I am by no means an expert in reloading. Therefore I listen, read and do my own research. I have talked to the IMR factory about this very subject. I was assured that yes, these loads would be approaching the 30,000psi range. Well within the SAAMI standards for 357mag loads so that is what I shot them in, a new this year 686 6". The only additions from original is the aftermarket extended firing pin. I have some video and pictures of shooting both my standard competition rounds and some of these Speer #8 rounds. The SR4756 rounds are smack dab in the middle of the data from that manual. I am not trying to support this ammo just "reporting" about it. I have no pressure measuring devices and can ascribe no data to that end. That wasn't my purpose in doing this test. I shot these inside which is where most of my shooting is going to be done from now until about April! I will chrono them in the spring or if we get an "Indian Summer"! For me the test is about answering questions I have concerning the "Old Days" and what was available to shooters then. Nothing more and nothing less. I asked those that would know if the load would be safe in the firearm I was using. I was assured by that expert that they would be. Good enough for me. I asked about several other firearms and was informed as to their performance or lack thereof with this load. I won't say what I was told that was safe but I will tell you what I was told that wasn't safe, any Aluminum alloy firearm, period. Again, 'Nuff said for me.

The first video is of me shooting my usual PPC round. 158gr LSWC on top of 3.5gr of Bullseye. The bullet is seated a little deeper than standard ammo and has the last driving band just past the case mouth. Not much of a crimp just closed the case on the bullet. Watch the way the cases extract from the cylinder.
PPC Load

The second video is of 5 rounds (because I only loaded 11 instead of 12!) of the SR4756 loads. Watch how these empty cases extract as well.

SR4756 Load

Here is a picture of the primer end of the Bullseye load.



Here is a picture of the primer end of the SR4756 Load. This is the only sign of excessive pressure I can find in shooting this load. I wonder how much of this is caused from the fact I have the extended firing pin in it?



If I had an "N" frame revolver in 38spl I think I could find a valid use for these rounds. I suppose if I had a Model 14, 10 or other newer "K" frame with a 2" barrel I could justify using this round too. It would be strictly a self defense round though and I would use something else for steady diets in those other firearms.

This post is not intended to endorse or ridicule the use or those that won't use the loads from the Speer #8. It isn't intended to inform you as to what you should or shouldn't do with the firearms you have. You are to be the judge of that. My recommendation is to do the research yourself. Then if everything comes out alright, post it and share it with others!

Skip, I really appreciate your taking the time to write up this report and put up the videos. Man, you really outdid yourself! Thanks for the info.

My priveledge to share this with such great folks such as yourself!

A very well written report , very straight forward and much appreciated. Will attempt to ask some questions, and please don't take it as being sarcastic.

When the person answering the 38 special load using 4756 loaded to mid 357 mag pressure was safe for use in the 686, but not any aluminum frame pistols, was he refering to 357 mag aluminum framed pistols or 38 special aluminum framed pistols, or both?

While it is certainly an individual choice to use to mid level 357 mag pressure loads in a steel k-frame 38 special, even if only very seldom, alot of people will actively recommend against it.

I forgot to mention (on this board) that nkjnut (who will no doubt be interested in Skip's report) is out of town and offline until next week.

quote:

Smith crazy:I was assured by that expert that they would be. Good enough for me. I asked about several other firearms and was informed as to their performance or lack thereof with this load. I won't say what I was told that was safe but I will tell you what I was told that wasn't safe, any Aluminum alloy firearm, period. Again, 'Nuff said for me.

Who was the expert and what standard did they test the load to??

I think it would be of interest to contact an old hand at Speer and ask why, if SR4756 was so great in #8, that there were NO .38 or .357 loads with it in #9.

Interestingly, someone here contacted Speer recently about the loads in #8 and was given a wonderfully crafted (says the lawyer) canned response that avoided the issue masterfully. I'll let the correspondent speak up if he chooses to do so.

quote:

Originally posted by dennis40x:

quote:

Smith crazy:I was assured by that expert that they would be. Good enough for me. I asked about several other firearms and was informed as to their performance or lack thereof with this load. I won't say what I was told that was safe but I will tell you what I was told that wasn't safe, any Aluminum alloy firearm, period. Again, 'Nuff said for me.

Who was the expert and what standard did they test the load to??

A standard that satisfied me. Dennis, I read some of the post you had on the other threads. I will not argue about who said what or when or where or whatever. I stated VERY PLAINLY that their level of expertise satisfied ME. Do your own research. Gather your own information from legitimate sources and go on that. Friend, if you use the INTERNET chat forums for your only source of information on reloading, you need help. I'm not trying to be mean or smart Alicky in any way. In fact I am sure you would agree with me that if someone else did that they should go see a shrink, right?

I'm not advocating their use at all. I have 357mags that I can load down to this level and shoot like crazy.

p.s. I hope you understand about not divulging my source. The whole reason hedges around one thing, I gave my word to them I wouldn't. Again, 'Nuff said.

p.p.s. Dennis, what did you think about the videos and pictures? Have you ever had primers look like the ones from the SR4756 with any of your loads?

quote:

Originally posted by zeke:
A very well written report , very straight forward and much appreciated. Will attempt to ask some questions, and please don't take it as being sarcastic.

When the person answering the 38 special load using 4756 loaded to mid 357 mag pressure was safe for use in the 686, but not any aluminum frame pistols, was he referring to 357 mag aluminum framed pistols or 38 special aluminum framed pistols, or both?

While it is certainly an individual choice to use to mid level 357 mag pressure loads in a steel k-frame 38 special, even if only very seldom, a lot of people will actively recommend against it.

Zeke,
No sarcasm taken. The conversation revolved (pun intended) around 38 special firearms. As a matter of fact I asked specifically about my BUG which is a 637 in an ankle rig. NO was the definitive answer!

Also I would like to thank you for the kind words about the report. I was trying to give an honest, concise evaluation of some load data that was available to folks before I began reloading.

quote:

smith crazy; I hope you understand about not divulging my source. The whole reason hedges around one thing, I gave my word to them I wouldn't. Again, 'Nuff said.

That’s what I thought it would be a non- verifiable source. When a source is unwilling to reveal them selves then their credibility is suspect.

As for my information posted it was taken from IMR – Lyman – Hornady and other published data from manufactures’ in the reloading industry.That should satisfy the standard for legitimate information. Maybe you should reread what I said the information was not taken from internet sources.


Like the other respondent stated Speer omitted that data from manuals after the #8.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dennis40x,

SKIP, did you asked him about shooting this load in a modern steel K frame 38 spl revolver?

TIA

I assume that Dennis meant "non-verifiable" source, instead of "non-variable." Sometimes, there are very good reasons, such as attorney-client privileged communications, wherein sources cannot be verified. Been there; done that. Therefore, I understand Skip's honoring his word. I did science for years before I did law, and I therefore also understand Dennis's desire for verifiability. Regardless of either, I appreciate Skip's sharing. I've not had primer appearances change as a result of installing long firing pins in either of my 681s or my 625, FWIW. That lower primer looks "interesting...."

Is that primer a WW? As I increase pressures with Winchester primers, they just get flatter and flatter. Maybe leak some. Never saw one look like that.

quote:

That’s what I thought it would be a non- verifiable source.

Dennis, If I did give my source all it would do is: #1 Cause grief for them. #2 Embolden some fool to take the test information I have given here as Gospel.

I want to do neither. Now, one could take what you have implied to mean that I have lied about my source being credible. I am glad for you we don't still live in the times of the old west.

I gave my word to them and in a day when most men's word is worthless I want mine to be like gold.

Don't take anything I have said here as "proof" these loads are safe above what your books say. DON'T ANYONE DO THAT! If there is one ounce of "detective" in you, any of you, you can find out exactly what I have. It wasn't hard, you just have to think. To be honest I think that was what was the most fun in the whole thing. Like an investigative reporter. Turn a rock over, stick your nose in here or there. Kinda neat to tell the truth.

"Non-verifiable" would mean the source isn't available. That is not true. It is available and if you find it you will agree with me it is a credible source. You would agree with the test method. NOW, ABOUT MY SOURCE, 'NUFF SAID!

I want to add an example of someone being qualified to make an assertion on a subject but not wishing to elaborate to embolden a moron to blindly follow their credible information. Shooting Times Magazine. Subject: 38/44 Super Police Revolver. (Does the subject sound familiar to anyone?) Paul Scarlata author. From the section titled "A Stronger Gun for Faster Loads" and I quote: "Also in 1930, S&W teamed up with Remington to produce a special high-performance .38 Special load. This load developed by Remington ballistician Major Earl Witsil with the assistance of Elmer Keith, was capable of penetrating automobile bodies. When fired from a 6.5-inch barrel, it's 158 grain hardened lead bullet attained a velocity of 1175fps for 460 ftlbs of muzzle energy. It was offered by Remington as the .38-44 S&W Special Hi-Speed. Other companies followed suit under various names, including .38 S&W Special-X and .38 Colt High Velocity."
From the section titled "Shooting a .38-44 Super Police Revolver" I quote: "Although my handload is over the maximum published by current loading manuals, it is safe in my particular revolver, but should no be used in other guns that are not as strong, so for safety reasons, I will not divulge the powder charge." He does however go on to post the type of powder and the velocity he achieved. It was W231 for the powder and 1019fps for the velocity. Obviously, Paul as a "professional" gun writer was leery about spilling too many beans. I guess I can do the same.