Hmm. I recall having learned (in the '80s, in the U.S.) that letters, numbers, and words used as "themselves" (I would call these literals today, partly due to being a programmer) do take the apostrophe when forming the plural. Examples that mostly corroborate this, taken from a dead-tree American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Ed. (c) 1982, 1985:
42's and 53's
x's, y's, and z's
in the 1700's
an article with too many also's
I actually don't think I learned years that way (the rationale for leaving off the apostrophe for years would be that the digits in years are not functioning as figures per se, plus I'm sure I learned that '70s should have the leading apostrophe to mark the omission of digits but not the pluralizing apostrophe).
So it appears you have good support for using the apostrophe for single letters (everything we've seen so far) and some support for numbers (the old dictionary I cited here). This source doesn't say anything about pluralizing abbreviations of any kind, though.
Finally, I will chime in with everyone who recommends being sparing with apostrophes. I would really love to not feed the common tendency to pluralize randomly or overzealously with apostrophes. The less people see I bought 3 CD's, the less people will be inclined to write I bought 3 apple's. (I hope.)