Why not Elmer Keith that 38 special

[IAM Rand]

So, while I was sitting on my throne reading the latest edition of my Shooting Illustrated I started pondering the 38 special. There is a review of the new Taurus Defender 856. You can put a red dot on it. Nothing that I was that wowed by. In looking at it, it appears to be a very sturdy 38 revolver. It is listed as a +p. That is what got me thinking.

With the better metallurgy in pistols today, why can't you do the Elmer Keith and load the 38 to 357 velocities I understand that you will want to keep these loads away from the older models but, in something like this Defender, I would imagine that you should be able to shoot some hot stuff out of it. Even if you didn't in a 38 Special revolver, why can't you reload some really hot rounds and use them in a 357.

All of this leads to the ultimate debate, why not just buy a 357 and then you can go either. Well, that is for another thread. If someone is willing to buy a good quality 38 Special, why can't you load it hot?

Just something I was pondering on my throne.

 

[D Brown]

I have quite a few .38 Special chambered S&Ws. I'm perfectly happy with the power levels obtained with .38 Special pressures.

However, if I were ever lucky enough to glom onto a .38 Heavy Duty or Outdoorsman, I would probably be tempted to assemble some .38-44 loads for it.

 

[Nevada Ed]

You can load a round as hot as you want for "Your" revolvers.

Responsible loaders only load to a 38 +P with a well marked box or container
just in case they get into stray guns, if using 38 cases.

A 357 case speaks for itself in what you are loading.

 

[OKFC05]

Almost 50 years ago I asked the exact same question, and the dealer said "This is the best advice you are ever going to get" as he laid a new 686 (no dash) on the counter for a price that started with a 2!!
I still have it, and also the 38 revolvers that I used strictly for 38s. All are still tight.

 

[smithra_66]

So, while I was sitting on my throne reading the latest edition of my Shooting Illustrated I started pondering the 38 special. There is a review of the new Taurus Defender 856. You can put a red dot on it. Nothing that I was that wowed by. In looking at it, it appears to be a very sturdy 38 revolver. It is listed as a +p. That is what got me thinking.

With the better metallurgy in pistols today, why can't you do the Elmer Keith and load the 38 to 357 velocities I understand that you will want to keep these loads away from the older models but, in something like this Defender, I would imagine that you should be able to shoot some hot stuff out of it. Even if you didn't in a 38 Special revolver, why can't you reload some really hot rounds and use them in a 357.

All of this leads to the ultimate debate, why not just buy a 357 and then you can go either. Well, that is for another thread. If someone is willing to buy a good quality 38 Special, why can't you load it hot?

Just something I was pondering on my throne.

I was just shooting these through my 1959 and 1968 Blackhawks the other day.

Any gun designed for 357 Mag should be able to handle the Keith loads.

They are definitely stout, but likely very similar to full power 357s.

I was getting almost 1400 fps with the Keith 173 gr. SWC out of the 6.5" Blackhawk with 13.5 gr of 2400.

12.5 suits me fine as I'm just knocking down steel rams at 100 yards. By the way, no sticky extraction or flattened primers with these loads, in regular, mixed 38 special cases.

Would I shoot them in a lightweight Taurus? Probably not. And nowadays they don't really make beefy 38s anymore. They are all 357s.

 

[SnidelyWhiplash]

Elmer Keith had a habit of blowing up guns during his experiments.

 

[44wheelman]

Stress the gun, stress the brass, push the limits…?why not just get a .357. If that’s not enough, a .44 then a 454…. Me, I’d rather download a hotter cartridge than vice versa.

If you were limited to owning 1 gun, I could understand trying to load for a variety of applications.

 

[Venom6]

It can be done and it can be fun, but I quit it a few years back. With nearly a dozen .38's, including pre-War and aluminum J-frames, and loading hundreds of rounds (at least) per year, I'm concerned that one of those young bombs could inadvertently wind up in the wrong gun. Even if I manage to avoid that, they're gonna be sold at a yard sale after I'm gone. Labels can be faded or lost entirely, boxes can split or spill.

 

[mikld]

I have a "care free" solution for wanting 357 Mag levels in a revolver. Get a 357 revolver. I have 2 Taurus revolvers I shoot my 38 Special handloads in. If I have some warm 38 Special ammo to shoot (+P to +P+) I'll take my Taurus 605. If I have some mild/normal 38 Special loads, I'll grab my Taurus M85. I have loaded 38 Special brass to mid-level 357 levels, buy only fired them in my 357 Magnums...

 

[PeteC]

...I'm concerned that one of those young bombs could inadvertently wind up in the wrong gun. ...

I had this talk with a friend who does handload ammo on request, and he said about the same. He will load "up-to" +P and "down to" wadcutter target loads, but not outside that range. Occasionally, up to 38/44 specs with color-coded cartridges and what he considers "correct" projectiles for the load. He thinks handgun ammo is too easy to mix up when not in retail boxes.

 

[Skeet 028]

I only shoot those reloads done by other people in my ol ugly Model 10. She'll hold 'em don'tcha know! lol

 

[OFT II]

Why not drive your KIA Soul 120 miles an hour?

 

[Skeet 028]

Why not drive your KIA Soul 120 miles an hour?

Hot digity dog...I gotta get me onea them KIA's...
Ummm wait a minit...does that KIA mean what I thinks it means??

 

[IAM Rand]

My thought on this was that the 38s of ole were um, how shall I say, underwhelming when it comes to strength. Since the 357 is just a slightly longer 38 spl, why not. I understand that people like the 38 because it is easier to handle. They keep on making them so why not up the power for those that can handle it.

Personally I am a 357 guy. I am a masochist. I don't mind it rough. I have a 460 that I am trying to get sub MOA at 100 for hunting. It just seemed to me that if they are building them stoutER, if that is a word, then why not push a little more and get a little more. The gun I referenced above claims to be +P. What is that exactly? 700 +/- to 900 or 1000. Eh, why not try 1100-1300 for a 38. Do they really form the case that much different from the 357 to the 38. I guess I could really lose my mind and trim the 357 down to a 38 and kick it up.

I guess I am trying to justify in my own mind why people still build the 38 revolver when you can get just as much from a 357 and carry it with 38s for the kinder/gentler crowd.

 

[zeke]

Ya know, if the Taurus 856 was designed and rated for 357 mag pressures using adequate metallurgy, why didn't they just chamber it in 357 mag so those inclined could use 38 special or 357 mag?

The answer may be pretty simple, they only designed it to take 38 plus p pressure and force.

Course if someone just thinks it "appears" sturdy, why not just be a tougher guy and load it to 357 mag pressures? And it is not the brass design as much as the firearm design in 357 to take the pressure and force of the round.

S&W (among others) make small light 357 mags, and they aren't just 38 specials with bored out cylinders. They are specifically designed to take 357 mag pressures/forces. So perhaps instead of supercharging a 38 special, just buy a 357 mag.

 

[The Kid]

If you’re loading with medium to slow burn rate powders you can safely exceed the factory performance levels for 38 special. By how much, that’s up to you. I see posts here regularly about guys who love Buffalo Bore, Underwood, and other boutique ammo companies who load “hot” 38 special ammo. Well guess what, they’re able to do that because they aren’t SAAMI members and some of those loads might slightly exceed SAAMI specs. No big deal as long as you adhere to the warnings on the box about what to use them in, generally modern guns in good repair.

It takes a little common sense and reason, don’t go stuffing cases full of Bullseye and don’t be hotrodding old top break Iver Johnson top breaks.

It has been a common practice for decades to judiciously exceed 38 loading data, mainly due to the absurdly low MAP of the SAAMI specs. Thousands of loaders have been doing it safely for a long time without blowing themselves up or rattling their guns apart. Many writers have even published data in magazine articles that likely exceeds SAAMI specs.

S&W has been heat treating their revolvers for nearly a century now. Do you really think they use any different steel, heat treatment techniques, or mechanical engineering on a M13 than they did for the same vintage M10? Elmer Keith wrote of firing hundreds of his heavy 38s, using way more 2400 than I will under his 173gr SWC, in a prototype M37. He then sent it back to S&W and they supposedly measured and examined it and couldn’t find any evidence of damage.

Use your head and your chronograph and you can safely pump the old 38 up a little.

 

[steelslaver]

Elmer Keith had a habit of blowing up guns during his experiments.

Actually he blew up exactly one gun,. A single action colt in 45 colt and he did it by using 458 slugs.

 

[alwslate]

It is very easy to get 1,000 fps with a cast 158 gr SWC out of a 4" S&W 38 spl without exceeding the 20,000 psi limit for +P. All it takes is the right powders like Longshot, Power pistol or CFE pistol or Autocomp. That should be enough performance from the old .38 and is surely safe in model marked K frames that have the same steel and heat treatment as the K frame .357s.

 

[ruggyh]

... Do they really form the case that much different from the 357 to the 38.

Simply, yes the case heads are different. The 357 requires more material to account for the higher pressure. Yes cutting down 357 brass to fit in a 38 will solve your brass issues but won't account for all the engineered featured and metallurgy.

I guess I am trying to justify in my own mind why people still build the 38 revolver when you can get just as much from a 357 and carry it with 38s for the kinder/gentler crowd.

Your thinking here makes little sense - the 357 has always been more than the 38.

A 38 chambered revolver shooting 38 will be inherently more accurate the a 357 firing the same ammunition. Any free bore is in handgun chamberings is a boon to accuracy.

More powder capacity and higher pressure equals more velocity.
Simple laws of physics.

Buy the gun with the "power" you want to start with.

More guns have been damaged /blown up by trying to make a cartridge something they aren't and I am not just taking about 38s.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a different note good luck with your 460 S&W hunting endeavors. It just takes practice the gun is fully cartridge and S&W revolvers are capable - it just takes lots of time behind the gun.

Being able to make the a "long"shoot is nice but improving you stacking skills to get that up close and personal shoot is even more satisfying.

 

[smithra_66]

Simply, yes the case heads are different. The 357 requires more material to account for the higher pressure. Yes cutting down 357 brass to fit in a 38 will solve your brass issues but won't account for all the engineered featured and metallurgy.



Your thinking here makes little sense - the 357 has always been more than the 38.

A 38 chambered revolver shooting 38 will be inherently more accurate the a 357 firing the same ammunition. Any free bore is in handgun chamberings is a boon to accuracy.

More powder capacity and higher pressure equals more velocity.
Simple laws of physics.

Buy the gun with the "power" you want to start with.

More guns have been damaged /blown up by trying to make a cartridge something they aren't and I am not just taking about 38s.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a different note good luck with your 460 S&W hunting endeavors. It just takes practice the gun is fully cartridge and S&W revolvers are capable - it just takes lots of time behind the gun.

Being able to make the a "long"shoot is nice but improving you stacking skills to get that up close and personal shoot is even more satisfying.

Do you have any source that mentions 357s being thicker in the head? I don't think they are. The lines don't complicate themselves that much. They just make 38s and 357s out of the same stuff and cut the 38s a bit shorter!

Also, the 38 Special was basically the 357 magnum. 1/8" difference in length doesn't mean that much. In 1935 Elmer Keith wanted the factories to duplicate his turbo 38 Special that he was shooting out of the relatively new 38/44 Heavy Duty revolvers. The length was added and the new cartridge called the "357 Magnum" simply so it would not chamber in old k frames or Colt D-frames of the day. It was not to add more powder capacity. S&W did not want the liability of one of these high pressure rounds getting into a small frame gun.

When the 38 Special was lengthened to create the 357 magnum, a problem arose. The cylinders didn't get any longer! So long bullets that worked in 38 length brass no longer fit into a S&W N frame or a Colt E-Frame gun.

So even today, if one wants to get Magnum performance using the long Keith 173 gr. SWC (which is BY FAR the most accurate bullet at really long ranges), then one must use 38 Special brass.

So it's a little more complicated than you make it. The 357 is great, but it only leaves room for stubby little bullets sticking out in many revolvers (such as N frames, Pythons, etc). You have to push the long bullets in so deep that whatever powder advantage you had, you lose over the 38.

The 38 gets a bad rap as a "weak" cartridge simply because it's loaded to anemic pressures as a result of SAAMI specs because there are millions upon millions of old, weak guns out there. In a strong gun, it is every bit the equal, and sometimes BETTER, than the 357 magnum!