+P Through a Model 12: THE TEST...is done!!!!
- Thread starter Osprey
- Start date
I stumbled across the 2006 topic about a broke model 38 from The Firing Line. I've linked it here because it speaks of frame cracking right underneath the barrel (something we are looking for in this test). The story here implies that frame cracking such as this may be attributed to the factory over torquing the barrel into the frame. Well worth considering, especially if our subject gun survives the 1,000 round test.
FYI....
sprey
FYI....
DC7
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2006
- Messages
- 299
- Reaction score
- 129
I can confirm that--it's exactly the reason S&W gave me when I discovered the frame of my unfired 442 was cracked underneath the barrel. I've seen identical cracks on two other NIB Airweights as well. Because the guns were all brand new and unfired, I've come to the conclusion that shooting Airweights with +P ammo is not what causes those frame cracks at all. Cracked frames are likely a pre-existing condition made worse by the stress of shooting ANY ammo.
In the link Osprey noted above, the poster shot 5 rounds of +P the previous owner had loaded in an unfired Model 38, and only then decided to "do a quick inspection". In all likelihood the gun was cracked before he ever started shooting. I strongly suspect most Airweight owners who discover cracks after shooting never inspected that area of the frame before shooting. (I know I never did until I read about the problem here on the forum.) So when they finally notice the crack, they wrongly assume that their ammunition caused the problem.
My own experience with cracked frames leads me to believe that the original concept of this experiment may be flawed--that shooting +P (especially in a K-frame revolver) is not what causes the "infamous cracked frame". It's good, though, that the frame window and b/c gap measurements were added soon after the test began, because that would be the most likely indicator of any problem--not an immediate, catastrophic failure like a blown cylinder or cracked frame, but simply accelerated wear or gradual stretching of the frame. Even then I suspect it could take more than 1000 rounds, and also think that those problems are more likely to occur on a lightweight J-frame instead of the beefier K-frame. So although some members are hoping for solid proof one way or the other, it's unlikely that a single mid-size gun tested for only 1000 rounds will provide any definitive answer to the question of whether or not +P can damage an Airweight.
I have been following discussions about +P in older alloy-framed revolvers with great interest and, in particular, this thread on "The Test" is very interesting. Although I'm aware of the cracked frame issue, I have never read or believed it was a result of over-pressure ammo and never heard that until reading these discussions. I have always read and heard that if there is a problem with +P in older alloy revolvers, it is the possibility of top strap stretching, not frame cracking. I hope this test provides some light on that issue. With the increased thickness of a K-frame topstrap over a J-Frame, however, I am not postive this test will shed any light on +P through older airweight J-Frames. Still, a welcome addition to the information pot by Osprey.
Edited to add: Sorry for re-plowing ground already tilled by DC7.
Edited to add: Sorry for re-plowing ground already tilled by DC7.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2003
- Messages
- 871
- Reaction score
- 234
Please add another "Thank You" for doing this
This test is interesting; I still hope to pick up a 642 someday. I also figure the used M10-7 we picked up should outlive our kids.
Now that I have the Firing Line topic and some confirmation from DC7 (and others), I'm feeling a little guilty that my prep work for this test was very sloppy. However, the hypothesis and the test are still as legitimate as a "one time data point" (to quote budrichard who makes some excellent points) test can be. A test can confirm or refute the hypothesis. We began this adventure with many of us (myself included) believing that the subject gun would be dead long before 1,000 rounds. So far, we've only gotten over 1/3 of the way through, but already, I'm starting to experience a bit of a paradigm shift in my thinking.
My hope is to get the test over the half way mark by Christmas and finished within a year. Assuming we get to the end without the terminal effects that many expected to see, then we will enter into the part of the testing process that I believe will be the most difficult....documenting The Conclusion(s). With that, I would like you all to start thinking about that right now.
What can we conclude from our successful firing of 1,000 rounds of +P ammo through a single test gun?
.....
Osprey - The truth is, not much. Remember, this has all been done years ago, with smaller guns (Model 37) and with an acclaimed, independent gunsmith keeping a detailed record of his measurements of the gun as the firing progressed. Truth be told, I think your test should be extended to 2,000 rounds, just to add interest! This is the same as Keith's test, and I believe the old number S&W came up with for an estimated service life of their airweight guns. Even so, you would only be duplicating an earlier test.
Note that I say this fully realizing that when Keith did his test, there was no such thing as +P ammo. But he did, specifically, mention that the ammunition he used included his handloads. I don't think anyone could reasonably doubt that his handloads were other than garden variety 158 gr. RNL. Mr. Keith was not known for advocating such ammunition!
Others more knowledgeable have already pointed out that any test involving only one sample just isn't going to prove much, as Keith's test didn't, but it can still be interesting to us, as hobbyists. One can't draw any real conclusions beyond that. It might be of further interest to shoot this gun until it needs service (probably for excessive endshake) - just to see how many rounds that takes.
gaucho1
Member
As the owner of 2" and 4" rnd. butts,I am following this test with great interest.
My first airwieght was a three inch 37,I
quickly learned to be sparing with "real"
plus-ps(1973).
Seems like the K frame will spread the pain alittle wider,hopefully softer.
Looking for another 37 as we speak.
Thank You
My first airwieght was a three inch 37,I
quickly learned to be sparing with "real"
plus-ps(1973).
Seems like the K frame will spread the pain alittle wider,hopefully softer.
Looking for another 37 as we speak.
Thank You
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2003
- Messages
- 871
- Reaction score
- 234
Definitely. Our 2" M10 kicks less than the 2" Chief's Special.
stiab
US Veteran
I disagree. To me the queston most asked is whether or not shooting +Ps will DAMAGE THE GUN. I agree with what Smithnut said on this subject, but will have to paraphrase his statement since I am not going back to search for it: to tell someone with a gun you have not seen that it is OK to shoot +P ammo from any time period is not a prudent thing to do on the forum.
Those were not his exact words, but it does convey the same message. Probably 95% of the time it will be OK, but to indicate that IT IS ALWAYS OK may be over reaching.
stiab
US Veteran
Yes, that's it, thanks Osprey.
budrichard
Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 84
- Reaction score
- 16
Believe me when I say that i am not being contentious but you did ask the question.
When one has NOT finished a test program and begins to think about the results and how to interpret shows a lack of understanding of how properly to conduct such a program. I won't bore you with another anecdote about a person that conducts such tests on Damascus barreled shotguns but suffice it to say, I am the only person that contests his methodolgy and results.
When conducting such a testing program one documents the methodology, results and uses that information to draw conclusions. This is then published in a recognised journal and subjected to 'Peer' review.
Now if you had a degree in Metalurgy or had someone on your team with the engineering/scientific credentials, then you might have some valid conclusions.
But as previously pointed out, the +P specification has been interpreted by many manufactures over the years. Frankly, I have some original Super Vel 110 gr 38 Specials, that i would not fire in a Model 12, not that i would expect catastrophic failure but more of a lock up problem, long term failure is another issue.
So, in short, my opinion is its too early to speculate about conclusions without being finished.-Dick
I'm happy to report the first test update of 2008. I succesfully "processed" 120 rounds of +P ammo tonight. I recommend going to The Log on page 1, second entry, to check out the new data (and the old entries as well). Tonight's session was somewhat diluted by the sharing of range time with a couple of Glocks; a G19 and a recently acquired used G23 that I was trying out for the first time.
I'd also like to mention that today is kind of a milestone of sorts. 15 years ago today (1/16/93), I was sitting in my appartment in Fairfax, VA, when my sister called from a hospital in NY. My father had been admitted and was declining rapidly. That call was followed a couple of hours later with another informing me that my dad, the man who sparked and nutured my interest in firearms (and many other things), had passed away.
Long time forum members are probably experiencing a bit of deja vu. Over the last 15 years, there have been many a reference to the 16th day of January attributed to me. I try to go shooting every year on this date. If dad has internet access I imagine he's enjoying following this test as much as I am conducting it.
I hope you're all still enjoying it too.
Happy New Year...
...
sprey
I'd also like to mention that today is kind of a milestone of sorts. 15 years ago today (1/16/93), I was sitting in my appartment in Fairfax, VA, when my sister called from a hospital in NY. My father had been admitted and was declining rapidly. That call was followed a couple of hours later with another informing me that my dad, the man who sparked and nutured my interest in firearms (and many other things), had passed away.
Long time forum members are probably experiencing a bit of deja vu. Over the last 15 years, there have been many a reference to the 16th day of January attributed to me. I try to go shooting every year on this date. If dad has internet access I imagine he's enjoying following this test as much as I am conducting it.
I hope you're all still enjoying it too.
Happy New Year...
...
big50_1
Member
Osprey-good test of the mdl. 12 and good celebration of fond memories. Way to go!
remat457
Member
Hey, you just nullified the conclusion of every firearm review and so-called "torture" test ever printed in a gun mag (and maybe rightfully so)
To me, the results are worthwhile.
As the proud owner of a Model 12 myself, I thank both you and your Dad for this fine, practical test.
I have my own little rituals to honor my Dad, who has also passed, and I believe yours does honor to both of you.
Thank you my friend.
I have my own little rituals to honor my Dad, who has also passed, and I believe yours does honor to both of you.
Thank you my friend.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2003
- Messages
- 871
- Reaction score
- 234
I was drinking a hot cup of coffee and enjoying our crisp, frosty morning when I read this... My chuckle almost made me spill...
I always try to keep things straight and not forget what life is all about.
I think your example is a pretty good way of doing that.
handejector
Staff member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 26,134
- Reaction score
- 47,056
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.
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.
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.
[/LIST]
Enjoy the long weekend....
... Osprey
- 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
[/LIST]
Enjoy the long weekend....
... Osprey
CowboyKen
Member
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, are you up for it?
Ken
ArchAngelCD
Moderator, SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
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.
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
US Veteran
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
Moderator, SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
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
US Veteran
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
Member
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
Member
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.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
