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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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'"

When one bullet rams into another bullet and there is no where for it to go, that is pressure anyway you look at it. The gases are still pushing and do so until the bullet exists the bore or they find another escape route, whether it is peak pressure or not.

Rosewood

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

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

What is your theory, then, about why S&W originally introduced the 357 Magnum on the N frame and didn't introduce it in the K frame until as late as 1955?

How does that put back that argument? Like I said, the 9mm was always running at the pressure it runs at today. The guns of that era were designed to run on that pressure. It's so tiny it has to make pressure to run the gun.

Do you think a 1920 Colt Police Positive could handle full power Keith 38 loads or 357 Magnum loads if someone reamed out the chambers?

Hell, even further...why do you think S&W even bothered making a brand new cartridge, the 357 Magnum, and making it longer so that it wouldn't chamber in anything but new guns made in 357 Magnum? Doesn't that seem like a lot of expense and effort if the old guns could handle its pressures? Surely they would have made a boatload more money if their new caliber was backward compatible with the (millions?) of 38 revolvers that already existed by 1935?

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 asked a long-time friend who worked for Sierra many years why they didn't differentiate between standard pressure and +P load data (they do in the most current manual). His response (about ten or fifteen years ago) was that Sierra believed their data to be safe in all quality .38 Special revolvers in good condition.

Whether you agree with such a policy matters little, but I think Sierra's reasoning then was sound and probably would be today as well. It seems there is no point in debating any of this; you're not going to change someone's mind for them. Many here apparently see arguing as a competitive sport and the last word is important to them even if it isn't to a normal person.

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.

The 586/686 guns will also work. I believe it’s the N frames that won’t.

I won't argue, but it will work fine in .357 N-frame guns and Colts. Seat it to an OAL of 1.59" (works in every .357 revolver I've tried it in) or go with Lyman's recommended OAL length of 1.553"(?). You can also taper crimp. The bullet will stay in place under recoil if you taper crimp right. Just yesterday, I loaded a batch of the hollow point version #358439 in both .38 Special and .357.

Yep I believe the L frames were built with the long cylinder too.

The N-frames have a short cylinder and the Colt Officer/Python has a REALLY short cylinder! The Keiths stick out the front when loaded in Mag brass.

For sure. Keith even recommended crimping over the shoulder if you wanted to use these in Mag brass.

The issue was accuracy. He preferred Special brass with the bullet crimped in the crimp groove because he got better accuracy than crimping over the front drive band. If you're seating the bullet that deep, you're basically using Special brass anyway with the powder capacity you're taking away...why not use actual Special brass and crimp in the proper crimp groove.

I'm not an Elmer Keith disciple but did read much of his material beginning about 1962. My comments are based on my experience.

yes

But not from powder burning but as result of a change in momentum and surely would not be measured in psi.

The pressure dissipates through the BC gap and there is no escalation of pressure. The pressure is well below design as the peak occurred while the bullet was still in the brass.

Obstructions damage the barrels in revolvers not the cylinder, Cylinders are damaged over pressure in the cylinder under ALL conditions.

__________________
be safe
Ruggy

Then why do you get more velocity with a longer barrel? It is still being accelerated.

What would force be measured in? Pounds per square inch is force over area. The total force of one bullet impacting another can be expressed in pounds per square inch. Total force divided by the surface area squared where they are touching is psi.

Velocity is a function of total pressure under the curve
A longer barrel increase the time the bullet has pressure applied and area under that curve.

__________________
be safe
Ruggy

Most labs would most likely use joules as the total amount of energy in collision studies, as usually the are multiple contributing forces acting in concert.

In simulation software such as Solid Works (which I speculate S&W and most Firearms companies are using to perform stress analysis and prototyping) the output is typically a thermodynamic expression.

When I return to my office I will add some technical resource references on internal ballistics and terminal ballistics for those interested at the real science.

__________________
be safe
Ruggy

Exactly, and the pressure isn't all gone out the GAP.

But my statement is still accurate regardless of "most labs would use".

Rosewood

...they already had the round of the full potential of the time...the .38-44 also known as the High Speed...it's all they could get out of the .38 Special case with the powders of the time.

As to why the .357 Magnum and why only in the the N-Frame...
1) NEW GUN SALES! S&W had bragging rights to the most powerful handgun made...

2) RECOIL!!!! Anyone here like shooting full load .357s from Js and Ks?

Only reason that the mid size .357s came about was the *****ing and moaning from LEOs who didn't like carrying N-fames and New Service size guns. And rarely did any department require them to qualify with full charge .357 ammo...it was all waddcutters. When liability issues came up when it was discovered that officers were not qualifying with what they carried and had to change...the Ks shook apart and the Ls came to be. Which is why Ls have full underlugs...recoil control.

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.

The 38-44 was definitely not loaded to the full potential of the 38 Special. The Keith load of 13.5 grains of 2400 under his 173 gr. LSWC was way more powerful, and that is what led S&W and Winchester to pull the trigger on the 357 Magnum. The ammo companies made the 38/44 right alongside normal pressure 38 Special. They drew the line at Keith's loading and insisted on making it impossible to load that into any old 38, hence the 357 Mag.

1) This is not the reason. The new cartridge was seen as too powerful for existing guns and they built it on top of the 44 frame which later was named the N frame.

Sales were definitely another benefit, although the first 357s were extremely exclusive and rare items, and VERY expensive. They discontinued the program in only a few years when WW2 hit. Only a little more than 5,000 were built in the 5 or so years of the program.

2) Tons of people shoot 357s today from J's and K's. J's didn't even exist in 1935, and like I mentioned above, K's were thought to be too light for the new cartridge in terms of strength and holding the gun together over the long haul.

You're right about the new guns in the 50s. Bill Jordan wanted a smaller, handier gun and the Combat Magnum was created on the K-frame. You're also right that they used light loads most of the time. When they went to full charge loads for practice in the 70s, this is when they started seeing cracked forcing cones, etc. Obviously durability was still a concern by the 50s.

But I'm not sure why you wouldn't think the K's of the 30s wouldn't have shaken apart as you indicate the later K's did. Durability WAS the concern which is why the N fame was used in the 30s. And you're right, it's why the L frame came about! It solved the problems of the old K frame guns when it came to durability with full power 357 Magnum rounds.

This article answers lots of these questions:

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

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

And weigh the same as the N frames. Yet, excepting myself, everyone seems to dote on the L frame?

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

The generated gas pressure in the system is the same on all surfaces and will dissipate out the BC gap.
The very nature of pressured systems is equalization.

Once the bullet stops at the obstruction there are no outside forces on the gas to prevent it from equalizing with atmosphere (the pressure outside the BC Gap).

If you think otherwise were does it go?

__________________
be safe
Ruggy

You may have read me incorrectly...I do believe Pre-War Ks would have been beaten up by those heavy .38-44 loads... I have always said Post-WWII of S&W and Colt were up to it, not pre-war guns... And the Ks were beaten up by full charge .357s, not .38-44 loads... We may be talking about two different things...

Bob

...never cared for them either... Only own one L...686-7 .38 Super.

Not everyone. Love my N frame .357s. Don't care for the looks of L frames or the weight hung in the underbarrel lug instead of in the frame and cyl where it counts.

Yes, he did. I buddy of mine read all his articles, he was a fan. Just so happens he blew up his own .38.

I only tried one of his reloads once. A .35 Remington in a 336. Nothing bad happened but ah, no thanks. I was more into downloading my .44 Magnum loads. And I rolled very soft shooting 148gr. wadcutters for practice.

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 $$.

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.

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

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.