Guillermo
member
WOW
True, but we are not dealing with unknown pressures.A. Dealing with unknown pressure is risky business.
True, but pressures have been verified with modern 2400 at the modern equivalent of 17.0gr.B. 2400 isn't the same powder that it was in 1950.
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.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.
That is a given.Depends a lot on the gun.
Who's starting a whizzwar?
True, but we are not dealing with unknown pressures.
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.I was trying to illustrate that it was an overload with Hercules powder and even moreso with Alliant.
...and had them tested at H.P. White labs. Just like Brian Pearce did decades later.Yes, we are. Keith worked up those loads in his guns.
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.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.
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.It's unnecessary and ill-advised...and so is Keith's heavy .44 Special data.
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.The modern revolvers that are so chambered are proofed at 20-25% above standard...not at 26,000.
Who's encouraging that mindset?We don't need to encourage that mindset.
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%.Keith's data was neither safe nor sane.
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.
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.
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
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?
If it's the load I posted in #42, they won't chamber.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.
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)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.
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.
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 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.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.