Why not Elmer Keith that 38 special

[martyd]

I am surprised, the folks who openly admit they own and shoot Taurus revolvers when this is a Smith & Wesson Forum

Please no hate mail - This is meant to be a joke.

 

[rockquarry]

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!

Or you can use the original .357 Magnum bullet, the H&G # 51, a 160 grain cast plain base SWC. It doesn't have to be deep seated. It will shoot as accurately as the Lyman #358429, maybe better in some instances. It's also a very good .38 Special bullet.

 

[crstrode]

Why not Elmer Keith that 38 special?

I Am Rand; your original posit is a good and valid one. I have asked and proposed the same on several occasions.

However cogently the facts are presented, you will ultimately be shouted down by unfounded and illogical straw-man arguments. Research has revealed that S&W 38 and 357 revolver frames and cylinders have had the same metallurgy and same heat treatment for many many decades - since the inception of the 357 magnum.

From a mechanical engineering standpoint there exists no valid documented evidence to conclude that a modern S&W 38 special revolver is not capable of easily accommodating 357 magnum pressures.

Another member of this forum has graciously aided my own research and has provided me with original factory documentation regarding metallurgy and heat treatment of frames and cylinders that supports such a conclusion.

I must stress that this is a factual engineering conclusion - not the result of lawyers scrambling frantically to prevail in frivolous lawsuits and to preserve their own employment . . .

 

[ruggyh]

Do you have any source that mentions 357s being thicker in the head?

NO in writing but have sectioned a variety of case to be able to determine this. The older 38 cases (ballon head) are the weakest it the head area.

Additionally the 1/8" is huge due to the cross sectional area of the cartridge

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.

And you would have any less in a 38 case shoot out of a 38 revolver.

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!

The SAAMI specification are for the gun and ammunition at the time of inception (when they were created) to insure that all gun marked with the caliber are safe to use the ammunition.

Those "weak gun" you perceive are what the cartridge were intended, period.

If you want to hot rod 38 Special no one is stopping you , but I would preface declaring to everyone it is safe without knowing exactly what they have or intended is irresponsible and unsafe.

I will say again plenty of damaged /blown up guns to prove my point.

I dont think the owner of the picture guns started the day sayin let go blow up a gun.

 

[crstrode]

I dont think the owner of the picture guns started the day sayin let go blow up a gun.

He probably didn't plan on shooting any squibs either . . .

 

[The Kid]

I’d wager that one or more of the pictured blown up guns, only one of which is a 38 and the other two “Magnums”, were the result of a double charge of fast powder and not an intentional “hot” load.

In fact I’d bet there have been more revolvers blown up throughout history from accidental double charges than from intentionally overloading in search of more performance.

Skelton, Keith, and others wrote of using 38 cases for magnum or near magnum performance back when magnum cases were hard to obtain. Ray Thompson even designed a cast bullet to be used in this capacity. The excellent 358156 dual crimp groove Lyman design has been a standard for taking advantage of the “short” cylinders of N frame 357s for decades.

The “Treasury” loads of the 1980’s and 1990’s were marked +P+ because they were over +P pressures. There is no SAAMI spec for +P+. I don’t know how much over +P they were but I doubt they were into 357 territory, I’ve never heard of a gun being blown up with them.

Nobody is forcing anyone to load any way other than what they are comfortable with. But if you are knowledgeable, use the tools available to you, and some caution it can be done safely.

Handloading requires concentration and some deductive reasoning, even when strictly following the manual. Back when many manuals didn’t have pressure tested data, and I’m not just talking about the infamous Speer manual.

I’ve shot thousands of 158-173gr SWCs over 6.0gr of Unique. Old Lyman manuals listed higher loads than it, while modern manuals list 5.0 to 5.4gr as maximum.

Lately I’ve moved to using Alliant Power Pistol for my heavy 38 loads. 6.0gr is in spec for +P and gives 1050fps, just about the the same performance as 6.0gr of Unique.

 

[IAM Rand]

Nothing against the 38. I just think it is under utilized for what it could be. From my reading, Keith and S&W decided that the case should be lengthened so that it wouldn't be loaded in 38's that couldn't handle the increased pressures.

With today's revolvers I don't think there is that issue. Shooting a 460 mag has been a real experience for me. I have had some reloading data but, have had to "experiment" a little. Would I try hotter loads in my model 49, NO. I am not sure that I would even try hotter loads in my 19. In my 627, well, that is a different story. I have even tried to recreate Keith's 173gr swc in a 38 case. I just think that the 38 is given the short shrift when it comes to power, especially with today's revolvers.

Didn't think I would start such a conversation as it appears that I have. Just think that the 38 could be so much more, other wise it appears to be a cartridge of yesterday.

 

[Eddietruett]

Back in the 60’s and 70’s when LEO were required to carry model 10’s around here, 2 very reputable gunsmiths reamed a bunch to 357. I’ve never heard of a problem and I personally have owned several of these that were shot a lot by cops with full bore 357’s and were tight as new.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

........
........
........

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!

IMO the LRN bullet had more to do with the bad rep of the 38 Special than the pressure limits. Remember, that ammo was called "The Widow Maker."

I'm sorry but I can't agree the .38 Special is better then the .357 Magnum no matter which gun you use.

Each cartridge has it's place... (the 38/357 is my jam lol)

 

[ddixie884]

Not true

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

He blew up 2, both black powder Colts in .45Colt calibre. One with too much Black Powder and a .458" 300gr bullet and one with Kings Semi Smokless powder. One blew a weak casehead and took off the loading gate and nearly severed his trigger finger. The other was worn out primer pockets and a chainfire of 2 or 3 rnds went off and took off the top three chambers and the top strap. I challenge you to offer proof of any other BLOWN UP GUNS. You sir have been getting your history from inter-web chat rooms and are misinformed. Produce documentation of any other blown up guns. You cant....................................

 

[ArchAngelCD]

He blew up 2 both black powder Colts in .45Colt calibre. One with too much Black Powder and a .458" 300gr bullet and one with Kings Semi Smokless powder. One blew a weak casehead and took off the loading gate and nearly severed his trigger finger. The other was worn out primer pockets and a chainfire of 2 or 3 rnds went off and took off the top three chambers and the top strap. I challenge you to offer proof of any other BLOWN UP GUNS. You sir have been getting your history from inter-web chat rooms and are misinformed. Produce documentation of any other blown up guns. You cant....................................

Do you by any chance have proof there were only 2 guns destroyed while Elmer Keith was developing loads? It would make a good read.

 

[SuperMan]

Do you by any chance have proof there were only 2 guns destroyed while Elmer Keith was developing loads? It would make a good read.

Keith wasn't one to hide things...he wrote about the two guns that were blown up and if there were more he would have probably written about them...

...and it comes back to do you have any proof that there were more?

As to using what would be .38-44 loads in modern manufactured .38 Special revolvers, I do... Underwood, Buffalo Bore and Lost River Ammo all make 158 LSWC ammo that are in the 28k psi range and don't seem to be blowing anything up. My standard load is a 357158 with 6.0 grains of Unique that basically duplicates the original .34-44 load. These are right at 1000 fps from a 2" 649-2...

These guns are also or have been available in 9mm that is rated at 34k psi...so we are worrying about what?

Bob

 

[Forrest r]

Interesting to say the least:

No difference between 38spl cases and the 357mag cases other than the 357mag case is longer as others have stated.

A modern case (left) next to a balloon headed case (right).

After Keith's initial 173gr swc design he created shorter nosed versions of his swc.

What Keith wrote in his book sixguns

Keith's loads from the book sixguns

 

[Forrest r]

Modern revolvers like the s&w 586/686, dan wesson 15 series and ruger's gp100 have no issues using the keith 358429/439.

A picture of a couple different "keith" style swc's for the 35cal's.

My favorite is the cramer #26 (silver/uncoated bullet). That large bottom drive band makes the bullet have higher velocities with the same powder weight/charge compared to the other 3 swc's.

The "thompson" bullet used by skeeter that has the 2 crimp grooves that was in a earlier post. I cast these, if you look closely you will see that there is a standard sized hp hole and an special order large hp pin/hole in the other 1. The small is for the 357mag & the large 38spl.

Myself I prefer these 640 series 158gr hp's and 170gr fn's that have a double crimp groove.

At the end of the day more people have blown up their revolvers using bullseye powder and a wc bullet. It got so bad hercules put this statement out trying to give reloaders an understanding of the consequences of their actions.

 

[stansdds]

Your gun, your ammo, your hands, your health care insurance, do what you want. As for me, I do not want to damage my firearms, I do not want to significantly shorten the life of my brass, I do not like it when my hands get cut and bruised, I do not enjoy visits to the ER. If I reload 38 Special brass, it would get loaded to not more than 38 Special +P levels. When I want 357 Magnum or near magnum loads, I use 357 Magnum brass and fire it in revolvers made for 357 Magnum.

 

[racer19j]

I have a model 60-15 3” .357 which I bought new. Installed a .38 cylinder which was purchased new from Brownells. Both cylinders are identical except the .38 has shorter chambers and longer throats. I would expect that the metal and heat treat are the same but cannot verify that. I believe that shooting .38’s that are loaded to .357 pressures would not be a problem in this gun but I have no desire to do this. I changed it to .38 because I only shoot 135 grain Speer Short Barrel Gold Dots through it.

 

[ddixie884]

Bob "Superman" is right we know of these events only because Elmer wrote about them and he wrote about everything he did. In his famous article in "The American Rifleman" in 1946? entitled "The Last Word" he wrote about loading with number 80 powder that with a bullet of his design in his wife's .45Colt he split the barrel in 3 places. He designed his SWC bullet desighn and discovered 2400 powder and the rest is history.....

 

[ruggyh]

He probably didn't plan on shooting any squibs either . . .

The damage done is clearly from excessive pressure

Squibs are exactly the opposite

 

[rosewood]

The damage done is clearly from excessive pressure

Squibs are exactly the opposite

Squids clog the bore, then normal load blows up gun because of barrel obstruction causing excessive pressure with no way to get out.

 

[rosewood]

There is absolutely no way a slightly over pressure load is going to blow up a gun. It may cause premature wear, loose gun etc. But most guns are designed to handle twice the pressure that is intended to be fired in it. Most if not all guns blown up not related to an obstructed bore was either a double charge or the wrong powder effectively being a double charge.

Folks who believe otherwise have no clue about how engineers design things.

Rosewood