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

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.

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."

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/4...%20Special.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."

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.

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.

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=75616...fZS5odG0&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.

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

__________________
dd884
JMHO-YMMV

Target loads do not blow up guns. Ever. Stuck bullets and double and triple charges of powder blow up guns.

100 extra FPS loads won’t blow up the gun, they’ll just slowly batter the frame until you have excess end shake and excess head space issues.

There is a nifty diagram online that shows verious chamber pressures created by DEWC when the powder charge is wrong, or the seating depth is wrong.

If i am not mistaken, as i cant find the diagram online right now. If you seat the wadcutter 3/8" below the case mouth with a full case of Bullseye Powder, you are going to hit an destimated 70-80,000 PSI.

That is enough to blow the cylinder and topstrap from a Smith and Wesson X frame revolver. After all, 500 magnum is only 60,000 PSI

Full case and bullseye should never be used in the same sentence.

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.

"À Chacun Son Goût."

Kind Regards,
BrianD

__________________
696-6906-457-38-3913-CS40-411

Please correct me Rosewood or anyone. But when I started getting too hot with my reloads, the first sign in .357 magnum was always slightly flattened primers. No load should ever cause that right? Always back off at the first sign right? Sometimes I got sticky cases. That is a sign too right?

Pardon my ignorance but I only ever use a Lee Loader, the hand loader with the hammer yaknow, and only to reload low pressure practice stuff in 357 and 44 spl.

Kind Regards!
BrianD

__________________
696-6906-457-38-3913-CS40-411

Generally, different brands of primers will behave differently at different pressure. For instance my remington 2 1/2 primers Look scary when used with 6 grains of red dot, but factory fiochi primers from their 1330 fps 240 JHP load look like factory cowboy loads using 240 grain bullets.
All at completely different pressures.

I have owned 2 "blown up" guns The first was a S&W 1917. It was not blown up but had 4 45 cal 230 gr bullets in the bbl. The bbl was split on left side and bent left. Got it at a gun show for 50 bucks. I was going to put it in a shadow box..a fellow came by and offered me 200 bucks for it. Next gun show he had the gun at the show new bbl and according to him shot fine..I would say at least one squib. The 2nd is a 8 inch Nickle Python. I has no top strap...and only 1/2 a cylinder. If it had a topstrap...I could put a bew cyl in and guarantee it would be ok. I got one round out of the 1/2 cyl...pulled the reload apart. It had 10.6 gr of 296 and a 158 gr XTP in it. It actually looks as though it detonated as some said could happen. I was alwas skeptical of the statement. New gun...shot 1 round. The owner said the load was supposed to be a max load of 296...he missed it by about 50%...And as someone stated earlier I too have seen at leas 3 M=10 that had bww rechambered to accept 357s...and been shot fairly extensively. Also saw a Taurus 38 that would shoot 357s...but not by me

Not always, some primers are softer than others, but I can tell you, even factory 357 mag loads and 10mm loads may have flattened primers. That doesn't necessarily mean they are over pressure.

If you ever see flattened primers in a 38 special or 45 acp, you better stop shooting however.

Rosewood

When you see flattened primers, and flow back, it is time ro reexamine your priorities.
😳😳🤔🤔
Best,
Gary

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...

.38 Special Plus P is rated around 18,500 PSI.

.357 Magnum is rated around 35,000 PSI.

It is foolish to think firearms rated to handle .38 Special (even Plus P) will be safe with pressures higher than rated, and it is foolish to suggest that they would be safe at pressures nearly double the manufacturers rating.

OP is not a serious person.

Why load it so hot?
.38 Special in standard and +P loadings is an excellent cartridge in it’s own right.

I quit shooting full-powered.357 handgun loads 40 years ago.
I got tired of the concussive muzzle blast and sharp recoil.
Switched to shooting .44 Special, .45 ACP, and low-end .44 Magnum and have lived happily ever-after. Same or better results on steel knock-downs and critters with less blast, and it matters not if the bullets expand.

Stayed at home last night rather than a room at the Holiday Inn. So ... what I think is qualified by a plebian past uninformed by any real education beyond the School of Hard Knocks. Once upon a time when my life was young, I ventured to handload some rootin tootin homeloads for my six inch 28-2. I took whatever powders/bullets I had and loaded them with some guidance from the reloading manuals. Unfortunately, I fiddled around and found out that routinely exceeding the loading levels of the manual had untoward consequences on my revolver. Suffice it to say there came a day when I found that no matter what I did, my revolver had problems. In ignorance, I believed what I was told, i.e., that the gun was badly worn ... that it would be expensive to repair. Revolver ended up traded off. Looking back, imagine the repairs would not have been quite so expensive. But, I learned a lesson. Still load for my rifles and pistols. Have lots of fun. One day I'll tell you all about matriculating in the course for post-graduate School of Hard Knocks. Course work was with a M-70 Winchester ... caliber .243. Sincerely. bruce.

__________________
<><

My 38/44 was bored to .357 when I got. So that's what I've shot in it for years.........On the 38 spl's made today you'd be better of with staying with what it's chambered for. Iffen you like your eyes and fingers.

__________________
S&W Accumulator

Id LOVE to see how an open top colt in 38 special would react to a genuine Elmer Kieth loading in 38 special?

I hope you aren't reloading. If you are, you shouldn't be.

__________________
That's just somebody talkin.

But would you have the nerve to use your hand to do it? Larry

But our dear original poster seems to think it would be safe to do. Its only a 38 special afterall..

No, that's not remotely what he said.

In a nutshell, he said higher pressures should be OK in a modern revolver. And he's probably right. Just because I, and evidently a lot of other people don't care to do it, doesn't make him wrong.

I don't understand why this has caused 4 pages of contentiousness.

__________________
Just Say No - To Social Media

Perhaps because he said this, as in a direct quote.

"With the better metallurgy in pistols today, why can't you do the Elmer Keith and load the 38 to 357 velocities" He came to this question after looking at a picture of the revolver in a magazine.

Now lets see here. The only way to load a 38 special to 357 mag velocities with most bullets is to load a 38 special ABOVE 357 mag pressures.

Then later on he said this in reference to others.

"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."

Perhaps his posting style invites some contentiousness?

Why would it? He posed a question.

So, split hairs over "to 357 velocities", maybe "near", maybe less powder in a smaller case will develop pressures and velocities near what he's talking about? I don't know.

But I do know that becoming condescending and nasty is entirely optional. It's maybe not a bad conversation to have. Seems to be plenty of evidence that a fair number of modern 38 SPL revolvers will handle .357 pressures.

Maybe we all need a new revolver chambered in 38 Special Super Max? More useless things have been foisted on the public.

__________________
Just Say No - To Social Media

Just WOW, didn't think this would be such a hot topic. Seems to be very polarizing. Seems like most missed the reason the thread was started. It wasn't to blow up a 38. I guess most people aren't fans of Keith either.

Life goes on, and so do the complainers.

What, you thought that posting "hey, why cant we increase the chamber pressure on home made 38 special ammunition because the newer guns LOOK beefier then in days past"

NO one can figure out what the "purpose" was.. If a 38 special doesnt create enough "power" you have two options..

1. purchase a 357 magnum or larger caliber
2. use a longer barrel.
Alot of the 38+p, and even some select non +p ammo, in 4" barrels is hitting/breaking the snub nose/2" barrel velocity, expansion, penetration results in gelatin testing. For 110-135 grain jhp.

And consider this small bit of wisdom.

If you are not happy with how any given cartridge performs for your own personal needs, wither it be target shooting, hunting, or for defense against your favorite bogey man, YOU need to find one that will do what you wish it to do.

when i was 6 or 7 I got to meet a guy who had purchased a ruger revolver in 454 casull. He had had to purchase the revolver because he had managed to destroy the cylinder on a smith wesson 44 magnum revolver. But when I met him, he had a nice shiney artificial hook hand, because he decided to do "my own reloads" with the 454.

Yeah, he managed to blow a ruger in 454 casull. That, according to the internet, takes either sheer skill in ballistics, or sheer stupidity of the sort that should not reproduce.

Good thing Elmer Keith didn't have the internet, he would have never experimented with his load development because of all of the naysayers. And we would have never gotten the .357 mag.

Rosewood

At this point I am not sure what I can say to try and clarify my original point. Everyone is caught up in either trying to chastise me for being reckless with reloading or they are of the same mind with loading hotter.

You are overthinking my original point and I am not sure there is anyway to expand on what I was trying to say to make the doomsayers understand. Please, powers that be, just shut this thread down. It went off the rails several pages ago. It is not worth continuing down this rabbit hole when all people want to do is criticize when they don't understand the original point.

Okay, don't close it yet. Thank you Alk8944. He linked to an article that I feel is apropos (going down the French road again).

All About The .38 Special +P and .38 Special +P+ – RevolverGuy.Com

Kinda looks like I wasn't the first one to think about loading the 38 hotter. Things that make you go hhhhmmmmmmmmm.

Access Denied

Access Denied

Two modern redesigned revolvers, latest metallurgy and heat treating, yet your supporters would refuse to use an elmer loaded 38/44 cartridge in them because "they arent strong enough".

If you read the attached article link, youd see that the gun industry already specificied the use of "+p+" ammunition in the 38 special revolver, essentially ONLY in a gun that left the factory as 357, and not a k frame.

The proof pressure MAP specified by SAAMI is 29,500 psi for both rounds. 38 special and 38 special +p.

Last night I saw an article on this, and the 1960s-1970s 38 special proof charge was 28,000 CUP


guy named larry on the sight that cant spell bullet, converted a 357 Maximum contender barrel to be a pressure test barrel. He tests alot of ammunition for people, both load data they submit from old manuals and factory ammunition they send.

Oddly, the original factory 38/44 ammunition and load data has reached 25,000 PSI with routine ease.

The Buffalo bore ammunition he has tested, in his posts, ranged from 25,000 to 29,000 PSI.

You heralded the Taurus revolver for great strength in a 38 special, "nearly like a magnum". Well if you read the user manual for it, they do allow the use of +p in it, but they warn against the use of +p+, and they also warn against the use of +p for regular use, and state NOT to use +p for target practice in any Taurus revolver as well.

10-12 years ago, they used to include a nifty list of bullet weight and muzzle velocity by caliber. The 38 specials maxed out at 158 grains at 900 fps.

357 maxed out at 158 grains at 1150 fps.

The only company i know of that still lists 38 special only is Armscor, and they also lists bullet weight and velocity guideline as well. They also only want you to use Armscor ammunition as well for "safety"

Thom 44, why am I not surprised. Still missing my point. Oh well, I tried.

Lol you dont have a point other then "Hey, i bought a 38 special, how do i make it more powerful"

Your riding the other end of the curve of the dudes on multiple forums who mock, deride, insult, and harress people who purchase, say a 454 casull, and ask how to make softer recoiling ammunition for it

Wrong and wrong. That wasn't my point and my attached article made my point better than I could but, no matter what I do, you are either failing to get the point of the original post or you just want to ride me as being some kind of a reckless fool that just comes here to start #$^*. This is furthest from the truth.

(Taking a deep breath)I will try one more time. I read the article in the NRA mag that was talking about a new 38 Special. Seeing that gun manufactures are still making the 38, and presuming that they are making them better than older versions, I felt that you could reasonably make the 38 reloads more powerful just as Keith did. The article backed me up on that regard. There are ammo manufactures out there that are already making +P and +P+ ammo for the 38. Since this is the reloading area of this forum I kinda figured it would be appropriate to bring up this subject here. Obviously people still want the 38 Special so why not boost up the ammo you reload.

You would have thought that I was criticizing the bible or the government or something like that. I thought I was making an astute observation but, I guess to you and others thought I was making a foolish observation. At this point I guess that making a horse drink might be an easier task so I give up. You and the others that think I am being reckless will believe what you want. Good on ya. At this point I am done hitting my head against this wall.

the issue that is most apparent is that you admit you were PRESUMING that the new revolvers are built to a higher standard in strength than before. That is not the case at all. They are built to meet the needs of the idea/design.

Simply reading the user manual would have shown that the new guns, are not that strong and durable as we would liek to think. I am reminded of an old thread on a forum, either cast bullets or thefiringline. A guy had issues with a jframe in 357 magnum. He ended up being told by sw customer support that
The jframe in 357 magnum is only expected to last 3,000 rounds of 357 magnum ammunition, OR 5,000 rounds of 38 special / +p before the frame has stretched to the point the gun cannot be repaired. Bear in mind this is on a gun from a company with a blanket warranty of "50 years, or 50,000 rounds at 1,000 rounds per year"

Thanks Cliff

Opinions expressed and noted. Thread closed.

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220