K frame and +P rounds

[Art Doc]

How many rounds did those guns fire? How well and often were they cleaned? There is evidence to suggest that carbon build up in the cone can cause cracking. From the description they were falling apart fast. Like disintegrating. Like... when has this ever happened before with any group of guns? I am always suspicious of the sole example. Was the government aware of the crappy materials being used? They shut down other gun manufacturing during the war for quality issues, why were these passed through?

A nebulous date like "the late 1950s" won't do. I have never seen any proof that model marking indicates the beginning of better, stronger S&Ws. If anyone has such documentation I want to see it to prove my assumption incorrect. Otherwise, I stand by it.

BTW- Here's one of those war production M&Ps made of inferior materials. Has shot countless thousands of rounds including 500 Remington +Ps and 600 of my own +P+s (125@1,150 FPS). Looks like Hell, but mechanically it is perfect after all that.

PS: The barrel was replaced due to a bulge 1" back from muzzle caused by firing with an obstruction. I still have the original barrel and the cone is fine.

 

[john traveler]

"I am always suspicious of the sole example."

You just contradicted your own argument. The WWII production M&P you stated as having fired 500 +P rounds and another 600 hot handloads is your sole example of durability of that speciment when subjected to your "testing" of +P ammunition. It may (or more likely may NOT) represent typical WWII M&P production. At any rate, the durability of ONE specimen does not provide any statistically useful data on the Million or so WWII era M&P revolvers that were made.

If you compare your personal results with ONE revolver to that of the Eglin Air Force study, it does not withstand examination. Their study involved TENS of THOUSANDS of M10 and M15 revolvers, many, many MILLIONS of rounds service ammunition fired, and hundreds of documented firing malfunctions including failure to fire from excess headspace, bullet-in-bore obstructions, and documented rebuild cycles.

The point I was trying to make, was that the M10 M&P design proved itself dependable and durable for several generations when only mild lead bullet ammunition was available. When the jacketed high performance .38 Special ammo started becoming popular, problems developed to the point that S&W had to change their manufacturing and materials. No, I do not have the engineering change order (ECO) that documents when S&W made the changes. Industry insiders may have that. Or the company historian would have it, if he chooses to release it.

The whole point of the Eglin AFB study was that it was the first major study that documented the wear patterns and projected life cycle of service revolver sidearms. As strange as it may sound, even the Army and the Navy never accumulated as much data as the Eglin study, and those services used .38 Special revolvers to arm aviators for several generations.

 

[daa9mm]

Not my experience. The old loads perform today exactly as they did 40 years ago. It's the lawyers causing the change, not the composition of the powder.

Are you saying that lawyers did the testing and reported the velocities for the same loads differently in reloading manuals 40 years apart?

 

[Art Doc]

"Tens of thousands of guns" and "many, many millions of rounds" would indicate that each gun was fired multiple hundreds of thousands of times.

No wonder they wore out...

 

[amd6547]

And yet, all I ever read from USAF vets who used the Model 15, is how much they loved them and enjoyed shooting them, how badly they want one now....The only complaints I ever read are about the pathetic 130gn FMJ ammo.

 

[bmcgilvray]

There must have been two different loadings for that 130 grain FMJ ammunition as all I've ever heard about it was how pathetically weak it was. Any I've ever personally encountered was wimpy in the extreme. A revolver would die of boredom shooting that stuff.

 

[stiab]

"Tens of thousands of guns" and "many, many millions of rounds" would indicate that each gun was fired multiple hundreds of thousands of times.

No wonder they wore out...

Mathmatical fact check: 10 thousand guns could fire 10 million rounds by doing only 1 thousand rounds each, not "multiple hundreds of thousands" as you say. I don't know how many guns there were, or how many rounds were fired, but purely from a mathmatical standpoint the other poster's numbers could be achieved without each gun being fired hundreds of thousands of times.

 

[john traveler]

I don't believe that there must have been more than one power level of the 130 grain FMJ M41 round. It was standardized as military issue after WWII, and remained so until it obsolescence in the late 1980s.

Incidentally, this was the round that caused the failure of the aluminum cylinders in the USAF M13 Lightweight Revolver, and resulted in its withdrawl from service.

 

[NE450No2]

Good info.

Many years ago I bought a bunch of the 130gr 38 Military ammo.

It seemed like a low power load to me. I think I still have some left I will try and shoot some in a few days.

Also what are the thoughts on the Federal 38 Special High Velocity [+P+] 147 gr Hydra Shock JHP ammo. Federal's product number P38HS2G?
For Law Enforcement use only.

I know several agencies, including some Federal Govt. Agencies issue, or issued, this ammo. Their Agents used it even in 5 shot S&W's.

The recoil does not seem to be any greater than the 158gr Lead HP +P.

Has anybody actually chronoed this ammo in their guns?

 

[jonnyringo]

There are differing opinions on this subject. Naturally, I think I have the correct one.

1. Factory +P is loaded well below maximum allowable chamber pressure. It is not a "hot" load. The typical +P is a 125 JHP at 925 FPS. Big whoop. A good target load in my opinion. The whole "+P" thing is marketing hype. I hear stories of a friend of a friend's gun shooting loose with +P but since this load is so mild, and so far below allowable pressure, I have a hard time understanding how this is possible.

2. Many folks use the model number as a guide, as in, if it has a model number stamped on it then +P is OK. But what is different about the first gun with a model number and the last without it? Nothing. No changes were made in the design or materials. They are the same gun save for the presence of the model number.

I use the year 1930. This is not a hard and fast date but is my best estimate. Prior to the middle 1920s the tempering of steel was an imprecise science. The Titanic may have sunk due to improperly tempered hull plates that tore open under pressure from the collision. I figure that if I use 1930 then I am safe.

Alloy or steel frame, J or K frame, I have no concerns whatsoever about factory +P (which is not a hot load anyway, remember) in a S&W made after 1930. Below is a 1942 Military & Police Model that was already well worn and much used when I got it. It is pictured with the 500 rounds of Remington +P and some of the 600 rounds of my own +P+ (125@1150 FPS) that I fired through it to see if anything would happen. It came as absolutely no surprise to me when nothing happened at all.

I think +P is all hype and unworthy of all the hand-wringing. Others will issue dire warnings about +P. You do what makes you happy.

After recently buying several .38 Special K frames I felt the need to post and say I like the cut of your jib.

 

[flagman1776]

I also used SuperVels as duty ammo "back then". I have always used S&W's official statement in the 1970s that model marked K frames were safe to use +P ammo in. As originally loaded, +P did run higher pressures than standard loadings.
Times have changed. I don't believe recent +P loadings generate pressures above the specs. Could it be because of improvements in power or bullets? Maybe. Could it be because ammo makers corporate lawyers run the show now? You tell me.
I'll tell you that when I switched my duty gun from a 4" M19 (-3) to a 4" M66-1 that the SuperVels cratered the primers & locked up the M66.