Can 38 Spec +P brass be used for 357 loads?

[Guillermo]

WOW

 

[CraigC]

CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The High Road, nor the staff of THR assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.

Who's starting a whizzwar? I stated that the figure was given in pounds, you said it was CUP I restated that that is possible but it WAS given in PSI. This is not a difference of opinion. I don't know for sure what the unit of measurement was but I do have Keith's words right here on my desk.

A. Dealing with unknown pressure is risky business.

True, but we are not dealing with unknown pressures.

B. 2400 isn't the same powder that it was in 1950.

True, but pressures have been verified with modern 2400 at the modern equivalent of 17.0gr.

C. With the ready availability of .357 Magnum brass and .357 Magnum revolvers, there's no good reason to attempt to magnumize .38 Special...brass or revolvers.

As was stated, some .357's lack the cylinder length to utilize the Keith bullet in magnum brass. If you want to properly load your .38-44, there is no other way. If the guns can take it and the brass can take it, there is really no reason NOT to.

Depends a lot on the gun.

That is a given.

 

[1911Tuner]

Who's starting a whizzwar?

I posted that Keith's .44 Special data might be a bit much with Alliant 2400 as opposed to Old lots of Hercules powder. You countered with the baloon head/solid head data..which was +/- a half grain. Okay...so it was actually 17.5 grains. I wasn't posting load data. I was trying to illustrate that it was an overload with Hercules powder and even moreso with Alliant. A caveat, and nothing more.

True, but we are not dealing with unknown pressures.

Yes, we are. Keith worked up those loads in his guns. As any experienced, responsible handloader knows, what is safe in one gun can be dangerous in another...but we can't bet on the level of experience, knowledge, and understanding of whoever might read that data and come to the conclusion: "If it was good enough for Uncle Elmer, it's good enough for me" and proceed to dump 17.5 or 18 grains of 2400 in a case that will be fired in a Charter Arms Bulldog.

We can't know the quality or the condition of the gun that will be used by persons with unknown expertise to try these loads in. I've known too many beginning reloaders who skip the "Reduce by 10% and work up carefully" wisdom and go straight to the maximum listed load. I suspect that this is one reason why the more recent manuals are more conservative than they were in days gone by.

Take my post for what it was intended to be, rather than the finer points of Elmer Keith's pet loads. To wit: As a warning and an attempt to convince the OP not to use .38 Special brass to create .357 Magnum performance. It's unnecessary and ill-advised...and so is Keith's heavy .44 Special data. He worked up those loads for two reasons. Because 1873 Colts in .44 Special had thicker cylinder walls than the .45s and because thee were no .44 Magnum revolvers yet. When he got his .44 Magnum, he pretty much abandoned the heavy .44 Specials...and for good reason.

Finally...Here on THR, we have a responsibility, whether we realize it or not. When we throw out handloading data that exceeds industry standards, we include a disclaimer stating that this information is for illustrative or educational purposes only, and that it should be approached with extreme caution...and that the end-user is ultimately responsible for what occurs with the use of the data.

26,000 psi is approaching double the industry standard pressure for .44 Special. The modern revolvers that are so chambered are proofed at 20-25% above standard...not at 26,000.

 

[Old Fuff]

A lot of people don't know it, but most manufacturers use a different grade of steel, as well as a different heat treating process, in Magnum cylinders. One example is Colt's Single Action Army, and for that reason some knowledgeable .44 Special and .45 shooters used to purchase a .357 cylinder and have it rechambered to .44 Special or .45 Colt. However while this gave them a slight edge, they didn't use it as an excuse to exceed published loading data.

I knew Elmer Keith, and when he went to solid head cases he adjusted his loads. Also when the .44 Magnum came out he switched to S&W model 29's, and then downloaded from factory standards because he believe that some of it was excessive.

Tunner is absolutely right. There are too many inexperienced (or less then knowledgeable) handloaders who believe that maximum data is supposed to be the starting point, and if the gun doesn't blow up the load must be O.K. We don't need to encourage that mindset.

 

[1911Tuner]

Thank you, Fuff!

I suppose this woyld be a good time to point to the sticky at the top of the page regarding excessive load data. I'll make it easy.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=333700&postcount=1

I cannot...will not...allow excessive load data to stand without a disclaimer being included. I tried to make this clear with tactful reasoning, but I suppose I'll have to go all jack boot and simply delete such posts.

Industry standard sets the .44 Special pressure limit at 15,000 psi. Modern guns are proofed to 18,500 or so. Keith's data was neither safe nor sane.

Back to the topic.

Magnumizing .38 Special cases is also dealing with unknown variables. While you may get away with it in a .357 Magnum revolver...should the ammunition find its way into a Model 10 or a Model 36, the results could be disastrous.

Imagine this if you will.

You have a young son who is learning to appreciate guns and shooting, but too young to understand handloading data. You have a heart attack and die at an early age, leaving all your stuff behind for your young heir to enjoy when he comes of age. 10 years later, he opens the safe and grabs the vintage Colt Diamondback along with a boxful of .38 Special ammo that's loaded to .357 Magnum pressures and heads for the makeshift pistol berm in the back yard. The writing on the box is Greek to him...but it does say that it's .38 Special...so he's good to go. Right?

 

[CraigC]

CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The High Road, nor the staff of THR assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.

I was trying to illustrate that it was an overload with Hercules powder and even moreso with Alliant.

It is a given that it is an overload but you are incorrect in that the pressures are unknown. The pressures given are no more or less credible than for any other handload developed in pressure testing equipment and published in a loading manual. I don't know where you read what you read but I have to doubt the credibility of the source. All irrational fears aside, the data is well-proven over 80yrs of continual use and we know what guns such loads can be used in. Believe it or not, .44Spl sixgun fanciers still utilize this data and to date, I know of not a single gun that was damaged or destroyed using this data appropriately. If it was such the safety concern that 'some' would have you believe, we would not see any of this in print over the last 20yrs. But we see it quite often.

Yes, we are. Keith worked up those loads in his guns.

...and had them tested at H.P. White labs. Just like Brian Pearce did decades later.

We can't know the quality or the condition of the gun that will be used by persons with unknown expertise to try these loads in.

It is the responsibility of the handloader and always has been. Fact is, any time this load data is listed in print, all the caveats are also presented, as are the appropriate guns for such loads. If folks who do not understand all the ins and outs of this stuff read this, then it is our responsibility to educate. Not keep them in the dark by NOT talking about it or arbitrarily dismissing it all simply because we have the .357 and .44 magnums. This is not a taboo subject. As with anything, education is the key.

It's unnecessary and ill-advised...and so is Keith's heavy .44 Special data.

That's a matter of opinion. How about we simply educate the OP and let him make the decision as to what is and isn't necessary? As I said before, some .357's lack the cylinder length to utilize the Keith bullet in Magnum brass. The solution? Using published .38-44 data. It is safe and well-proven and actually results in less pressure than .357 loads.

The modern revolvers that are so chambered are proofed at 20-25% above standard...not at 26,000.

So what??? The .45Colt is also proofed with anemic loads based on SAAMI-spec pressures but we apparently have no issues whatsoever with "Ruger only" loads. Loads that are tailored to a specific set of guns with particular strength levels far above that of those originally chambering the cartridge. Same with the .44Spl. The heavy Keith load was never intended to be used in the Charter Arms guns, as it should also never be used in original Triple Locks or early SAA's. However, there is a plentiful supply of appropriate guns suitable for such loads incluing post-war S&W N-frames, post-war Colt SAA's, USFA replicas and now we even have medium frame .44Spl's from Ruger.

We don't need to encourage that mindset.

Who's encouraging that mindset?


As far as the "just buy a .44Mag" crowd, why? Why should you restrict yourself? If a 36oz .44Spl can do everything you need it to whether with Skeeter's 950fps load or Elmer's 1200fps load, why not? Why carry a sixgun capable of launching a 355gr at 1200fps if all you need is available in a smaller and lighter package?


With respect to pressures, I have to defer to John Linebaugh. That pressure signs in straight-walled pistol cases are not reliable.

Keith's data was neither safe nor sane.

It was indeed safe AND sane for the guns he utilized. He experimented and those experiments led to some of the most important developments in handgunning in the last century. He experimented so future generations of shooters didn't have to. Despite irrational fears displayed here, the results of those experiments are just as safe and viable today as they were when written. As stated previously, the data is well-proven over 80yrs of continuous use and when used in the proper guns, the safety margin is 100%.

 

[1911Tuner]

Believe it or not, .44Spl sixgun fanciers still utilize this data and to date,

I know they do. I've done it myself. It doesn't matter.

I know of not a single gun that was damaged or destroyed using this data appropriately.

I know of one...but even if that's one in a million...it doesn't matter.

It was indeed safe AND sane for the guns he utilized. He experimented and those experiments led to some of the most important developments in handgunning in the last century.

It doesn't matter.

So what??? The .45Colt is also proofed with anemic loads based on SAAMI-spec pressures but we apparently have no issues whatsoever with "Ruger only" loads

That doesn't matter, either. .45 Colt is proofed with anemic loads for a reason. That being that there are many guns so chambered that are old, with an unknown history and/or condition. The same applies to those chambered for .44 and .38 Special.

And Ruger has issues with "Ruger Only" data. Call them. They will tell you in no uncertain terms that if you use it, you are on your own. But none of that matters, either.

THR is not liable for data published in loading manuals. It is liable for data published here.
If excessive loading data is posted, it must be accompanied by the disclaimer.

THIS DATA EXCEEDS INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND THE USER ASSUMES ALL RISKS.

Moreover, if this data is encouraged, the same applies.

I don't make the rules. I only see to it that they're observed.

Now do you get it?

 

[Old Fuff]

The opening post said:

I have been loading 357 Mag loads for a while and seem to constantly run out of brass for it...but I have plenty of 38 Special brass. I noticed that some 357 loads have lots of room left for the bullet, so I dumped the load in a 38 Special casing...and had plenty of room left for the bullet also....125 gr JHP...since I fire a Ruger Blackhawk 357 SS only for these rounds, would this be a dangerous load pressurewise for the gun? I have split open and measured the thickness of the brass of all three casings and found that the +P casing appears as sturdy as the 357 casing....but will the +P casing safely accept the pressure of the 357 load?

In other words what he was asking was, "Can I duplicate .357 Magnum loads in .38 Special/Plus-P cases? Absolutely, but the .38 Special cartridge he has created can be fired in any .38 Special revolver.

The .357 Magnum cartridge was made longer then the .38 Special in the first place to prevent such from happening. For that reason, .357 Magnum loads (and pressures) should only be made using .357 Magnum brass. So the answer to his question is, "Yes, but don't do it!

Now the original subject gets expanded.

Elmer Keith's .44 Special loads exceeded SAMMI standards, but proved to be safe in post-1905 Colt Single Action and New Service revolvers as well as later Smith & Wesson's. But notice that this is a very short list, and there are other .44 Special revolvers out there. One example is my little Taurus model 445 snubby, and it will be a cold day in a warm place before I shoot Keith loads in it. Another one is an older Charter Arms Bulldog Target that I also have. Again, I point out that when .44 Magnum S&W and Ruger revolvers became available Elmer switched to them, but slightly downloaded the cartridge.

Then there are "Ruger only" loads in .45 Colt that can substantially exceed SAMMI standards. If slightly overloaded they won't blow up a Blackhawk, but they can cause expanded chambers - a condition that is seldom detected by gun owners, but overstresses the cylinder and ruins it. But of course those that use and recommend these loads are far more knowledgeable about such things then the company's engineers.

What Tuner is saying, and I agree, is that The High Road has no control over what someone may do with the loading data that shows up in various posts, and that anything that exceeds SAMMI standards is at least questionable. At a minimum how such loads should be made, and restricted to what particular guns, and what the risks are, should be fully explained. More so, that the forum does not recommend or endorse the data, and whoever goes forward with it is on their own.

Anyone that advocates otherwise isn’t doing The High Road any favors.

 

[zxcvbob]

You have a young son who is learning to appreciate guns and shooting, but too young to understand handloading data. You have a heart attack and die at an early age, leaving all your stuff behind for your young heir to enjoy when he comes of age. 10 years later, he opens the safe and grabs the vintage Colt Diamondback along with a boxful of .38 Special ammo that's loaded to .357 Magnum pressures and heads for the makeshift pistol berm in the back yard. The writing on the box is Greek to him...but it does say that it's .38 Special...so he's good to go. Right?

If it's the load I posted in #42, they won't chamber.

 

[Old Fuff]

If it's the load I posted in #42, they won't chamber.

Maybe, but the real question is, "What if it isn't the load you posted in #42??"

So long as whatever the load was met SAMMI standards, what the revolver in question is, shouldn't matter.

But the "What if's" aren't what Tuner is trying to get across. What he is saying is that The High Road is not going to take any responsibility for what members post, in particular if the data exceeds recognized industry standards. What the member does is their own business, over which the forum has no control. But they can have a say about what is posted here.

 

[CraigC]

I guess I'm a little confused, has a rule been broken here? I added the standard disclaimer to my every post in this thread. Are we not permitted to discuss information that has been in print since 1936? If so, then what's the reason for the disclaimer?

 

[zxcvbob]

Maybe, but the real question is, "What if it isn't the load you posted in #42??"

So long as whatever the load was met SAMMI standards, what the revolver in question is, shouldn't matter.

You missed my point (that might be my fault) I'm saying you can safely load weird stuff that is much hotter than the headstamp. But to do so responsibly, you need to take extraordinary measures. You can also load a 158 grain SWC backwards and crimp it in the normal crimp groove with the lube groove exposed. I just tried it. (I have no idea how it will shoot or what load data you would use, but it chambers in a .357 and won't chamber in a .38, and it ought to hit like a sledgehammer)

 

[1911Tuner]

Not if the data exceeds SAAMI specs. To encourage using such data places THR in a position of co-responsibility. Even with the disclaimer, it's a little sticky, but has been given a tentative okay.

To encourage loading to .357 Magnum pressures in brass cases than can be chambered and fired in J-frame revolvers...or in pot metal RGs...is irresponsible and dangerous. One of the reasons that the ammunition manufacturers stopped loading .38-44 ammunition is because people were destroying Model 10s with it despite the cautions not to use it in those guns.

My point...my whole point...was to discourage the OP from doing it...that if he wants .357 Magnum performance, that he should buy .357 Magnum brass.

Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should.

Understand that it means nothing to me if he goes ahead with the project. I wish him well. I've dabbled in such things myself in times past, and had good success...but on a public forum, I have to discourage it, because the experience, skill level, and intelligence of a given reader is as unknown as the pressures that he's dealing with.

As an experienced handloader/reloader, you understand that the results obtained in a laboratory with a test barrel may or may not be the same as what will happen with a given gun...and the gun is always the wild card. Not everybody understands that a Rossi isn't the same as a Ruger, even though they're chambered for the same cartridge.

Not everybody understands that Hercules 2400 isn't the same powder as Alliant 2400...and there are a good many old Lyman loading manuals still floating around which provide some pretty hairy maximum loads.

 

[Skip_a_roo]

Just 'cause it's a Ruger doesn't mean it can't be blown up!

I've been to several gun stores that had Ruger Super Blackhawks in 44 caliber laying on their counter with blown up barrels and or cylinders. So just because it is a tank doesn't mean that it can't go KAPOW!

That being said, I have shot a bunch of 38/44 type ammo in K and N frame Smith & Wessons with no ill effects. Not quite 357Mag data but certainly over the 20,000psi limit of 38 +P. From time to time, I may do it again for self defense type loading. Steady diet in a 38spl? No way.

Your question would make a valid point if there wasn't an Internet or mail order places available for brass. There are even places that you can find once fired brass online. If it were me, that is what I would do, find brass.

Now for some physics. If you use a 357Mag load in a 38Spl case and keep the OAL the same, with the same bullet, pressure isn't going to be any different, one to the other. Think about it, that is why the 358156 bullet has double crimp grooves and that is the bullet that Skeeter and others used when loading their "hot" 38's. One look and they would be able to know that those were 357Mag loads in the more readily available brass. Plus, they were already shooting them in 357Mag revolvers.

All of the cautions by the fine forum members here suggesting you not do it are as valid as the day is long and I agree with them. If I had to do it though, I could and most likely would. Just thankful I don't HAVE to.

FWIW

 

[Jim Watson]

I stated that the figure was given in pounds, you said it was CUP I restated that that is possible but it WAS given in PSI. This is not a difference of opinion. I don't know for sure what the unit of measurement was but I do have Keith's words right here on my desk.

There is a good deal of Internet Misunderstanding as to chamber pressure data.
When Elmer Keith, Phil Sharpe, and a lot of other people were developing loads, all chamber pressures were measured with the crusher gauge. The copper crusher cylinders were calibrated by dead load with physical weights and later by hydraulic pressure. It is straightforward to calculate psi by dividing the dead load in pounds by the cross sectional area of the piston in square inches. A tarage table is prepared giving the amount of deformation of the cylinder versus that pressure. That is done by testing samples from every production lot of cylinders, there is no assumption that one batch will be just like another.

By 1969, there had been enough work done with electronic transducers to show that there were short duration peaks in chamber pressure that the crushers were not showing. It takes time and energy to shorten a .225" piece of copper from .500" to .470"* and that does not pick up those ultra short peaks which do not last long enough to deliver that energy. So the number on the tarage table was renamed CUP (Copper Unit of Pressure) and it was decreed that the milivolts coming off that electronic transducer could be converted into "real pressure" and allowed to be called psi (pounds per square inch.)

In short, the ammunition that Elmer sent to H.P. White was tested on a copper crusher gauge calibrated in pounds per square inch.

*On the sample tarage table in SAAMI Pistol and Revolver, that corresponds to 26,200 CUP. Or psi in Elmer's day.

 

[1911Tuner]

Think about it, that is why the 358156 bullet has double crimp grooves and that is the bullet that Skeeter and others used when loading their "hot" 38's

Skeeter also dropped his charge of 2400 powder a full grain when he used that bullet, crimped in the rear groove in .38 Special cases. He did not use the same 14.5 grain charge of powder that he used in .357 cases with the same bullet crimped in the forward groove.

 

[1911Tuner]

The old copper crusher method told the ballistician what peak pressures were produced, but gave no information on curves and average pressures. Peak pressure that lasts for a short time and rapidly drops...as with a fast-burning powder...produces less stress on the gun than the same peak pressure that holds its peak for a longer time...as with a slow powder. The slower powder also gave higher average pressures for the duration of the event.

Please understand that I'm no prude when it comes to hot-rodding ammunition. I've played with some of Keith's data in the past. During my metallic silhouette addiction, I destroyed one Super Blackhawk and very nearly ruined a second with Uncle Elmer's pet 2400 load for .44 Magnum...stretching the frame on one so badly that Ruger said it was dead in the water, and could only offer a new one at cost. The other one was salvageable, but they told me to lay off the hot stuff, and shoot the gun sparingly. Yes...it took a lot of shooting to do that...but we're talking about the revolver that raised the bar for strength and durability.

Since we're still not through talking about Keith's heavy .44 Special data...remember that there were only a few...or as Fuff noted, a very short list...that were durable enough to risk them in, and it may be assumed that they were in new or near-new condition before getting the nod. Today, there are too many .44 Special revolvers that...while of decent quality...would not qualify for use with the ammunition that Elmer created. There are Charter Bulldogs, and Taurus K-frame sized revolvers that I wouldn't drop the hammer on with Keith's loads on a bet. There are Italian .44 Special 1873 SAA clones with cast frames and cylinders that wouldn't likely take the strain for more than a few rounds.

Finally...Increasing velocity serves mainly to flatten trajectory rather than increase lethality. Within reasonable hunting ranges..There is little more damage that a 250 grain cast SWC .44 caliber bullet at 1200 fps can do, that a 250 grain cast SWC .45 caliber bullet at 1,000 fps can't do about as well, and with considerably less pressure and stress on the gun.

Keith developed that load out of necessity. There weren't any .44 Magnums yet, and he went with the .44 revolver because it had thicker cylinder walls than an identical .45 caliber revolver. Because he was a long-range handgunner...often taking his shots at 150 yards or more...he wanted the flatter trajectory. Had he limited his shots to 50 yards or less, he likely would never have developed these loadings. Standard .45 Colt pressures and velocities with a better bullet would have done all that he required.

 

[BigN]

I have to agree with these guys. If it says 38 Special +P on the bottom of the brass, make damn sure that's what's in it. I load my 38 Special +P brass to those specs or regular 38 specs, you can go down but never go up. Good luck...

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Because he was a long-range handgunner...often taking his shots at 150 yards or more...he wanted the flatter trajectory. Had he limited his shots to 50 yards or less, he likely would never have developed these loadings. Standard .45 Colt pressures and velocities with a better bullet would have done all that he required.

One of my games is to put a 5-gallon bucket on the dam of my pond, and sit on my front walk, shoulders against the bedroom window garden wall and punish that bucket with my Colt New Service. My loads are a little on the hot side -- around 20,000 CUP -- but not excessive for the New Service. That bucket is 130 yards from the muzzle, and I hit it with boring regularity.