SSN Vet
Member
Just the other day there was a thread here decrying how 'magnum" didn't mean what it used to...
a true magnum load should push 158s to >1,400 fps
Can 38 Spec +P brass be used for 357 loads?
- Thread starter pigeon48
- Start date
- Status
Just the other day there was a thread here decrying how 'magnum" didn't mean what it used to...
a true magnum load should push 158s to >1,400 fps
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Bingo! I was startin' to wonder if that point was gonna come up.
Reduced case capacity drives pressures up with a given powder charge. My go-to .357 load with 2400 powder is at about 95% maximum, and has been safe and extremely accurate in all my revolvers. If I used that same powder charge in a .38 Special case, it would be dangerous even in a large-framed revolver.
If the charge were to be reduced to produce identical pressures in the .38 case, it would be safe to fire, but would provide less velocity. Since we have no way of determining pressure, it would therefore be wise and prudent to avoid striving for top-end .357 performance using .38 Special brass. It can't be done safely, and .357 brass is readily available, so there's just no good reason to do it.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
I saw Skeeter Skelton's "magnumized" .38 Special data mentioned in another post, and want to expound on it a little.
It consisted of using a 160 grain cast SWC bullet from a now discontinued mould. I think it was a Lyman mould, but I may be wrong. The bullet had two crimp grooves. One on the normal place, and one about a 10th inch lower on the bullet.
Skelton used that bullet, seated out and crimped in the first groove in .38 Special cases with 13.5 grains of 2400. There were no +P cases then. His standard .357 load was the same bullet, seated to crimp in the second groove.
He used the magnumized specials for the reason given...due to scarcity of .357 brass.
He stated that the load was very accurate and amply powerful for his purposes...though it still fell a hundred fps short of his standard load...and if the old factory .357 load was duplicated with 15.2 grains of 2400...it missed it by about 150 fps.
Now for a disclaimer and a couple of caveats. Please read carefully.
Skelton worked up that data using an N-frame Smith & Wesson...namely his favorite 5-inch Model 27..not an L-frame and certainly not a K-frame.
Alliant 2400 is not the same powder as Hercules 2400 was 40 years ago. It's close, but not the same. It's been discovered that Alliant 2400 is a little quicker than the older Hercules lots, and will produce higher pressures and earlier peaks than the older stuff. Older 2400 data should be reduced a half-grain across the board, and most manuals bring it down even further.
One reason for that reduction is that the ballisticians have better methods for measuring pressure now, and realize that old copper crushers weren't giving the whole picture...and that many of the "safe" maximum loadings were actually closer to proof levels...and some were beyond that. A perfect example is Keith's heavy .44 Special loading consisting of a 250 grain cast 16:1 bullet and 18 grains of 2400. I read once where it was duplicated using an old lot of 2400 and measured with modern pressure devices. I don't remember what the reading was, but the ballistician remarked that Keith was a very lucky man.
It consisted of using a 160 grain cast SWC bullet from a now discontinued mould. I think it was a Lyman mould, but I may be wrong. The bullet had two crimp grooves. One on the normal place, and one about a 10th inch lower on the bullet.
Skelton used that bullet, seated out and crimped in the first groove in .38 Special cases with 13.5 grains of 2400. There were no +P cases then. His standard .357 load was the same bullet, seated to crimp in the second groove.
He used the magnumized specials for the reason given...due to scarcity of .357 brass.
He stated that the load was very accurate and amply powerful for his purposes...though it still fell a hundred fps short of his standard load...and if the old factory .357 load was duplicated with 15.2 grains of 2400...it missed it by about 150 fps.
Now for a disclaimer and a couple of caveats. Please read carefully.
Skelton worked up that data using an N-frame Smith & Wesson...namely his favorite 5-inch Model 27..not an L-frame and certainly not a K-frame.
Alliant 2400 is not the same powder as Hercules 2400 was 40 years ago. It's close, but not the same. It's been discovered that Alliant 2400 is a little quicker than the older Hercules lots, and will produce higher pressures and earlier peaks than the older stuff. Older 2400 data should be reduced a half-grain across the board, and most manuals bring it down even further.
One reason for that reduction is that the ballisticians have better methods for measuring pressure now, and realize that old copper crushers weren't giving the whole picture...and that many of the "safe" maximum loadings were actually closer to proof levels...and some were beyond that. A perfect example is Keith's heavy .44 Special loading consisting of a 250 grain cast 16:1 bullet and 18 grains of 2400. I read once where it was duplicated using an old lot of 2400 and measured with modern pressure devices. I don't remember what the reading was, but the ballistician remarked that Keith was a very lucky man.
lwknight
Member
You can adjust the charge (including powder choice) to maintain the same pressures. You will lose some velocity to the lower powder energy. It may not matter in a short barreled gun because the short barrel is not benifitted as much as a longer barrel by slower and longer burns.
I have a S&W model 10 that can be a 357 magnum if the chambers were bored deeper.
It will take the pressure. Its a nitestand queen and I see no need to spend extra money on it for a conversion. A double plus P load could be used but , IMHO a 357 magnum is too much inside the house. A good 38spl +P will do the job and not deafen everyone in the house to boot.
So yes I could work up a near 357 magnum load safely in that gun but don't see the need. I have a GP-100 for the woods already.
I have a S&W model 10 that can be a 357 magnum if the chambers were bored deeper.
It will take the pressure. Its a nitestand queen and I see no need to spend extra money on it for a conversion. A double plus P load could be used but , IMHO a 357 magnum is too much inside the house. A good 38spl +P will do the job and not deafen everyone in the house to boot.
So yes I could work up a near 357 magnum load safely in that gun but don't see the need. I have a GP-100 for the woods already.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
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.
Not sure what was going on there. The original load was 18.5gr in balloonhead brass, which was later reduced to 17.5gr in solid head brass. He had these loads tested by H.P. White and the result was around 26,000psi (PSI was given but some suspect it may have actually been CUP). Most authorities on this these days agree that 17.0gr is the proper way to reproduce this load with modern 2400 and standard primers. And again, it has been tested at ~26,000psi on modern equipment.
Last edited:
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
It was copper units, which runs below actual PSI...and given the old single-action revolvers that Uncle Elmer used'em in...not exactly New Model Blackhawk level...he was lucky to have died with all his fingers intact and both eyes working.
Guillermo
member
ain't that the truth!!!
I really don't understand the extreme "have to push it to the absolute limit" attitude.
After all, there is, with one exception, always more gun to buy. If I want a REALLY hot 38 I will get a 357. If that is not feedin' the bulldog there is always a 44 magnum. If that isn't working...you get the idea.
Cosmoline
Member
EK was a pioneer in cartridge development and took risks accordingly. He paved the way for the magnums. But now that we have .357 mags and .44 mags all the way up to .500 S&W's there is NO NEED to take the risks he took hot-rodding the .38 Specials or .44 Specials.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Yup. As a wise old sage once said: (Paraphrased for caliber)
"The pressure required to accelerate a 160 grain bullet to 1200 fps in 6 inches of barrel is more than sufficient to blow your eyeballs through the back of your head."
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
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.
Maybe, but it was given as "pounds". The fact remains that Elmer Keith gave the same figure in PSI back in the 1930's (Sixgun Cartridges & Loads was published in 1936) as we see today with loads submitted for testing by Brian Pearce.
He took the risks so we don't have to. All we have to do is follow his lead and that of his modern counterparts. Following known parameters, there is no more risk in loading the .38 & .44 Specials beyond SAAMI pressures than there is in loading for any other cartridge.
Last edited:
Guillermo
member
FYI
My comment was not concerning EK. He was a pioneer. But these days you can always buy more handgun. And at some level you might as well just go ahead and buy the rifle.
My comment was not concerning EK. He was a pioneer. But these days you can always buy more handgun. And at some level you might as well just go ahead and buy the rifle.
I have always considered it wiser to download a Magnum rather then to excessively upload the "Special" version. That way there is no chance of getting the overloaded 38 or 44 Special in a revolver where it shouldn't be fired. 
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
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.
You certainly can but you don't always need it. I reckon I just don't understand the logic behind buying a 46oz .44mag when an imminently more packable 36oz .44Spl will do everything you need it to.
Last edited:
Guillermo
member
I will load my 44 Special (when I get one) to 44 Special pressures. No reason to "push the envelope".
After all I would not want to shoot 44 magnums out of that 36 oz 44 Special.
And if I did, Smith sells a 44 magnum that weighs 26 oz.
(that sounds like torture to me!!!)
Clark
Member
The thicker web of the 357 mag and the longer OAL of the 357 mag almost cancel each other out in comparison with 38 sp loads.
The OAL has a slightly larger effect on case capacity.
Both the 38 sp and 357 mag brass are good for ~90,000 psi.
Small magnum rifle primer with bushed firing pin would have a hard time keeping up with that brass design.
The 38 sp and 357 mag will stick in the chamber at ~ 45,000 psi in thick wall revolvers and stick in thin wall revolvers ~ 40,000 psi.
Many 38 special revolvers have thin chamber walls that are weak and will split the cylinder with fast powder before the brass sticks.
Because of this, there are many applications where there is no such thing as working up a load in 38 sp.
One simply stays at or below a known low pressure load to keep from blowing weak 38 special cylinders.
I think I have split the cylinders of (3) 38 special revolvers and damaged (2) more. Here is a pic of two of them.
The OAL has a slightly larger effect on case capacity.
Both the 38 sp and 357 mag brass are good for ~90,000 psi.
Small magnum rifle primer with bushed firing pin would have a hard time keeping up with that brass design.
The 38 sp and 357 mag will stick in the chamber at ~ 45,000 psi in thick wall revolvers and stick in thin wall revolvers ~ 40,000 psi.
Many 38 special revolvers have thin chamber walls that are weak and will split the cylinder with fast powder before the brass sticks.
Because of this, there are many applications where there is no such thing as working up a load in 38 sp.
One simply stays at or below a known low pressure load to keep from blowing weak 38 special cylinders.
I think I have split the cylinders of (3) 38 special revolvers and damaged (2) more. Here is a pic of two of them.
Attachments
zxcvbob
Member
Here's a load you might like: 148 grain DEWC bullet in .38 brass loaded to an OAL of 1.36" with 7.0 grains of WSF powder. It's kind of mild for a .357 Magnum load, but it's way more than a Special. And they won't chamber in a .38 Special because the meplat of the bullet is too wide.
I would say that Clark has made his point... 
And it's one I agree with. I also noticed that the top revolver in the picture is a short-frame Police Positive Special - same platform that the more popular Detective Special was made on.
And it's one I agree with. I also noticed that the top revolver in the picture is a short-frame Police Positive Special - same platform that the more popular Detective Special was made on.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Yeah...but I didn't post in order to start a whizzwar over Keith's exact data or pressures or anything like that. My points were:
A. Dealing with unknown pressure is risky business.
B. 2400 isn't the same powder that it was in 1950.
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.
Depends a lot on the gun. While most of the membership here understands that we talk of strong, modern revolvers that are well-built and designed using good quality steel...there are several people walking around with RG .38 Special revolvers and Charter Arms .44 Special Bulldogs. If they read that there is no risk associated with loading those calibers beyond SAAMI limits...and proceed on that...they could lose fingers and eyes.
The same can be said of K-framed .38 Special Smith & Wesson revolvers manufactured in the 30s...of which there are still a surprising number floating around.
See...There's just no good reasoning for it...hence the disclaimer:
If you want .357 magnum performance...buy a .357 revolver and ammunition. It's cheaper than reconstructive surgery by light years.
zxcvbob
Member
So what's the best powder for "Blow'd up good. Yeah, it blow'd up real good"?Clark said:
AA#5 because of its high density, or Bullseye or Power Pistol because of their high energies?
Guillermo
member
What he said
Vern Humphrey
Member
Go and price a thousand rounds of .357 brass, and then go and price a new revolver to replace yours if you blow it up. Which is cheaper?
If you have to reload .38 Specials to .357 levels, load them to the same Overall Length as your .357s -- do not seat bullets deeply into a .38 special case over a .357 charge of powder.
If you have to reload .38 Specials to .357 levels, load them to the same Overall Length as your .357s -- do not seat bullets deeply into a .38 special case over a .357 charge of powder.
zxcvbob
Member
+1.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
On the subject of handload data and inexperienced and unknowing reloaders...I'll relate a little story about a event that happened several years ago, and then I'll jump outta this one before it gets too far off track.
Two young country boys, flush with their 21st birthdays and new-found ability to obtain a pistol permit, came into a shop and bought a SA revolver. I can't remember the brand name, but do remember that it was in caliber .45 Colt. While the paperwork was being processed, they announced that they intended to reload for the gun...and that they were going to shoot it the Cowboy Way...with lead bullets and 30 grains of blackpowder. They also purchased a hundred Speer swaged lead 250-grain SWC bullets. They already had the powder and primers, and planned to use borrowed equipment until they could save their dimes and buy their own.
Two days later, one of'em came back with the most thoroughly smithereened revolver I'd ever seen. His pard was in the hospital, having undergone surgery and facing at least two more to reconstruct what was left of the hand. The store owner began questioning the lad, asking what the hello sort of data he'd used...and the kid said that it was 30 grains of black powder...and produced a bottle of Accurate Arms No. 5 that a friend have given them a few weeks prior to the purchase of the gun...stating that it was a good pistol powder. (They hadn't yet decided on a gun yet...only that they wanted to roll their own ammo.)
Well..AA #5 is black, after all...
Given the level of destruction, I said that he was lucky to be alive. His friend agreed.
While this was an extreme situation, it demonstrates that you simply can't bet on the experience or intelligence level of the aspiring handloader when posting information on a public forum and forgetting about it. The search function drags up posts from the beginning. I can't count the number of beginners who have been stopped from using Ruger Only snot knocker loads in New Vaqueros because they just happened to mention it on a gun forum. I'd be afraid to guess how many have gone ahead with the Ruger Only data in New Vaqueros and learned the difference between a NV and a Blackhawk the hard way..contemplating what had gone wrong while waiting on a gurney in an ER.
Speaking of Ruger Only data and Blackhawks...Ruger has never given the green light for those loads, and assume no responsibility for anyone who uses them or advocates the same. Their owner's manual states that they assume no liability for the use of handloaded or overloaded ammunition...period. Call them and ask if the Ruger Only data is safe, and they'll give you a resounding: "Not no...but hell no!"
.
Two young country boys, flush with their 21st birthdays and new-found ability to obtain a pistol permit, came into a shop and bought a SA revolver. I can't remember the brand name, but do remember that it was in caliber .45 Colt. While the paperwork was being processed, they announced that they intended to reload for the gun...and that they were going to shoot it the Cowboy Way...with lead bullets and 30 grains of blackpowder. They also purchased a hundred Speer swaged lead 250-grain SWC bullets. They already had the powder and primers, and planned to use borrowed equipment until they could save their dimes and buy their own.
Two days later, one of'em came back with the most thoroughly smithereened revolver I'd ever seen. His pard was in the hospital, having undergone surgery and facing at least two more to reconstruct what was left of the hand. The store owner began questioning the lad, asking what the hello sort of data he'd used...and the kid said that it was 30 grains of black powder...and produced a bottle of Accurate Arms No. 5 that a friend have given them a few weeks prior to the purchase of the gun...stating that it was a good pistol powder. (They hadn't yet decided on a gun yet...only that they wanted to roll their own ammo.)
Well..AA #5 is black, after all...
Given the level of destruction, I said that he was lucky to be alive. His friend agreed.
While this was an extreme situation, it demonstrates that you simply can't bet on the experience or intelligence level of the aspiring handloader when posting information on a public forum and forgetting about it. The search function drags up posts from the beginning. I can't count the number of beginners who have been stopped from using Ruger Only snot knocker loads in New Vaqueros because they just happened to mention it on a gun forum. I'd be afraid to guess how many have gone ahead with the Ruger Only data in New Vaqueros and learned the difference between a NV and a Blackhawk the hard way..contemplating what had gone wrong while waiting on a gurney in an ER.
Speaking of Ruger Only data and Blackhawks...Ruger has never given the green light for those loads, and assume no responsibility for anyone who uses them or advocates the same. Their owner's manual states that they assume no liability for the use of handloaded or overloaded ammunition...period. Call them and ask if the Ruger Only data is safe, and they'll give you a resounding: "Not no...but hell no!"
.
- Status
