+P Through a Model 12: THE TEST...is done!!!!

[handejector]

An old Dude's recollection:
In the 70's, when +P ammo was a relatively new phenomenon, the question OFTEN arose as to what guns were safe with +P.
S&W put the word out at that time that "ANY S&W with a model number stamped in the frame WOULD BE SAFE with +P ammo".
IF anyone cares to search the "Reader's Questions" sections of magazines like "Shooting Times", "American Rifleman", and "Guns & Ammo", you will probably find that S&W quotation. Look in Skeeter's and Elmer's columns around 74-76 to start with, and the "Questions" in the "Amer Rifleman".
The "with a Model Number" statement would have precluded the ALUMINUM cylinder guns built in the early 50's.

 

[Osprey]

While I was adding an administrative update (gun cleaning) into The Log, I thought I'd add a summary of cumulative round count by ammo type.

• Winchester 110 gr JHP – 35
• Federal 125 gr Nyclad HP – 36
• Georgia Arms 158 gr LSWCHP – 101
• Winchester 125 gr JHP – 200
• Remington/UMC 125 gr JHP – 100
• Speer/Lawman 158 gr TMJ – 150

Total = 622
[/LIST]
Enjoy the long weekend....

... Osprey

 

[CowboyKen]

If we are going to examine the validity of this "test," that Osprey is conducting (it strikes me that as far as he is concerned scientific validity is his last interest) it is, of course, valid only as to this one example of a model 12. In order to have validity to the whole population it would have to be conducted over a statistically valid sample, say 100 guns/1000 rounds each,

Osprey, are you up for it?

Ken

 

[Osprey]

Originally posted by CowboyKen:

Osprey, are you up for it?

No...and...duck!

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Osprey,
You don't really expect to do any damage to that Model 12 with only 1000 current Factory .38 Special +P rounds, do you? I know you know that "normal" .38 Special ammo from 20 years ago was hotter than the so called .38 Special +P ammo of today.

Thanks for running this test and confirming what most of us have known right along.

 

[stiab]

I know you know that "normal" .38 Special ammo from 20 years ago was hotter than the so called .38 Special +P ammo of today.

Is that based upon actual tests you have done? I'm in the process of checking several boxes of old and new factory .38 Special ammo, and so far that has not proven out. When the industry testing standards changed in the late 1970's, those false advertising velocity numbers from previous years suddenly became more realistic.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Is that based upon actual tests you have done?

I don't need to do tests to know if you use 8.5gr HS-6 under a 158gr bullet it will produce both more pressure and velocity than if you use 6.2gr HS-6 for the .38 Special or 6.6gr HS-6 for the .38 Special +P which is the Hodgdon Max recommended charges today. Those rounds were fired in the old Model 10's for decades with no ill effects.

 

[stiab]

I don't need to do tests

If you do decide to do some actual tests, you will see that todays +P in FACTORY loads is actually more powerful than yesteryears (20 years is the number you used)"standard" loads. Quoting watered down reloading manuals does not address the comparison of today's factory loaded +Ps with the "standard" 158 grain RN factory .38 special of 20 years ago.

 

[remat457]

Originally posted by CowboyKen:
In order to have validity to the whole population it would have to be conducted over a statistically valid sample, say 100 guns/1000 rounds each,

I know that are a group of people who are concerned with the statiscal validity of this (who knew there were so many academics) but
could somebody please cite a gun test/study in which this has actually been done?

IIRC, even the recent NIJ tests were done with a few (I want to say two) samples of each model.

 

[CowboyKen]

Originally posted by remat457:

Originally posted by CowboyKen:
In order to have validity to the whole population it would have to be conducted over a statistically valid sample, say 100 guns/1000 rounds each,

I know that are a group of people who are concerned with the statiscal validity of this (who knew there were so many academics) but
could somebody please cite a gun test/study in which this has actually been done?

IIRC, even the recent NIJ tests were done with a few (I want to say two) samples of each model.

In fact, I was only teasing Osprey. But if you want to be technical I am right and I don't care if anyone actually does the right thing or not. If you are going to try to demonstrate that a gun will or will not react in a certain way if you do X to it and you only use one or two guns you have not conducted a valid test.

Ken

p.s.: It might be fun though.

 

[Osprey]

Good news!!! The test crossed the 3/4 mark tonight (750 rounds). Check out The Log on page 1, second entry.

Also, in the same range session I had my Glock 19 with me. Before I shot the Glock, I found an unfired lead 9mm round. Feeling brave, I fired that lead bullet through my G19 equipped with a stock OEM barrel

and then fired another 50 rounds of FMJ fodder afterwards. Neither

sprey nor the Glock KaBoomed!!!

Living on the edge...

...

sprey

 

[jbcap]

Quote "Also, in the same range session I had my Glock 19 with me. Before I shot the Glock, I found an unfired lead 9mm round. Feeling brave, I fired that lead bullet through my G19 equipped with a stock OEM barrel and then fired another 50 rounds of FMJ fodder afterwards. Neither sprey nor the Glock KaBoomed!!!"

I would not suggest firing lead in a factory Glock barrel. A very close friend of mine fired 5 rounds of RN lead in a Glock 17 and on the 5th round, the case ruptured and got stuck in the chamber. The resulting pressure caused the magazine to be blown out the bottom of the magazine well. The magazine had cracks in it and the slide stop lever was snapped off and his hand was blackened and tingling! He had to take a hammer to the barrel and slide to get the barrel to unlock. The empty casing's base was flattened with the case headstamp almost being to the point where it could not be read and the primer was flattened to the point it was part of the casing. The sidewall of the casing had ruptured out through the feed ramp, thus not allowing the slide to cycle. Very luck, but not very smart.

 

[handejector]

Did anyone check their library for this statement that S&W put out in the 70's? I know I read it numerous times in different sources. It MAY have appeared in Trade magazines for the gun industry also.

Originally posted by handejector:
An old Dude's recollection:
In the 70's, when +P ammo was a relatively new phenomenon, the question OFTEN arose as to what guns were safe with +P.
S&W put the word out at that time that "ANY S&W with a model number stamped in the frame WOULD BE SAFE with +P ammo".
IF anyone cares to search the "Reader's Questions" sections of magazines like "Shooting Times", "American Rifleman", and "Guns & Ammo", you will probably find that S&W quotation. Look in Skeeter's and Elmer's columns around 74-76 to start with, and the "Questions" in the "Amer Rifleman".
The "with a Model Number" statement would have precluded the ALUMINUM cylinder guns built in the early 50's.

 

[Osprey]

26 JAN 08 – Summary of cummulative round count by ammo type.

All rounds are +P unless otherwise noted:

Winchester 110 gr JHP – 35
Federal 125 gr Nyclad HP – 36
Georgia Arms 158 gr LSWCHP – 101
Winchester 125 gr JHP – 200
Remington/UMC 125 gr JHP – 200
Speer/Lawman 158 gr TMJ – 200
--------------------------------------
Total = 772

 

[stiab]

Did anyone check their library for this statement that S&W put out in the 70's?

No, but the owner's manual that came with my 12-3 (since traded) said not to shoot +P.

 

[Osprey]

I squeezed in a short range session today. You can get the latest by review The Log on page 1, second entry.

Here's a summary of cumulative round count by ammo type as of 8 FEB 08.

All rounds are +P unless otherwise noted:

Winchester 110 gr JHP – 35
Federal 125 gr Nyclad HP – 36
Georgia Arms 158 gr LSWCHP – 101
Winchester 125 gr JHP – 200
Remington/UMC 125 gr JHP – 200
Speer/Lawman 158 gr TMJ – 300
------------------------------------
Total = 872

I anticipate completing this test the next time I take the test gun to the range.

....

sprey

 

[Osprey]

After 5 months, 8 pages, 112 posts, and over 10,000 views, I've noticed a trend in the last couple of updates that follow-up commentary is almost non-existant. I'm wondering if this is due to the size of this topic (8 pages, 112 posts, and 10,000+ views used to attract readers). Maybe this is the calm before the storm, that will be the conclusion of this test. Perhaps interest has waned because the test gun hasn't blown up and sent

sprey feathers into orbit...

...Anyways, I did add an administrative update (cleaning) today.

Your feathered and obedient servant...

sprey

 

[Jay in AZ]

I for one am still reading with interest. I was sure the gun would make it.

 

[woodsltc]

I'm still keeping up with the test. Keep the test and the thread going!!!!!!!!

Don

 

[gaucho1]

As the holder of a 2" and a 4" I am interested
in any and all info.
Thank You