Not that I am from Nevada, but do all you people really trust what a guy states or writes, that wears a funky old beat up.................
Cowboy hat ?? !!

Gitiup..... Whoa, nelly !!

They did headstamp .38/44 ammo as such.

Attached Images

HGSO15-IRON-2.jpg (40.2 KB, 373 views)

Remington manufactured ammo for the .38/44 which was intended for the N-framed S&W .38/44 HD Outdoorsman revolver , which were introduced in 1930 .
It was simply the .44 cal N-frame revolver chambered for 38 special ... This book "Sixgun Cartridges & Loads " was written in 1936 ... the 357 magnum came out in 1934 so the .38/44 predated the 357 Magnum ... it was the stepping stone to the magnum .
I have only seen photo's of .38/44 HD cases and that was how the head stamp read 38/44 ( I dont remember if it had SPCL or HD on the case ) and UMC or Remington .
The .38/44 HD Outdoorsman and .38/44 HD ammo was introduced in 1930 . The HD stands for Heavy Duty .

On page 150 of EK's reloading book , under the heading ".38/44 Special " : "Ideal #358429 or #358431 , the bullets being crimped in their crimp groove , Remington .38/44 cases , and Remington primers ."

I am pretty sure that the 1934 introduction of the 357 Remington Magnum made the .38/44 obsolete ... I am not sure how long production of the ammo continued by Remington...
But ... Buffalo Bore still makes a loading of the .38/44 HD , or they did ... pre pandemic !

I started reloading in 1967 and haven't picked up a single case ... and I pick up every brass case I can get my hands on ...
I wonder if Buffalo Bore will sell me a case for my case collection?
Gary

__________________
Certified Cajun
NRA Member

IMHO:
The H&G #51 is 1 of the poorest/worst designed 357mag bullets ever invented.

I did head to head testing with these 357mag bullets in several different fire arms. Used 3 different alloys along with testing them in 38spl p+ loads also.

Bottom right is a h&g #51 hp Had a 2 cavity mold that cast a swc and a swc hp.


That H&G #51 bullet consistently gave up (less fps) 50fps to 70fps compared to the other bullets pictured (5 different powders/10 bullets tested) in 38spl p+ loads. The H&G #51 gave up/had less then 100fps with hot 357mag loads compared to the other bullets pictured above.

Tried different alloys, sized to .357/.358/.359" nada, just a poor design. Namely the small bottom drive band, huge/long grease groove and 2 small top drive bands.

A close-up of common cast swc bullets. As you can see other bullets have the small bullet base/small bottom drive band. The difference is the rounded/stronger grease groove. The plain bullet to the left of that h&g #51, the cramer #26 has a huge bullet base/bottom drive band.


Same loads, alloys, firearm, shooter, chrony, yada-0yada-yada. That cramer bullet ran circles around the h&g #51 with up to 70fps faster in 38spl p+ loads and 100fps faster with 357mag loads. The cramer also had better accuracy.

These 4 bullets consistently out preformed the other 6 bullets pictured above including the worst performing h&g#51.


What they have in common is strong large bottom drive bands or a gc that seals the pressure of the heavy loads faster. Along with bullet bodies that have large percentages of them sealing the bbl also. This makes these bullets more efficient, hence higher velocities with the same loads.

I'm not going to defend Keith, he sure doesn't need my help.

But I will say that part of the issue with people looking at "Keith's data" today are not taking into account what Keith was actually using when he developed those loads.

I could case less about what firearm, the heat treating or anything firearm related.

My focus is on the cases being used:
The NRA understood this and put out the article back in the 1950's trying to show people the difference in the old style
balloon headed cases VS modern solid head cases

There were too many kabooms happening with the modern solid head cases (same cases we use today) so they put this article out for the 44spl cases.
http://www.goodrichfamilyassoc.org/4...%20Special.pdf

On page 2 of the article it clearly states "The heavier web of the new solid head cases resulted in an average of 7,000 more psi when using the same load that's being used in the balloon headed cases".

If you don't think there's a huge difference in the pressure of the same load (13.5gr of 2400) in a balloon headed case compared to the modern solid head cases we use today.

You might want to re-think what your doing.

Forrest r - That hasn't been my experience with the H&G #51 in .357 Magnum or .38 Special. Neither of us have tested using all the same bullets. My work has been limited to comparisons with #358439, #358429, and #358156. I've tried these in various alloys and diameters. I prefer the #51 over the others I've used. I'm not a powdercoater; I've had good results with conventionally sized and lubricated bullets.

The balloon head cases were 44 special loads, the 13.5 grain load is 38 special. Were there 38 special loads that were balloon head also?

The ones with the new hats are not to be trusted, usually equipment salesmen. Or worse, could be realtors.

__________________
Front sight and squeeze

Good discussion, as many are when undertaken on a potentially risky subject matter, here very powerful handloads in a S&W 10–6.

Putting aside the OP's chosen 10-6 vehicle, a point that I have not noticed being raised: I suspect Elmer Keith was using balloon head 38 Special cases and not solid head ones, thus more capacity vs today's cases.

Moreover, as he made clear in a readily available Guns and Ammo article from 1969, his 38 Special suggestions were 3.5 gr Bullseye or 5gr Unique in light frame revolvers - AND he expressly includes M&P in that revolver category. Many informative (and sometimes conflicting discussions) about the relative strength of early and later K frames have graced this Forum. Of course, the Model 10–6 is the K frame fulcrum point, as the .357 Magnum Model 13 ensued.

So, in a sense it is arguably "logical" to dogpile
* early data,
* arguably in balloon head cases,
* arguably fine in the .357 successor to 10-6... For me, excess of "arguably".

Keith's article in G&A, is crystal clear that, as to S&Ws, heavy 38 Special loads were to be used in 45 (N) frame revolvers only.

My bottom line: he was using larger 38 Special cases in those pioneering experiments; the pressures even so very high and could be ~3-5k psi higher, if accurately measured and in solid head cases..

Thanks for all the other viewpoints expressed in this long thread.

Everything was ballon headed back then and wore clown suits every day except on sunday.

Yup & people like skeeter designed the 358156 because every thing he tried failed including the H&G #51. But for some odd reason your #51 out preforms everything else.

The very nature of the design shows the era in which it was made. Namely the need for large amounts of substandard at best lubes. Hence the small drive bands and large lube groove. That cramer # 26 is from that era (that large square lube groove thing). But the cramer design has a huge bottom drive band/bullet base that does an excellent job of sealing the cylinder throats and bores.

I'm glad the #51 works for you, the rest of the world, not so much. Don't think so??? Take a hard look at what's being sold by commercial caster for the last 30 years, it sure ain't a copy of the h&g #51. If it's such a good design you'd think people would be putting their hard earned $$$ down and buying them or asking the commercial casters to make them so they could buy them.

The real difference between the H&G #51 and the cramer #26 is:
They both are smaller then the keith 358429. After that the 26 has a larger bottom drive band and larger middle & top drive bands.

The larger bands seal better, are more efficient and grab the rifling better improving accuracy and decreasing the chance of stripping a fliers. Fliers using th #51 are caused from the weak bullet base going to the least point of resistance, hence tipping.

Anyway matters not to me what 1 uses or thinks is best. Simply take a hard look at what your using and what bullet designs are selling.

The .38/44 was loaded to much higher pressures than standard .38 Special, and higher than the current .38 +P. This is not new information, and it has been repeatedly posted on this forum. While the HD/Outdoorsman were referred to by that label, it is because the higher pressure loads were intended for the N frame revolvers. However, even back then, both S&W and Colt said the hotter loads were safe to shoot in the medium and even smaller frames.

While the OP's interests are not likely to be worth the energy to study or load, the hand wringing about the 10-6 being put at risk by a really stout load (although I think the one mentioned is likely a bad idea, I'm not a handloader and I leave it to others to quibble) is just over the top.

Worried about armor? Practice face shooting. Not HEAD - face. Draw a triangle from the outside corners of the eyes to the split at the bottom of the nostrils and get good at hitting that zone on demand as a stopper.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

There are many myths circulating in our hobby. Some are moderately accurate, but most are less than that. Elmer and pressure is always a good one for the arm chair experts to trot out. It gets its legs from people repeating what they’ve read some where on another site, or heard from the part time counter guy at their LGS. Others have posted accurately here about Elmer. Best cure for bad info is to do a bit of research to correct the problem. The 38/44 was an N frame revolver designed for use with higher pressure than standard 38 Special loads. Ammo was sold in boxes marked 38/44 S&W. Smith had (IIRC) been urged to bring it out by both law enforcement and outdoorsmen, which lead to it being named the 38/44 Outdoorsman. Keith designed Lyman-Ideal bullet 358429 for use in the N frame 38/44, not a K frame. The hollow point version when cast correctly increases the rounds effectiveness significantly. Like others have urged, read Elmer but I would also encourage you to read Glenn Fryxell’s articles on loading .38 hollow points and SWCs. His writings are probably going to be more helpful for you finding what you’re after than Elmer’s.
Good luck. Read.

All the best - Dave
Strongly held and widely held opinions are not necessarily the same as a well informed opinion.

Yea! and use a .22 magnum! No recoil, no chance of blowing your hand off and no reloading concerns. Practice with a .22 LR

I was re-reading an article by Brian Pearce about 38/44 loads. His data showed the Keith load of 13.5 grains produced close to 35K psi. Clearly in the realm of the magnum.

The Keith loads are historically interesting yet still have relevance to the careful handloaders of today.

The 38/44 S&W Special cases made by Remington were marked that way. The boxes clearly stated that they were for the Heavy Duty and large frame Colts.Remingtons load was a 158gr metal point bullet at about 1150fps if I remember correctly. I’ve been working up a load using SR4756.

__________________
38-44heavyduty.com

By the way........

here is what a old style Balloon case looks like.......
vs the new style cases.

I can see where there "Might" be a slight pressure change............
Hellow !!

Factory 38/44 loads were not loaded to the same pressure and velocity as Mr. Keith's loads. The factories kept pressures at levels that would not result in a catastrophic failure if one happened to find its way into a smaller framed gun. 11 grains 2400 with 158 grain SWC gives around 1100 fps in a 3 or 4" revolver. The old Lyman manuals showed this load, and tested it in a K 38.
YMMV

"refuse to pay scalpers, flat out, if an ******* scalper owned the last box of ammunition in the world I would sooner improvise my own using range scrap, repurposed chemicals for primers, home made black powder, and melted fishing weights before I paid the *** a penny over retail. Scalpers are why the rest of us can’t find ammo and components"


I might have to disagree with you just a bit here. People can ASK whatever price they wish for anything they wish to sell, its the people who have more money than sense who are mostly to blame for the stupid prices of ammo, reloafing components and firearms we see these days.

Niw, have you ever heard of RimRock Bullets? They make some fantastic 158gr cast lead hollowpoints that may make you feel all warm and fuzzy carrying them in that pocket.

g/ch .38/.357 158 gr. SWC-HP per 100/ in a plastic ammo box

And...

.357 Keith SWC-FB 170 gr. per 700

I concur on the Rim-Rock bullets. I buy them in bulk as $130.00 orders get free shipping. Some very interesting bullets on their Site.........

__________________
dd884
JMHO-YMMV

I tried the 358429 38-44 Keith load in a Ruger 4 5/8 BH some years back. I shot a cylinder full and pulled the few remaining. I like to use magnum cases with 11.0 grs 2400 with the 358429 seated “short” crimped over front driver band (1.553” OAL). Load gets approximately 1,135 fps from my 4 5/8 inch which is plenty enough for me.

That he admitted to And we all know that Elmer would never stretch the truth.........

FWIW I too played around with Uncle Elmers' loads . Even have a pre Model 23 ODM ( never could afford a pre-war ) which is an N-frame chambered in 38 spl. Pre-war 38/44 loads pushed a 158gr @ 1150-1200fps from a 6 1/2" barrel . His 358429 run between 168 - 173gr depending on alloy . Make a long story short I never did get to 13.5grs , stopped @ 12.5grs . Why ? Simply that a 173grs @ 1320fps is firmly in 357 territory . FWIW I won't shoot the 12.5 load in my gun as it's a 1953 vintage & I got a 357 , 41 & a 44 too . 7.0grs of SR4756 gives 1150fps with the 358429 in my gun , 8.0grs with a 158 .
Your gun = your business . My advise is try 5.0grs Unique with Keith bullet . 5.5grs is +P , 6.0grs aint in published data range , 6.5grs is mid range 357 , 7.0grs is considered max 357 load with Keith bullet . When one ventures past published data they're on their own . Start low & work up , first sign of pressure back off .

The .38/44 Heavy Duty and .38/44 Outdoorsman were cataloged until 1966. Don't know how long ammo was loaded.

I do know that if I was issued a .38/44 as a police officer, I would have wanted a heavier load than the standard .38 special 158 grain round nose at 800 fps. Why carry an N frame if you're only going to carry that wimpy load?

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

EMK told off on himself on a lot of things. If you read his article on the "Last Word" in the American Rifleman he said that he split the barrel on his wife's SAA in .45Colt in 5 places using #80 powder.

He truly started low and worked his way up as money was tight and he couldn't afford to buy a replacement for a blown up handgun. See below...

__________________
dd884
JMHO-YMMV

In the 70's I believe there was a Skeeter Skelton? load that was for use in heavy framed .357 revolvers. I was operating on a shoestring budget and welcomed any cost saving measures. The load utilized the readily available .38 special cases, the Lyman 358156 gas checked bullet, seated to the first driving band instead of the crimping groove, with 13.5 grains of 2400 powder. The load worked fine in my Highway Patrolman revolver, potent, accurate and produced .357 performance without the .357 cases.

Quote "If you have ever EVER read Keith's writings you would know that he did not give a damn about pressure. He'd load up a cartridge until the gun blew up then get another gun and shoot some more."

More internet bull.
I grew up on Elmer Keith and even corresponded with him when he was writing for Guns and Ammo. Elmer was never a wealthy man and treasured his guns more that most of us. He created several of our best cartridges that we have today, and it was done with very rudimentary tools and powders in comparison to modern reloading.

I'm working up a load for a model 28. I'm not interested in 38 spl loads but I'm using 2400 in 357 cases. The cowboy loads for 357 are inaccurate and not worth anymore effort. I'm at 12 grns now and loading some ladder loads to 13 grns in the next few days.

I'm not a yuge EK fan so his load data isn't something I would care to explore.

Pressure testing is more reliable. Stop when you reach what the cartridge was designed for.

Works for aircraft also. You've been warned.

__________________
That's just somebody talkin.

"There is a large difference between a j, K & L frame revolver, in the amount of pressure that they will take.

Where would one find documentation on this large difference in pressure that a S&W .357mag J frame will take versus a K frame?

__________________
Carry.."hope" isn't a strategy

One thing about it. Elmer Keith and his hand loading is much more fun and gratifying to read than is the timorous dithering about it that we've seen on modern internet firearms forums.

It is a shame that copies of "Hell, I Was There!" are so scarce. His fantastic story is about so much more than the heavy load development which is about all we seem to hear about online.

Not to say this isn't an engaging subject on it's own, but now that true magnums are everywhere I personally can't imagine stressing my precious revolvers, but no slam on anyone with a genuine interest in pushing the envelope. Heck, maybe I am just jealous because I can't afford to play this game.

Years ago, when 2400 was a Hercules product, I used to call the factory, get technical support, and give them parameters to test a potential load for me. They were happy to do it. This was especially helpful with shotgun loads, because new components were constantly coming out and manuals were not up to date.

They would give you velocity and pressure, and the velocity variation over several loads.

I wonder if Alliant would do the same thing. They must have the equipment seeing as they have and publish load data. Worth a call I think

__________________
Pete
I ain't no fortunate son

I highly doubt Alliant or any company for that matter today would accept your parameters, load ammo to those parameters and test it for velocity and pressure for any one individual. I'm sure their lawyers and bean counters would forbid it. They would not spend the time and money on such a thing today, sorry to say...

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

Probably right, but it was a nice service from Hercules

__________________
Pete
I ain't no fortunate son

A nice read and interesting addition to any reloaders bookshelf...
Elmer Keith's 1936 book "Sixgun Cartridges & Loads" the chapters on bullets , bullet casting and alloy's and Loads are most interesting as are the photo's . Reprinted , cost $9.95 no shipping and available now @ Amazon .
I have a feeling that when these are gone ... the prices will start going up .
Woth every penny just to get his loads as published and the photo's .
Gary

__________________
Certified Cajun
NRA Member

The $9.97 price tag is for the Kindle version. The softcover is $11.87 and the hardcover is $22.95.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

"Sixgun Cartridges & Loads" is available on Amazon for $9.95 in paperback, "Sixguns", a different book is available for Kindel at $9.97.

Whoa ... the inflation has hit hard ... I got the hardcover in 2018 ( "Sixgun Cartridges & Loads" ) for $11.95 .... if it's $22.95 now ... that's almost double in price .

Even at $11.87 Softcover ... that's still not bad .
I saw some copies of the book "Sixgun's" selling for $300.00 ...
that's just insane ... but if someone was smart ...they would do a cheaper re-print of "Sixgun's" my old one is getting rather worn and falling apart a bit ... I would by a reprint at a sane price .

Get them while you can afford them ... I don't do insane !
Gary

__________________
Certified Cajun
NRA Member

Just as an added caution.

In the Second Edition Safari Press publication of "Gun Notes" by Keith there is a FULL PAGE warning about trying to duplicate his handloads.

Included are specific warnings not to try to replicate his stated velocities (many are just estimates) and NEVER try to duplicate the powder charges he claimed to have used because of the differences in the powders of today.

If you watch Amazon closely you can sometimes pick up one of his older books for a fairly reasonable price when you are fortunate enough to find a seller that's just unloading books left to them by a dead relative.

Re: EK ... pressures ... bullets ... Guns and Ammo. Started reading GA in 1979. Just married, in school, almost no money ... I glommed on to Keith and what he had to say about rifles and pistols. Had to make due w/ a .30-06 for hunting. Got a six inch 28-2 and had access to endless quantities of .38 Spec. casings. So ... loaded available bullets over whatever he recommended ... working up of course. Alas, probably did load some stuff that was over the edge. To me a while to comprehend that lead and jacketed bullets could not be loaded the same. Never blew up a handgun. Did have some cases I could hardly extract. Like EK, learned to love my guns more than my experiments. Nowadays ... if I want a hotrod .38 Special ... I buy Buffalo Bore or Underwood. Sincerely. bruce.

__________________
<><

we all have a reason for using a 357 magnum revolver.

its insurance. The CYNLINDER has the requirements to meet the original standards ad specifications for the ammunition. EUROPEANS ie CIP are still smart and use the original standards for the cartridges.

Thus CIP 357 magnum, and 38 special flavors, ARE "hotter" then what SAAMI companies are rolling out.

The only thing that matters is that the FRAME and lockwork can take the energy. Pushing bullets can be fun, but accuracy NEEDS to be the factor here.

Sure its awful fun to KNOW that the wadcutters your launching can travel 25 yards, hit a metal plate, mushroom, and then ricochet 25 yards before stopping.. PRICELESS

Remember that in addition to the fact that Keith did not have a lot of money, he also did not have access to the modern stuff that many shooters take for granted. A good amount of what he did was "SWAG". He also did not shoot a lot compared to some folks today.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.