Just wondering. Could it be said that the 38/44 was the precursor to the .357 magnum. Iam thinking it was, but not really certain. Is there any source that would indicate that.
Iam certain there's a wealth of knowledge here that could shed some light here. responses are appreciated.

Yes, it could be said the 38/44 was the precursor to the 357 Magnum----if not the cartridge itself, then the 38/44 Outdoorsman revolver which served as the test bed-----at least as respects the development of the Magnum cartridge by Philip B. Sharpe (he who is credited with the development of the Magnum cartridge by S&W). The best source (or at least the most interesting/entertaining) is likely D.B. Wesson's Scrapbook. (In the very likely event you can't get a copy (but check with David Carroll), I'll provide a copy of the chapter treating with Sharpe.)

Ralph Tremaine

Yes, you are correct that the .38/44 was a direct descendant to the .357 magnum of today.
When Elmer Keith was a young man, he saw the need to develop a much higher pressure .38 Special round, to help combat heavily armored Mob cars back in the '20's & '30's, and to penetrate the body armor the mobsters wore.
But, Elmer also saw that the new high velocity .38 round had great applications as a hunting round as well.
Elmer had used different S&W, along with Colt frames to experiment with his new high pressure .38 round.
Elmer finally settled on using the N frame S&W .44 Special frame to use for his new cartridge. From how the story goes, the N frame was the only commercial revolver frame that withstood several hundreds, if not thousands of shooting, target, and hunting rounds that Elmer put through it.
Hence the 44 in .38/44 nomenclature, because of the N frame .44 Special frame.
Then, the revolver companies started heat treating the smaller framed revolvers and their cylinders to withstand Elmer's new cartridge.
They lengthened the cartridge an 1/8th of an inch, so it couldn't be accidentally chambered in older, and softer .38 Special revolvers.
So, in 1935, the .357 magnum was born, and Elmer Keith became a household name among gun enthusiasts, and police officers.



Hawk

Sent from my REVVLRY+ using Tapatalk

Hawk,

I believe you are mixing up Elmer's experiments with the .44 Special that influenced the development of the .44 Magnum with the .357. While Elmer had a small role in the .357, it was mostly Doug Wesson and Phil Sharpe that turned the .38/44 into the .357.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

It was all 3 actually.

I forgot to add Phil Sharpe, and Doug Wesson.


.357 Magnum - Wikipedia.


Hawk

Sent from my REVVLRY+ using Tapatalk

I think you mean "direct ancestor of . . ."

__________________
Jack
SWCA #2475, SWHF #318

Sent from my REVVLRY+ using Tapatalk

I remember reading that the metallurgy of the .357's cylinder was different from that of the other N-frame .38 Special revolvers to better withstand the higher chamber pressure of the .357 - possibly the steel alloy used and/or the heat treatment. But I have no information if that is correct. Phil Sharpe's 1937 book "Complete Guide to Handloading" alludes to the improved metallurgy used for the S&W .357 revolver but provides no specifics.

Well, no disappointment here. A very interesting history of how these things came about. Thank you all for bringing some solid illumination on this subject for me, very helpful. again thanks.

In recognition of his work on the 357 caliber S&W gave Phil Sharpe registered magnum #2.

__________________
SWCA 1932 SWHF 135

You mean this Philip B. Sharpe?

bdGreen

Smith and Wesson also gifted Phil Sharpe a K22/40 Masterpiece.

bdGreen

Recently got some first version ( the much longer, Black Powder Target Round ) .38 - 44 Cartridges and in among them were a few of the second kind ( the one we are mentioning as being the immediate ancestor to the .357 Magnum Cartridge ) and these are Head Stamped "38-44 S & W SPL"

Hosted on Fotki

In order to avoid confusing folks about who did what in the development of the 357 Magnum cartridge, I think it's best we take another look. And seeing as how none of us were involved, we can look at what was left for us by those who were.

Let's start with Elmer Keith, seeing as how that's where the primary confusion seems to lie. As noted by the Editor and Publisher of D. B. Wesson's Scrapbook in the 2 pages of photographs devoted to Keith in the Scrapbook, Keith was a "new and upcoming writer at the time", which perhaps explains why any contribution he made to the development of the 357 Magnum was overlooked.

As for Elmer himself, he was there; and Elmer being Elmer, he was not the least bit bashful about stating he "------ worked with Doug Wesson on this development---." As he notes in his book Sixguns (which he modestly proclaims to be "The Standard Reference Work"), he sent Wesson the "first Keith bullets used in developing the load". He goes on to mention how Wesson and the Winchester folks redesigned the bullet-------and to proclaim it was a mistake. And of course we all know about Elmer's unabashed preference for calibers that start with a 4, so it's no surprise to see him state the 357 "falls far behind a heavy .44 Special or .45 Colt load in actual killing power." So, yeah---he was there---sort of.

As for Sharpe's contribution, you can read about that in the 12 pages devoted to him in the scrapbook.

Elmer's time came 20 years after the 357 Magnum---with the publication of his book Sixguns in 1955, and his very significant contribution to the .44 Magnum. You could argue there wouldn't even be a .44 Magnum were it not for Elmer, whose motto was "Some's good, more's better, and too much is just right!". And you could argue about whether "too much" was a mistake-----but not from a commercial point of view, where it was anything but a mistake. I know these things---I shot one----once.

Ralph Tremaine

That has to be a doctored photo. It looks like he was developing a revolutionary new blow torch!

Amazing how much of this development was done as pictured, i.e. without the benefit of eye and ear protection. Same with the .44 Magnum. Shooting experimental high pressure cartridges no less!

The late Bob Milek wrote that he once attended a dinner party with about a dozen old time shooters who came from the time when no one wore hearing protection. He said there were about a dozen different conversations going at once since no one could hear what anyone else was saying!

__________________
You're shy a few manners.

The picture is too awfully grainy to say for sure, but he might just have some 45 ACP cartridges in his ears, as the oldsters were want to do.

I just can't imagine test firing w/o some sort of ear protection; it's literally painful.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

For a few years prior to his death I carried on an occasional correspondence with Elmer Keith. In response to my questions about development of the .357 he readily admitted it was Phil Sharpe's project, and that the only help he gave to Sharpe was "a few suggestions", plus some gen-u-wine Keith cast SWC bullets -- which he blamed Sharpe for "ruining" by reducing the width of the grease grooves and beveling the base. This style of SWC is what you usually get today for "Keith" bullets, but they are not of Keith's design.

He also told me he was originally disappointed with the .44 Magnum as-birthed because it was "much too powerful". He had envisioned more like what is called a "mid-range" load today, but he admitted he quickly developed affection for S&W and Remington's "too much" version.

__________________
Pisgah

What? I can't hear you...

Here is the original picture.
The first one I posted was for a display at the symposium in 2019 in Richardson, Texas.

bdGreen

I think what Keith may have initially envisioned as a proper .44 Magnum load is what I came up with---very shortly after firing exactly one round of the factory loaded fare. It was 18.5 grains of 2400 behind a 205 grain Thompson Gas Check semi-wad cutter---although he may very well have called for a heavier bullet---and maybe a wee bit more powder to compensate for it. I deemed the factory load to be the personification of an obscenity.

Ralph Tremaine

Maybe that was a prototype weapon light that replaced the cartridge with a flashlight bulb and penlight battery...

Then when you pull the trigger it cycles the next round over and fires.

LOL... you'd have to alternate loads, and pull the trigger to bring the next light up.

As I recall, Sharpe said his bullet design was superior to Keith's because it was lighter, shorter, and cast closer to finished diameter. Lookin at his load data, it appears that the 146 gr hollow point version was his favorite, more loads listed for it than the 160 solid.

Have to remember that a True Keith bullet, Lyman 358429, was designed for the .38-44 and would load too long for the cylinder in Magnum brass. Keith handled that by crimping over the front band or just staying with Special brass.

["... which he blamed Sharpe for "ruining" by reducing the width of the grease grooves and beveling the base."


Worse than that was the fact that the ammo factories loaded the .357 with soft, swaged bullets, which would coat the bore with lead so heavily that after 50 rounds, it was difficult to see the rifling. I know, I did that with a 3 1/2" M27 that later became a .44 Special.

"It was 18.5 grains of 2400 behind a 205 grain Thompson Gas Check semi-wad cutter---although he may very well have called for a heavier bullet---and maybe a wee bit more powder to compensate for it."
[/COLOR]
Using that powder weight, in balloon head cases, under a cast Keith SWC of about 250 grains, was Elmer's go-to .44 Magnum load. That load was reduced to 17.5 grains of 2400 in solid head cases.

And, Elmer didn't like gas checked bullets either.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

My go-to 44 MAG load for silhouette competition was 21 grs of H110 with a 240 gr SWC hard cast bullet.

Even if I just nicked the edge of the ram at 200 meters it went down, albeit in slow motion. Chickens, pigs and turkeys went down like meteorites hitting planet earth.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Lol...most everyone is so much more interested in .44 Magnum, the .357 Magnum review and History of the thread's actual intent, has been falling behind..!

In a letter to D. B. Wesson dated July 28, 1935, Elmer Keith wrote about the .357 Magnum that he was going to test for several days in the Pahsimeroi Valley of Idaho on jackrabbits and other pests. He was going to compare the factory .357 load to his .357 load of a Keith 160 grain HP bullet and up to 15 grains of 2400 Hercules powder. He was also going to compare the .357 load to his 44 Special load of a Keith 235 grain bullet and 20 grains of 2400 Hercules powder. He also told Mr. Wesson he was going to have "a hell of a demand for this gun in 44 caliber". Who knows, if EMK had gotten his wish, the 44 Magnum may have been born twenty years earlier than it was.

Phil Sharpe did much of the cartridge development, but S&W relied on EMK to do much of the testing.

EMK wrote to DBW about the results of his trip on August 3. He was very impressed with the .357 Magnum, but..."Tried the 235 gr. Keith hollow point with 18.5 grs. 2400 in both the 6 1/2" Triple Lock Target and a 7 1/2" S. A. Colt Target. Found it tore much larger holes than even the 160 gr. hollow point 38 spl. and was definitely a much more powerful load and better killer than any 38 load Factory magnum or my reload." EMK was true to his opinion the high powered 44 caliber load was the best way to go.

Bill

That was an excellent response!


Hawk

Sent from my REVVLRY+ using Tapatalk

S&W mentioned Elmer's help in development of 357 when they presented him with his 4" 44spl in 1951. Invoice below as well as pic of Elmer and jackrabbits he took with the new .357. Pic was in article he wrote for American Rifleman introducing 357.

Attached Images

	S&WEKinv.jpg (75.1 KB, 51 views)
	EKjackrabbits.jpg (11.1 KB, 61 views)

__________________
PTLAPTA!

I think Keith thought a lot more of the 6.5" Outdoorsman 38/44 than he did the 8-3/4" Magnum they sent him.

Keith's 38/44 is on auction now; not too long ago, it was in a Rock Island auction along with Sharpe's Magnum and Doug Wesson's Magnum and a guide's Magnum whose name I can't recall, but that WAS SOME CATALOG.

Doug Wesson's Scrapbook, and Mullins' book "Magnum" are fascinating work on this subject, all right.

If I understood (and remember) correctly what Elmer Keith had to say about bullets for both the 38 and the 44, he was a strong proponent of heavy for caliber bullets. He also seemed to have had little use for gas checks. His 358429 and 429421 show the same design philosophy; both having a big, square sided grease groove, the big flat meplat, and a square plain base, no bevel or gas check groove. It was a shame that S&W used a relatively short cylinder for their original 357... there was plenty of room in the frame window to go longer, and since the case was longer it would have made sense. They got it right with the 44 Magnum.

Froggie