Elmer Keith’s .38 special load data
- Thread starter 9245
- Start date
As I understand it the 38/44 was the model number for the revolver, which was later renamed the model 20. So I would assume he was referring to the case manufacturer?
scattershot
Member
The 38/44 refers to the frame size. It was a .38 special on a .44 frame.
As far as I know, the cases were marked .38 Special.
In the late 1950's and through the early 1960's I loaded a lot of Elmer's loads and they were very stout. Having written a bunch of letters back and forth,(which got destroyed in our basement flood), I wound up getting his advice on how to actually do the loading which was to start with a mild load and then add 1/2 grain repeatedly until the cases either are hard to eject or the primers get flat and/or do a hang fire. When you start to get these then back off 1/2 grain and you have your best load for that specific gun with those specific cases and those specific components.
He was always very much exacting and the biggest differences in components I found was the use of 2400 in 44 Special with the standard new style versus balloon head cases. As many stated here, however, his loads were fairly hot.
He was always very much exacting and the biggest differences in components I found was the use of 2400 in 44 Special with the standard new style versus balloon head cases. As many stated here, however, his loads were fairly hot.
THE PILGRIM
Member
As I have posted, once had a partial box of 38-44.
Fired them in 357s.
Don’t recall what was head-stamped on the case.
Wish now I hadn’t , but you know.
Fired them in 357s.
Don’t recall what was head-stamped on the case.
Wish now I hadn’t , but you know.
Oh well. Only 2 blow-ups. Guess that's nothing to get in a twist about.
Unless you lost an eye or fingers............
FWIW..........Thank Phil Sharpe for the 357......Not Elmer.
Like the famous Speer #8.........BTW That was NEW manual when I started loading back in the prehistoric era. I still have mine.
I just got an email response from Smith and Wesson, I asked them about heat treatment and wall thickness between the .38 special and .357 magnum K frames, specifically the model 10, and this is what they said:
The heat treat specs are the same on the model 10. The wall thickness between the 38 and 357 is the same, what is different is the depth of the bullet seat. We do not support changing the caliber from the caliber that it originally left the factory as.
Thank you for choosing Smith & Wesson.
Have a great day!
Regards,
Carolyn
The heat treat specs are the same on the model 10. The wall thickness between the 38 and 357 is the same, what is different is the depth of the bullet seat. We do not support changing the caliber from the caliber that it originally left the factory as.
Thank you for choosing Smith & Wesson.
Have a great day!
Regards,
Carolyn
rkrcpa
Member
Here are all of the standard "Keith" loads in one easy to reference document.
Yes, there are nits to pick if you are so inclined (we all know to size to cylinder throats) but these are the "Keith" loads we all talk about.
Yes, there are nits to pick if you are so inclined (we all know to size to cylinder throats) but these are the "Keith" loads we all talk about.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 8,990
- Reaction score
- 11,143
I think they were both involved as was Wesson, but Sharpe is seldom mentioned as one of the .357 Magnum developers for some reason. Many are unaware of this. Sharpe also designed the original and perhaps the best .357 Magnum bullet, the Hensley & Gibbs #51, a 160 grain plain base cast SWC.
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 !!
Cowboy hat ?? !!
Gitiup..... Whoa, nelly !!
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2012
- Messages
- 4,594
- Reaction score
- 7,803
gwpercle
Member
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
Last edited:
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/44_Special_Articles/NRA - Loads for the 44 Special.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.
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/44_Special_Articles/NRA - Loads for the 44 Special.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.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 8,990
- Reaction score
- 11,143
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.
rkrcpa
Member
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.
Last edited:
DGNY
Member
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.
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.
