.38 +p vs .38/44 vs .357 mag

[Ky Farmer]

I have a question about the three loads.
I think in ascending power it would be standard.38 special, .38+p, .38/44, then .357mag.
I know .38/44 was the father of .357 and was presumably only safe in n frame, and later magnum revolvers.
But how does it compare to .38+p?
I'm not looking to cook up some hot ammo or anything like that I was just wondering if there was any comparison of the +p to the old heavy load .38/44

 

[kaaskop49]

Without dragging out old tables, I seem to recall that the mfgrs claimed 1090fps for 158gr .38/44 factory ammo. As to comparing it to .38 +P, there have been different "generations" of +P. The LE Handgun Digest of 1977 or so showed 158gr +P LHP loads clocking 1014fps from a 4" Model 10. Latest factory tables have the modern version of this load clocked at appr. 870fps in 4".

I remember these original 158gr LHP .38s. In a 4" K-frame, they were a handful. Today's version in the same gun feels more like the old service loads, much less imposing.

It's hard to really answer your query accurately. Let me stop before my coach turns into a pumpkin.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

 

[alwslate]

The real comparison between 38 spl +P and the 38/44 would be loads
with a 158 gr lead bullet. Published ballistics aside, there is quite a
bit of difference in the actual performance of the two. Velocitys of
factory 158 gr LHP +Ps will be around 900 fps or a bit less out of a 4"
revolver. 38/44 loads with a 158 gr lead bullet would average around
1100 fps out of 5" revolver. Most factory +P loads today are not
particularily hot. I have seen magazine articles on reloading 38 spls
where the author was able to easily beat factory +P chronographed
velocities with handloads that did not exceed standard pressure
limits.

 

[walkin' trails]

Most of the +p+ loads I can think of in .38 Special used lighter bullets, i.e. 110 grain Treasury load. The heaviest bullet weight I've seen in that factory loading was the 147 grain Federal Hydra Shok, which is only clicking around 900-950 fps, from what I've heard. Nevertheless, it didn't seem like it had any more kick than a 158 grain LSWCHP in +p. I've read some hype that the 38/44 was pushing 1200.

 

[OKFC05]

The rise of modern liability concerns coupled with electronic pressure gages, better chronographs, and lifetime warranties on guns has resulted in the reduction of a lot of loads used in "the good old days."

For one thing, the electronic pressure gages showed the copper crusher technique missed the pressure peaks on many loads, and such loads were way over SAAMI standards. Secondly, we learned that many overloads did not produce the fantastic speeds claimed.
And we have become intolerant of the early revolver destruction common when hot overloads were routinely used in revolvers chambered for .38.

The availability of j frame revolvers chambered for .357 has rendered all the .38 overloads obsolete, and the simple solution to "a hotter .38" is to buy a .357 and choose from several available loadings with various MV. In my case, there are small .357 revolvers that stand up to the recoil far better than my hand does.

 

[Ky Farmer]

Thanks,
I'm intrigued by the hot .38's and the development of the .357 mag.
i don't think there is as much writing out there about the .357 magnum development as the .44 magnum, but it seems like an interesting story

 

[Homie]

You might find the book "MAGNUM The S&W .357 Magnum Phenomenon" by Timothy J. Mullin has what you're looking for.

 

[Groo01]

I have a question about the three loads.
I think in ascending power it would be standard.38 special, .38+p, .38/44, then .357mag.
I know .38/44 was the father of .357 and was presumably only safe in n frame, and later magnum revolvers.
But how does it compare to .38+p?
I'm not looking to cook up some hot ammo or anything like that I was just wondering if there was any comparison of the +p to the old heavy load .38/44

Groo here
The 38-44 high speed was used in the N frame [ that is the 44 part]
later S&W proofed All the 38spec guns for this load,even the 5 shot ones
and published same. [better steel I guess]
Remember that most people did not shoot as much as we do now
and light loads for practice was the norm.

 

[DWalt]

See: http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-hand-ejectors-1896-1961/464090-38-44-original-ammo-specs.html

 

[Nevada Ed]

The 38-44 by S&W was from a large frame 44 that started around 1931.

The load was designed around a 38 case but the head stamp was changed to 38-44
for the higher pressure loads that did around 1125 fps with a 6.5" barrel.

In 1935 S&W came out with the .357 Magnum that had a longer case that had even higher fps
and at a much lower price..............The "Outdoorman" was no longer King of the hill.

Most old 38's were on a K frame, while the "Hot" loads were on the heavier frames for the 44 and 357 loads back in the mid 30's. All ammo was good to go with the exception of the "Hi-Vel" ammo that was usually only for the LE people.

Todays 38 special from a 4" does 890 fps but there is data out there that before ammo got rated with PSI and CUP and getting safer to use..........it did around 950 fps.

 

[drummer007]

Depends on the particular 38 Special +P loading.

I would think that the Buffalo Bore 158 gr LSWCHP-GC 38 Special +P is probably the modern day +P equivalent to the old 38/44. In my revolvers, using my chronograph, my results are as follows:

Model 60 2&1/8th" barrel avg. = 1035 ft/sec
Model 66-4 2&1/2" barrel avg. = 1070 ft/sec
Model 66-4 4" barrel avg. = 1155 ft/sec

 

[38SPL HV]

If only Buffalo Bore made a 1,100 FPS load (6 inch) as the standard 38-44, their 158 gr +P is too harsh on my arthritic hands out of a J frame!

 

[Dave Lively]

The rise of modern liability concerns coupled with electronic pressure gages, better chronographs, and lifetime warranties on guns has resulted in the reduction of a lot of loads used in "the good old days."

It wasn't so much better chronographs as more affordable ones that made the difference.

When I first started shooting and reading about guns in the early 80s magnum rifles got a lot of press coverage. When it go to the part of the review where the author chronographed ammo out of a real gun it usually started with "While the manufacturer undoubtedly achieved the listed velocity out of a pressure test barrel in my rifle . . .". And then it went on to list velocities substantially less than advertised.

I am not discounting the other factors you listed. Ammo was loaded hotter in the past, sometimes too hot. But I think companies inflating velocity numbers to sell more ammo and new cartridges was a big part of the problem. With cheap chronographs, YouTube and the rest of the internet they cannot get away with that anymore.

 

[DWalt]

The other MV issue is what gun you fire. There is very little MV consistency among different revolvers using the same ammunition, even those having identical barrel lengths. Most factory MV information is obtained using some lab test barrel, not an actual revolver. One of the older Speer reloading manuals has a fairly detailed discussion about the inconsistency of MVs obtained from different revolvers.

 

[stoneke]

Drummer007's velocities are similar to mine with the Buffalo Bore 158 38 +P.
In 35 degree conditions I chronoed 1057, 1053, 1037 fps with a 3 inch model 65. Recoil was slightly less than the Speer 135 gr .357. I consider the recoil of both above rounds to be manageable in the K frame. Great personal defense rounds.

 

[Texas Star]

Thanks,
I'm intrigued by the hot .38's and the development of the .357 mag.
i don't think there is as much writing out there about the .357 magnum development as the .44 magnum, but it seems like an interesting story

Your first post was correct. But modern Plus P ammo vares in power with the maker and the load.

To get .38-44 class performance in a factory load today, Buffalo Bore lists its Heavy .38 Special Plus P.

 

[boatbum101]

With modern pressure testing many of the old loads that were shot for eons have been deemed unsafe . Lets start with the BB 20A 38 +P I've shot these in 3 different 3" M65's & they're head & shoulder above any +P load from the big 3 . I would not shoot them from a J frame even a 357 . 38/44 loads are all over the place depending on which data you go with . Elmer's original load with his designed 358429 is NUCLEAR & if one insists I'd only shoot it from a 357 Ruger . I do shoot a grain less of the same powder / bullet from my pre 23 ODM & get an honest 1300fps with a 173gr bullet . Now compared to modern 357 loads that's stout . Before it was discontinued I also used SR4756 with the same bullet @ 1200fps also a pretty stout load . I like 12.5grs of 4227 with same bullet & get an honest 1150fps from a 6.5" barrel pre 23 . It's easier on the 65 year old gun & does everything I need with very good accuracy . Modern 357 loads are a shadow of the older ones & then again a load I'd shoot in a Ruger BH I won't shoot in a S&W regardless of frame size . Your guns , your choices .

 

[GoDevil Man]

Drummer007's velocities are similar to mine with the Buffalo Bore 158 38 +P.

In 35 degree conditions I chronoed 1057, 1053, 1037 fps with a 3 inch model 65. Recoil was slightly less than the Speer 135 gr .357. I consider the recoil of both above rounds to be manageable in the K frame. Great personal defense rounds.

I'd agree regarding subjective recoil of BB's FBI +p vs. Winchester silvertip 145gr .357. Out of my 4 inch 65, recoil was very similar. Winchester slightly stronger. Maybe. That Buffalo Bore +p is stout stuff. On the same outing, I let my wife's niece compare the Buffalo Bore FBI versus Remington's version out of her newly purchased trade in model 10. She didn't like Buffalo Bore, so I gave her a cylinder full of Remington's to take home with her for her house gun.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[shouldazagged]

Buffalo Bore's standard pressure .38 158 gr. LSWCHP-GC clocks just about identically to the older Remington +P FBI load I carried for years. Since then the Remington stuff has been loaded lighter, and the chronograph seems to confirm that.

BB tests their ammo in actual revolvers, both 2" and 4" barrels, and their advertised velocities seem to be accurate. I use the standard pressure load in a J-frame, and have loaded it in K-frames as well.

There's a lot of suspicion that their +P rendition is over-pressure by a goodly margin, but they advertise that the standard pressure stuff is safe in any S&W revolver.

 

[6string]

The development of all these cartridges has to be taken into consideration with the propellants contemporaneous to their respective eras.
Handloaders were adopting propellants originally intended for, what we would consider, small capacity varmint cartridges such as the 22 Hornet and 218 Bee.
DuPont had their #80 powder that was soon superceded by the faster SR powders. And, of course, 2400 was the "new kid on the block"....
My point being, these powders had a burning rate and loading density that was unintentionally ideal for load development that led to the emergence of the magnum revolvers.
The development of the 30 Carbine really opened things up, propellant-wise!

Talking about the relative velocities of these historic rounds makes more sense when the propellants are added to the equation.

And, then we have projectiles...
Lead bullet loads are inherently lower pressure than the equivalent jacketed load, all other things being equal.

Lots of fun to think about, and useful stuff for sensible reloaders.

Jim