duckloads
Member
I'm looking for data, if available, for .38 spl +P. I'd like to use 2400 powder and 158gr LSWC hardcast.
Thanks
Thanks
2400, 158 gr LSWC hardcast in .38 +P
- Thread starter duckloads
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
The old Speer #8 shows a starting load of 10 grains giving 1044 fps from a 6" K-38 (M-14), and 11 grains as giving1155 fps with their swaged 158 grain swc.
They show that as being acheived using CCI 550 primers, but Alliant doesn't recommend them with 2400 in any load. I never use magnum primers with 2400, and I have had excellent results and very consistant SD's and velocity YMMV
They show that as being acheived using CCI 550 primers, but Alliant doesn't recommend them with 2400 in any load. I never use magnum primers with 2400, and I have had excellent results and very consistant SD's and velocity YMMV
45th edition of the Lyman Handbook lists starting load of 8.0 grains for 690 fps, max is 11.0 grains for 1010 fps. Primer is Remington 1 1/2; gun is 6" Model 14.
I haven't used it in a while myself, but do recall that it burns better with a good firm crimp.
Different guns, as usual, will give different velocities; without a chronograph, it is hard to tell just what you are getting. My eyes were certainly opened with one.
I haven't used it in a while myself, but do recall that it burns better with a good firm crimp.
Different guns, as usual, will give different velocities; without a chronograph, it is hard to tell just what you are getting. My eyes were certainly opened with one.
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
Duck,
What are you going to be shooting them out of? I wouldn't suggest using any Speer #8 loads in anything that wasn't specifically rated for +P or in a 357Mag revolver, preferably an "L" or "N" frame.
That's just me though.
It would depend on the bullet too. Skeeter had a load, Elmer had a load. While similar, the bullets varied quite a bit.
Here is a picture of the Keith loads:
(Use at your own risk)
If you are looking for current data for that combination, I'm not sure it exists. Older data, yes, newer data, no.
Hope this helps!
What are you going to be shooting them out of? I wouldn't suggest using any Speer #8 loads in anything that wasn't specifically rated for +P or in a 357Mag revolver, preferably an "L" or "N" frame.
That's just me though.
It would depend on the bullet too. Skeeter had a load, Elmer had a load. While similar, the bullets varied quite a bit.
Here is a picture of the Keith loads:
(Use at your own risk)
If you are looking for current data for that combination, I'm not sure it exists. Older data, yes, newer data, no.
Hope this helps!
I cross referrenced the loads I listed above with my Hodgdon #26 manual, and they show 9.9 (vs the 10 grain starting load above) grains of 2400 under a 158 JHP as being a max load @ 19,800 psi. That is listed in their +P load section.
Since lead slides down the bore a lot easier than jacketed, pressures will be less with an equal charge weight under lead. Following that logic, the loads in the Speer #8 should be pretty close pressure wise to those listed in the #26. Most of the cast lead bullets available commercially in 158 gr weight, have a base to crimp groove that is fairly close to a normal jacketed bullet. You would be wise though, to start a couple grains low, and work up in your gun.
Any gun that is rated for +P loads by the manufacturer should be safe with these loads. The model 15 and the K-38 (M-14) are both rated by S&W for +P loads.
Since lead slides down the bore a lot easier than jacketed, pressures will be less with an equal charge weight under lead. Following that logic, the loads in the Speer #8 should be pretty close pressure wise to those listed in the #26. Most of the cast lead bullets available commercially in 158 gr weight, have a base to crimp groove that is fairly close to a normal jacketed bullet. You would be wise though, to start a couple grains low, and work up in your gun.
Any gun that is rated for +P loads by the manufacturer should be safe with these loads. The model 15 and the K-38 (M-14) are both rated by S&W for +P loads.
Last edited:
Lyman's 48th edition gave 8.4gr of 2400 as a starting load for a 158gr jacketed HP in .38 cases. Unfortunately I tried it about ten years ago and promptly stuck a bullet in the barrel of a model 14. I will not use the slow powders in anything but magnum loads.
Aliant and Hercules before them, do not give data for 2400 using magnum primers but I consistently use magnum primers with near minimum loads after that experience.
Just yesterday I chronographed a medium .44 mag load with 22.5 gr of IMR 4227 with both Win. LG pistol primers and CCI Mag primers. The mag primers gave 15 FPS greater velocity. 1152 fps w/wlp and 1167FPS w/CCI Mag primers.
Aliant and Hercules before them, do not give data for 2400 using magnum primers but I consistently use magnum primers with near minimum loads after that experience.
Just yesterday I chronographed a medium .44 mag load with 22.5 gr of IMR 4227 with both Win. LG pistol primers and CCI Mag primers. The mag primers gave 15 FPS greater velocity. 1152 fps w/wlp and 1167FPS w/CCI Mag primers.
Vulcan Bob
Member
I've had good results with 9.0 grains of 2400, WSP primer under a hard cast 158 SWC. I use a heavy roll crimp with any 2400 load.
Farmboy
Member
2400 loads
I have over the last week or so set out to duplicate the old 38/44 load of 158 gr at 1150 fps. 45 years ago as a young man I routinely loaded 13 gr of 2400 with 168 Elmer bullets. They always worked good and did not show pressure signs. Having no chronograph I have no idea how fast they were. But just today I loaded some 158s with 12 grains and they went almost 1300 over my chronograph. I backed down to 11.5 and got an average of 1164, velocity spread of less than 20 fps and not much sign of pressure. Since this is much less powder than I used in the past, I can only conclude that 2400 has changed over the last 40 years or so. I was using Aliant powder, shooting a Mod. 28 6 inch.
BR
I have over the last week or so set out to duplicate the old 38/44 load of 158 gr at 1150 fps. 45 years ago as a young man I routinely loaded 13 gr of 2400 with 168 Elmer bullets. They always worked good and did not show pressure signs. Having no chronograph I have no idea how fast they were. But just today I loaded some 158s with 12 grains and they went almost 1300 over my chronograph. I backed down to 11.5 and got an average of 1164, velocity spread of less than 20 fps and not much sign of pressure. Since this is much less powder than I used in the past, I can only conclude that 2400 has changed over the last 40 years or so. I was using Aliant powder, shooting a Mod. 28 6 inch.
BR
Jack Flash
Member
I would be very leery about using data from that Keith article posted above. You will note that Mr. Keith states specifically what type of revolver to use each load in... His .38 Special load using 2400 is NOT recommended for a K-Frame such as your M15.
Those loads are from a more free-wheeling, less litigious era. Mr. Keith could publish a hot load and then specify that it should only be fired in an N-Frame. If some fool shot it in grandpa's old turn-of-the-century suicide special, whatever injuries he suffered would be considered to be the price of stupidity. Nowdays, he would sue the magazine and probably win a fortune.
Edited to add:
Please note that I am not advising anyone to shoot Keith's 2400/.38 Special loads in an N-Frame either. I haven't tested that load and have no intention of doing so. If I want to use 2400 in an N-Frame, it will be in a .357 Magnum cartridge, and then only with loads published in modern manuals. As someone else said, the formulation of 2400 has no doubt changed over the last 40-odd years since that article appeared. Not to mention that Keith was noted for pushing the pressure/safety envelope...
Those loads are from a more free-wheeling, less litigious era. Mr. Keith could publish a hot load and then specify that it should only be fired in an N-Frame. If some fool shot it in grandpa's old turn-of-the-century suicide special, whatever injuries he suffered would be considered to be the price of stupidity. Nowdays, he would sue the magazine and probably win a fortune.
Edited to add:
Please note that I am not advising anyone to shoot Keith's 2400/.38 Special loads in an N-Frame either. I haven't tested that load and have no intention of doing so. If I want to use 2400 in an N-Frame, it will be in a .357 Magnum cartridge, and then only with loads published in modern manuals. As someone else said, the formulation of 2400 has no doubt changed over the last 40-odd years since that article appeared. Not to mention that Keith was noted for pushing the pressure/safety envelope...
Last edited:
ArchAngelCD
Moderator, SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
Since you are using the ammo in a snub nose revolver you might want to use a faster powder to get the most out of the load. I prefer using a medium burn powder when loading .38 Special +P ammo. (like HS-6)
As you have notice Alliant also feels a faster powder would be better because they don't list 2400 for the .38 Special +P.The current Lyman manual #49 lists a charge of 8.8gr 2400 with a 155gr LSWC bullet. My older Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook from 1980 doesn't list 2400 for the .38 Special at all. That has to tell you something since that book has a lot of different powders listed that are no longer listed because it's dedicated to cast bullet loading.
The 1980 Lyman Cast Bullet book lists with a 158gr LSWC in +P pressures:
4.4gr Bullseye
5.4gr Unique
5.0gr W231
4.5gr HP-38 (I'm guessing the difference in W231 and HP-38 is before they were both made in the same plant)
The current Lyman #49 lists with a 155gr LSWC (OAL = 1.460") in +P pressures:
4.4gr Bullseye
5.1gr Unique
5.0gr W231
5.1gr Universal
8.8gr 2400
The current Lyman #49 lists with a 160gr LRN (OAL= 1.550") in +P pressures:
4.1gr Bullseye
5.3gr Unique
5.2gr W231
Lyman #49 doesn't list +P loads with a 158gr LSWC for some reason, only for the 155gr and 160gr bullets listed above. I have an HS-6 load that will do just under 900 fps from a 2" barrel but I'm not sure it conforms to current SAAMI limitations for the .38 Special +P so I won't post the charge here. (but it can be done and done very will)
As you have notice Alliant also feels a faster powder would be better because they don't list 2400 for the .38 Special +P.The current Lyman manual #49 lists a charge of 8.8gr 2400 with a 155gr LSWC bullet. My older Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook from 1980 doesn't list 2400 for the .38 Special at all. That has to tell you something since that book has a lot of different powders listed that are no longer listed because it's dedicated to cast bullet loading.
The 1980 Lyman Cast Bullet book lists with a 158gr LSWC in +P pressures:
4.4gr Bullseye
5.4gr Unique
5.0gr W231
4.5gr HP-38 (I'm guessing the difference in W231 and HP-38 is before they were both made in the same plant)
The current Lyman #49 lists with a 155gr LSWC (OAL = 1.460") in +P pressures:
4.4gr Bullseye
5.1gr Unique
5.0gr W231
5.1gr Universal
8.8gr 2400
The current Lyman #49 lists with a 160gr LRN (OAL= 1.550") in +P pressures:
4.1gr Bullseye
5.3gr Unique
5.2gr W231
Lyman #49 doesn't list +P loads with a 158gr LSWC for some reason, only for the 155gr and 160gr bullets listed above. I have an HS-6 load that will do just under 900 fps from a 2" barrel but I'm not sure it conforms to current SAAMI limitations for the .38 Special +P so I won't post the charge here. (but it can be done and done very will)
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
Think about it!
Jack,
You mention the litigious society we live in, and no truer words are spoken. One thing about that though when dealing with the "changes" to powders over time.
Imagine the litigation frenzy that would take place if Alliant did make 2400 faster, ON PURPOSE. Think about this, a faster powder causes what when you use too much of it? MUCH MORE PRESSURE WITH LESS OF AN INCREASE OF POWDER. A little bit changes things a whole bunch. Imagine them doing that on purpose when Elmer's loads are still out there!
Now this is just my opinion but, I don't think there is much difference in the old to new 2400. Nothing more than lot difference of any given powder today. Here is the difference, tools. As mentioned above, Farmboy only knew there was a problem because he had a chronograph, something not available to most folks back in the day. Since there was no indication by primers or extraction, everything was good. Or so they thought.
Did anyone ever stop to think that folks used to just shoot those loads and never check them across a chronograph? It happened, and it happened to Elmer and Skeeter and ........ because the tools weren't so readily available.
We are blessed with tools today. That doesn't mean that the lot to lot differences didn't occur then, just that they went undetected by the average reloader.
Well, that's my opinion on the subject and if you take that and $5 to Starbucks you can get a real nice cup of coffee!
Safest way to be is just like always, work your loads up when ever you change a component, period!
Jack,
You mention the litigious society we live in, and no truer words are spoken. One thing about that though when dealing with the "changes" to powders over time.
Imagine the litigation frenzy that would take place if Alliant did make 2400 faster, ON PURPOSE. Think about this, a faster powder causes what when you use too much of it? MUCH MORE PRESSURE WITH LESS OF AN INCREASE OF POWDER. A little bit changes things a whole bunch. Imagine them doing that on purpose when Elmer's loads are still out there!
Now this is just my opinion but, I don't think there is much difference in the old to new 2400. Nothing more than lot difference of any given powder today. Here is the difference, tools. As mentioned above, Farmboy only knew there was a problem because he had a chronograph, something not available to most folks back in the day. Since there was no indication by primers or extraction, everything was good. Or so they thought.
Did anyone ever stop to think that folks used to just shoot those loads and never check them across a chronograph? It happened, and it happened to Elmer and Skeeter and ........ because the tools weren't so readily available.
We are blessed with tools today. That doesn't mean that the lot to lot differences didn't occur then, just that they went undetected by the average reloader.
Well, that's my opinion on the subject and if you take that and $5 to Starbucks you can get a real nice cup of coffee!
Safest way to be is just like always, work your loads up when ever you change a component, period!
WARNING: This post includes loading data beyond currently published maximums for this cartridge. The data presented is for informational purposes only and a recommendation for its use is neither expressed nor implied.
For what its worth, I obtained 1150 Fps using 11.3 grains of A2400, 38 Special military cases, standard WW primer out of a S&W 38-44 HD (4" N Frame). Additionally, 13.0 of the same powder clocked out at 1250 +/- using 357 Magnum brass out of a M65 (4"). Both using #Lyman #358429, 168 to 171 grains depending on how hard they were cast.
I've been using these loads since the early 70's (back then it was H2400) whenever I get a chance to do some long range pistol shooting at 50 plus yards. BTW, the the 11.3 g load out of the 38-44 HD groups 10 shots in 3.5" at 52 yards off a sand bag (s) rest. Not bad for a guy my age (60+).
This is the most accurate load I have found in over 40 years of hand loading 38-44 intensity loads. Clean burning and efficient, however, be advised that I use a turned down expanding button to ensure "high bullet pull" along with a heavy roll crimp to increase the powder burn efficiency. Also, projectiles are sized to .001 over cylinder mouth diameters.
Now if I could only find a source for the Keith hollow base version of this projectile!!!!!
For what its worth, I obtained 1150 Fps using 11.3 grains of A2400, 38 Special military cases, standard WW primer out of a S&W 38-44 HD (4" N Frame). Additionally, 13.0 of the same powder clocked out at 1250 +/- using 357 Magnum brass out of a M65 (4"). Both using #Lyman #358429, 168 to 171 grains depending on how hard they were cast.
I've been using these loads since the early 70's (back then it was H2400) whenever I get a chance to do some long range pistol shooting at 50 plus yards. BTW, the the 11.3 g load out of the 38-44 HD groups 10 shots in 3.5" at 52 yards off a sand bag (s) rest. Not bad for a guy my age (60+).
This is the most accurate load I have found in over 40 years of hand loading 38-44 intensity loads. Clean burning and efficient, however, be advised that I use a turned down expanding button to ensure "high bullet pull" along with a heavy roll crimp to increase the powder burn efficiency. Also, projectiles are sized to .001 over cylinder mouth diameters.
Now if I could only find a source for the Keith hollow base version of this projectile!!!!!
Farmboy
Member
Keith bullets
Bucky2
I have a mold for the hollow point version and used that a bunch 40 years ago. Haven't used it since but I did look at it the other day. Thinking when I get the good 38/44 duplicate load I'll drag it back out. Very, very accurate bullet.
BR
Bucky2
I have a mold for the hollow point version and used that a bunch 40 years ago. Haven't used it since but I did look at it the other day. Thinking when I get the good 38/44 duplicate load I'll drag it back out. Very, very accurate bullet.
BR
Anyone tried 158gr swc over 11grs 2400 in a 4in k-frame? velocity? THANX
David Sinko
Member
I just bought a nice 4" Model 64-5 so I'll chrono this combination, but not until the weather gets better. I know I was bitterly disappointed by the velocity (or lack of it) that I was getting in 2" barrels with 2400. In my experience SR 4756 is a far better choice in the shorter barrels.
Dave Sinko
Dave Sinko
My Speer #11 shows 10gr of 2400 as a max charge with a 158gr jacketed bullet. The newest Sierra shows 10.3gr of 2400 as max with a 158gr jacketed bullet.
Archangel my Lyman pistol and revolver manual 3rd edition I bought last year shows 5.4gr of Unique with the 358156 (155gr) bullet. That is a max +P charge. The max charge for the 358311 which is the 160gr RN is 5.3gr of Unique. I think that the reason that Lyman don't show data for a 158gr LSWC is because the 358156 could easily weigh 158gr. It just depends on what the individual caster uses for their bullet alloy. Lyman lists the 358665 RNFP bullet as being 158gr. However the ones that I've come across usually weigh in at 165gr.
Archangel my Lyman pistol and revolver manual 3rd edition I bought last year shows 5.4gr of Unique with the 358156 (155gr) bullet. That is a max +P charge. The max charge for the 358311 which is the 160gr RN is 5.3gr of Unique. I think that the reason that Lyman don't show data for a 158gr LSWC is because the 358156 could easily weigh 158gr. It just depends on what the individual caster uses for their bullet alloy. Lyman lists the 358665 RNFP bullet as being 158gr. However the ones that I've come across usually weigh in at 165gr.
grendelbane
Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 81
- Reaction score
- 8
I don't believe that 2400 has changed at all. I do believe that cases are thicker today, and that primers may be a tad bit hotter.
I do know that the old Keith .38/44 load is extremely hot in my model 27, I believe for the reasons mentioned above.
I strongly urge you not to duplicate the old loads with new cases and primers. If you do, work up very slowly indeed.
I now only load the max .38+p charge that Alliant recommends in .38 spl cases. I Haven't been able to chronograph it, but it seems to be decent velocity wise, (+p type velocity, not magnum), and it flashes enough to make you think that you are shooting some thing with some power. It is also supposed to be within .38+p pressures.
I do know that the old Keith .38/44 load is extremely hot in my model 27, I believe for the reasons mentioned above.
I strongly urge you not to duplicate the old loads with new cases and primers. If you do, work up very slowly indeed.
I now only load the max .38+p charge that Alliant recommends in .38 spl cases. I Haven't been able to chronograph it, but it seems to be decent velocity wise, (+p type velocity, not magnum), and it flashes enough to make you think that you are shooting some thing with some power. It is also supposed to be within .38+p pressures.
LouisianaJoe
Member
When you try your loads out of the snubby. Fire some at night to see how much powder you are burning outside of the barrel.
I would not shoot max loads in any K-frame, especially a .38.
As I get older, I try to get the best accuracy, not the fastest load.
My preference in a .38 load is 2.7gr Bullseye and a 148gr wadcutter.
I even shoot lighter loads in my 8 3/8" 27. I get best accuracy with 8.4gr Unique and a 125gr JHP. The Sierra book says that this is 1300fps out of a 6" Trooper. I have shot 2" groups at 50 yds from a rest with this load with the 27.
I would not shoot max loads in any K-frame, especially a .38.
As I get older, I try to get the best accuracy, not the fastest load.
My preference in a .38 load is 2.7gr Bullseye and a 148gr wadcutter.
I even shoot lighter loads in my 8 3/8" 27. I get best accuracy with 8.4gr Unique and a 125gr JHP. The Sierra book says that this is 1300fps out of a 6" Trooper. I have shot 2" groups at 50 yds from a rest with this load with the 27.
