Gentlemen:

The current +P standard for the .38 Spl. tops out at 18,500 P.S.I. The previous +P standard was set at 22,400 C.U.P.
Both standards are, to my knowledge, still valid under SAMMI standards. There is no way to readily convert C.U.P. to P.S.I. But it is clear from the load data that the C.U.P. standard was set at a higher pressure that the P.S.I. replacement. I also understand that a +P+ standard of 21,500 PSI was rejected and there is no SAMMI standard for +P+ ammunition in this caliber.

Marshall Stanton has several times listed 6.2 grains of AA #5 behind a 158-160 grain bullet as his favorite +P plinking load for he .38 Special. I have chronographed this load and found it developes an average of 865FPS from a 4 inch barrel with the Speer 158 LSWC and WSP primers. A good load.

Back in 1997 I ran across a back issue of the American Rifleman (November 1991) which had an article by the late Finn Aagaard on the .38 special. Here 6.2 of AA #5 is listed as top end non +P load. The Maximum +P load with 158 gr. lead bullets was show as 6.8 grains of AA #5. Interesting.

I then contacted Bill Falin at Accurate Arms to see if the burning rate had changed for AA #5. No it had not. AA #5 was still blended to the same standard for pressure + or - 3%. He noted that if the burn rate was changed Accurate would have to rename the powder. The change from C.U.P. to P.S.I was responsible for the change. The older C.U.P. data was still valid and I should easily achieve 950 - 1,000 F.P.S. from a 4 inch revolver.

To cut to the chase, 6.8 grains of AA #5/Speer 158 SWCHP/WSPP in WW cases averaged 975 F.P.S. from a 4 inch wheelgun barrel. Those bullets at that speed caused significant leading in the last two inches of barrel on the muzzle end. A classic case of lubricant failure (note: these were not the current Speer product with a different lube). To eliminate the leading I double lubed by lightly tumbling the bullets in Lee Liquid Allox. The leading stopped.

This load with HPSWC lead bullets makes a fantastic field load for game up to coyote and bobcat size. It also shoots to the sights on most fixed sight guns I have tried - your hold may vary. With Remington LSWCHP bullets available in bulk from Widener's Reloading Supply at a very reasonable tariff, the load is also very economical.

I have used this 6.8 grain load in 6 shot steel frame .38 Special revolvers with no discernable ill effects. The cases literally fall from the chambers. There is very little, if any, unburned powder residue to tie up the star ejector.

Please note this was a published load. that met SAMMI C.U.P. standard for +P loads. It is not however a currently published load. I am only reporting on my experience with this load. If you wish to try it, you are responsible. I have no way of testing the pressure of the load although I would be interested in knowing how it rates in P.S.I.

Ralph McLaney

Ralph,

Roughly had the same expirience with a Hodgon load. Wanted to shoot a 158 grain lead bullet at around 890 fps, which is the same numbers as the Win 158 Grain +P "FBI" load. 4.5 grains of Universal matches this velocity more or less, but is not listed in the +P data in the Speer manual.

I picked up myself a model 12-2, a have no intention of pushing the envelope with this gun, and wrote Hogdon and asked if this was in fact rated +P, to which they graciously replied "no". Good enough for me. Reckon why the Win factory load is rated +P then? Go figure.

Bill Falin is a good friend of mine, and he is absolutely one of the finest guys I have ever met. He is one of those rare individuals that knows everything about everything, and can run it down for you, chapter and verse, right off the top of his head, and is never too busy to help a fellow out. Truly one of a kind.

Good shooting Ralph,

Steve

Steve,

Thank you for your response. I believe the ammunition industry used the conversion to piazo electric pressure testing as an opportunity to tone down the .38 Special. My notes from the early 1980's show 4" barrel velocities of near 1100 fps for factory Remington 125 gr .38 specials and 1000 fps for 158 S&W Nyclad rounds. It seems that the top end of the older C.U.P. STANDARD pressure rating was transformed to the top end of the newer P.S.I. +P rating.

If you recall, several years ago S&W marked some of their steel J-frame guns as rated for +P+. This was probably in anticipation of a SAAMI standard for that .38 Spl. round. Most likely the 21,500 P.S.I. +P+ that was rejected was equivalent to the old +P maximum of 22,400 C.U.P.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

Ralph

There seems to be a lot of confusion about psi measurement and CUP measurement. Back in '73 when I was a pup there were only CUP ("copper units of pressure") and the then antique LUP "lead units of pressure"). Back before fast response transducers and the electronics to measure them became readily available & cheap, all people had were mechanical crusher guns that mashed a small metallic pellet of standard composition and dimensions. I never saw one myself, but apparently gas escaped from a small hole made in the case and actuated a mechanical link that crushed the pellet. By measuring with a micrometer before and after firing and comparing to a calibration of deformation vs. static pressure for the pellet type, a static pressure for the amount of deformation was indicated. Trouble is, metals have a bit of an elastic nature and as a result deformation isn't quite exactly the same for a quick pressure spike as for a long slow compression, hence CUP and psi aren't exactly relatable because the test conditions are different. There is no doubt in my mind that modern transducer measurements are a far better and safer guide. The understanding of metallurgy is also much better.

Fred.

I am aware of many of the enhanced capabilities of the latest in pressure testing equipment. However, often changes in cartridge pressures are sometimes motivated by other factors.

In the case of the .38 Spl., the closing of the police revolver era combined with the agressive marketing of +P factory ammunition led to the common use of such loads in small alloy frame revolvers never intended for true +P loads. This seems to have led to a general watering down of factory ammunition and in turn, loading data in the caliber.

The current +P designation appears to be more of a marketing tool today than a true indicator of high performance factory loads. Corbon and Buffalo Bore ammunition excepted.

Ralph

Fred.

I am aware of many of the enhanced capabilities of the latest in pressure testing equipment. However, often changes in cartridge pressures are sometimes motivated by other factors.

In the case of the .38 Spl., the closing of the police revolver era combined with the agressive marketing of +P factory ammunition led to the common use of such loads in small alloy frame revolvers never intended for true +P loads. This seems to have led to a general watering down of factory ammunition and in turn, loading data in the caliber.

The current +P designation appears to be more of a marketing tool today than a true indicator of high performance factory loads. Corbon and Buffalo Bore ammunition excepted.

Ralph

Think you are right...believe there has been a decision to back down. With the newer crop of nearly-same size .357's, perhaps the need to hot-load the .38 is seen as being counter productive. Legal climate probably plays into this decision.


The small light .38's, includiung some questionable imports or larger size, aren't meant fot this kind of abuse. Even the standard models of the 1930's couldn't stand up to some of the loads of the time. Seems every other gunshop that's been around long enough has at least one police positive or official police that self-destructed.

The old 38/44 data is in some cases heavier than what's listed in some manuals as .357 charges...no argument that that old data is well over pressure by today's standards, and N-frame 38special specific revolvers are not all that common...are better off letting that un-pressure tested data remain in the past.

Picked up a 38/44 Heavy Duty dirt cheap becasue some time in the last 60 years, someone had reamed it to .357. The owner had been shooting .357's in it for 10 years, and as far as I could tell did it no damage.

Ribbonstone

I have fired the 6.8 AA #5/158 LSWCHP load mentioned in my 1970's vintage Colt Police Positive many times. The cases literally fall from the chambers. Yes my practice loads are standard .38 Spl. so I do not fire large quanities of the heavier load under discussion except in late model K-Frame revolvers.

I stay away from anything close to .38-44 level loads - these are not the type of loads that are under discussion.

It is a shame that data for loads like the C.U.P. pressure tested +P load of 6.8 AA #5/ 158/WSP/Win. Cases, are not currently published. There are thousands of late model K-frame revolvers that make excellent field guns with loads of suitable power for coyote size game. Particularly with 158 grain bullets that shoot close to the sights of fixed sight guns.

Ralph

Ribbonstone

I have fired the 6.8 AA #5/158 LSWCHP load mentioned in my 1970's vintage Colt Police Positive many times. The cases literally fall from the chambers. Yes my practice loads are standard .38 Spl. so I do not fire large quanities of the heavier load under discussion except in late model K-Frame revolvers.

I stay away from anything close to .38-44 level loads - these are not the type of loads that are under discussion.

It is a shame that data for loads like the C.U.P. pressure tested +P load of 6.8 AA #5/ 158/WSP/Win. Cases, are not currently published. There are thousands of late model K-frame revolvers that make excellent field guns with loads of suitable power for coyote size game. Particularly with 158 grain bullets that shoot close to the sights of fixed sight guns.

Ralph

Believe you...that doesn't seem like a load that would generate more than what USE to be +P...and that's what upset you, they lowered the bar.

Been a gradual lowering of the bar over the years...can't say in all cases it was a bad thing, but looking over the data before pressure testing vs. pressure tested there was a large adjustment made...that was probably wise. Now there seems to be another adjustment downward. Using PSI in place of CUP may have something to do with it or it may just be that now that they need to retest old loads, and in the testing decided to lower the limits.

NOT LOADING DATA TO FOLLOW...but the 38/44 loads refered to, loaded in 38special cases using 2400 (Lyman #38) are only 1/2 grain lighter than the same loads shown using the same bullet weight and poweder type in .357mag. cases today (Lyman #48)..can't compare 38special laods using the same bullets as Lyman no longer lists 2400. Figure the difference in volume is easily worth at the 1/2gr (and probably worth a bit more than that)...so evidently some old loading data took the 38special to +30K-land.

These are the loads that got so many standard weight and light weight .38specail revolvers ruined...an unnoticed error in seating or minior powder charge variation would spike pressure well above the already excessive pressures.

Ralph, you are no doubt correct: police don't need +P or +P+ .38 spl rounds any more because they no longer carry revolvers and certainly not guns chambered for .38 special AND ammunition manufacturers are cautious (maybe overcautious) about the legal ramifications of damaged guns/shooters. It's just that I keep seeing threads in this forum and elsewhere that trend in the direction of putting a .357 load in a .38 spl case, something I feel to be quite dangerous. I am also aware that a number of traditional loads are no longer considered safe by the people who publish load data. I honestly believe that some of the newer loaders may not understand the distiction between CUP and modern psi measurements or what the implications of using obsolete data might be. Suffice it to say that reloading can be risky when people start to go beyond published loads without the equipment that the pro's use to honest-to-gosh measure what happens. I advocate only that the loader should have the benefit of the best information and advice that can be obtained before deciding to push the envelope.

Fred:

Caution is important.

Given your concerns over the number of shooters that seem to be attempting to "magnumize" the .38 Spl., it appears that there is a real need for up to date data for the cartridge at the SAMMI proposed level of 21,500 P.S.I. Certainly, the cautious handloader should be able to gently boost the performance of a post-mdl. number K-frame, just as owners of the Ruger Blackhawk in .45 Colt can boost performance. The precedent is in current loading manuals.

There is a lot of current pressure tested data for many cartridges that exceeds the design limitations of older firearms chambered for the same cartridges. Examples include: .45 Colt, 45/70, .44/40, .32/20, .38-55, 7X57 and 8x57. It is incumbent on the handloader to make certain that what he loads is safe for the particular firearm used.

Ralph

Gentlemen:

After my recent post on .38 Spl. +P loads (see "Will the real .38 +P please stand up"), I ran across the ATK Technical Data Package on the new Speer 135 gr. Gold Dot Hollow Point load. See: http://le.atk.com/pdf/SpeerTech38_135HP.pdf
On page 9 this report said the load adhered to the SAAMI .38 Spl. +P Maximum Average Pressure (MAP) of 21,500 psi. I knew that figure couldn't be right.

I put in a call to Allan Jones (Mgr. of Technical Publications for CCI/Speer). He informed me that the figure was incorrect and should have shown a MAP of 20,000 psi. He also said the SAAMI standard for the .38 Spl. +P had been raised to 20,000 psi sometime in late 1994!

I then sent an e-mail to Hodgdon, Alliant, IMR and Accurate Arms asking for loading data for 38 Spl. +P with 158 LSWC based on the current SAAMI standard of 20,000 psi. for this cartridge. The response from Accurate Arms and Alliant indicated they were not aware of any change to SAAMI pressure specifications from the 1993 ANSI standards manual.
Hodgdon forwarded a +P data sheet for jacketed rounds only and no pressure reading over 19,800 CUP. IMR had no current +P data, but did indicate they will be adding this in the future. This was getting interesting.

I decided to call Ken Green at SAAMI for the scoop on this +P data discrepancy. I learned that the .38Spl. +P standard had indeed been changed from 18,500 psi to 20,000 psi when ammunition manufacturers could not provide the performance levels demanded by consumers. The confusion apparently arose because the change occured after the publication of the current ANSI standards manual in 1993. I then sent an e-mail to Accurate Arms and Alliant to let them know what I had learned. Looks like some +P data will need to be updated.

Ken Green also pointed out that the current SAAMI MAP pressure for the .38 Spl. +P is 20,000 psi or 20,000 cup. That while the two systems often give different values in this case they read the same.

I also received an e-mail from Guy Neill at CCI/Speer Technical Services. He refered to the Speer #13 manual which "...lists loads for the 158 LSWCHP with velocities up to 1037 fps in the +P 38 section." He advised trying Alliant Power Pistol. The #13 manual shows +P charges from 5.4 to 6.0 gr. The 5.4 gr load is listed as developing 948 fps from a six inch barrel. He emphasized these are +P loads - under the new 20,000 psi standard.

Looks like there is life in the old .38 Spl yet --- with current pressure tested data no less.

I hope this clears things up a bit.

Ralph McLaney

Thanks for chasing this down Ralph, hopefully the powder and bullet companies will release some new data at the new pressure level soon.

Thanks for your efforts, Ralph!!!

Thanks for your efforts, Ralph!!!

Thank You.

I would also like to extend my thanks to: Mike Daly (Hodgdon/IMR), Ken Green (SAAMI), David Kimble (Accurate Powders), Ben Amonette (Alliant), Allan Jones and Guy Neil (CCI-Speer). These gentlemen graciously took the time to field my inquiries. Without their expertise handloading and the shooting sports would not be what they are today.

Ralph McLaney

Thank You.

I would also like to extend my thanks to: Mike Daly (Hodgdon/IMR), Ken Green (SAAMI), David Kimble (Accurate Powders), Ben Amonette (Alliant), Allan Jones and Guy Neil (CCI-Speer). These gentlemen graciously took the time to field my inquiries. Without their expertise handloading and the shooting sports would not be what they are today.

Ralph McLaney


AMEN

And another thankyou...

Gentlemen:

I have recently learned the latest SAAMI +P pressure level for the .38 Spl. is now 20,000 psi (See: +P Update: Will the real .38SPL +P Please Stand Up)

Please note:

Current pressure tested +P (20,000 psi) data for AA #5 powder is published in the Speer #13 loading manual. Page 523 shows a starting load of 6.2 grains and a maximum of 6.6 grains of AA#5 with 158 grain lead bullet. Velocity with the latter load is listed as 978 fps from a 6 inch S&W Mdl. 14.

Again the top charge shown with a 158 lead bullet in this current data source is 6.6 grains of AA #5. Check the data source! You are responsible for your handloads.

Thought you might like to know.

Ralph McLaney

Gentlemen:

Check it out: Buffalo Bore Ammunition now has a "heavy" .38 Spl. +P round that delivers 1,000 fps from a 2 inch S&W J frame with a 158 grain LSWCHP with gas check!

Their website can be view at www.buffalobore.com

Ralph

Gentlemen:

I sent an e-mail to Tim Sundles of Buffalo Bore Ammunition today. I asked if the Heavy 158 LSWCHP .38 +P ammunition was loaded within the 20,000 psi voluntary standard set by the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAMMI). He indicated the pressure of this load ran about 22,000 psi. He also said that any gun rated for +P was ok with Buffalo Bore ammo, including alloy and titanium guns.

Very interesting.

Ralph

Gentlemen:

Additional thoughts:

When I began loading handgun ammunition on a progressive press in the 1980's my favorite powder was then Hercules Red Dot. I loaded 12 bore skeet loads and .45 ACP practice and IPSC major loads with Red Dot, so it was only natural that my .38 SPL loads would contain the same powder.

My 12 gauge lauched its 1 1/8 ounce cloud of shot with 18 grains of Red Dot from a AA12 hull with wads and primers from WW as well. That 3 dram equiv. 1200 fps load remains popular today. The .45ACP practice loads used a 200 gr. H&G #68 LSWC with 4.0 gr. for a velocity around 740 fps and my match loads pushed a 230 gr. H&G #34 LRN to 790 fps. Both .45 Load shot to the same point of aim for me a 25 yards. All of these are currently published standard pressure loads.

Back to the .38 Special. The Hornady 3rd edition loading manual (1980) listed 3.9 gr. of Red Dot as a maximum Standard Pressure load with 158 gr. lead bullets. With 3.8 gr of Red Dot my 4 inch wheelguns averaged around 850 fps. A good useful top end standard pressure load - under the old C.U.P. standard.

Fast forward: After examining the latest Speer 13 manual I found my old 3.8 gr. Red Dot load is now listed as a Maximum +P load. Somewhere over the standard 17,000 psi but apparently less than the current 20,000 psi +P maximum.
Still a good useful, but now, top end +P load with Red Dot.

The pressure standards changed - the load didn't.

Interesting.

Ralph

Yeah - It sure gets unsettling the way yesterday's loads are considered over maximum today. Suppose this is a combination of things - better recording instruments and methods, differing powder manufacturing techniques and lastly, probably a healthy dose of attorney advice.

Your chronographing the loads is the best answer - if you don't violate the upper end of the velocity range and there's no evidence of sticky extraction, bulged cases or abused primers you should be OK with using your old loadings - just be careful with new powder lots and drop back a bit with each lot until proven out.

Interesting ! Now what pistols are these loads safe to shoot in ? JAGG

According to Tim Sundles of Buffalo Bore Ammo: Any +P rated J-frame and other revolvers that are +P rated - including aluminum frame guns.

Ralph

KDUB:

Most interesting to me is how shotshell data has not changed for Red Dot.

Ralph

This is NOT loading data to be used, but noticed in the Lyman #38 there is a secion marked ".38 Nhigh Vel. for Heavy Framed Guns Only"...one of the loads listed is for a 158gr. Thompson cast plain base and 13.5gr. of 2400.

Lyman #48 doesn't list 2400 with their cast bullets, but notice it listed for a 158gr. JHP at 9.4gr. max. Other manuals will go to 10.0gr. of 2400 with a 158gr. lead bullet.

No doubt the old loading was excessive...but back then, a "Heavy Framed Gun" would have been an N-rame S&W (either an Heavy Duty, Outdoorsman, Mod. 20) and they probably could have taken that abuse. Slipping one of those 13.5gr. loads into your Titaniaum snubby woudn't work out so well.

Old data is best left for reading, not for loading.

Ribbonstone:

You missed the point. In recent years (1980 forward), .38 Spl. +P data has been all over the map. Standards changed from C.U.P. to P.S.I. this called for changes - true enough. Data changed for some cartridges and not for others.

The .38 Spl. +P went down to 18,500 psi and then back up to 20,000 psi because the SAMMI member ammo companies could not provide consumers with the velocities expected of loads labeled +P. If you read "Update: Will the real +P please stand up" you will see that I documented this. Some SAMMI members didn't know about the pressure standard changes for the .38Spl. +P that had occurred 10 years before - even in diferent divisions of the same company!

Certainly, seeing how a load like the Red Dot .38 load mentioned, changed from standard pressure to top end +P gives the consumer/reloader an idea of what has happened.

This thread is in no way concerned with data for the .38-44 cartridge.

I have learned in contributing this thread over several months, to investigate when there seem to be different standards in use. In this case it was true.

Ralph

Ralph:
Understand the discussion, was just illustrating a point (and evidently doing a poor job of it). Been looking into the .38special's data over time, and there is a general trend downward. Some of the "blips" seem to come from loading manuals that don't bother to test all the older data from earier editions, just test the new data using new powders or bullets.

Lyman is a good case in point, some of the data in their current edition is lifted directly from presious editions...not a single change...usually this is the non-pressure-tested data shot in actual guns (so the upper limit was reached by some means other than actually measruing the pressure). Other data is still listed in CUP...and in a few cases (mopstly new bullets) there is PSI data mixed in with the CUP data.

Perhaps the .38 is being down-sized. With the advent of .357's in the same size launch platform, the need to snuggle up to the upper edge may be seen as less than wise.

But the same down-sizing seems to be happening to most of the other calibers reserached...which is really teh thrust of this post (or did I miss it completely): Are these reductions based in safety concerns or in legal concerns.

I remember reading Skeeter Skelton's writings, several on the 357, where he often listed his favorite load as a 158/160/168 grain SWC over 14.5 grains of 2400. That was slightly above the data I had on had at the time, (mid 80's) so I tried a starting load of 13.0 grains of 2400. I was shooting my duty gun, a S&W 686 4", and I fired two before I decided it was an overload. That gun had NEVER kicked like that, and once home I broke down the loads to verify the charge and salvage the components. That was the last container of 2400 I ever bought.

I have an old Lyman manual from the 70's, and some of the loads listed therein would be considered gross overloads now. Whether the difference is the lawyers, piezoelectric transducers or a change in the testing methodology, I certainly agree that old data is for perusing, not using!

Looking back on the loads I DID shoot a lot thru that 686, I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did before being summarily retired. It wasn't "Shot Out", but it was pretty tired!

PJ the Late Learner

Ribbonstone & pappajohn428

The .38 +P round is now being upgraded after years of downloading. The +P standard is higher than when P.S.I. was first used. Current pressure tested data that pushes a 158 Lead bullet at 1000 fps from real revolvers (4-6 inch BBL) is readily available. (See: Update: Will the real .38+P Please Stand Up).

Communicating effectively with the consumer is more important in the case of loading data than almost anywhere else. Papajohn428, your concerns in loading #2400 powder is a perfect example. Production runs of 2400 powder manufactured since the early 80's have a faster burn rate and thus lower charge weights than earlier versions. Unfortunately the manufacturer did not change the name of the powder. Another powder commercial H335 (for rifles) has a faster burn rate than the military surplus version previously marketed but the data sheets don't diferentiate between the two - the charge weights were quietly lowered. Yes, you have to be careful - start low and work up.

By the way, I recently found out that Western Powders will pressure test handloads for a very reasonable fee.
See www.westernpowders.com

When I started this post I was looking for why the data for the .38+P was lowered down to standard pressure level performance. My investigation turned up many culprits: Changing pressure test methods, changing pressure standards, and poor communication of new upward pressure standard adjustments. It has been enlightening to find that shooter demand has been the primary factor in raising the pressure/performance bar for the .38 Spl. +P.



Ralph

Ralph:

Have looked over the claims...will have to be put in the "skeptical but willing to be convienced" catagory. Getting 1000fps from a 4" real-world revolver is a difficult but believe that can be done... claims of 1000fps from a 2" barrel are the part I find difficult to swallow.

Discovered today's 2400 isn't the same as "old" 2400 when i ran out of a large lot of "old" 2400. At first I thought that humidity had changed the burning rate of the old powder (even in good stoarage, the humidity down here can still get to it). Some expeiments prooved to me that it takes about 10% (actully, I came up with 10.5%) less of current production 2400 to match velocity (and can assume pressure) of the "old" 2400.

Ribbonstone:

I agree about the 2 inch bbl./1,000 fps/158 SWCLHP - that is a tough one for a .38 Spl. We will have to wait and see.

As for the .38 +P handloads shown in the Speer #13 manual, I have no experience with Power Pistol powder. But 1,037 fps in a six inch bbl. with 158 lead is not far ahead of the velocities I have personally clocked from service length .38's. I still have a couple of boxes of CCI Blazer .38+P LSWCHP rounds from a lot that consistently clocked just over 950 from a four inch Colt wheelgun. Of course that was on a overcast summer day!

Living in Mississippi, I know about the humidity. My loading room is in a converted walk in closet in the air conditioned house. Cool to load, low humidity and the closet can be locked to keep our little ones out. Having a lockable area for the loading equipment was the way I sold the wife on my "closet loading room" and ..er.. the fact that she had the bigger of the two walk in closets.

Ralph

Ralph:

Have only chornongraphed vel. over 1000fps in a .38special 2" with four factory loads using "standard" bullets:
1. the old S&W 90gr. Hemi-nose JSP
2. the original Super Vel 110gr.
3. old Federal 110gr. Treasury Department load (heads will be stanped TD).
4. CorBons 115gr. +p+ (and whatever pressure this one ran at, would bet it was a lot more than the legal limit).

If you count the light weight pre-fragmented rounds, then Mag Safe and Glasers are on the list. Some others were mighty close to 1000fps, but didn't quite break it (Older Norma 110gr., Remington's 95gr.+P), but they all have had light weight bullets as the common demominator.

That thirst for speed was probably the wrong direction to take with the .38specail...many 110gr. loads turned the .38specail into a .380 in performace.

Am sure I misssed some loads along the way; some loadings come on the market and dissapear so quickly or are carried by so few dealers that I've not bothered to test them.

The Speer #13 is one of the manuals that listed consistantly higher charge weights and velocities than other manuals...to befair, the Speer manuals eariler than that did also. the current Speer is more in line with the other manuals.

Is it a case of "price fixing" or did Speer get the same type of pressure equipment as the others and now limits it's upper loads by electronic readings rather than by the "eyeball method"?

There was a trend (and still is) for velocity...and a manual that offered loads that earned velocity in excess of what other manuals listed tended to be popular. Word passed between reloaders, and It wasn't uncommon to hear things like "Speer manual load" to describe some hot loads being used on the range....or in some cases, "Speer Manual load" was used as part of a long string of cursing while the revolver owner beat the cases out of the cylinder with a rod (to be fair, they probably jumped right onto the top listed load without working up...and proably did that before with other data with no ill effects...but it sure wasn't wise with some of the loads listed in Speer #9).

Ribbonstone:

Without rehashing old ground, take a look at the other post (Update: Will the real .38 +P Please Stand Up), you will find that the latest SAMMI Standard for +P .38 Special rounds is 20,000 psi. Speer used that standard in the currently published, 1999 copyright, #13 manual.

Alliant and Accurate Arms have been using the 1993 SAMMI standards manual that did not show the 1994 pressure update (from 18,500 psi to 20,000 psi). That is the source of the glaring discrepancy between .38+P data sources in currently published manuals!

Ralph

Guys, back before all the old police .38s were traded in for autos, I shot a lot of the original +P Winchester FBI Loads in my ol' S&W Model 10 - .38Spl. Service Revolver. I can credit the performance for savin' my life. Like others, I used standard .38s for practice, but always ended each practice session with a full cylinder of +P to verify reliable function with the hotter ammo. Maybe there was a bunch of questionable old .38s that hit the used gun market all of a sudden when Police Departments sold off their old revolvers and upgraded to new autos at the end of the 70s, early 80s - I don't know, but there musta' been some good reason the ammo manufacturers decided to reduce the .38+P loads. These days, I expect more and more compact .357 Magnums are being loaded with mostly .38+Ps by owners who test the water with .357s and decide it's less painful to shoot .38+P in their lightweight .357s!

I learned that even STEEL K-Frame .357 snubnose guns were a chore to shoot with much control using full house .357s. Even my ol' Stainless Chief Spl (.38) jumps around a bit with the original FBI +P loads. I don't doubt its ability to stop bad guys up close, though... I have complete confidence in 158gr LSWCHP in +P loading if I do my part. At ranges beyond a small room interior, reliable hits are low probability percentage IMHO...

Interesting thread - thanks for all the info and insights.

You can get some impressive results when the ol' .38 spl case is used in .357 Lever Action rifles with really HEAVY BULLETS like 180gr.
Example: 1935fps with 180gr lead bullets burning 2400.... ;)


GOOD LUCK!

Ralph:

Not really sure the discrepancy would be glaring in real life. The Acurate Arms data I have limits .38sp. to 17K and .38spec. +p to 18.5k., which as you state is less than the listed max. today. But believe the progression will hold. With a 158gr. LSWC, 17K will earn 940fps...with 18.5K will earn 1000fps (this published data was from an 8 3/8" S&W). Figure the next step woudln't be drastically out of line with previous vel. vs. pressure progression, so with the current standards would be looking at something along the lines of 1050-1070fps at that level.

May be working with old Alliant data as well...the data at hand doesn't see fit to disclose the test bed. Revolver, vented barrel, or pressure gun. Still, they max out with .38specail 158gr. lead at 955fps and 995fps with thier +P version. Considering the progression, would expect about the same 1o40-1060fps as a max. with the new higher pressure standard.

Rather than being suspicions of the low velocity/lower charge weight listings in many manuals, amd suspicious of the high vel./higher charge weight readings offered in the others.

Without affordable, accurate at-home pressure reading equipment, it's all a crap shoot anyway. Just becasue the manual tells you you'll get this velocity at that pressure doesn't make it so in the gun in your hand...may get that exact reading and pressure, but the odds are that you won't.

Ribbonstone:

Different firearms of the same model will often give different results - pressure, velocity, accuracy etc. This gives shooters the basis for many of the interesting discussions we enjoy on this forum.

Powder manufacturers blend their powders to produce a standardized propellant to produce nominal pressure performance within production tolerences of + or - 3%. As consumers we expect this level of care in providing products and information for what could otherwise be a very unsafe hobby.

I writing this thread and the related update I discovered a discrepancy in applied SAMMI standards and the resulting loading data. I took the time to contact a number of industry sources to find the answer. I believe this was accomplished. I trust this effort has added in some small way to the depth of knowlege of our sport and in some cases livelyhood.

I believe it is time to break out the chronographs, put up some targets and enjoy the "crapshoot."

Ralph

Two similar threads merged per Ralph's request.