357 using 38+P
- Thread starter Jokerxx
- Start date
JamesK- I have shot that Winchester LEO load but I don't recall if I chronographed it. Yes, some +P (and +P+) brass is thicker, which of course raises chamber pressure by reducing case volume.
I can only repeat my main themes.
1. Nobody would manufacture ammo that was truly hazardous in quality made guns. The LEO stuff is not overloaded, but may approach allowable max. They know cops aren't using Ruby and Star pistols of questionable quality. Ammo offered for commercial sale may wind up in any gun out there so the ammo companies must protect theselves.
2. Because of the last sentence above, 38 Special ammo is generally grossly underpowered.
3. Factory +P is very mild. The +P designation is for legal protection and in no way reflects the actually intensity. The +P+ offerings are very unlikely to exceed safe levels (see #1 above) but may be loaded at or near max allowable pressures. A cheap, imported revolvers would not be a good match.
4. A large percentage of folks remain unconvinced. They will continue to insist that +P is some superduper powerful load. They will believe that +P can damage a gun. They buy into the "model marked" criteria despite the fact that S&W did nothing to the guns when the model marking began other than stamp the model number. The debate will never end.
I can only repeat my main themes.
1. Nobody would manufacture ammo that was truly hazardous in quality made guns. The LEO stuff is not overloaded, but may approach allowable max. They know cops aren't using Ruby and Star pistols of questionable quality. Ammo offered for commercial sale may wind up in any gun out there so the ammo companies must protect theselves.
2. Because of the last sentence above, 38 Special ammo is generally grossly underpowered.
3. Factory +P is very mild. The +P designation is for legal protection and in no way reflects the actually intensity. The +P+ offerings are very unlikely to exceed safe levels (see #1 above) but may be loaded at or near max allowable pressures. A cheap, imported revolvers would not be a good match.
4. A large percentage of folks remain unconvinced. They will continue to insist that +P is some superduper powerful load. They will believe that +P can damage a gun. They buy into the "model marked" criteria despite the fact that S&W did nothing to the guns when the model marking began other than stamp the model number. The debate will never end.
Jim Watson
New member
There was a gunzine article a number of years ago where the author was plugging a well known brand of high priced, high performance ammunition.
He had the use of a pressure test gun so some real data came out, nearly all of it in favor of the brand, of course. Hot but not excessive.
Except the .38 Special +P.
It had very high velocity... and very high pressure.
It developed 94% of their .357 magnum's chamber pressure, far above any +P or +P+ known to man. The makers assured him and us that they would bring their ammo down to spec so as to protect our guns.
The major makes adhere to SAAMI specifications, often with a good deal of safety margin below that.
But you have to wonder about some of these small "factory" loaders and their claims for superior performance.
He had the use of a pressure test gun so some real data came out, nearly all of it in favor of the brand, of course. Hot but not excessive.
Except the .38 Special +P.
It had very high velocity... and very high pressure.
It developed 94% of their .357 magnum's chamber pressure, far above any +P or +P+ known to man. The makers assured him and us that they would bring their ammo down to spec so as to protect our guns.
The major makes adhere to SAAMI specifications, often with a good deal of safety margin below that.
But you have to wonder about some of these small "factory" loaders and their claims for superior performance.
Sometimes ammo makers play games. A good example, going back a couple of years, is the 7.63mm Mauser. Hyped then (and now as the 7.62x25) as a super velocity load, capable of creating hurricanes and mushroom clouds and penetrating mountains, its pressure level is no higher than that of the pedestrian 9x19, actually the newer cartridge. How did Mauser and the ammo makers do it? They lowered the bullet weight. The same way super speed .22's were created, with 25 and 30 grain bullets instead of 40 grain. The same way makers of .357 ammo did it, with 110 grain bullets instead of 158 grain. (I now hear there will be a 90 grain .357 bullet coming out that will have (surprise!) super fast speed and will penetrate the Sierra Nevada, end to end. At least!
Jim
Jim
One of these days I'm gonna pull some 7.62x25 steel-jacketed projectiles and overload them in .30 Carbine for my Blackhawk. Just to see what they'll do. 
But if you really want to penetrate thru a mountain, use the heaviest bullet you can stuff in there; either cast linotype (or equivalent) or FMJ. Momentum is your friend, high velocity and energy are secondary. But you knew that already.
But if you really want to penetrate thru a mountain, use the heaviest bullet you can stuff in there; either cast linotype (or equivalent) or FMJ. Momentum is your friend, high velocity and energy are secondary. But you knew that already.
No, according to a columnist in the local paper a year or so ago, an "assault rifle" is powerful enough to shoot through a mountain. He was demanding closure of a rifle range on the grounds that its mountain backstop was not enough to prevent the "slaughter of thousands of innocent people."
Jim
Jim
CUP values are not the same as PSI numbers
When we start using actually pressure numbers, it is important to always attach the unit of measure. For instance, the cartridge box posted by James K mentions "23,500 CUP". But other numbers in this thread are for PSI.
Here is a TFL thread on the subject:
Cup versus PSI
Bart Noir
When we start using actually pressure numbers, it is important to always attach the unit of measure. For instance, the cartridge box posted by James K mentions "23,500 CUP". But other numbers in this thread are for PSI.
Here is a TFL thread on the subject:
Cup versus PSI
Bart Noir
Webley, thanks very much for that post.
And while I have you on the line, I must speak of 2 Webley Mk IV revolvers I recently looked at. They each had a safety added to allow import and those were two different designs entirely. One was a push through behind the hammer, and one was a rotatable push through in front of the hammer which could also prevent operating the cylinder release lever.
It was a shame that those had such crap added. I might have purchased the 4-inch gun if it didn't have that safety. The barrel was shiny & pristine inside.
Bart Noir
And while I have you on the line, I must speak of 2 Webley Mk IV revolvers I recently looked at. They each had a safety added to allow import and those were two different designs entirely. One was a push through behind the hammer, and one was a rotatable push through in front of the hammer which could also prevent operating the cylinder release lever.
It was a shame that those had such crap added. I might have purchased the 4-inch gun if it didn't have that safety. The barrel was shiny & pristine inside.
Bart Noir
armsmaster270
New member
Sacramento Police Department issued K Frame 38 Spl's S&W Model 15-3 combat masterpieces and issued Federal 110gr +P+ JHP's as the only round authorized.)
I have been shooting 38spl's and 357's for quite few years and have never encountered a round of +P+ 38, even at gunshows with tables of odd lots of ammo.
I know it exists, because I have seen the pics.
But, I wouldn't worry about it.
If somebody were to give me some, I wouldn't shoot it in my 1965 Airweight Bodyguard, but I might in my Model 15-3.
As far as +P, I'll shoot that all day long in any Model 10 or Model 15.
I know it exists, because I have seen the pics.
But, I wouldn't worry about it.
If somebody were to give me some, I wouldn't shoot it in my 1965 Airweight Bodyguard, but I might in my Model 15-3.
As far as +P, I'll shoot that all day long in any Model 10 or Model 15.
warrior poet
New member
It 'might' be interesting to explain why .38 SPL is called a .38 when it is actually the same .357 diameter as .357 MAG. It couldn't be called a .36, which it actually rounds up to, because .36 was a Civil War caliber. It wasn't called .37 because, at the time, odd numbers were not used to calibers. .38 SPL has an interesting history. Take the time, find some of the old books, and read about. It is time well spent.
.38 Special has a bullet diameter of .357", but earlier ".38's", including those cartridges made for use in converted percussion revolvers, used heel type bullets of .375"-.380", the same diameter as the bullets and balls used in ".36 caliber" percussion revolvers.
Once the designation ".38" caught on for the rimfire calibers, the same name for subsequent cartridges followed naturally, even when it was as inaccurate as ".36 caliber."
As for "odd numbers not used to [sic] calibers", how about .25, .31, .35, .41, and .45?
Jim
Once the designation ".38" caught on for the rimfire calibers, the same name for subsequent cartridges followed naturally, even when it was as inaccurate as ".36 caliber."
As for "odd numbers not used to [sic] calibers", how about .25, .31, .35, .41, and .45?
Jim
Bob Wright
New member
Most cartridges for the cap-and-ball revovlers were not identified by bore diameter, packets usually said something like "For Colt's Navy Pistol" or "Colt's Patent New Model Pocket Revolving Pistol." Also terms like "No. 54 Bore" or "No. 95 Bore" were often used, these with paper, skin, or linen cartridges.
The first metallic cartridges for the Colt Navy were .38 Navy, forerunner of the .38 Long Colt, had bullets of .378"~.380" diameter, hence Navy caliber became .38. The .38 rimfires of the day had bullets of similar diameters.
Not until the .38 Colt Army rounds were adopted did the bullet diameter go to .357"~.358" diameters.
Bob Wright
Bob Wright
New member
As a matter of interest, the first short story written in America was The Rifle. In that story, there are several references to rifles "taking 95 balls to the pound." Which, I believe, is .36 caliber.
Bob Wright
Bob Wright
I have never seen a cartridge packet with the exact bullet diameter, but many (most?) have the caliber on them, like 36/100 or 36-100. Some, in a neat indication of efficiency, have the "-100" printed but the caliber left blank to be put on with a rubber stamp as the wrappers were used. Measured specimens show dimensions all over the place, .355-.390" for ".36" and .440-.462 for ".44". Fortunately, percussion revolvers were pretty forgiving.
There have been several reasons given for the difference in caliber between the Army and Navy. One is that the Army required the larger caliber because they had a need to shoot horses, something presumably not common in the Navy. In those less squeamish days, shooting the horses was considered a perfectly reasonable way to stop enemy cavalry - a dead horse took the rider down with him and a wounded horse flailed around, injuring other horses and riders.
Jim
There have been several reasons given for the difference in caliber between the Army and Navy. One is that the Army required the larger caliber because they had a need to shoot horses, something presumably not common in the Navy. In those less squeamish days, shooting the horses was considered a perfectly reasonable way to stop enemy cavalry - a dead horse took the rider down with him and a wounded horse flailed around, injuring other horses and riders.
Jim
I am not sure of the origin of the quote, but some Earthling once remarked that "a horse with a bullet in him is uncontrollable." And a horse going down had a good chance of trapping the rider and possibly breaking his [the rider's] leg. Further, while a dead horse might provide cover in an isolated shootout, a dead or wounded horse in a cavalry charge was an obstruction that would impede and trip other horses and cause more enemy casualties.
The idea that they didn't shoot horses is modern. To the soldiers of the CW era horses were a resource and a means of transportation (and occasionally a source of food). Killing a horse was on a level with a modern soldier shooting at a truck - depriving the enemy of a material resource.
Sentimentality about "My Friend Flicka" is modern.
Jim
The idea that they didn't shoot horses is modern. To the soldiers of the CW era horses were a resource and a means of transportation (and occasionally a source of food). Killing a horse was on a level with a modern soldier shooting at a truck - depriving the enemy of a material resource.
Sentimentality about "My Friend Flicka" is modern.
Jim
Last edited: