Accelerated Endurance Test ran at U.S.Army Ballistic Research Lab of military model Ruger Six Series was firing 364 .38 Special proof loads. Ten guns still gaged up afterwards and then fired an encore performance of 5000 rounds of PGU/12B each, still meeting acccuracy, function and gaging up within acceptance specs at the completion of the test.
Elmer Keith's pressure testing of 38 Special high pressure ammunition
- Thread starter fxvr5
- Start date
Jim Watson
Member
Typical tough Ruger, but .38 Special proof pressure is much less than .357 Magnum service load. Are .38 Rugers of less strength? I have always heard the only difference was chamber length.
I was thinking about the endurance tests of 58 guns done in 1971 by HP White for the Feds. A 1981 law journal article said results were not available but here is a post lauding the Walther PPK/S which passed.
www.waltherforums.com
I was thinking about the endurance tests of 58 guns done in 1971 by HP White for the Feds. A 1981 law journal article said results were not available but here is a post lauding the Walther PPK/S which passed.
PPK/s endurance test by H.P. White Lab
Going though some old files today and encountered the H.P. White Laboratory tests conducted back in 1971 on a contract from the U.S. Treasury Department. Dozens of pistol and revolver models were torture tested to try to demonstrate that "cheap" meant "unsafe" or "unreliable". It really...
Last edited:
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
That thread and my post was about the friggin' .357Mag. Try reading the thread and not trying so hard to show us how smart you are.
Keith did have loads tested by HP White Labs and Brian Pearce had them retested at HP White Labs. In that context the cartridge was irrelevant.
Typical tough Ruger, but .38 Special proof pressure is much less than .357 Magnum service load. Are .38 Rugers of less strength? I have always heard the only difference was chamber length.
I was thinking about the endurance tests of 58 guns done in 1971 by HP White for the Feds. A 1981 law journal article said results were not available but here is a post lauding the Walther PPK/S which passed.
PPK/s endurance test by H.P. White Lab
Going though some old files today and encountered the H.P. White Laboratory tests conducted back in 1971 on a contract from the U.S. Treasury Department. Dozens of pistol and revolver models were torture tested to try to demonstrate that "cheap" meant "unsafe" or "unreliable". It really...
Material and heat treatment of all Ruger Six Series was the same whether .380 Rim, .38 Special, .357 or 9mm.
Only Rugers I am aware of which were not heat treated were the black powder Old Army cap & ball guns, but material was the same 4140 low sulphur used in the Blackhawk. Even in the annealed state they were strong. Proofed with a black powder igniter and smokeless charge producing 22,000 psi.
Jim Watson
Member
What I thought.
M. Ayoob said Ruger authorized rechambering SP 101 Specials to Magnum. Had to be choosy about Magnum OAL.
A pre-Hodgdon Accurate powder manual had nitro for black loads for “buffalo rifle” calibers. It said pressures were set the same as the usual compressed BP load. They ran up into the 20,000 + range
M. Ayoob said Ruger authorized rechambering SP 101 Specials to Magnum. Had to be choosy about Magnum OAL.
A pre-Hodgdon Accurate powder manual had nitro for black loads for “buffalo rifle” calibers. It said pressures were set the same as the usual compressed BP load. They ran up into the 20,000 + range
Brass used to be balloon head in 38 spl that made a case volume difference. Which in turn allowed for more powder at reduced pressure.
I'm trying to understand why loads that were considered safe for years suddenly became unsafe when they changed the pressure measuring. Doesn't that just mean the actual safe pressure limit was higher than they thought?
AJC1
Member
I tend to believe that to be true, and the standard they had set previously was used with new testing gear effectively reducing the maximum. To date I don't have any real issue with current max loads, as that paper down range is as dead as ever
I agree to a point. My loads revolve around hunting. The difference 50 fps makes can be substantial depending on where it is in the bullet velocity window.I tend to believe that to be true, and the standard they had set previously was used with new testing gear effectively reducing the maximum. To date I don't have any real issue with current max loads, as that paper down range is as dead as ever
For paper I agree.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I would offer that Keith's 26-27,000 psi "38 Special" loads are over-pressure for any actual "38 Special"-rated revolver.
Consider them at least 25% above +P+ loads
NOTE: Given that each "+" is ~10% over nominal Max, consider Keith's to be +P+++(+)
!
While modern steels are much more forgiving in designs that in earlier days might be weaker, I don't think a steady
diet of Keith Specials would be a good idea even in today's Chief's Special
.... even though Keith supposedly did it.
Consider them at least 25% above +P+ loads
NOTE: Given that each "+" is ~10% over nominal Max, consider Keith's to be +P+++(+)
!While modern steels are much more forgiving in designs that in earlier days might be weaker, I don't think a steady
diet of Keith Specials would be a good idea even in today's Chief's Special
.... even though Keith supposedly did it.
Last edited:
N555
Member
Pressure testing "with your barrel", without drilling a hole in the chamber is pretty clever.
N555
Member
That's about how I load my 38spl, since I only have 357 guns.I would offer that Keith's 26-27,000 psi "38 Special" loads are over-pressure for any actual "38 Special"-rated revolver.
Consider them at least 25% above +P+ loads
While modern steels are much more forgiving in designs that in earlier days might be weaker, I don't think a steady
diet of Keith Specials would be a good idea even in today's Chief's Special
.... even though Keith supposedly did it.
Jim Watson
Member
Even Elmer made a difference in loads between balloon head and solid head .44 Special. He probably didn't care enough about .38 to bother.
He said of the then-new Combat Magnum that he would stick to his "heavy .38 load" or factory magnums.
We have reports of cracked forcing cones, loose actions, stretched top straps, etc in that and other guns.
I think people shoot more now than they used to. Elmer shot what, 600 .44 Magnums in the first year.
One avid IDPA SSR shooter said he was on his third Model 10, back when the power factor called for near maximum into +P Specials, depending on your gun and ammo selection.
Yes, but that is now accomplished with a strain gauge glued to the barrel. An axial crusher receiver was likely very expensive.
He said of the then-new Combat Magnum that he would stick to his "heavy .38 load" or factory magnums.
We have reports of cracked forcing cones, loose actions, stretched top straps, etc in that and other guns.
I think people shoot more now than they used to. Elmer shot what, 600 .44 Magnums in the first year.
One avid IDPA SSR shooter said he was on his third Model 10, back when the power factor called for near maximum into +P Specials, depending on your gun and ammo selection.
Yes, but that is now accomplished with a strain gauge glued to the barrel. An axial crusher receiver was likely very expensive.
Exceeding engineering design limits for any revolvers other than S&W N-frame, post-1920 Colt New Service and post-1929 Official Police.
Radial copper is not precise and is at best only an estimate.
Piezo-electric is a measurement which provides time versus pressure, peak pressure and area under the curve.
I understand that. It doesn't change the fact that loads were around for years without blowing up guns. Suddenly they were unsafe.
It's like weighing yourself with an inaccurate scales . And being ok with your weight. Then freaking out about it because you bought an accurate one that says you with more.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Keith's .38 loads weren't mean for anything else. Would've thought that was obvious.
Last edited:
SunnySlopes
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,289
I remember Keith's protocol for testing, viz. he would add powder till the gun blew up and
then back off 5%. If that's not true, it oughta be.
Strain gage setup with Oehler M43PBL and computer interface does exactly that. No permanent mods to the gun are required. A solid barrel like a Contender is how it is usually done, but a revolver can be used as a single-shot mounting the strain gage into one of the cylinder flutes.
Col. Harrumph
Member
Keith's book, Sixguns, has several photos of blown-up revolvers shown without attribution. I think I know what happened to them.
Jim Watson
Member
And some he had repaired, straighten the frame, weld on a new top strap, fit a new cylinder.
Jim Watson
Member
I doubt anybody would take on the liability.
