FWIW .38 Special max COAL is 1.55" and .357 Magnum max COAL is 1.59".
.38 SPECIALS IN 357 MAGNUMS?
- Thread starter rct269
- Start date
FWIW .38 Special max COAL is 1.55" and .357 Magnum max COAL is 1.59".
There are several things that can cause a lead bullet to be unstable. At one time someone offered a wadcutter with a gas check. Even inverted so the check entered the rifling first, providing optimal engagement, the groups were not improved by 10%.
Well. I always believed it isn't make much difference accuracy wise. But some as to elevation .
But, I decided to do my own little test
First I got out a 357 and a 38 special as close to the same as I could
A 6" 19-3 which was finish worn but mechanically good and a decent 14-3
I also took along my home made Ransom rest which I have both K an N inserts for
Ammo, I have a pile of cast lead middle of the road 158gr SWC 38 specials. I don't load plain lead 357 much as if I am going to shoot a 357 it would be for "business" and even then a 357 isn't my choice for a "business" gun. So all I had were some fairly stout 158 gr JHP
Anyway fired a couple rounds out the 14, then took the grips off. Set it up in the rest and fired a cylinder full of the 158 gr SWC 38s at 20yds. Upper Left dot
Then I took it out of rest, fired a couple 357s from the 19 then set it up in the rest and fired a cylinder full of the JHP at the middle dot. Then,, I loaded it with the 158 gr 38 SWC and fired a cylinder full upper right dot
Here is what happened to the paper.
Interestingly the best group was the center one with JHP 357 from the 19
Hard to say there is much difference between the 2 38 SWC groups the 14 in upper left and the 19 in upper right.
All the groups were some what dependent on my 70 year old eyes without any glasses, that have been corrected by lasik in 1999, then by cataract surgery about 6 years ago and then a YAG laser capsulotomy this spring.
Certainly not enough difference in any of them to be noticeable with me shooting any of them even with a good 2 handed hold
But, I decided to do my own little test
First I got out a 357 and a 38 special as close to the same as I could
A 6" 19-3 which was finish worn but mechanically good and a decent 14-3
I also took along my home made Ransom rest which I have both K an N inserts for
Ammo, I have a pile of cast lead middle of the road 158gr SWC 38 specials. I don't load plain lead 357 much as if I am going to shoot a 357 it would be for "business" and even then a 357 isn't my choice for a "business" gun. So all I had were some fairly stout 158 gr JHP
Anyway fired a couple rounds out the 14, then took the grips off. Set it up in the rest and fired a cylinder full of the 158 gr SWC 38s at 20yds. Upper Left dot
Then I took it out of rest, fired a couple 357s from the 19 then set it up in the rest and fired a cylinder full of the JHP at the middle dot. Then,, I loaded it with the 158 gr 38 SWC and fired a cylinder full upper right dot
Here is what happened to the paper.
Interestingly the best group was the center one with JHP 357 from the 19
Hard to say there is much difference between the 2 38 SWC groups the 14 in upper left and the 19 in upper right.
All the groups were some what dependent on my 70 year old eyes without any glasses, that have been corrected by lasik in 1999, then by cataract surgery about 6 years ago and then a YAG laser capsulotomy this spring.
Certainly not enough difference in any of them to be noticeable with me shooting any of them even with a good 2 handed hold
Last edited:
Oh, yea. For those of you who do not read the Gunsmithing section, here is a group fired from same distance using same 38 specials from my Pinto Smolt fitted with a nickle recessed 357 cylinder when I was checking it out after built
Doug M.
Member
It is entirely possible that Ralph's theory and description of it are correct. I can see the logic. I even recall those short cylinder PPC revolvers.
However, this is like a lot of other performance issues. At the very edges of high performance, the ability of the athlete makes the final difference. A professional practices their craft until they can't get it wrong. You could put me in a Formula One race car and I will never do nearly as well as a pro; same is true of football cleats, a baseball mitt, etc. Remember the next time you are screaming "you suck" at someone on TV because they blew a play that the bottom 5% of pro sports teams are still in the upper .01 % of the people playing.
However, this is like a lot of other performance issues. At the very edges of high performance, the ability of the athlete makes the final difference. A professional practices their craft until they can't get it wrong. You could put me in a Formula One race car and I will never do nearly as well as a pro; same is true of football cleats, a baseball mitt, etc. Remember the next time you are screaming "you suck" at someone on TV because they blew a play that the bottom 5% of pro sports teams are still in the upper .01 % of the people playing.
Well I have to wonder if wad cutters have something to do with it. A stubby bullet with no taper could be more apt to "bounce" a bit when if a corner hit the ledge while moving.
I also have no doubt that a short cylinder gun there the wad cutter is just inside its face would be more accurate than a stock gun. The bullet is going to enter the forcing cone and engage the rifling at its lowest speed and any little imperfection in this happen would impart less deflection on the bullet.
Little things so add up. Perfectly uniform bullets,chambers, brass, powder charges, primer pockets and flash holes.
The bench rest rifle guys get the best results by keeping all the possible variations to the absolute minimum.
But for any kind of practical applications most of it is for nought because the people shooting can not hold and fire with quality that equals the rest of those components.
Me sittting there in on my folding chair with my machine in front of me holding my gun form me as I tweak screws looking for the what appears tto my eyes to be the same sight picture as the rest, then putting pressure on a lever to trip the single action trigger engagement is miles beyond what happens with my ability to bring my gun up, align the sights as I squeeze the double action trigger trough its length for the bang.
What the gun can do is so far and away more than what I can do, that the 38 in a 357 chamber means almost nothing for my applications. .
I also have no doubt that a short cylinder gun there the wad cutter is just inside its face would be more accurate than a stock gun. The bullet is going to enter the forcing cone and engage the rifling at its lowest speed and any little imperfection in this happen would impart less deflection on the bullet.
Little things so add up. Perfectly uniform bullets,chambers, brass, powder charges, primer pockets and flash holes.
The bench rest rifle guys get the best results by keeping all the possible variations to the absolute minimum.
But for any kind of practical applications most of it is for nought because the people shooting can not hold and fire with quality that equals the rest of those components.
Me sittting there in on my folding chair with my machine in front of me holding my gun form me as I tweak screws looking for the what appears tto my eyes to be the same sight picture as the rest, then putting pressure on a lever to trip the single action trigger engagement is miles beyond what happens with my ability to bring my gun up, align the sights as I squeeze the double action trigger trough its length for the bang.
What the gun can do is so far and away more than what I can do, that the 38 in a 357 chamber means almost nothing for my applications. .
pantannojack
US Veteran
I have never been into comics, but 50 some years ago I saw one featuring three old friends bumping to each other by chance. One had just lost his girl friend, Winston I think. One other was consoling the hapless guy, while the other just kept repeating the line: "...let's just get some booze and forget it." Over and over. So I just gotta ask: Why not just put your target load into 357 Magnum length cases and forget it?
Mark 40
Member
Doug you must have heard me yelling at the TV when the closer for my baseball team blows a save. Keeping in mind what you said, I'll try and keep my composure next time.
OP
The focus on the minuscule differences in performance between .38 Specials in a 357, and .38's in a 38 among the naysayers is ill advised and of little consequence-----------and it's my fault. I'm the one who chose the title-------which might very well have been something along the lines of THE EVILS OF EXCESSIVE THROAT LENGTH. That's because the difference in performance of .38's in a Magnum and .38's in a 38 on a target is, in fact, minuscule---due to the equally small difference in throat length-----something on the order of a tenth of an inch--never mind the effect of the shoulder (whatever that may be)----and generally noticeable/accurately measurable at the target only with a machine rest. I suspect my faux pas may well be attributed to my distaste for the manufacturers who make a selling point of the fact you can shoot .38's out of a magnum.
When you get right down to it, the more throat in any firearm the worse the performance-----and there's no question about that---hasn't been for a loooooooooooong time. Some's bad, more's worse.
Ralph Tremaine
When you get right down to it, the more throat in any firearm the worse the performance-----and there's no question about that---hasn't been for a loooooooooooong time. Some's bad, more's worse.
Ralph Tremaine
Last edited:
DR505
US Veteran
If you think a minuscule difference is bad, we have different definitions at work on both "minuscule" and "bad."
When I reached 44 years of age.............
my eye sight started going down hill and at 59 years of age my muscle tone was leaving me, since I retired form heavy construction, and I no longer had to lift heavy rebar or climb the "Red Iron".
Many state that 95% of good shooting is between your ears, but I disagree.
Now days for me it is a tremble. Plus, the harder I try to control said tremble the worse seems it be. Thankfully with modern medicine I actually see better than I did most of my life.
StrawHat
Member
PPC revolvers are an entirely different bit of technology. Most of the improvement in accuracy came not from the cylinder, short, long or medium, but from the better barrel that was installed. The same reason a Python barrel would, supposedly, shoot wadcutters better than a S&W barrel.
As for some gain in accuracy shooting 38 S&W Special cartridges in cylinders so chambered or 357 S&W Magnum chambers, it all depends on the person working the trigger.
As for using 38 S&W Special loads in magnum cases, the cost of the brass is what kept most of us from trying that approach.
Kevin
As for some gain in accuracy shooting 38 S&W Special cartridges in cylinders so chambered or 357 S&W Magnum chambers, it all depends on the person working the trigger.
As for using 38 S&W Special loads in magnum cases, the cost of the brass is what kept most of us from trying that approach.
Kevin
Python barrels have a 1-14 twist and S&W uses a 1-18.
I had heard the tighter at the muzzle theory on Python barrels, but my pin gauges don't show that so if it is true it is under .001 on the lands.
I have thought of building a PPC gun using an N frame, cut down a 45 acp cylinder, some heavy .452 blank I have and put a Bomar rib on top
Big holes in paper to cut a close line a 38 would not, quick reloads, easy brass clean up.
But, for me and PPC the days are gone
I have a .222 chucking reamer and some 1/2" 4140 round stock on order. I already own a 22lr reamer, a recessed model 19 cylinder and an extractor. My next experiment will be making a 22lr cylinder for my model 53 22 Jet.
I had heard the tighter at the muzzle theory on Python barrels, but my pin gauges don't show that so if it is true it is under .001 on the lands.
I have thought of building a PPC gun using an N frame, cut down a 45 acp cylinder, some heavy .452 blank I have and put a Bomar rib on top
Big holes in paper to cut a close line a 38 would not, quick reloads, easy brass clean up.
But, for me and PPC the days are gone
I have a .222 chucking reamer and some 1/2" 4140 round stock on order. I already own a 22lr reamer, a recessed model 19 cylinder and an extractor. My next experiment will be making a 22lr cylinder for my model 53 22 Jet.
Last edited:
StrawHat
Member
I wanted a 45 ACP race gun back in my competition days. Never got it. But, I did use a S&W Model 25-2 for informal PPC shoots. I gained 1-2 x’s and about the same points. Could not use the Model 25-2 in registered competition as the barrel was too long by 1/2”!
Kevin
Kevin
BrovoEchoSierra
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 142
- Reaction score
- 220
There seems to be many views on this subject. I have read, and listened to various opinions both here, and on other forums, with gun smiths ect.
I doubt we will ever know for sure, but for me it stands to reason that a 38 out of the longer 357 mag cylinder could allow the bullet to yaw some before it reaches the forcing cone, and thus effect accuracy.
Probably not enough that most of us would be able to tell the difference with out a machine rest.
Eye sight, and consistent sight alignment, trigger control, as well as other factors would probably have a greater bearing on accuracy.
So I am not sure that I buy into the 38 being less accurate, when fired from a 357 mag. In theory yes, in my actual tests not so much.
My most accurate gun continues to be my 14-3, mostly due to the 8 3/8 inch barrel, with a longer sight radius, probably not the 38 special chamber.
My 686 with a 6 inch barrel is not bad either. I changed to a Patridge style sight, and the sight look much like those on the 14.
The 15-2 and 19-3 are a dead heat, with no noticeable differences in accuracy that I can tell.
One thing that I did try with a pair of 15's, was to put up 6 targets, and mark the cylinder for # 1. Load and fire one shot in each numbered target down the line, start over with the number 1 hole and reloaded. I did this until I had fired 6 shots in 6 targets, with each target being shot with the same cylinder hole.
There is a pattern that showed not all holes hit in the same place. Not a lot, but some holes hit closer to center, while others shoot off to the left or right, slightly.
I did this on 2 model 15's one was a dash 2 and the other was a dash 3. The dash 3 was more consistent that the dash 2 was.
Also regarding the carbon ring in the chamber on 357 guns. I have heard of this for years, but on 3 different guns, one of which I have owned and shot for over 40 years, Its never been an issue.
I have shot 38's in my 357 mag guns all my life, and in fact I hardly ever shoot 357's.
That said, when I do choose 357 ammo, I have not had any issues with the carbon ring.
I am pretty proactive about wiping my guns down, to prevent rust, but dont clean after every session.
I clean the barrel and cylinders every now and then, but I'm not fanatical, a dose of old #9 or some Ed's red, and stroke of two with a bronze brush, followed with a few passes, until patches come out clean.
I shoot nothing but home made Lyman 358/ 477 semi wadcutters and 3.5 grains of Bullseye, and a little lube, and fouling actually improves accuracy, up to the point of 300 rounds.
After that accuracy seems to decrease, and I clean as described above.
Happy shooting.
BES
I doubt we will ever know for sure, but for me it stands to reason that a 38 out of the longer 357 mag cylinder could allow the bullet to yaw some before it reaches the forcing cone, and thus effect accuracy.
Probably not enough that most of us would be able to tell the difference with out a machine rest.
Eye sight, and consistent sight alignment, trigger control, as well as other factors would probably have a greater bearing on accuracy.
So I am not sure that I buy into the 38 being less accurate, when fired from a 357 mag. In theory yes, in my actual tests not so much.
My most accurate gun continues to be my 14-3, mostly due to the 8 3/8 inch barrel, with a longer sight radius, probably not the 38 special chamber.
My 686 with a 6 inch barrel is not bad either. I changed to a Patridge style sight, and the sight look much like those on the 14.
The 15-2 and 19-3 are a dead heat, with no noticeable differences in accuracy that I can tell.
One thing that I did try with a pair of 15's, was to put up 6 targets, and mark the cylinder for # 1. Load and fire one shot in each numbered target down the line, start over with the number 1 hole and reloaded. I did this until I had fired 6 shots in 6 targets, with each target being shot with the same cylinder hole.
There is a pattern that showed not all holes hit in the same place. Not a lot, but some holes hit closer to center, while others shoot off to the left or right, slightly.
I did this on 2 model 15's one was a dash 2 and the other was a dash 3. The dash 3 was more consistent that the dash 2 was.
Also regarding the carbon ring in the chamber on 357 guns. I have heard of this for years, but on 3 different guns, one of which I have owned and shot for over 40 years, Its never been an issue.
I have shot 38's in my 357 mag guns all my life, and in fact I hardly ever shoot 357's.
That said, when I do choose 357 ammo, I have not had any issues with the carbon ring.
I am pretty proactive about wiping my guns down, to prevent rust, but dont clean after every session.
I clean the barrel and cylinders every now and then, but I'm not fanatical, a dose of old #9 or some Ed's red, and stroke of two with a bronze brush, followed with a few passes, until patches come out clean.
I shoot nothing but home made Lyman 358/ 477 semi wadcutters and 3.5 grains of Bullseye, and a little lube, and fouling actually improves accuracy, up to the point of 300 rounds.
After that accuracy seems to decrease, and I clean as described above.
Happy shooting.
BES
Last edited:
The idea about land engagement velocity of a 357 being higher than a 38 special is correct. BUT, at the beginning of the rifling the difference between the velocity of a 357 and a 38 is pretty small.
According to ballistics by the inch
Federal 125jhp 357 4"-1511, 3" 1255, 2" 949
Federal 125 hydroshock 38 4" 954, 3" 831, 2" 700
"
So at the muzzle of a 4" the difference is a huge 557fps, at 3" its 424, (133 closure) still fair diffidence and at 2" it has dropped to a 249 fps, (175 closure) so probably under a 100 difference at an inch and at 1/2", when it was engaging the rifling it is probably well under 50fps difference
According to ballistics by the inch
Federal 125jhp 357 4"-1511, 3" 1255, 2" 949
Federal 125 hydroshock 38 4" 954, 3" 831, 2" 700
"
So at the muzzle of a 4" the difference is a huge 557fps, at 3" its 424, (133 closure) still fair diffidence and at 2" it has dropped to a 249 fps, (175 closure) so probably under a 100 difference at an inch and at 1/2", when it was engaging the rifling it is probably well under 50fps difference
Last edited:
oddshooter
Member
This little tool solves the problem of the 38 Crud ring quickly and easily.
SLIXPRINGS SLIX-SCRAPER 357 MAG - Graf & Sons
SliX-Scraper $25
Prescut
SLIXPRINGS SLIX-SCRAPER 357 MAG - Graf & Sons
SliX-Scraper $25
Prescut
Last edited:
T. McIntyre
Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2004
- Messages
- 301
- Reaction score
- 917
A little more on this topic.
This is .45 Colt Cowboy Special ammo, using 200 grain LSWCs at 925 FPS. 5 shot groups at 25 yards. These were fired earlier this year.
The .45 Colt Cowboy Special is a .45 Colt cut down to ACP length. The gun uses the .45 Colt cylinder.
And here is a .45 Cowboy Special, Schofield and standard .45 Colt.
Obviously the accuracy has not suffered. In spite of the jump, the .45 Cowboy special ammo shoots sub 1" 5 shot groups at 25 yards with ease.
This is .45 Colt Cowboy Special ammo, using 200 grain LSWCs at 925 FPS. 5 shot groups at 25 yards. These were fired earlier this year.
The .45 Colt Cowboy Special is a .45 Colt cut down to ACP length. The gun uses the .45 Colt cylinder.
And here is a .45 Cowboy Special, Schofield and standard .45 Colt.
Obviously the accuracy has not suffered. In spite of the jump, the .45 Cowboy special ammo shoots sub 1" 5 shot groups at 25 yards with ease.
Similar threads
