larryofcc
Member
My 1966 vintage Python does not like 38 Specials. Off a bag rest at 25 yards it was all over the place, but with handloaded 357's it shot 10 in the 10 ring. Don't ask me why. Big Larry
.38 SPECIALS IN 357 MAGNUMS?
- Thread starter rct269
- Start date
That is what I would like to know.
Does it go from a one inch group to a five inch group? Are we talking fractions? hundredths?
What is the real measured change?
I have a feeling the change would be measured in hundredths of an inch. A revolver bullet has to jump the barrel/cylinder gap, smack into the forcing cone, travel down the barrel and then cleanly exit the muzzle. The extra 1/8" jump from a .38 Special case isn't as big a jump as when the bullet leaves the cylinder and enters the forcing cone. The rear of the bullet will still be inside the case while the front of the bullet is contacting the throat. The bullet can't get too cock-eyed.
Now if we're talking about shooting .45 Colt in a .460 S&W chamber or .32 Short or Long in a .327 Magnum chamber I could see a valid argument. There will be a span where the bullet has left the case, is flying through the cylinder, and not in contact with anything. When the bullet hits the throat it will be re-aligned. If shooting .38 Special in a .357 Maximum cylinder you'd run into this problem also. Unlike these cartridges .38 Special and .357 the cases are very close to the same length.
I can't imagine it making a perceptible difference, yet I have seen this argument before. I'd like to see those that proffer this argument provide some data on it.
OP
The distance a bullet has to move before encountering the barrel (of a revolver) is just step one. Step two is the difference in the bullet's speed between traveling a short distance and a longer distance. What's the difference? I don't know either, I only know the further it travels, the faster it's going---and the faster it's going the further it travels in the barrel---skidding and sliding and becoming deformed BEFORE the rifling gets a hold of it. Skidding and sliding and becoming deformed is not good.
S&W (and a host of others) found this out a looooooooooong time ago. S&W's response can be found in their 3rd Model Single Shot----the so-called Olympic Model where when the cartridge is seated, the bullet is IN the rifling. So how much difference does that make? That's one I can answer. I tested three 3rd Model Single Shots from my collection, an early Olympic Model, a later Olympic model (with a .025" longer throat-----more like LESS of a negative throat)-----which was easier to load, but still had the bullet in the rifling----this in response to complaints about the difficulty of seating the cartridges-----from those who didn't realize when they were well off----and a standard Model. Just to enhance understanding a bit, I choose to define the "chamber" as the space occupied by the cartridge case----the throat being the space occupied by the bullet (in a typical cartridge) which protrudes from the case--------and all the space in front of the bullet before the barrel entry. I choose to pretty much ignore the space between the cylinder and the barrel because it doesn't amount to much---and it's a necessary evil.
My machine rest was long gone by then, so I was obliged to improvise as best I could. The test was conducted by firing 25 rounds at 25 yards from each pistol----seated, two hand hold, with a rest. The results: Both Olympic Models put all 25 rounds into the X ring-----dead center. The standard model did all 10 ring---with several in the X ring by happenstance.
As an aside, these pistols came into production in 1909------suggesting all this is old news.
And speaking of throat length and its associated evils, I did another test with a Ruger Old Army (cap & ball). Load #1 was 20 grains of powder, an Uncle Mike's Hot Shot Lubed Wad, and a Speer .457" round ball. That load seated DEEP within the cylinder, and produced a rather disappointing group of about 4" at 25 yards. The next load was the same, except for about 20 grains of cornmeal under the bullet to act as a spacer. That load seated flush with the face of the cylinder. That load put all six rounds into the X ring---all fit under a quarter actually. Subsequent loads with 15, 10, and 5 grains of cornmeal produced increasing groups sizes in an almost linear fashion. I was a believer!!----and decided the only difference was the speed of the bullet when it entered the barrel. The faster it was moving, the further it skidded and slid and became deformed BEFORE the rifling got a hold of it.
Ralph Tremaine
As another aside, in the latter years of my Bullseye competition, I began to get my clock cleaned in centerfire by some friends and colleagues I used to defeat on a regular basis. They had new guns---not new really, just worked over (BIG TIME!!) by some very hip dudes who shortened the cylinders to the length of a .38 Special Wadcutter, installed custom barrels which were set back in the frame to reach the cylinder face--------the result being the bullet came out of the case, and was INSTANTLY into the barrel----as in ZERO THROAT. And that was old news too. The New Model #3 Target (a top break revolver) in 38-44 S&W caliber) fired cartridges the same length as the cylinder, (1 7/16"), with the bullet seated at/slightly below the case mouth. Once fired, the bullet entered the barrel IMMEDIATELY upon leaving the case----as in ZERO THROAT. You want to talk about old news, that revolver came to be in 1887----and tales be told, I'm told that combination set records yet to be broken. (I don't know the truth of that tale, but I'm not inclined to doubt it.)
S&W (and a host of others) found this out a looooooooooong time ago. S&W's response can be found in their 3rd Model Single Shot----the so-called Olympic Model where when the cartridge is seated, the bullet is IN the rifling. So how much difference does that make? That's one I can answer. I tested three 3rd Model Single Shots from my collection, an early Olympic Model, a later Olympic model (with a .025" longer throat-----more like LESS of a negative throat)-----which was easier to load, but still had the bullet in the rifling----this in response to complaints about the difficulty of seating the cartridges-----from those who didn't realize when they were well off----and a standard Model. Just to enhance understanding a bit, I choose to define the "chamber" as the space occupied by the cartridge case----the throat being the space occupied by the bullet (in a typical cartridge) which protrudes from the case--------and all the space in front of the bullet before the barrel entry. I choose to pretty much ignore the space between the cylinder and the barrel because it doesn't amount to much---and it's a necessary evil.
My machine rest was long gone by then, so I was obliged to improvise as best I could. The test was conducted by firing 25 rounds at 25 yards from each pistol----seated, two hand hold, with a rest. The results: Both Olympic Models put all 25 rounds into the X ring-----dead center. The standard model did all 10 ring---with several in the X ring by happenstance.
As an aside, these pistols came into production in 1909------suggesting all this is old news.
And speaking of throat length and its associated evils, I did another test with a Ruger Old Army (cap & ball). Load #1 was 20 grains of powder, an Uncle Mike's Hot Shot Lubed Wad, and a Speer .457" round ball. That load seated DEEP within the cylinder, and produced a rather disappointing group of about 4" at 25 yards. The next load was the same, except for about 20 grains of cornmeal under the bullet to act as a spacer. That load seated flush with the face of the cylinder. That load put all six rounds into the X ring---all fit under a quarter actually. Subsequent loads with 15, 10, and 5 grains of cornmeal produced increasing groups sizes in an almost linear fashion. I was a believer!!----and decided the only difference was the speed of the bullet when it entered the barrel. The faster it was moving, the further it skidded and slid and became deformed BEFORE the rifling got a hold of it.
Ralph Tremaine
As another aside, in the latter years of my Bullseye competition, I began to get my clock cleaned in centerfire by some friends and colleagues I used to defeat on a regular basis. They had new guns---not new really, just worked over (BIG TIME!!) by some very hip dudes who shortened the cylinders to the length of a .38 Special Wadcutter, installed custom barrels which were set back in the frame to reach the cylinder face--------the result being the bullet came out of the case, and was INSTANTLY into the barrel----as in ZERO THROAT. And that was old news too. The New Model #3 Target (a top break revolver) in 38-44 S&W caliber) fired cartridges the same length as the cylinder, (1 7/16"), with the bullet seated at/slightly below the case mouth. Once fired, the bullet entered the barrel IMMEDIATELY upon leaving the case----as in ZERO THROAT. You want to talk about old news, that revolver came to be in 1887----and tales be told, I'm told that combination set records yet to be broken. (I don't know the truth of that tale, but I'm not inclined to doubt it.)
Last edited:
Wombat1954
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2022
- Messages
- 18
- Reaction score
- 9
I must admit, I am a "horses for courses" kind of person. I only use 357 cases in my Model 27, no 38 loads. They go into my Model 10 (of course).
Ingramite
Member
This has been a great discussion, thanks for posting up.
DWalt
Member
There is little benefit in pursuing this topic any further absent carefully designed and controlled tests and rigorous statistical analysis. There are far too many variables to account for simplistically.
Last edited:
T. McIntyre
Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2004
- Messages
- 300
- Reaction score
- 913
The whole "you can't get accuracy with shorter cartridges" is nonsense.
I have heard this over and over.
I have been told "You can't do that" when I told people I was shooting .38 Short Colts in .357. and .38 Special revolvers.
Was told "It will foul up the guns" "it will cause the sky to fall".
Been told the same thing about .44 Russian ammo in .44 Magnum guns.
This is in spite of the fact that the single most accurate .44 caliber load I have is a .44 Russian load using a 175 grain full wadcutter that shoots one ragged hole at 25 yards:
I guess someone forgot to tell this little Combat Masterpiece that you cant shoot .38 Short Colts accurately through it.
Stubby little things seem to work just fine and are great in J Frames too!
Bottom line is that the whole short cartridges/longer cylinders will not shoot accurately stuff is not based in any fact and is just something that gets repeated by people.
I have heard this over and over.
I have been told "You can't do that" when I told people I was shooting .38 Short Colts in .357. and .38 Special revolvers.
Was told "It will foul up the guns" "it will cause the sky to fall".
Been told the same thing about .44 Russian ammo in .44 Magnum guns.
This is in spite of the fact that the single most accurate .44 caliber load I have is a .44 Russian load using a 175 grain full wadcutter that shoots one ragged hole at 25 yards:
I guess someone forgot to tell this little Combat Masterpiece that you cant shoot .38 Short Colts accurately through it.
Stubby little things seem to work just fine and are great in J Frames too!
Bottom line is that the whole short cartridges/longer cylinders will not shoot accurately stuff is not based in any fact and is just something that gets repeated by people.
OP
Yeah, I can see where that which has been accepted by ballisticians worldwide for the past 135 years or more is in need of more work.
Ralph Tremaine
I do from time to time, but as a re-loader, I just load up light magnums now. But when I did, it was easy to clean the ring with a brass brush.
Also I noticed accuracy differences based on powder/primer/cartridge OAL more than caliber. But then again I am not a world class bullseye shooter. Even a state class or city class.
Good discussion.
Also I noticed accuracy differences based on powder/primer/cartridge OAL more than caliber. But then again I am not a world class bullseye shooter. Even a state class or city class.
Good discussion.
OP
See the data provided in my post # 26. Let me know if any translation of that material is desired.
Ralph Tremaine
Edited to add: I don't know the group size of "all X ring", but the X ring was that of the standard NRA 25 yard target----or whoever it is that provides or sanctions such targets. Truth be known, I never measured any group size, other than to determine if one was superior to another when testing different reloads fired from the machine rest. Virtually all my own load testing with the machine rest was with the same K-38---in the same rest, at the same distance, under the same conditions (indoors).
Last edited:
oddshooter
Member
My first thought was about my T/C's excellent accuracy across many calibers. I attributed accuracy to no B/C gap and setting the bullet up against the rifling.
Of course it could have been my bullets, my barrels, or a myriad of other variables that just meant my orchestra was playing the same tune.
Skidding, sliding, and jumping across B/C gap only to then be mashed into a forcing cone made me wonder how I ever got any accuracy at all.
Prescut
Of course it could have been my bullets, my barrels, or a myriad of other variables that just meant my orchestra was playing the same tune.
Skidding, sliding, and jumping across B/C gap only to then be mashed into a forcing cone made me wonder how I ever got any accuracy at all.
Prescut
OP
That would be in addition to "all X ring", and "under a quarter", right?
Ralph Tremaine
OP
That which makes any lead handgun bullet unstable is the damage done by the rifling when the bullet is skidding and sliding through it before the rifling is able to get a hold of the bullet-----hence the effort to put the bullet in the bore at the time of its slowest movement. Have a look at pretty much any recovered lead bullet of any caliber, and notice the smears that weren't there before it was introduced to the bore under less than optimum circumstances. Such smears are the best you can hope for in any situation where the bullet is allowed much of any acceleration before entering the bore. If this sounds pretty much the same as what I've already said elsewhere, it is. Now such smears are not the kiss of death, only a condition other than optimum.
Ralph Tremaine
Ralph Tremaine
I'm not a good shot but I almost always shoot better (smaller groups) with 357 than I do with 38's. It might be the ammo but I've always assumed the greater velocity of the 357 meant it left the barrel before I got a chance to screw up (move the gun) as much.
Patrick L
Member
While I'm sure someone with a Ransom Rest MIGHT see some advantage to a .38 chamber, I doubt many mere mortals could see a difference. And I don't mean "hitting a barn".
Last edited:
Gee, an awful lot of talking and only one set of targets. I would go with the data not the theory.
If the minute of error is smaller on the bench rest with the different rounds it would be good to see where the data is published. If it is less than one minute of angle, it is arguable that does not make a difference on any course of shooting where the pistol is held freehand.
The comments about fouling are true. But you should clean after shooting, right?
If the minute of error is smaller on the bench rest with the different rounds it would be good to see where the data is published. If it is less than one minute of angle, it is arguable that does not make a difference on any course of shooting where the pistol is held freehand.
The comments about fouling are true. But you should clean after shooting, right?
Similar threads
