quote:

Is that primer a WW?

Hey pinky,
Good to hear from you again. No the primer in the bottom photo is a Federal Standard small pistol. The one in the top is a Winchester though. The load I used in that bullet has been my main stay for 38s for quite a while. I have won or come in close to the top of most of the indoor PPC leagues I have shot in with it. It isn't a "wimp" round according to Alliant's data. I like it a lot.

quote:

smith crazy;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.

If you understood what I meant by verifiable then we would be on the same wave length. With out verification by standard industrial accepted testing practices, protocols, and criteria then your sources supposition is just that. It’s meaning less. Your source lacks credibility simply because they won’t identify themselves and or can’t substantiate their claims as to the suitability of the load in question.

You’re side stepping the issue by claiming that you have satisfactory information that is irrefutable evidence that the load is safe in 38Spl revolvers.

If the information is valid then your source would have no problem in being identified and how those conclusions were derived or other wise it’s no better than just a wild ass guess until proven otherwise.

Old west new west what ever that’s my position on this subject like it or not.

quote:

Originally posted by dennis40x:

quote:

smith crazy;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.

If you understood what I meant by verifiable then we would be on the same wave length. With out verification by standard industrial accepted testing practices, protocols, and criteria then your sources supposition is just that. It’s meaning less. Your source lacks credibility simply because they won’t identify themselves and or can’t substantiate their claims as to the suitability of the load in question.

You’re side stepping the issue by claiming that you have satisfactory information that is irrefutable evidence that the load is safe in 38Spl revolvers.

If the information is valid then your source would have no problem in being identified and how those conclusions were derived or other wise it’s no better than just a wild ass guess until proven otherwise.

Old west new west what ever that’s my position on this subject like it or not.

Have your own opinion as long as you don't mind being wrong! I am not about to follow, and I hate lowering myself to your literary level, a WAG. You act like it is my job, and that I am attempting to convince you of what to do with your guns and bullets. Since I am not attempting in any way shape of form to do that have your own opinion. That and $5 will get you a nice cup of coffee from Starbucks.

I stated that if you knew my source you would agree. I have read your opinions. I know your position. What I am afraid of is your lack of understanding of the english language. I have tried to steer folks in a direction to gather information on their own. What are you, too lazy to do the research for your self? Did you read the post about the .38/44? What kind of credence do you give to "Gun industry writers". Do you follow Ayoob? I doubt you will answer any of these questions. When all you have is an argument that isn't based on fact you can't answer questions. Reread my posts. Answer the questions. You are acting like a liberal, arguing without answering questions.

quote:

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

Sorry to insist...

quote:

Originally posted by TiroFijo:

quote:

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

Sorry to insist...

Tiro, I'm sorry to have kept you waiting. I am still doing research on this topic.

As I said earlier I won't state what the source said about what was safe. Someone would run right out buy one and overload even these loads then blame me or us for giving them something dangerous. If you could get the article from Shooting Times Magazine I think that would help answer your question and that from a reputable source. At least it would be from a more accepted source than just my word as it seems!

quote:

smith crazy;You are acting like a liberal, arguing without answering questions.

You’re the one that hasn’t answered the question which is basically simple a verifiable source and the documentation of the information. That’s straight forward no back peddling or side stepping on my part.

I’m receptive to reconsidering my position once I have creditable factual information in which to formulate an intelligent position. So far this is lacking.

I’m not questioning your integrity I’m questioning the validity of the information so far presented.

quote:

You’re the one that hasn’t answered the question

No, I answered the question from the on set. I am an Automated Machine Technician which is a fancy name for an electrician that knows about programmable controllers, motor drives, both AC and DC, sensors of all types, yada, yada, yada. There are certain steps, which seem like common sense to me, in order to put together machines with components from different sources. What do you think I do in my job? I contact those that ARE EXPERTS WITH THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION!


I don't know how to make it any plainer and still live up to my word. If you can't figure it out now there is no way to make you understand.

I said I used a verifiable source, one you would agree with. Your stance is you want an expert with the correct testing equipment to make that assessment. DUH! Do you have a phone?

Come on man, quit taking a stand that is pointless. Reread my first post. Have you any deductive reasoning? There is enough information in there that a lawyer figured it out! (Sorry Eric)
I don't like being so blunt, it isn't my usual nature, but some folks have the knack to bring it out.

All I will say about the source is, it is still available, you can reach it yourself, ask all the questions you want, post whatever you like.
Change your mind or don't change your mind.

Just so you know, I gave you the answer in your thread about it being 35,800psi or whatever. You must have been so focused on the discussion (read: your argument) you missed it. I will paste it here for you to read again.

"For my money, I like the Speer #8 data. I am cautious about going above recommended data from the powder manufacturer due to a KB I had with Clays using Lyman data."

quote:

smith crazy; No, I answered the question from the on set. I am an Automated Machine Technician which is a fancy name for an electrician that knows about programmable controllers, motor drives, both AC and DC, sensors of all types, yada, yada, yada. There are certain steps, which seem like common sense to me, in order to put together machines with components from different sources. What do you think I do in my job? I contact those that ARE EXPERTS WITH THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION!

Since you gave me an explanation of your professional background which precipitates your logic and reasoning process I should do the same for you.

I hold patents in the United States and The Union of South Africa for hydraulic systems for rotary percussive rock drilling, temporary roof support systems for underground mining applications and related patents for other mining applications.

Equipment I’ve designed hydraulic maintenance center for testing components of off road equipment, surface & underground drilling apparatus, underground roof bolter, battery powered & diesel personnel carriers, haulage belt tensioning systems, industrial food service equipment, bulk handling material dryer systems, telecommunication enclosures, radio frequency gluing equipment, embossing presses, pneumatic waste haulage systems for wood & paper, and mobile medical units that are employed by FEMA/HS.

I’ve done enough design & project management to know that if a process/procedure/item falls out of the norm and can’t be documented its problematic.

That’s why there are standards examples being NEMA, SAE, NFPA, ANSI, ISO, IEC & ASTM and etcetera.

If your expert can document their conclusions following standards for that industry then fine otherwise its unsubstantiated opinion nothing more or less.

When the primary source Speer no longer supports the data that should tell all there is a problem.

quote:

When the primary source Speer no longer supports the data that should tell all there is a problem.

Imagine all of that schooling and knowledge and an inability to understand simple explanations.
I've worked with 100s of engineers that had the same failing. Smart, oh man were they smart, according to books and such. None of them could do anything with their hands or get a group of people to agree on a project and work together! Command, yep. Go by the specs, yep.

Here is something I found perplexing about SAAMI that makes me doubt their credibility. This is directly from their website. Scary if you ask me.

"SAAMI is an accredited United Nations ECOSOC Non-Government Organization (NGO) with Consultative Status. For the last 25 years SAAMI has provided the UN with technical information related to SAAMI-member company products. The issues facing the UN are daunting and complex. Our goal is to be a technical resource for decision-makers. Since SAAMI has at its disposal the technical knowledge of the manufacturers of firearms and ammunition, we are in a unique position to provide factual and reality-based information."

We participate in meetings and discussions related to model regulations for transportation and storage (see SLARAC) as well as treaty negations related to small arms.

As to your engineering skills, have there been any failures in systems you have designed? Any say in W. Virginia or Utah?

quote:

and can’t be documented its problematic.

You are doing it again. Locking in on one thought and missing the point. I never said I couldn't, isn't or wouldn't be or hasn't been documented, not once. I just said you would have to do the research yourself! Get real man!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: smith crazy,

quote:

Originally posted by smith crazy:

quote:

Is that primer a WW?

No the primer in the bottom photo is a Federal Standard small pistol. The one in the top is a Winchester though. .

Might be interesting to try the 4756 loads with a Winchester primer. I've seen Federal primers "deform" at lower pressures than other primers.

Bill N.

quote:

Originally posted by BILL:

quote:

Originally posted by smith crazy:

quote:

Is that primer a WW?

No the primer in the bottom photo is a Federal Standard small pistol. The one in the top is a Winchester though. .

Might be interesting to try the 4756 loads with a Winchester primer. I've seen Federal primers "deform" at lower pressures than other primers.

Bill N.

Bill,
Thanks for the input! I had forgotten about doing that being engrossed in intense fellowship with Dennis.

Exactly the kind of input I was looking for and attempting to share.

I will try it in the near future as I have a new to me firearm to try them in!

Check this out!

Skip, nice gun!

Based on published data and the info that Skip tells us I think we can be reasonably sure that this load is developing pressures in the 30,000 PSI range; or at least that there is a that VERY good possibility of it.

In my experience this pressure does not shows any "dangerous pressure" signs in good 38 spl brass or std. small pistol primers, so you can stare at the primers all you want but there is really nothing funny to "read" here. You can use the same primers and load 357 mag cases at higher pressures and still don't get cratering, flattening, etc. Every firearm/load combo will show a bit different results too. And yes the Federal primers are a bit softer.

So while this load may develop 30,000 PSI in one gun, with a few changes it may develop a bit less or more in others and none will show dangerous pressure signs.

To me, the only question remaining is: How wise is it to shoot this load in a modern steel S&W K frame 38 spl revolver? We don't know the exact design limits of the revolvers, and while the SAAMI +P 18,500 PSI limit may be a bit low we are talking about a 62% (or more) increase here...

To me it is not worht it, we are using up too much of the safety factor. And of course if you want this much power (or more) in the same size of gun, but be certain about the safety of your loads and effective firearm life (round count) there are K frame 357 revolvers.

I'm sure many of you have read Mack Heath's excellent post here:
http://smith-wessonforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/570103904/m/4761089062/p/4
this is worth repeating:
"From an engineer's perspective, the statement that an individual gun had not failed catastrophically proved that a load is safe, is sophomoric."

Tiro,
Thanks!

That is exactly the conclusion I have come to concerning these rounds. I may go ahead and load some of them and shoot them as spectator ammo in my 357s. Spectator ammo is for those afraid to shoot 357s but don't mind 38s. The cases would say 38 spl. but the when fired it would say 357!
All kidding aside it could be a tool for your child or spouse to make the transition to shooting the Magnum. It also contains a bit of nostolgia knowing the "Old Timers" used these rounds as standard fodder for multiple purposes.
Now remember the pressure isn't too much by SAAMI (read firearm wing of the U.N. )standards for them. If all I could afford was one gun and it was a S&W 38spl. "L" or "N" frame these or hotter would be my goto rounds. Cleaner burning than most, accurate above average, milder report and recoil than full 357 rounds.

I am on a hunt for a 38/44 which these rounds were designed for. If anyone wants to donate one for test firing let me know! I promise give you credit when I make the bigtime as a firearm writer! I'll even put you in the credits of my next video!

Skip, now you have an ideal excuse for that 38/44

I also load many of +P+ 38 spl (or -P 357 mag) for "transition" ammo. Novice shooters learn much faster without excessive blast, and lower doses of faster powders are ideal for this.

quote:

Originally posted by TiroFijo:
Skip, now you have an ideal excuse for that 38/44

I also load many of +P+ 38 spl (or -P 357 mag) for "transition" ammo. Novice shooters learn much faster without excessive blast, and lower doses of faster powders are ideal for this.

I like the way you think my friend! By the way, do you have a 38/44 I could borrow for a while?