Why not Elmer Keith that 38 special

[Paul in Nevada]

There is a country song that goes something like, "Why do I drive so fast? My truck has nothing to prove."

 

[ruggyh]

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

The barrel fails as result of the force of the second round colliding with the first bullet not from pressure resulting from fire normal round (internal ballistics). These are technically refereed to as obstructions.

Cylinder failures are always the result of over pressure, barrel ruptures are typically the result of obstructions.

Peak pressure in 38 special (and most other strait wall handgun cartridges) occur before the bullet even leaves the cartridge.

Even when slower powders such as 4227 is used in even the largest of handgun cartridges such as the 460 S&W or 500 S&W and operate at twice the pressure of 357, the bullets still have not left the brass before the peak pressure has been reached.

 

[ddixie884]

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.

You can't prove a negative. You are an adult, think about it..................

 

[ruggyh]

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

Over pressure does not have to come from a double charge.
All one has to do is create a load above the design pressure. In 38 special this easily done with current powders in use today without a "double charge". Many powder in use today can easily create 250 kpsi with charge weight of 125% of a 85% MAP load.

On the matter of metal failure this a much more complex question to answer. Alloys and process involved vary between manufactures and even within models and firearm's design requirements vary widely.
First and foremost you can not tell from just looking a firearm how much damage/ fatigue has occurred after an over pressure round has been fired or much pressure is going to cause that failure.

Most modern cylinder and revolver frames can endure quite a bit of abuse. The point of failure will be the total sum of the metal fatigue and the resultant tears in the grain as result of exceeding the elasticity of the alloy in use.

Proof testing is usually performed at 125% of the of the max design pressure. I doubt even the strongest revolver produced would take very many 200% loads before it became seriously compromised or suffered a catastrophic failure.

Engineers do design with some measure of insurance so their products will be safe. They design to to economic requirements not some measure of indestructibility.

Take your risk as you see them.

PS. I am an engineer.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

You can't prove a negative. You are an adult, think about it..................

What I was asking is, since you are so very sure it was only 2 guns I thought you might have seen that written somewhere. It's very hard to be so sure unless you read everything ever written about Elmer Keith. It was just a curiosity, even "adults" become curious sometimes, no?

 

[ddixie884]

I can't be sure because the gentleman is dead but I may not have read everything about the man. Only everything I can find. I am just so tired of every keyboard cowboy telling how many guns he was to have blown up. Therefore I have a tendency to ask them to prove their claims. I have done this several times and have never had one of them offer any information to back up their statements. You know I'm right you are just mad cause he didn't use HS6........................

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I can't be sure because the gentleman is dead but I may not have read everything about the man. Only everything I can find. I am just so tired of every keyboard cowboy telling how many guns he was to have blown up. Therefore I have a tendency to ask them to prove their claims. I have done this several times and have never had one of them offer any information to back up their statements. You know I'm right you are just mad cause he didn't use HS6......................

LOL, HS-6 didn't even enter my mind but now that you mention it....

I really have no idea if you are correct or not on the number of guns.
I'm not one of the people who said anything about how many guns busted. I doubt it was many. Back in those days they didn't have the testing equipment of today so sometimes, oppsss. lol

 

[Rock185]

Underwood and Buffalo Bore are already loading the .38 pretty hot, so I guess a reloader could do the same. FWIW, I recently chronographed some Underwood .38+P 125 and 158 grain ammunition in 2" and 4" revolvers. In the 2" gun, Underwood's .38+P exceeded .357 velocities in the same weights as shown on the BBTI site. In a 4" revolver, Underwood's 38+P was still quite respectable, but the .357 really starts pulling away in the 4"..

 

[raljr1]

I read thru the entire thread. Interesting discussion. If I am planning to kill a mammal of any type, I shoot the biggest baddest I can find, or that which I have on me at the time.

Since 99.5% or more of my shooting is at harmless paper targets, or defenseless tin cans or plastic bottles, I load to the middle of the published ranges, Funny thing, every tin can I hit dies...the only ones who survive are the ones I miss.

So hotrodding loads is for all the rest of you.

 

[smithra_66]

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.

That's great unless you want to use the Keith 173 gr. bullet. Then you'd have to use Special cases, unless you have a gun with a really long cylinder like a S&W model 19.

 

[SuperMan]

Although long before SAAMI standards, the .38-44 was introduced in the early 1930s and ran a 158 grain lead bullet at 1115 fps from a 5" revolver. If the Buffalo Bore and Underwood ammo are pushing a 158 at 1150 +- with 28.5k psi then the original factory .38-44s had to be in the 25k psi range...with the limited heat treating of pre-WWII guns. This ammo was produced well up into the 1960s.

If one looks at the 1950s and 60s vintage Shooter's Bible, Colt certified their steel D-Frame guns, as in Detective Special and Police Positive Special, for the "High Speed" (.38-44) rounds...anyone here believe that a post-WWII K-frame is not at durable as a Colt D-Frame... Before WWII Colt only recommended High Speed .38s for the Single Action Army and large frame DAs...same with S&W...The Outdoorsman and Heavy Duty only.

There were also .38-44 rounds in 150 grain that were 1275 fps and 110s at 1300+ fps...

If one looks in the Lyman Reloading Manuals from the 1950s and 60s there are High Speed loads listed there using both 2400 and Unique for wadcutter and several different SWC bullets...so this isn't exactly never done before uncharted territory...

Would I shoot these in aluminum frame guns...absolutely not...but have been shooting them in both a Model 36 and 649-2 since the 1980s with no ill effects...

They aren't for plinking and target shooting, they are made to save your life...

Bob

 

[bmcgilvray]

I think it's laughable that the .38 Special (1899) is supposedly held back "because there's millions" of old .38 Special revolvers out there, while the 9mm Luger (1902) gets a pass with all the supposedly latest expanding bullet technology and +P and +P+ loadings, though there are also millions of old 9mm automatics out there, some of quite poor design strength and durability.

Nobody's concerned that any current 9mm Luger ammunition might be fired in any 9mm pistol design, materials, and degree of workmanship fielded in the last 121 years.

Why is that?

 

[rosewood]

I think it's laughable that the .38 Special (1899) is supposedly held back "because there's millions" of old .38 Special revolvers out there, while the 9mm Luger (1902) gets a pass with all the supposedly latest expanding bullet technology and +P and +P+ loadings, though there are also millions of old 9mm automatics out there, some of quite poor design strength and durability.

Nobody's concerned that any current 9mm Luger ammunition might be fired in any 9mm pistol design, materials, and degree of workmanship fielded in the last 121 years.

Why is that?

This is a very good point.

 

[alwslate]

If you have ever chronographed any current US made 115 gr standard FMJ 9mm you would know that some brands have been watered down to such low velocity that they will not even cycle the action of good condition guns with good recoil springs. Remington 115 gr FMJ averages a ridiculous 1059 FPS out of my two BHPs which are full size guns. Neither of them will even function with the Remington junk.

 

[smithra_66]

I think it's laughable that the .38 Special (1899) is supposedly held back "because there's millions" of old .38 Special revolvers out there, while the 9mm Luger (1902) gets a pass with all the supposedly latest expanding bullet technology and +P and +P+ loadings, though there are also millions of old 9mm automatics out there, some of quite poor design strength and durability.

Nobody's concerned that any current 9mm Luger ammunition might be fired in any 9mm pistol design, materials, and degree of workmanship fielded in the last 121 years.

Why is that?

I'll explain why:

There's a difference between the 9x19 and 38 Special.

The Special was designed as a revolver cartridge, and as a black powder cartridge.

Revolvers don't need any special level of pressure to operate them.

Black powder cartridges create far less pressure than smokeless.

These two factors make the 38 much different. 9mm guns were designed from day 1 to operate right at 100% of the cartridge's potential (with smokeless powder!). Since 9mm was introduced in semi-autos, they HAVE to in order to operate the gun. The 9mm is a result of newfangled smokeless powders, allowing high pressures to be developed in tiny cases that work in newfangled semi-autos in the very early 1900s.

The 38 Special was designed to operate at black powder pressures, which equate to about 50% of its potential with smokeless! That giant case was needed to pack in as much black as they could.

The 38 Special in terms of POTENTIAL with modern smokeless propellant, is in a different league than 9mm. Just look at the two side by side. The 38 has far more powder capacity.

The reason they are perceived differently is what I said...the 38 was born in a different era (black powder) and didn't need to run at high pressure to operate the gun.

The "modern" version of the 38 special is the 357 Magnum. It changed shape and name just a little so that it would not be chambered in the old guns designed for BP pressures, but with smokeless powders and a strong gun, there isn't much difference between them. Think 308 Winchester vs. 30-06.

But this why no one is concerned about 9mm ammo firing in old guns. It's because 1902 9mm and 2023 9mm are very close to the same in terms of peak pressure. Every 9mm gun was designed to handle it.

1899 38 Special and 2023 38 Special are VERY DIFFERENT in terms of what you COULD do if you wanted.

 

[bmcgilvray]

Yep alwslate.

I have a chronograph that is prejudiced against the 9mm Luger, for the cartridge has never proven inspiring with any factory loading, using any factory provided bullet weight.

Now I have not tested nearly all the factory 9mm Luger offerings out there, but a sampling of factory loads and bullet weights, standard velocity and +P, tested over the years has left me cold to the cartridge's purported performance characteristics when compared to the .38 Special. With top "performance" loads the 9mm and the .38 Special are at best two peas in a pod ballistically. It's just that some 9mm handgun models hold a whole lot of the little buggers.

It must be said that most major manufacturers' current +P .38 Special offerings, particularly those featuring lighter bullet weights aren't worth the amount of ink it took to print the "+P" designation on the boxes, for they are actually feeble in the extreme when compared to traditional .38-44 performance loadings of old, or boutique manufacturers' +P offerings, or best published .38 Special handloading data of bygone times.

I do not handload .38 Special to gut-busting levels of performance routinely for general purpose shooting, but it is not difficult to assemble safe and effective performance handloads if one desires them.

Oh yeah, but we're so much wiser now and besides ... modern high tech expanding bullet designs are where it's at. It's a known fact that the cutting edge expanding bullet designs of today render smaller, lighter cartridges fully equal in effectiveness to the best .44 and .45 caliber handgun cartridges and turn poor shot placement into accurate and effective bullet strikes. Why it's the miracles of modern science at our trigger fingertip!

As so many choose to only timorously handload the .38 Special or else only shoot tepid .38 Special factory loads ( something that the main ammunition makers seem to only want to provide these days), it's easy to see the 9mm's current popularity with its profusion of loads from which to choose. Performance wise, 9mm is overrated, a case of "The Emperor's New Clothes," or less than meets the eye ( or firearrns forum post, gun rag article, or YouTube video) if you will. Adequate, but mundane is the 9mm.

A handgun cartridge could do worse than to be said to be equal to the full range of .38 Special capabilities and the .38 Special is much more than a handgun cartridge only suitable for sniveling 2-inch J-Frame snubs.

But, I'm an old, out-of-style fogey with my preference for obsolete longer barreled K-Frame Smith & Wesson revolvers so can be forgiven for holding an opinion contrary to today's conventional wisdom.

 

[bmcgilvray]

The Swedish Lahti and the Italian Glisenti models both come to mind as less substantial as well as any of several different rushed wartime production models of 9mm pistols, along with a host of century old worn out, reworked, or abused 9mm pistols that remain out there. In the Sea of Used Handguns, old .38 Special revolvers ain't got nothin' on old 9mm automatics.

 

[SnidelyWhiplash]

I think it's laughable that the .38 Special (1899) is supposedly held back "because there's millions" of old .38 Special revolvers out there, while the 9mm Luger (1902) gets a pass with all the supposedly latest expanding bullet technology and +P and +P+ loadings, though there are also millions of old 9mm automatics out there, some of quite poor design strength and durability.

Nobody's concerned that any current 9mm Luger ammunition might be fired in any 9mm pistol design, materials, and degree of workmanship fielded in the last 121 years.

Why is that?

Maybe because so many self-loading pistols of that era don't work well so no one is using them to begin with.

 

[rosewood]

I'll explain why:

There's a difference between the 9x19 and 38 Special.

The Special was designed as a revolver cartridge, and as a black powder cartridge.

Revolvers don't need any special level of pressure to operate them.

Black powder cartridges create far less pressure than smokeless.

These two factors make the 38 much different. 9mm guns were designed from day 1 to operate right at 100% of the cartridge's potential (with smokeless powder!). Since 9mm was introduced in semi-autos, they HAVE to in order to operate the gun. The 9mm is a result of newfangled smokeless powders, allowing high pressures to be developed in tiny cases that work in newfangled semi-autos in the very early 1900s.

The 38 Special was designed to operate at black powder pressures, which equate to about 50% of its potential with smokeless! That giant case was needed to pack in as much black as they could.

The 38 Special in terms of POTENTIAL with modern smokeless propellant, is in a different league than 9mm. Just look at the two side by side. The 38 has far more powder capacity.

The reason they are perceived differently is what I said...the 38 was born in a different era (black powder) and didn't need to run at high pressure to operate the gun.

The "modern" version of the 38 special is the 357 Magnum. It changed shape and name just a little so that it would not be chambered in the old guns designed for BP pressures, but with smokeless powders and a strong gun, there isn't much difference between them. Think 308 Winchester vs. 30-06.

But this why no one is concerned about 9mm ammo firing in old guns. It's because 1902 9mm and 2023 9mm are very close to the same in terms of peak pressure. Every 9mm gun was designed to handle it.

1899 38 Special and 2023 38 Special are VERY DIFFERENT in terms of what you COULD do if you wanted.

I would venture to say 99% of 38 special revolvers still in use were designed and sold well after the switch to smokeless powder. You are implying all of those "old" revolvers were still designed around BP. I seriously doubt they kept making them that way after the advent of smokeless.

What year was the first S&W DA revolver produced? When was the 38 transitioned to smokeless?

Rosewood

 

[smithra_66]

I would venture to say 99% of 38 special revolvers still in use were designed and sold well after the switch to smokeless powder. You are implying all of those "old" revolvers were still designed around BP. I seriously doubt they kept making them that way after the advent of smokeless.

What year was the first S&W DA revolver produced? When was the 38 transitioned to smokeless?

Rosewood

The first S&W DAs with swing out cylinders were introduced around 1896. The 38 Special with "white" powder probably came out right around the turn of the century but they were common in black powder probably all the way into the 20s.

I'm not implying they were built around black powder, but rather PRESSURES that were low, like black powder-level. The full transition to smokeless took quite a bit of time. It certainly wasn't overnight, but the 38 Special was never "hot rodded" until bigger guns became available.

S&W didn't even start heat treating their cylinders until something like the later teens.

Old K frames and Colt D-frames are not the biggest guns. Remember that in 1935 when Elmer Keith's turbo charged 38 was turned into the 357 Magnum, they put it into the massive N Frame revolvers. They counterbored the chambers and everything. There simply wasn't a cartridge in existence at that time that ran at those pressures, and they didn't know how the guns would react. Even with Keith's testing of the 38, it wasn't done until the 38/44 Heavy Duty came out in around 1930. There wasn't an "overbuilt" 38 Special until then that he could feel comfortable experimenting with.

It wasn't until 1955 that the 357 Magnum was introduced in the K-frame with the Combat Magnum (later the model 19). And of course, with those we even see some durability issues shooting full house magnum loads.