+P+

FWIW, I have used quite a bit of Federal 9mm +P+ 9BPLE 115 grain and Winchester 115 and 127 grain 9mm +P+ in a variety of firearms. I was never able to detect any premature wear, and certainly no breaking, bending, deforming, etc. of component parts due to use of +P+ ammo.
Click to expand...

In any case, due to my own experience with major US manufacturer +P+ ammo, I am comfortable in it's use in quality, properly maintained firearms........YMMV
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, have you used any other +P+ ammo?? Any other caliber?? Its been pointed out several times in this thread that there is no standard for +P+ pressure range.

Like the German Autobahn, there is no upper speed limit, only a lower one.

I'm sure you are accurately relating your experience, but I think your conclusion, as stated is simply overbroad and not accurate.

There are LOTS of "quality, properly maintained firearms" that are simply not suited for use of +P+ ammunition. ALL +P+ ammo is NOT the same. The only thing all +P+ ammo has in common is the +P+ marking, because it exceeds the +P pressure rating by some amount.

Specific to 9mm Parabellum, I have 3 different "quality, properly maintained" pistols that I would not dream of running +p let alone unquantifiable +P+ ammo in. And they were made by Mauser and Walther.

I don't think this is a matter of YMMV but a matter of YM WILL Vary...;)
 
attachment.php

attachment.php

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • label.jpg
    label.jpg
    248.5 KB · Views: 78
  • top of box.jpg
    top of box.jpg
    151.9 KB · Views: 80
  • bullet design.jpg
    bullet design.jpg
    207.9 KB · Views: 82
There is the box and info. Called federal today. Waiting on a call back for details on pressure of the load.

As near as I can tell the lot number is as follows
Shift / Line / Year / Julian Day

can't tell shift / Line 17 / year 2001 / Julian day 239

I thinks that comes to Nov 25th 2001, but I could be way off, had trouble trying to figure the julian day.

The box does state
These cartridges are loaded to a higher pressure, as indicated by the +P+ marking on the cases. Use only in firearms recommended by the manufacturer for +P+ ammunition
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity does anyone know of 38spl guns rated for +P+ ammo? it seems like an oxymoron....
 
Last edited:
How can you "rate" a gun for ammunition that has no single specification?

But yes, there is such a thing. The first production run of S&W M640 was marked "Tested for +P+." But then they realized there was no +P+ standard to test by and dropped the nonsensical marking.
 
I have several boxes of the old Winchester white box "Law Enforcement Only" 38 SPL +P+ 110 grain SJHP. Whew. I only shoot it in my .357 Magnum revolvers and not all the time. It's getting older (though I store it properly) and it was meant to be used by police officers who were carrying magnum revolvers, but who couldn't use 357 Magnum cartridges for various reasons.
 
Something like a low recoil 357 for a snubbie makes more sense than a +P+ 38spl...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The first of the type was going to a government agency at a time when "Magnum" was a dirty word. Doesn't "Special" just sound nicer?

And the antis' catch phrase was "Bullets shaped like the engine nacelles of a B47. The bullets don't explode, YOU do!"
 
According to one source on the internet (ironically an old TFL thread) the 38HS2G Federal loading runs about 23Kpsi.
 
until the manufacturer weighs in

The +P+ designation means "loaded to no SAAMI standard".
It does not automatically mean loaded to any certain pressure (as some +P+ ammo was loaded to lower-than +P or standard pressure); it means no standard met.


Just like CIP pressures may be higher than SAAMI, some may be lower.

Someone else wisely mentioned, skip hot ammo, get a bigger gun (coughs in GrayArea :rolleyes:).




yes my 115g JHP load goes 1420fps
 
Something like a low recoil 357 for a snubbie makes more sense than a +P+ 38spl...
Click to expand...

How do you figure that? I mean, other than the case used, where should we draw the line between .38 Special and .357 Magnum?? Where do you draw it, yourself??

Because I have my own standards, and they may not line up with yours.

For one thing, one can make the argument that the .357 Magnum IS just a .38Spl +P+ load, put in a longer case to keep it from being chambered in certain guns.

We have established that there is no industry upper pressure limit for +P+.

.357 Magnum full house loads WILL FIT in .38 Spl cases.

What is your proposed "low recoil" .357 load for 'snubbies"???
Give us a bullet weight, and speed, that you consider "low recoil", please.
And then tell us how that cannot be done with a .38 Special load?

A "low recoil" .357 load for a snubbie doesn't make more sense than a .38 special if my snubbie is a .38 Special that can't shoot .357 ammo.
 
.357 Magnum full house loads WILL FIT in .38 Spl cases.
Click to expand...

Yup. In 1937, Phil Sharpe showed .38 Special up to 16 gr 2400 35000 psi with the 146 gr Sharpe Hollowpoint (Cast, weren't many jacketed revolver bullets in those days.) Same in .357 Magnum.
 
My point was rather that a +P+ 38 that was intended to only be used in a 357. But could blowup a 38 or 38+p gun, makes very little sense compared to a light 357 load. Better to water down a 357, than make a 38mag.
 
Last edited:
Just talked to federal. They said don't shoot them in a 38. They were intended for use in a 357, as a light load.They said pressure was between 22,000 and 24,00
 
+P+ .38

For about the first 10 yrs of my career, the agency load was the "treasury load", a .38/110 at an alleged 1150 fps from a 4" revolver. As an aside, the Super Vel loads were adopted sometime prior that, but gone before I was sworn.

The first notable effect of that (Q4070 +P+) load after it's adoption was the decline and degradation of the wide array of old k-frame .38's that were floating around the parks since who knows when, surviving on a diet of mild 148 WC and 158 gr lead. As these old guns gave up the ghost, many were replaced with newer k-frames, many chambered for .357 magnum as well, and stronger designs like the Ruger Security series. The higher pressure +P+ loads were taking a toll on the park issued .38's that had been in service for generations.

During some fortunate assignments to the academy, I learned that opinions on the Q load varied. One salty Border Patrol instructor said his agency was more than satisfied. Others were critical, most citing varied low velocities from lot to lot, some making the claimed velocity, and others lot not.
The NPS had two rather notorious incidences of poor performance with the Q load in actual shootings, one felon absorbing 6 rds before ceasing hostilities. In the second instance, the assailant absorbed two, then went off a cliff with the ranger, the ranger landed on a ledge and survived, the felon went to the bottom and did not.

Those two episodes and perhaps other shootings I can no longer recall, led to the eventual elimination of all .38 revolvers and the adoption of the .357 mag, 125 gr., and the 110 gr mag was authorized as well if the 125 was too much cartridge for the shooter, and often it was. L-frames appeared as soon as they were released, as the mag loads took their toll on the remaining K-frames in inventory that were now being fed a steady diet of mag ammo.

The magnum era did not last long, maybe five years, before the auto pistol program was introduced and the revolver disappeared except in exceptional areas with wildlife concerns.
 
The higher pressure +P+ loads were taking a toll on the park issued .38's that had been in service for generations.
Click to expand...

This is one of those situations where I can fault neither the guns nor the ammo, instead I find fault with the bureaucratic decision that paired them together.

What do you think the results would be if the AGENCY decides you will run all your old jeeps and trucks on 100 octane aviation fuel? You'll get really good engine performance, briefly...

A lot of this discussion has involved running hot ammo in guns that were never made for that. And apparently some degree of surprise when those guns malfunction and fail to last the expected amount of time / round count.

Its kind of like burying the needle on the tach, ignoring the red line. Its hard on the machinery. One does it when life is at risk, but its stupid to do it or practice it as a constant use method. That's WHY there is red line, on the gauge, its the operating max that doesn't damage the mechanism.

SO, yeah those old park guns that had served adequately for generations and probably continue to do so for a century more, were deliberately "used up" by the choice of running too hot ammo in them.

And this is also another example of the differences between Agency and Department guns and ammo and what you or I choose to own and use. The difference is just that, CHOICE.

All those good folks working for police and all the other armed government agencies don't get to make their own personal choice about what guns and ammo they use on duty, generally speaking. You and I, as private citizens don't have to live under those rules. Our choices are our own, just as our personal situations are not the same as an on duty officer. If you choose to use what they use, that's your choice. I choose what I think will be best for me, and best for my guns, where repairs and replacement comes out of my pocket, not a taxpayer supplied department budget.

+P+ HAS no defined limit other than being above +P so no gunmaker can test or rate any gun for it, because there's no telling what it actually is.
Therefore unless you are in a situation where its use is required by bureaucratic fiat, the choice to use it, and what to use it in is entirely on you, or I, the individual owner.
 
44 AMP said:
This is one of those situations where I can fault neither the guns nor the ammo, instead I find fault with the bureaucratic decision that paired them together.

What do you think the results would be if the AGENCY decides you will run all your old jeeps and trucks on 100 octane aviation fuel? You'll get really good engine performance, briefly...

A lot of this discussion has involved running hot ammo in guns that were never made for that. And apparently some degree of surprise when those guns malfunction and fail to last the expected amount of time / round count.

Its kind of like burying the needle on the tach, ignoring the red line. Its hard on the machinery. One does it when life is at risk, but its stupid to do it or practice it as a constant use method. That's WHY there is red line, on the gauge, its the operating max that doesn't damage the mechanism.

SO, yeah those old park guns that had served adequately for generations and probably continue to do so for a century more, were deliberately "used up" by the choice of running too hot ammo in them.

And this is also another example of the differences between Agency and Department guns and ammo and what you or I choose to own and use. The difference is just that, CHOICE.

All those good folks working for police and all the other armed government agencies don't get to make their own personal choice about what guns and ammo they use on duty, generally speaking. You and I, as private citizens don't have to live under those rules. Our choices are our own, just as our personal situations are not the same as an on duty officer. If you choose to use what they use, that's your choice. I choose what I think will be best for me, and best for my guns, where repairs and replacement comes out of my pocket, not a taxpayer supplied department budget.

+P+ HAS no defined limit other than being above +P so no gunmaker can test or rate any gun for it, because there's no telling what it actually is.
Therefore unless you are in a situation where its use is required by bureaucratic fiat, the choice to use it, and what to use it in is entirely on you, or I, the individual owner.
Click to expand...
Which is why I did the research so I could make an informed decision. It's going in my 357 only
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top