+P+

[WESHOOT2]

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 ).




yes my 115g JHP load goes 1420fps

[44 AMP]

Something like a low recoil 357 for a snubbie makes more sense than a +P+ 38spl...

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.

[Jim Watson]

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

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.

[ballardw]

Originally Posted by Shadow9mm

[B]

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.

Close, 20 Oct 2001

[Shadow9mm]

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.

[Shadow9mm]

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

[bamaranger]

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.

[Jim Watson]

Major make 110 gr .357 is loaded down a bit.
WW says 1295 fps but the 125 gr is 1450 fps.

[44 AMP]

The higher pressure +P+ loads were taking a toll on the park issued .38's that had been in service for generations.

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.

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

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.

Which is why I did the research so I could make an informed decision. It's going in my 357 only

[Bill DeShivs]

44Amp- stick to guns.
Your knowledge of fuels is lacking. Higher octane gasoline burns slower. There would be no performance increase. Just FYI.

[JohnKSa]

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 24,000

Interesting. So Tamara was right when she said 'about 23Kpsi'. Shouldn't be surprised.

[bamaranger]

In those days, firearms were retained at each individual park. A ranger was not issued a career long handgun, you got a gun issued at your posting, turned it in when you transferred, and received another when you arrived at your next assignment. I saw some really old revolvers in assorted park armories. Condition and type could vary depending on how much money each park mgmt team wished to spend on the Ranger Division. As the NPS is not solely a LE organization, but a resource mgmt agency that manages a LE function within its structure, LE often got the short end of the stick (budget). Often folks making such decisions had no LE or firearms background or training whatsoever. No surprise then when old guns get paired with hot ammo.

For the most part, the older guns were Model 10's in HB configuration, occassionally a M15 would surface. Those old K's were replaced largely by M19 and M66's. Eventually the Ruger Securities and the L-frames became fairly common, still all "park" owned. All that changed with the auto pistol program. Rangers received an issued auto pistol upon graduation, which one retained through their career, regardless of assignment.

[5whiskey]

To the OP that got gifted 48 rounds of federal +p+. I wouldn’t hesitate to fire it in any known quality revolver that has a steel frame and is rated for +p. At least I would be ok with firing a few cylinders to test it then use the rest for carry.

Call me reckless and stupid, but I’ve not heard of federal ammo blowing cylinders apart. This ammo seems to be from roughly 2001, so if it’s dangerous or there’s a recall news should well be out about it now. Federal isn’t going to let a liability slip through nor play loose and fast with super dangerous ammo. Sure it may be hot enough to shake an old K-frame loose in short order with a steady diet. We aren’t talking about a steady diet, we’re talking about some test firing of around 24 rounds or so and using the rest as carry ammo. If you don’t trust it I’ll give you 30 bucks to ship it to me and I’ll use it for carry ammo.

Flame suit on, there is no standard for +p+ (I do know this), blah, blah, blah. Federal isn’t going to put out ammo that blows +p rated guns apart in a few cylinders, and dollars to donuts this ammo is safe in the quantity obtained by the op.

[JohnKSa]

Agree it's unlikely to actually blow the gun up or cause injury to the shooter. So it's "safe" in the regard.

On the other hand, there's more that can go wrong with a gun than just exploding.

As far as it being acceptable for use in .38Spl revolvers rated for +P, the ammunition manufacturer states that this ammunition wasn't intended for use in any .38Spl revolvers, but was, rather, actually a light loading for use in .357Mag revolvers. So using it in a .38Spl revolver isn't a good idea. Not because 23Kpsi is likely to blow up a .38Spl revolver, but because it will wear it out quickly and/or cause damage to the gun as a result of the higher recoil levels.

[5whiskey]

As far as it being acceptable for use in .38Spl revolvers rated for +P, the ammunition manufacturer states that this ammunition wasn't intended for use in any .38Spl revolvers, but was, rather, actually a light loading for use in .357Mag revolvers. So using it in a .38Spl revolver isn't a good idea. Not because 23Kpsi is likely to blow up a .38Spl revolver, but because it will wear it out quickly and/or cause damage to the gun as a result of the higher recoil levels.

Ahh I missed OPs follow up after talking to federal. That does change my stance a smidge. Either way, the OP isn’t talking about shooting enough of them to shake a revolver apart, he has 45 that were given to him. Either way I feel it irresponsible to advise something contrary to federal’s current advice. So OP you have a .357 revolver have it with them.

[ME262]

The ammo they officially issued us for Glock 19 on my old job was 9mm +P+

[Jim Watson]

Back in the day, a gunzine writer said "they" used IMI Carbine - black tip - ammo to rev up Glocks.

[JohnKSa]

The ammo they officially issued us for Glock 19 on my old job was 9mm +P+

Glock used to publish the pressure specification for their pistols in the Armorer Manuals but stopped doing that at some point.

The last time they did it, they listed the pressure specification for the Gen 2 Glock 17 and 19 at 43.5Kpsi. I'd be surprised if any reputable ammo maker is putting out 9mm ammo at pressures anywhere near that high.