Why not Elmer Keith that 38 special

[ArchAngelCD]

Can you tell me why they lengthened the case that amount and called it 357 magnum? That is the answer to all.

They only made the cartridge longer so as to prevent someone from sticking the higher pressure round into a .38 Special and IMO, rightly so. Same goes for the .357 Maximum.

Like said above, not for today's guns but for those of the last.

 

[Norman77]

Why not load it hot?

Concerning .38 Special with wadcutters, i had nicely shooting loads running them at like 650 fps with some wiggle room. Not hot.
They would just not shoot accurately in the python being put hotter, and it took me quite some time to really believe this myself, that 2.2 grain of a fast powder is really all it takes. And more is not helping at all.

With the .357 SWC, i zeroed in on 8 grains of True Blue. I tried more - i came down on it too, over the years. I was loading them hotter, but for no use.

Roundabout 27 000 psi (Quickload), up to 1200 fps (measured).
This is he pressure which my cast bullets (up to 18-20% linotype) prefer, and it seems this is not much different with 9 mm and .44 Magnum as well. 9 mm might run a bit hotter in the P226.

This all refers to cast bullets, no gas check, TL design, precision shooting,
after some 10 000 rounds down the tube.

 

[steelslaver]

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.

One of the guys I shoot with on Monday night at the cowboy action range, had 2 Italian Scofields in 38 special, when he shot his loads of 38 wadcutter he got some pierced primers. Guess what all his bullets were seated well below the case mouth.

 

[IAM Rand]

They only made the cartridge longer so as to prevent someone from sticking the higher pressure round into a .38 Special and IMO, rightly so. Same goes for the .357 Maximum.

Like said above, not for today's guns but for those of the last.

Exactly, they lengthened the cases so that they would not be put into the 38 special revolvers of yesterday. Are you telling me that the 38 specials made today are inferior to the ones that used to be made? And if they make 38 special +P revolvers, aren't they already going down that road.

People here are misunderstanding my post. I put it in reloading instead of ammo for a reason. Everyone knows their guns and what they are capable of doing. If I have a modern Colt or S&W 38 special would I want to juice up the load a little, yes. If I had an old revolver in 38 would I want to do that, no. What are people missing. I am in the 38's corner here. I think that with the modern revolvers, they can handle a little more than pistols made many years ago. There are ammo makers that are already doing this. Shooting magazines have articles about the relevance of the 38 and shooting more stout loads. I just posed the question here and oh boy did it start a firestorm.

Oh well, like I said above, every man's gotta know their limitations. I know mine but, still like pushing the envelope a little every now and then.

 

[reddog81]

Exactly, they lengthened the cases so that they would not be put into the 38 special revolvers of yesterday. Are you telling me that the 38 specials made today are inferior to the ones that used to be made? And if they make 38 special +P revolvers, aren't they already going down that road.

People here are misunderstanding my post. I put it in reloading instead of ammo for a reason. Everyone knows their guns and what they are capable of doing. If I have a modern Colt or S&W 38 special would I want to juice up the load a little, yes. If I had an old revolver in 38 would I want to do that, no. What are people missing. I am in the 38's corner here. I think that with the modern revolvers, they can handle a little more than pistols made many years ago. There are ammo makers that are already doing this. Shooting magazines have articles about the relevance of the 38 and shooting more stout loads. I just posed the question here and oh boy did it start a firestorm.

Oh well, like I said above, every man's gotta know their limitations. I know mine but, still like pushing the envelope a little every now and then.

How much extra pressure can a modern Colt Cobra take versus the original?

 

[rockquarry]

How much extra pressure can a modern Colt Cobra take versus the original?

I wonder if even Colt could answer that one.

 

[sniper]

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



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



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.

It's true that many will try to "hot rod" cartridges, and say that somehow, those of us who choose milder loads for our 357 Magnums "aren't getting our money's worth" if we so choose. Hmmm...but in my never-humble opinion, that only goes so far. It hurts my heart to see beautiful guns damaged beyond recovery by?? Could be an accidental/careless double charge or just plain dumb headedness. Truth! We shoot best with what kicks us less, and most jacketed "defense" rounds are designed to operate best at 900-1,000 fps. Cast Bullets, whatever the hardness, again in my opinion, reach their peak of usefulness at 900-1,ooo fps. That is a velocity range that can be safely reached in most modern handguns... .38 Special or 357. The controversy has raged since forever, and that's O.K., but is probably a bit confusing for newer shooters. For that matter, for some of us older ones, too. Do whatever you like, but do it safely. Modern guns, and some older ones, too will not fall apart, like the "Wonderful one-hoss Shay", if abused with full snort+ loads. They will just not last as long.

 

[crstrode]

Sigh, I guess I am just a radical.

Yes, you are a radical.

In this day and age it is radical to speak the truth, and back it up with facts and sound logic.

It is the conformist rabble that shun the light.

 

[IAM Rand]

Oooooooohhhhhh, you are gonna get this thread closed.

 

[Groo01]

powder room

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!

There is no difference in powder room as long as the bullets are seated to the same oal,
The cylinder is the limiter, and keith used it all with the 173 gr swc bullet in a 38 case, to shoot in a 357 case the bullet is crimped over the driving band
the powder room is the same the presures change.

 

[crstrode]

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.

Thinking like this is why SAAMI exists, and why their recommended max pressures are so so low . . .

 

[smithra_66]

Can you tell me why they lengthened the case that amount and called it 357 magnum? That is the answer to all.

That was answered several pages back. Elmer wanted S&W and the ammo companies to catalog his Magnum 38 Special cartridge. 13.5 gr. of 2400 under his 173 gr. SWC.

The execs were very leery of putting out factory 38 special ammo that powerful due to all the old guns out there built on small frames. So they said "Why not lengthen it so it won't chamber in regular 38s, and call it the 357 Magnum?"

The rest is history.

 

[IAM Rand]

That was answered several pages back.

Yes, and I responded to the answer. At this point, I think this horse is dead. Those that are against it are always going to be against it. Those that are willing to experiment will do so at their peril. I fall into the later category. Most missed my main point but, as they say in France, "C'est la vie."

 

[Forrest r]

Always interesting reading as usual:

Saami came out in 1926, all the major mfg's of guns/firearms went by their standards. Anyone who doesn't think they set pressure standards for the 38-44 might want to rethink this.

Balloon headed cases were used till the mid 60's by several popular ammunition manufacturers. Ballon headed cases had more internal volume compared to the solid headed cases. So when someone wrote they used 13gr of xyz powder in the 30's/40's/50's/ect. They were using cases that had a greater internal volume while maintaining the same external dimensions.

Years ago the nra did testing with cast bullets in the 44spl. There were a lot of issues with reloaders switching over to the new solid headed cases. The nra ran 22 different test loads in the article.

http://www.goodrichfamilyassoc.org/44_Special_Articles/NRA - Loads for the 44 Special.pdf

Load #19 & #20 were the same load except for balloon VS solid. Huge difference!!!!

The article also states that the average pressure difference when using solid vs balloon headed cases averaged 7000psi. They stated that the balloon headed case loads must be cut not less then 2 full grains when using 2400.

The last thing to remember is the revolvers used to have recessed cylinders cut in them to aid in supporting the weak web of those balloon headed cases. With the use of solid headed cases recessed cylinders are no longer necessary.

Myself, I error on the side of caution and reload 38spl's for the 38spl. And 357mags for the mags.

Others venture out pushing the envelope which I always enjoy reading about. Be safe, enjoy & study.

 

[smithra_66]

Always interesting reading as usual:

Saami came out in 1926, all the major mfg's of guns/firearms went by their standards. Anyone who doesn't think they set pressure standards for the 38-44 might want to rethink this.

Balloon headed cases were used till the mid 60's by several popular ammunition manufacturers. Ballon headed cases had more internal volume compared to the solid headed cases. So when someone wrote they used 13gr of xyz powder in the 30's/40's/50's/ect. They were using cases that had a greater internal volume while maintaining the same external dimensions.

Years ago the nra did testing with cast bullets in the 44spl. There were a lot of issues with reloaders switching over to the new solid headed cases. The nra ran 22 different test loads in the article.

http://www.goodrichfamilyassoc.org/44_Special_Articles/NRA - Loads for the 44 Special.pdf

Load #19 & #20 were the same load except for balloon VS solid. Huge difference!!!!

The article also states that the average pressure difference when using solid vs balloon headed cases averaged 7000psi. They stated that the balloon headed case loads must be cut not less then 2 full grains when using 2400.

The last thing to remember is the revolvers used to have recessed cylinders cut in them to aid in supporting the weak web of those balloon headed cases. With the use of solid headed cases recessed cylinders are no longer necessary.

Myself, I error on the side of caution and reload 38spl's for the 38spl. And 357mags for the mags.

Others venture out pushing the envelope which I always enjoy reading about. Be safe, enjoy & study.

Elmer Keith was using solid head cases in 1930 as part of his load development for the 38 Special magnum-level loads. He addresses this in "Sixgun Cartridges and Loads" all the way back in 1936:

"For all heavy or magnum loads select only the solid-headed case, if possible to obtain such in the caliber cartridge you are using. I have illustrated the difference elsewhere in this book."

"There is a great difference in the powder capacity between these two types of cases, and the handloader should know exactly what he is doing before reloading them. The older semi-balloon type case will hold more powder but will not withstand pressures as the more modern, heavier based case does. Furthermore, I have had both 38 and 44 Special cartridges which were reloaded a few times, blow off the entire front part of the semi-balloon pocket, finishing the case for any further use."

And load data:

"38/44 Special. Keith 160 grain hollow point, or hollow base bullet sized to .358". Hercules #2400 powder. Charge 13.5 grains with either of Ideal catalog numbers of this bullet: #358429 or #358431. With both bullets I have used as much as 8 grains by weight of duPont #80 the bullets being crimped in their crimp groove. Remington 38/44 cases and primers."

 

[rockquarry]

Always interesting reading as usual:

Saami came out in 1926, all the major mfg's of guns/firearms went by their standards. Anyone who doesn't think they set pressure standards for the 38-44 might want to rethink this.

Balloon headed cases were used till the mid 60's by several popular ammunition manufacturers. Ballon headed cases had more internal volume compared to the solid headed cases. So when someone wrote they used 13gr of xyz powder in the 30's/40's/50's/ect. They were using cases that had a greater internal volume while maintaining the same external dimensions.

Years ago the nra did testing with cast bullets in the 44spl. There were a lot of issues with reloaders switching over to the new solid headed cases. The nra ran 22 different test loads in the article.

http://www.goodrichfamilyassoc.org/44_Special_Articles/NRA - Loads for the 44 Special.pdf

Load #19 & #20 were the same load except for balloon VS solid. Huge difference!!!!

The article also states that the average pressure difference when using solid vs balloon headed cases averaged 7000psi. They stated that the balloon headed case loads must be cut not less then 2 full grains when using 2400.

The last thing to remember is the revolvers used to have recessed cylinders cut in them to aid in supporting the weak web of those balloon headed cases. With the use of solid headed cases recessed cylinders are no longer necessary.

Myself, I error on the side of caution and reload 38spl's for the 38spl. And 357mags for the mags.

Others venture out pushing the envelope which I always enjoy reading about. Be safe, enjoy & study.

You're right, this isn't the 1920s and 1930s and we have the .357 Magnum available for extra performance in guns so chambered. I see nothing wrong with using safe load data for the .38 Special or anything else as long as it comes from reliable sources. Going beyond that is no more than a stunt, maybe a potentially dangerous stunt. We no longer have balloon head cases, folded head cases, or what ever you want to call them available for loading. No point in even considering them for any purpose except historical.

 

[Inland7-45]

Safe reloading practices

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



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



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.

If the top two weren’t bad enough the one on the bottom is a real heartbreaker. From a look at the stocks, speed hammer and low luster finish I would put this gun at a few years on either side of 1950. A real shame. Over charge of Bullseye?

I started shooting handguns in the late 60s and started reloading a few years later.

I have never believed in hot rodding a standard caliber. The people behind the manuals knew what they were doing when they wrote the tables. I have followed the established data since getting started in this hobby over 50 years ago. I enjoy shooting a full range of .38s from my old Colts and S&Ws. My model 27-2 is always there for faster harder hitting .357 rounds.

 

[Forrest r]

Elmer Keith was using solid head cases in 1930 as part of his load development for the 38 Special magnum-level loads. He addresses this in "Sixgun Cartridges and Loads" all the way back in 1936:

"For all heavy or magnum loads select only the solid-headed case, if possible to obtain such in the caliber cartridge you are using. I have illustrated the difference elsewhere in this book."

"There is a great difference in the powder capacity between these two types of cases, and the handloader should know exactly what he is doing before reloading them. The older semi-balloon type case will hold more powder but will not withstand pressures as the more modern, heavier based case does. Furthermore, I have had both 38 and 44 Special cartridges which were reloaded a few times, blow off the entire front part of the semi-balloon pocket, finishing the case for any further use."

And load data:

"38/44 Special. Keith 160 grain hollow point, or hollow base bullet sized to .358". Hercules #2400 powder. Charge 13.5 grains with either of Ideal catalog numbers of this bullet: #358429 or #358431. With both bullets I have used as much as 8 grains by weight of duPont #80 the bullets being crimped in their crimp groove. Remington 38/44 cases and primers."

Odd, I was under the impression that the description "balloon headed cases" was a modern term. Modern term ='s a lot later then 1930.

As I already posted, some mfg's were still using balloon headed cases (modern term) in the 1960's

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=7561...bW9kdWxlMDMvZmlyX20wM190MDZfMDJfZS5odG0&ntb=1

 

[smithra_66]

Odd, I was under the impression that the description "balloon headed cases" was a modern term. Modern term ='s a lot later then 1930.

As I already posted, some mfg's were still using balloon headed cases (modern term) in the 1960's

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=7561...bW9kdWxlMDMvZmlyX20wM190MDZfMDJfZS5odG0&ntb=1

I'm not sure if in the 1930s all "normal" 38 special brass was still balloon-head...I would guess not, but I'm not sure.

But as Keith notes in his load data above, he was using "38/44" brass. This was probably headstamped as such and most certainly was solid-head stuff.

I'd bet that today's 38 Special brass is the exact same as this stuff.

 

[ddixie884]

I'll probably get a lot of flak for saying this but I'll bet if the truth were known; There have been more .38spls blown up by "target" loads of Bullseye than will ever be damaged by someone like me looking for 100 to 150 extra fps with a much slower powder. Let the flaming begin................