Ah, yes. Elmer the madman. No disrespect intended. Standard pressure loads with a commercial lead round nosed bullet suit my .38 revolvers and me just fine. Strictly recreational. If more power is craved................ .357 Magnum.

If you're shooting by yourself, maybe. If the guy 10 feet away at the range has a catastrophic failure, how do the flying pieces of topstrap know who loaded the ammo?

I was on a skeet squad with one of our club's "knowlegeable reloaders" (ie often questions published data) when he blew out the barrel of a really nice Caesar Guerini. As I understand it it was his third career blowup. We were on station 7, and the left side of his barrel blew out. Anyone who shoots skeet can visualize the situation. The entire rest of the squad was about 6-8 feet away, to the left... In over 40 years of shooting, I have encountered exactly two people I flat out refuse to shoot with. He is one of the two.

If it truly is your gun, your hand, your eyes etc. go for it. It just often ain't JUST yours...

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.....

__________________
dd884
JMHO-YMMV

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.

__________________
be safe
Ruggy

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

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

__________________
dd884
JMHO-YMMV

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

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

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"..

__________________
NRA Life, COTEP 640

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.

__________________
Robert
SWCA #2906, SWHF #760

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

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.

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

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.

...that gives higher loads for .38 than are found in today's published data. I have experimented with loads from this, though not the max. I feel that they aren't 'unsafe', as even the lower range was little bit raucous for a .38 and I didn't feel the need to go further.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

The SAAMI psi for 9mm is 35K, so is the 357 Mag, so I would say there was already a cartridge that ran at those pressures. Unless they increased the 9mm later in life?? Then that puts back to the argument someone else had about older 9mm possibly being weak and no one cares.

Rosewood

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

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.

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.

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.

Pre-war advertising, both Colt and Smith & Wesson, indicating that .38-44 loads were suitable for use in their smaller .38 Special revolvers.

38/44 loads are one thing. Keith's 38 Special loads and 357 Magnum loads are another. Colt never chambered a D-frame in 357 Magnum.

I'm not for loading the .38 Special up to Elmer Keith levels or .357 Magnum levels, whichever comes first.

Many reasons and answers (durability, why 38 special brass, Keith's load, etc.) are here, from Mr. John Taffin:

GUNS Magazine Handloading for Medium and Large Frame .38 Specials - GUNS Magazine

And more from John: http://www.sixguns.com/tests/tt38spcl.htm

OP: I have the Taurus Defender 856, and would not recommend stressing it above what a reputable manual shows as +P. Resist the temptation to get into the mid or higher .357 loads. My Defender went out of time at round number 266 shooting regular low pressure .38 Special rounds. I took two trips to Taurus and a trip to a local gunsmith to get it working right. I wouldn't want to tempt fate with hotter rounds.

Force is mass times acceleration measured (usually) in joules. Force is directional. It is not the same as pressure measured in psi, although closely relatable.

In one application to revolvers, just because a cylinder can contain a load's pressure, does not mean the revolver frame (or other pieces) is designed to withstand multiple applications of the force exerted by the load.

I always enjoy thoughtful articles by writers who can avoid the dithering, "" sky is falling" cautions we see these days.

I’m lost here. What is the point of cranking up ultra hot loads? I’ve always loaded for handguns the same as rifles. Pick a bullet that is best for the intended purpose. Then work up the most accurate load. End of story, I’ve got loads that have never changed in over 50 yrs. The only way I change is if a component is discontinued. The load is for an individual gun, not the cartridge.
I’ve seen both ends, the ringed barrel boys and the four finger-one ear gang.

I too reload for both. There is a difference here that you are missing. With a rifle, you are reloading for accuracy at distance, 100-1000. With a pistol/revolver, your distance realistically is 0 to maybe 25. I think it would be pretty easy to make the statement that most self defense shootings happen in that range if not in the 0-10 range. Putting a little more juice on the round could make the difference in a "one shot stop" and a multiple shot stop.

You will always have the debate between the 45 ACP crowd that believes slow and heavy wins the day and the crowd that believe fast and smaller is better. Once upon a time the 357 was touted as the best one shot stop round. If you have a good 38 and can get the same performance then why not.

I am not sure why the 357 has that much more allowable pressure over the 38 when they are basically the same cartridge. From what I have read, the only difference is the 357 is about .135 longer. AND, everything I read was this length was done so that individuals wouldn't be able to put the longer cartridge in the 38 and blow it up. That was quite a while ago. I would like to think that the manufactures of modern revolvers would not make an inferior revolver for the 38 just because the pressures are not as great.

I have loaded 38s to the Keith load and used them in my 357. I had to use the 38 case because S&W has made their new cylinders shorter than the older ones. Keith's load in 38 barely fits into the cylinder in my 627. Why S&W made the cylinder shorter is beyond me unless they are trying to save $$.

It's the concept of modern 38 Special revolver cylinders and frames are made of better steel alloys and likely heat treated to the same standards as a 357 Magnum revolver, so instead of buying a 357 Magnum, just hotrod the 38 Special brass to create a cartridge that provides 357 Magnum ballistics in your 38 Special revolver. I've said it before and I will say it again, I am definitely not a fan of the concept.

__________________
VCDL, GOA, NRA

Because we can. That is part of the adventure of reloading. Can I make it better than factory? That is the fun of it for many. Some get excited with 1 hole groups, some get excited by super velocity. I have participated in both adventures and still do occasionally.

Different strokes for different folks.

Rosewood

The only thing I’m missing is if one is so obsessed with worry about the knock down of 38sp vs 357mg, why not just get a 357? Most of the revolvers I encountered with bulged barrels and blown cylinders happen to be 357s. Barrel bulge from squibs and blown cylinders from double charge and Bullseye. Over half those guns were S&W m19s. 38sp tended to be squibs more than blow ups.
The one thing most had in common was owner admitting fault.

One doesn’t necessarily have to be trying to duplicate full on 357 magnum ballistics to want a little more than factory velocities out of the 38.

Case in point, I regularly shoot my revolvers out to 200 yards, I have 12” gongs at 100, 200, and 300. If you’ve never tried it you should, it’s a lot of fun. I don’t shoot factory ammo, because it’s expensive and I shoot several hundred rounds per week at certain times of the year when it’s not hunting season and the fish aren’t biting. But I can tell you that 148 wadcutter loads, which I cast, load, and shoot a lot of, are useless out at 100 yards, they destabilize and groups would be measured in feet if not yards. Much factory 158gr RN ammo only cronos about 750fps out of a 6”, I’ve verified this myself with my guns. The trajectory difference between a 158 at 750-800 and a 158 at 1000fps is substantial out past the 100 yard line. Some bullet designs, like the Lyman 358429 Keith don’t shoot well at low speeds, LBT designs had the same problem, either can give precision accuracy but they need to be kicked in the pants. I also carry many different 38s out doing farm and ranch chores and may call on them to kill a porcupine, coyote, wild pig, or sick cow, on game performance in flesh is better with a little more velocity.

Notice as I stated that I’m basically looking for 38/44 performance, 1000-1075fps. This is achievable now inside of +P specs using Alliant Power Pistol. But for nearly a century guys have been doing the same thing with 5.5-6.0gr of Unique, long before the advent of the +P rating. I’ve done it myself for thousands of rounds. Many old manuals published these loads before they had pressure testing equipment and yes, they were over the pressure spec for standard 38 Special, but apparently not dangerously so or they wouldn’t have been published for decades if reports of blown up guns were flooding in.

So if you need a 158 at 1250 or 1400 fps you absolutely need a 357. But there is a range of added performance that is available to the handloader with a K or N frame revolver in good condition that offers more than cheap factory ammo performance safely

I've been reloading for 20 years or so now. Nowhere near as advanced as most folks here, but...I have avoided any missing digits or destroyed firearms so far. I should add that I mostly load for smoke and thunder, not Nth degree accuracy, or elephant rounds.

When I look back on my list of bad ideas, every single one of them involved pushing a cartridge beyond what the manuals suggest. Not all in a dramatic fashion, but some of them would manage to lock up a cylinder, or I'd make a hot load for a Ruger Blackhawk or an N frame, then sell or trade the gun off.

One of my stupidest was when I just HAD to get a 180 grain .357 to 2K FPS out of a carbine. I was....stupidly fixated on that 2K number. My guns survived it, and I achieved my mission, but....WHY?! Nowadays, I'm happy with the lower velocities I achieve. I shoot all I want without the flinch inducing consideration of blowing up my gun or hurting myself.

Another consideration for me is that one day, I'm gunna pass this celestial plane. When I do, I don't want my friends or loved ones to get hurt by putting the wrong handloaded cartridge into the wrong gun.

There have been folks up here killed in bear attacks when their +P+×5=Whaleygator handloads locked up their revolver. Anymore, I'm a believer in well tested middle of the road to slightly spicy handloads. Anytime my .38 seems too small, I have a .357. If it gets small, I have a .45 Colt...if that should ever get small, there is a whole world of massive options...

I DO think more modern guns can be pushed farther, but I just have not experienced the personal set of circumstances to make it seem like a good idea for these days.

Maybe someone else has circumstances....which I completely respect, but for me
..I need these hands for work, a destroyed firearm would crush me, and even when loading dangerous game ammo, I prefer consistency to a wild powerhouse. Not that anyone in this thread has mentioned any pure madness, but...man...do you hear about it...

My personal .38s will remain within the books for standard and +P. My favorite do it all load is still the classic Skeeter Skelton load of 158 grain LSWC over a fairly stiff charge of Unique.

If bigger, badder, stouter .38 Special is your white whale, I sincerely and respectfully wish you well. We wouldn't be where we are without folks who pushed the envelope. I'm just elucidating the reasons I am not such a brave soul

The thing that amazes me is that the negative Nellies here are acting like if we, those that are for getting a little more out of our reloaded ammo, push a little more out of said cartridge, we are being irresponsible fools.

I can only speak for myself. If I build a cartridge, I look at what load data are in reputable manuals and compare to what I find on line and then go from there. I am not sure how squibs came into this discussion but, I would like to think that I can tell when a cartridge is getting a little beyond its abilities. When I increase, it is a little at a time. I look for primer issues and case bulging/splitting.

My original supposition for this threat was that originally the 38 had limitations based upon the manufacturing at the time. With today's manufacturing techniques and better metallurgy I supposed that the 38 could be pushed, if not to 357 then better than what you get across the counter. I saw an article on a new 38 and felt that if it is still relevant enough to keep producing revolvers in the caliber then why not kick the ammo up as well.

I find it amazing that this is making people lose their minds. There is a famous movie quote that I like to put out there from time to time: "A man's got to know his limitations!" (Sorry, not PC enough, A person has got to know their limitations.)

If you are not comfortable pushing the envelope a little then please, by all means, stay on the curb. As for me, I will look both ways and then cross the street, even if it is not at a crosswalk.

This is one of my revolvers chambered for the 38 S&W Special.



For those who might not recognize it, it is a newer version of the revolver that Phil Sharpe used to create what became the 357 Magnum. Yes, his had Target sights but this is what I have.

This is the revolver that Major Dan Wesson mentioned when asked about heat treated cylinders. His response was something like, “the steel we use is strong enough to handle the pressures without heat treating.”

There was a small but popular conversion of these revolvers that involved deepening the chambers to accept the Magnum cartridge. No blowups have been recorded of which I am aware.

I use the Skeeter load in this revolver and have no issues. I have also loaded stouter and found accuracy dropped off.

If I were to find myself in need of a small bore revolver, a 38 S&W Special is what I would choose.

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

Here's an old thread I stuck up here on the Forum years ago showing some of the .38 Special load testing that has been undertaken over the years here.
Some .38 Special Chronograph Tests

Another interesting discussion. I loaded plenty of .357, but didn't shoot enough .38 Spcl. to bother loading it. Those of us on the Dept. who carried .357s did qualify with the issued Magnum ammo. We were issued the .357 125 grain JHP from Remington or Winchester; whichever happened to have the contract at the time. I did see a K-frame or two, and a Python with damaged forcing cones. The rangemaster asked me to chronograph the .38 and .357 duty ammo the Dept. was issuing at the time. IIRC, the .357 averaged ~1450 FPS in a 4" revolver.

The 158 grain Underwood .38 +P I tested recently averaged 1207 FPS in a 4" revolver, the Underwood 125 grain averaged 1267 FPS. I have no idea what pressures the ammo produced, but can say that primers looked normal and extraction was easy from both the 2" and 4" revolvers.

The N-Frame Smiths, Pythons and similar Colts, etc., use the shorter cylinders. I always figured that those shorter cylinders were used because prior to the introduction of the .357, those size guns were were chambered in the shorter 38 Spcl. Corporate economy, inertia? I sometimes had to make adjustments when I loaded .357 for my N-Frames. The .357 K and L-frames were a pleasure to load for due to their longer cylinders..

I wouldn't want it to get around, but in my dotage I most often shoot .38 Spcl. in my Colt, and S&W J, K, L, and N-frames, no matter the pressures or cylinder length

Attached Images

357s (7) - Copy.jpg (105.6 KB, 29 views)

__________________
NRA Life, COTEP 640

Okay, so either Shooting Illustrated was reading my mind or I read theirs. Their latest edition has an article about beefing up the 38 Special. Guess I am not so far off base, huh!

The advertised velocities were not earth shattering by any means but, around 1100+ max but, I still think you can push the 38 to the 1200-1500 safely in the newer manufactured revolvers making it more of what Keith was looking for. I still think the 38 is a relevant caliber but, woefully lacking. Look old timers, you can still have your 700-800fps 38s but, why not let the 38 live up to its potential.

Just saying.

IMO there is no way to push a .38 Special anywhere near 1500 fps safely. It's difficult to achieve that is a .357 Magnum. (excluding an extremely light bullet)

Do not post data for those loads unless you can link to a reliable source which also gives pressure data.

1500 fps is unrealistic in a .38 Special. So is 1200 fps in most cases. I have a .38 Special +P load with a 135gr bullet that will do 1050 fps from a 4" barrel and that load is pushing the pressure limits of 20,000 psi.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

Couple of things here.
1) I have never "published" any load data and wouldn't but, thanks for the warning.
2) You obviously have not seen the published data on Buffalo Bore's website. They have 357 between 1400-1500.

You obviously missed the reason I started this along with the others here that have been doomsday naysayers with loading hot 38 Specials.

I have a 38. Would I ever load 1000+ round to shoot out of it, "Heck no." It is a model 49. Have I loaded 38s hot and shot them out of a 357, Heck yessssssss. Are the new 38s capable of shooting a faster ammo, I believe the quality revolvers could/can. If you think I am crazy then please, by all means, write the editors of Shooters Illustrated and tell them that I and they are crazy. Grab a copy of the latest and see what they have in the article. The guy writing it was using a Korth 38 special. If anyone would/should be concerned about shooting loads that could destroy an expensive gun it would have been him.

Is SHOOTING ILLUSTRATED a real paper gun magazine or some Internet creation? I'm unfamilar with it.

My google fu found it is an NRA publication and is available in paper option.

Rosewood

Thank you; never heard of it.

It is a magazine put out by the NRA.

Why not use a 357?

If I need a more powerful round I’d rather move up a cartridge IMO. There’s really no downside.

If you go back to my original supposition that gun makers are still making the 38 special and that it is still a relevant firearm, why not make it even more relevant. Elmer pushed the envelope in the 38. The only reason the 357 came about was that they didn't want people to load the more powerful 38 into a gun that wasn't designed to shoot the more powerful round (specifically the 38-44). The cartridge is shorter so that you can load a heaver round into it like the Keith 169-173 gr semi-wadcutter.

Somehow I have spoken heresy here and that I am encouraging people to harm themselves by loading the 38 to such a level that they would blow up their 38 special. My original supposition was that the newly manufacturers are making 38s to a point that they could handle a greater velocity round and keeping the 38 even more relevant.

Sigh, I guess I am just a radical.