds often both increase slide velocity and pressure, leading to the potential for a dangerous failure if things are off enough. Not just battering slides, but other dangerous concerns.
And what of the author's claims that revolvers were seeing chamber warping due to full power magnum loads? Isn't that 100% bogus? The failures of K frames is in the frame, not the chambers, and any failure in medium frame magnums would be the same. He claims that 44 Magnum S&W would see chamber damage, when how many hotloaders who shot steel only talked about damage to the internal parts from abuse, but never wrecked a frame or a cylinder in the process?
This is a terrible article, written in poor style, missing important key elements, and making dangerous assumptions about proof test loads and SAAMI limits and spreading this dangerous information publicly. It should be revised or removed.
, there was little or no mention/discusion of +P in .38 Spl., the round in which the concept arose. I would estimate that 99+% of the questions on this forum re +P use concern .38 revolvers.
