+P 38 Special Nonsense Regarding Model 10

Current (as of 2006) Factory PMC 125 JHPs averaged 1120 FPS.

Current (as of 2006) Factory Winchester 130 FMJs averaged 1130 FPS.

Factory Winchester 130 FMJ purchased around 1985* ran 1270 FPS average.

Like I said, 38 Super USED to be loaded in nickel cases to visually differentiate it from the identical but lower pressure 38 ACP. I noticed sometime after 2000 that they no longer used nickel cases for the Super. My test showed why.

I thought you tested "old" ammunition, is that the 1985 stuff you are referring to? If so, that probably does not qualify as old within the framework of these old -vs- new ammo discussions.

As to nickel cases, I am now staring at 6 boxes of recent manufacture 38 Super ammo, all in nickel cases: two bullet weights each in Remington, two each in Winchester, Federal American Eagle and Magtech are all nickel. No kidding.
 
I only tested PMC and Winchester. That's what I had on hand. They were both in brass cases and I noted that Winchester went to brass cases sometime after 2000 (at least the ammo I bought, you seem to be having a different experience, or maybe they went back to nickel recently) and the Winchester was lower in velocity in 2006 than it was in 1985 (didn't have older PMC to compare but in my experience PMC is always slow no matter what caliber). Sometime between 1985 and 2006 the velocity was reduced by Winchester. That makes the 1985 batch "old" as far as I am concerned. I am not the first or only Super shooter to note this.
 
didn't have older PMC to compare but in my experience PMC is always slow no matter what caliber
I agree with you on that SP, I had available PMC but did not use it in my test, because to have an "apples to apples" old -vs- new comparison I stuck to all 130 grain FMJ, and the PMC was 115.

The 130 is the only kind of truly old ammo that can be found, and when you said "old" I assumed you were testing stuff 70, 60, 50 etc. years old, not something as recent as the 1980's .
 
All this debate on muzzle velocity seems somewhat unnecessary. To me the real question is, did SAAMI change the chamber pressure rating of 38 special after 1972. I have read it was 20,000 psi and after 1972 is now 16,000 PSI with +P being around 20,000.
Seems to me, it that is true, then all the velocity testing is a mute point. Manufactures used to load 38 special above current +p and now they load it light.
If these numbers are true, then any older gun rated for 38 Special would have no problem shooting +P because it was designed for the higher chamber pressures at the time.
 
All this debate on muzzle velocity seems somewhat unnecessary. To me the real question is, did SAAMI change the chamber pressure rating of 38 special after 1972.
I already know the answer to the +P question, so the pressure question is not important to me. What is important to me is whether or not the old factory ammo really really performed up to the hype, and my testing indicates it did not. Since one of my hobbies is collecting and testing old ammo, that aspect of the discussion interests me a lot more than the pressure aspect of it. I realize folks participate in these discussions for many varied reasons, and that's the way it should be! :)
 
All that interests me is the ability of my '50's Model 10 to handle commonly available +P ammo for fun practice and serious SD.
Likewise my Model 15-3.
I suppose everyone must make their own decision. I am not trying to magnumize my K-frames...I have a Model 19 for that (of course, there are those here who don't feel the 19 will handle magnums either).
I will never buy enough +P to damage my Smiths. What I have fired did not seem that hot to me.
 
TS and I keep going around on this. If ones looks at the piece I linked in an earlier post I have test results from actual shooting of a 4" revolver with older ammo. The real world difference is not as much as some think. But anyone who absolutely refuses to believe factory ammo has been loaded down is free to believe that. My research, observations and experience tell me otherwise.

TS keeps mentioning those AF guns breaking but I don't know anything about the guns, the circumstances or the ammo used. Was it something special for the military? Off the shelf ammo like in the stores? Frankly I can't believe ANY factory ammo would be so destructive.

As for the broken M15s being the reason for switching to the M9, again he is saying things that I have never heard from any other source. It was my understanding that the switch was made to align with NATO with the 9mm caliber and to consolidate all services with one gun for logistics sake.
To echo SP, I have never heard of any problems with the M15 revolvers in military service nor that the switch was made from the .45 cal M1911A1 and various other guns to the M9 for any reason other than standardization with NATO.
 
I already know the answer to the +P question, so the pressure question is not important to me. What is important to me is whether or not the old factory ammo really really performed up to the hype, and my testing indicates it did not. Since one of my hobbies is collecting and testing old ammo, that aspect of the discussion interests me a lot more than the pressure aspect of it. I realize folks participate in these discussions for many varied reasons, and that's the way it should be! :)

Well the original question was could a Model 10 handle +P. If the SAAMi specs changed in '72 to downgrade the pressure, then any gun manufactured before that date would have been designed to handle the original pressure rating which was at or above the current +P pressure rating.
As far as testing ammo from 50 years ago. It really means nothing to me since too many factors come into play on the condition of the ammo. It may all go bang, but is it the same bang it would have had 50 years ago. Not sure any body can answer that without doing a full chemical analysis of the powder in the case before firing that old of a round. I do think it sounds like a great hobby though. Sounds like it could be fun to hunt for old ammo and test fire it.
For me, the original question was answered with the SAAMI pressure down grade in "72.
 
Last edited:
I already know the answer to the +P question, so the pressure question is not important to me.

Maybe not to you, but it certainly matters to the revolver we are talking about here.


Well the original question was could a Model 10 handle +P. If the SAAMi specs changed in '72 to downgrade the pressure, then any gun manufactured before that date would have been designed to handle the original pressure rating which was at or above the current +P pressure rating.
As far as testing ammo from 50 years ago. It really means nothing to me since too many factors come into play on the condition of the ammo. It may all go bang, but is it the same bang it would have had 50 years ago. Not sure any body can answer that without doing a full chemical analysis of the powder in the case before firing that old of a round. I do think it sounds like a great hobby though. Sounds like it could be fun to hunt for old ammo and test fire it.
For me, the original question was answered with the SAAMI pressure down grade in "72.

ltlbear has a very important point, and the one thing that seems to have vectored off from the OPs question is the issue of pressures. Differing velocities don't really mean that much except in the context of how they are affected by pressure. Muzzle velocities are not going to crack frames, pressures in the chambers are. The earlier example of the air force revolvers and their overpressure ammunition; they were "wearing" out frames, or breaking them. There needs to be a lot more information about that for it to have meaning, such as what "wearing" out meant, where breakages occurred and the model of revolver used since the AF experimented with issueing alloy framed airweights and such.

The key here is the pressures that are being created and can the Model 10 handle them. I would have to see some documented proof about heat treating differences and pressure tests to believe that any Model 10 in good condition cannot handle these pressures. I can believe that the cylinder can be an issue, but for instance, the model 10 was adapted to fire 9x19 and .357 Magnum. 9x19 alone, according to SAAMI is in the 35,000 psi range MAP (maximum average pressure), fairly close to .357 magnum (35,000 range, psi); before anyone freaks out over this comment, I have the SAAMI/ANSI pressure rating guide downloaded from their website right in front of me. The .38 spl +P is in the 18,500 range, only 1,500 psi more than standard. If you look at the CUP ratings, they are different numbers, but with comparable results. I've yet to hear about a 547 cracking forcing cones, cylinder walls, etc. There is much discussion about the 13/19/65/66 (etc) cracking forcing cones due to the 125 gr. stuff; I won't resurrect that discussion, but I have always believed it was due to lead bullets leaving deposits and creating pressure in that area. It might be noted that the AF ammuntion cited was 130 gr., I once had a model 1917, and could not see the lead buildup at the mouth of the forcing cone until I got a powerful LED light and magnifying glasses on it. It took me quite a bit of effort to get it out. It made me suspect that this is a culprit when people do not think they have an issue; after posting on a thread about cleaning cylinders, I am certain that many do not understand how to "get the lead out". This would also account for the AFs problems; they used soft lead projectiles for years, and it takes a lot of careful supervision and individual discipline to enforce such cleaning standards. This would also explain why the 547s don't seem to have this problem, yet have such high pressure ratings; you would be hard pressed to find a lead nosed projectile for 9x19, so commonly you are only ever firing copper jacketed rounds, maybe wearing the bore a little more, but leaving a lot less residue to cause back pressure, so for forcing cones, it's a sort of self correcting issue. Same for .357 Magnum, semi-jacketed rounds were the norm when it ruled the day, but lead nosed bullets were for decades the norm for .38 spl.

Are the old loads more powerful than the new? Perhaps, perhaps not. However, I do not see any reason why a Model 10 of any period should not be able to fire +P. I think the +P stamp on modern revolvers is a marketing ploy. Everyone wants power these days, and if they are riding the fence between buying new or old, what a perfect convincer, safety. Of course a new model is safer than a used older one, but let's see some kind of scientific study to prove that 1500/3000 more PSI/CUP will break a model 10, I simply don't believe it. I believe operator headspace and timing is the culprit more than frame strength.

In Germany, all weapons must be proofed by a government proof house with two 25% overcharged rounds. It has always interested me. Incidentally, the Germans also prefer jacketed cartridges, the 9x19 is simply one of them. You can go a long time without having to clean copper deposits, but not so much with lead. That's one (but not all) the military likes jacketed ammuntion, and has for a long time. During WWII, even .38 spl ammunition was jacketed, so it's not just about autos.

End of the story? I woudn't hesitate to fire +P ammuntion through any model 10 that has been maintained and is in good condition, but I would make damn sure that all lead deposits are cleaned out and are always removed after firing. It's a simple concept that I was taught in the area of explosives, less area space in a combustable environment, the more pressure increases.
 
Last edited:
All this debate on muzzle velocity seems somewhat unnecessary. To me the real question is, did SAAMI change the chamber pressure rating of 38 special after 1972. I have read it was 20,000 psi and after 1972 is now 16,000 PSI with +P being around 20,000.
Seems to me, it that is true, then all the velocity testing is a mute point. Manufactures used to load 38 special above current +p and now they load it light.
If these numbers are true, then any older gun rated for 38 Special would have no problem shooting +P because it was designed for the higher chamber pressures at the time.
Ltlbear, SAAMI did lower the pressure of all rounds in 1972. Here is a link explaining the change.
.38 Special - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bottom line: The standard pressure 38 special round today is weaker than it was back before 1972. And yes, most +P 38 specials are loaded at pressures that were close to standard pressure rounds before 1972.
Again, I have a M&P pre-10 4 inch produced in 1954. I use quite offen todays +P ammo. I usually shoot 158 gr ammo traveling around 850 fps according to the ammo maker I use. As long as the revolver is in good condition I can't see a problem shooting most +P rounds made today even in a revolver made 50 years ago.
Howard
 
All that interests me is the ability of my '50's Model 10 to handle commonly available +P ammo for fun practice and serious SD.
Likewise my Model 15-3.
I suppose everyone must make their own decision. I am not trying to magnumize my K-frames...I have a Model 19 for that (of course, there are those here who don't feel the 19 will handle magnums either).
I will never buy enough +P to damage my Smiths. What I have fired did not seem that hot to me.
Agreed. And history has proved that your 1950s revolver and mine can handle most factory available +P ammo.
Howard
 
Maybe not to you, but it certainly matters to the revolver we are talking about here.




ltlbear has a very important point, and the one thing that seems to have vectored off from the OPs question is the issue of pressures. Differing velocities don't really mean that much except in the context of how they are affected by pressure. Muzzle velocities are not going to crack frames, pressures in the chambers are. The earlier example of the air force revolvers and their overpressure ammunition; they were "wearing" out frames, or breaking them. There needs to be a lot more information about that for it to have meaning, such as what "wearing" out meant, where breakages occurred and the model of revolver used since the AF experimented with issueing alloy framed airweights and such.

The key here is the pressures that are being created and can the Model 10 handle them. I would have to see some documented proof about heat treating differences and pressure tests to believe that any Model 10 in good condition cannot handle these pressures. I can believe that the cylinder can be an issue, but for instance, the model 10 was adapted to fire 9x19 and .357 Magnum. 9x19 alone, according to SAAMI is in the 35,000 psi range MAP (maximum average pressure), fairly close to .357 magnum (35,000 range, psi); before anyone freaks out over this comment, I have the SAAMI/ANSI pressure rating guide downloaded from their website right in front of me. The .38 spl +P is in the 18,500 range, only 1,500 psi more than standard. If you look at the CUP ratings, they are different numbers, but with comparable results. I've yet to hear about a 547 cracking forcing cones, cylinder walls, etc. There is much discussion about the 13/19/65/66 (etc) cracking forcing cones due to the 125 gr. stuff; I won't resurrect that discussion, but I have always believed it was due to lead bullets leaving deposits and creating pressure in that area. It might be noted that the AF ammuntion cited was 130 gr., I once had a model 1917, and could not see the lead buildup at the mouth of the forcing cone until I got a powerful LED light and magnifying glasses on it. It took me quite a bit of effort to get it out. It made me suspect that this is a culprit when people do not think they have an issue; after posting on a thread about cleaning cylinders, I am certain that many do not understand how to "get the lead out". This would also account for the AFs problems; they used soft lead projectiles for years, and it takes a lot of careful supervision and individual discipline to enforce such cleaning standards. This would also explain why the 547s don't seem to have this problem, yet have such high pressure ratings; you would be hard pressed to find a lead nosed projectile for 9x19, so commonly you are only ever firing copper jacketed rounds, maybe wearing the bore a little more, but leaving a lot less residue to cause back pressure, so for forcing cones, it's a sort of self correcting issue. Same for .357 Magnum, semi-jacketed rounds were the norm when it ruled the day, but lead nosed bullets were for decades the norm for .38 spl.

Are the old loads more powerful than the new? Perhaps, perhaps not. However, I do not see any reason why a Model 10 of any period should not be able to fire +P. I think the +P stamp on modern revolvers is a marketing ploy. Everyone wants power these days, and if they are riding the fence between buying new or old, what a perfect convincer, safety. Of course a new model is safer than a used older one, but let's see some kind of scientific study to prove that 3,000 more PSI will break a model 10, I simply don't believe it. I believe operator headspace and timing is the culprit more than frame strength.

In Germany, all weapons must be proofed by a government proof house with two 25% overcharged rounds. It has always interested me. Incidentally, the Germans also prefer jacketed cartridges, the 9x19 is simply one of them. You can go a long time without having to clean copper deposits, but not so much with lead. That's one (but not all) the military likes jacketed ammuntion, and has for a long time. During WWII, even .38 spl ammunition was jacketed, so it's not just about autos.

End of the story? I woudn't hesitate to fire +P ammuntion through any model 10 that has been maintained and is in good condition, but I would make damn sure that all lead deposits are cleaned out and are always removed after firing. It's a simple concept that I was taught in the area of explosives, less area space in a combustable environment, the more pressure increases.

Again I agree. Cleaning the lead out of a forcing cone will decrease hot spots which can cause forcing cone problems. A lot of issues a person hears or reads about forcing cone problems on K frames is because the revolver was not taken care of.
There is no reason I can think of that a K frame 38 special made in the last fifty years can't handle most modern +P ammo.
Howard
 
The thing is, Prior to doing the research and reading here on the forum, I was also under the impression that +P ammo was hotter than the factory stuff I used to shoot with grandad when I was a kid. Now I realize the light loads he was loading for us were about the same as the standard pressure 38 from the factory today and any revolver I have made in the last 60 years will shoot a +P round without any issues or worries.
Thanks roaddog28 and M2MikeGolf for your comments.
 
I know, I know...I found it humorous that a person, and apparently S&W, thinks it unsafe to shoot today's "+P" 38 spl ammo in a '70's heavy barrel Model 10.

There is an ad floating around on this forum somewhere for the 2 inch M&P (Pre-Model 10) that says it can shoot the .38/44, which is a 158 grain at 1125 fps.

+P ammo will not blow up an S&W. If you shoot enough of it, the stuff MAY increase wear. I think you have to shoot quite a bit to even do that.

Certainly you will not harm anything if you shoot it enough to figure out point of aim and then practice with it occasionally.
 
I guess this is all pretty much a moot point for me. My position is that there is no compelling reason to shoot +P loads in a .38 Special EXCEPT during a HD/SD situation. So, regular pressure .38s are always my load for all range/practice/plinking use and I keep a box of +Ps available and load my revolvers with them when the guns are in the house or on my person. The handful, if any, +Ps fired in a true personal defense scenario would never hurt the guns and I'm not sure I'd care if they did. ;) But that's JMHO.
 
Last edited:
When I shoot standard 38 special in my old model 10 the gun's muzzle
looks back at me and says "is that all you got". Further talks revealed that
when my revolver was a young lad in the 50's his owner would shoot
much hotter 38 specials of that period. He also stated that the old 38 special
was hotter than todays 38 +p of today. Who am I to question my elders.
 
DAinTX- You are still assuming +P is a hot load. It is not. My whole point is that +P is a very weak and mild load. I would never trust my life to such a weak load for SD use.
 
Realistically, the best choices in .38 special are standard velocity WC and SWC loads. Velocities in .38 are not sufficient to achieve decent expansion and adequate penetration from most loads that might otherwise expand. Doc Roberts just sent out a 32 page PDF of his latest results from years of on going ballistic research. He is still taking that position. Jim Cirrillo espoused such a position years ago in one of his first books, and he killed a pretty decent number of offenders in shootings while on that stakeout squad. (My recollection is about 18 in 2 years or less ... certainly respectable.)
 
Back
Top