Damn tourists must have been playing some of that RAP stuff!
That will teach them!
Nah, I was mad because he made spit my chew all over his windshield when he hit me......
Are Elmer Keith's loads still safe?
- Thread starter 336A
- Start date
Nah, I was mad because he made spit my chew all over his windshield when he hit me......
ChuckS1
US Veteran
It always surprises me when I see people say that a load's unsafe if it doesn't meet whatever current specs call for, regardless of the gun it's to be fired in or the load in question. Given the use of some common sense (I know, it's hard...) and sound practices, it's hard to get into trouble if you know what you're doing. Half the fun of handloading is recreating the vintage loads that brought us to where we are today. My pre-24 doesn't know that SAAMI changed the specs or how old it is. If it worked for Skeeter and Elmer, and if I recreate those loads correctly for what's safe in my gun, there's no reason for it not to be safe. A little hot, maybe, if I want it that way.
He did have access, he sent his .44 SPL loads containing 17gr of 2400 to H.P. Whites laboratory where the round tetsted at 25,000 PSI. Brian Pearce snet some of his .44 SPL keith loads to the same laboratory when he wrote the article about the Ruger FT .44 Specials. They found that Brians' loads created the same 25,000 PSI.
Elmer Keith liked high performance loads. Elmer Keith was an experimenter. Those statements are true. Elmer Keith had no access to test equipment? If you read his writings extensively you would know that he worked in an arsenal during WWII and he sent a loot of stuff to HP White labs for testing in his post war experimenting. Elmer Keith blew up a lot of guns? I've read this in lots of internet posts but not in Elmer's writings-- He did blow up a .45 Colt using rifle bullets and black powder............which led him to use the .44 special with it's thicker cylinder walls in future revolver experiments. Powder burn rates have changed? I do not believe this. Yes there are lot to lot variances but I get the same results today with powders that I loaded 30 years ago. THe shocking thing about some of Elmers loads is that they were maximum loads............few factories load to those levels now so EK stuff is shocking to the un-iniated.
Last edited:
Nah, I was mad because he made spit my chew all over his windshield when he hit me......
If you want to avoid that rundown feeling, quit playing in the street.
LarryI think a lot of people blend Dick Casull and Keith together when it comes to blowing up guns. Keith blew up a single action with the oversize bullets and black powder. Casull blew up single actions blending powder and trying to develop what is now the 454 Casull.
Keith loads are like every other hot load. Start low and work your way up.
Keith loads are like every other hot load. Start low and work your way up.
If you want to avoid that rundown feeling, quit playing in the street.
Durn, why din't I think of that??
Are you asking about all his loads or just the ones you listed above?
You defined safe as "being within SAAMI specifications" then listed a load for a .44 spl. that is 9,500 psi over max, wouldn't that be considered unsafe?
Some of his loads are going to be safe, some not. As I said he did a lot of experimentation.
Edited to add:
If the source for .41 magnum data you cited above happens to be Hornady, their second edition manual lists the exact same powder weights/velocities as their seventh edition, even though the bullets are different. Something tells me they didn't really test the XTPs.
Last edited:
Sir, Keith blew up at least two SA .45s: the one you mention (300-grain bullet with 35 grains of black powder) and another with a heavy charge of No. 80 assembled by a fellow who worked for Belding and Mull. Seems like Keith mentioned at least one other in "Sixguns," but I can't bring it to mind right now. I wouldn't call two or three guns "a lot," but the guy did blow up more than one in his experiments. And frankly, even one would seem like altogether too many if it were one of my guns.
Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.
Ron H.
Vanilla Gorilla
Member
Elmer also stated that he did not recommend the use of No. 80 in handguns then, either. He claimed 2400 worked far better. So, if we're going by the loads that he claimed worked well and recommended, I'd say they're still good.
I shoot Keith loads in my .357s and .44s with my own cast bullets, and they work well for me.
Kavinsky
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2011
- Messages
- 672
- Reaction score
- 33
and that was the day when those guns werent that valued and no one had any reason to believe that america would stop making firearms of that quality any time soon so it wasnt the equavalent of blowing that kind of a gun up to begin with back then
basically think of someone blowing up an old glock, that was what the equavalent of it was back then and SAA's were everywhere back then and pretty much easily traded for and discarded because of their popularity.
Plus it was for a very good cause, the creation of the 357, 41 and 44 magnum.
basically think of someone blowing up an old glock, that was what the equavalent of it was back then and SAA's were everywhere back then and pretty much easily traded for and discarded because of their popularity.
Plus it was for a very good cause, the creation of the 357, 41 and 44 magnum.
Last edited:
Sir, I was just addressing Mr. Treeman's comment about Keith's gun blowups, not the OP's safety question.
The only Keith loads I've tried have been mid-velocity accuracy types, and as a rule they've been quite good. Regarding his max loads, Keith himself insisted that they be approached with caution, and I think that's still good advice today.
Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.
Ron H.
Here is some more food for thought. I posted this on another forum to get a broad depth of replies and insight. Anyway a feller' pressure tested Keiths' .44 mag mag load (22gr 2400 with RCBS 250gr K bullet) over his Ohler M43 and got close to 33,000 PSI in his particular revolver. He also tetsted 3 different lots of Alliant 2400 and got no more than SD than is common in lot to lot variation.
I grew up reading articles by men such as O'Conner, Carmichael, Keith, Askins, etc. I understand that in their early years, they often had to "fly by the seat of their pants" developing loads, etc. From what I've read Keith tinkered and experimented beyond that level of a informed hobbyist. I would not question the results of the H.P. White tests you cite. If all of Keith's loads, etc. were tested in a similar manner, there would be no questions as to safety, etc. But anecdotal statements are one thing while qualified laboratory results are quiet another. In my own experience I've loaded round for handguns and rifles that were safe in those particular firearms... loads that were not safe in other firearms chambered for those cartridges for which those loads which I developed. In my library I have manuals from major reloading companies that recommend loads that 30 years later are simply not at all considered safe. To a large degree this is because of better equipment that is more available and accessible. Nowadays, measuring case head expansion, eyeballing primer extrusion, stiff bolt lift, etc. are mighty poor means to determine the relative safety of a load. I have and maintain every respect for Elmer Keith. His book Hell I Was There was one of the first three books I ever bought from the Outdoor Life Book Club... along with Nonte's Pistolsmithing and Carmichael's The Rifle. One reason I now own a 21-4 is the influence of Keith, Skelton, etc. who spoke so highly of the .44 Special. I do not in any way mean any disrespect for any of these men. However I cannot equate their experiments in load development for their firearms with loads qualified by controlled experiments conducted by the trained staff of the manufacturers of ammunition and the major reloading companies. Sincerely. brucev.
I don't shoot "Keith" loads, nor "Skeeter" nor anyone elses. I create my own depending on what I want and what I feel my guns will handle. I'm sure Elmer and all the other old time experimenters will appreciate that because they were out to learn, not imitate. Plus, when Elmer was blowing up guns there was somewhat of an excuse because there was nothing stronger to use. Now there is no reason to overstuff a .38 or .44 special because we have firearms that are made for that and doing so isn't respecting what Elmer did, it's more like P-ing on his legacy.
That's interesting. I do not know a lot about the Ohler Model 43 device. How does it measure chamber pressure in a firearm like a revolver? The positioning of the transducer would seem to be a problem, as would the irregular shape of the cylinder (viz., the flutes). Did the author comment on that, or am I missing something?
I'd love to own one, but I don't even play the lottery.
Oehler Research, Inc.--Model 43 Personal Ballistic Laboratory
Oehler Research, Inc.--Model 43 Personal Ballistic Laboratory
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
Well, if you get one, it will have to be used! They have been out of production for at least 5 years according to the phone conversation that I just had with them.
The next step up is their "83" and for starters, it is almost $10,000! That is without the extra $3,200 for the indoor screen setup!
I was told they are working on something else for us handloaders that want to measure pressure in a relatively inexpensive way but it is a while out yet.
Seems that they are a little leery of us too. Every time they make something for us "Joe Blows" to measure pressure, instead of trying to stay in safe bounds with that knowledge, we are trying to push it to the upper limits! Go figure!
I told them that was just human nature once again!
He did tell me that reading all of the pressure signs, primer, sticky cases, heavy bolt lift, and our other readable tea leaves, was proven with the #43 to be right about 75,000psi!
Needless to say, and this is how he put it, that is much closer to proof ammo than a standard load that most handloaders are looking for!
It would be ONE MEAN 38 SPECIAL though! 
The next step up is their "83" and for starters, it is almost $10,000! That is without the extra $3,200 for the indoor screen setup!
I was told they are working on something else for us handloaders that want to measure pressure in a relatively inexpensive way but it is a while out yet.
Seems that they are a little leery of us too. Every time they make something for us "Joe Blows" to measure pressure, instead of trying to stay in safe bounds with that knowledge, we are trying to push it to the upper limits! Go figure!
I told them that was just human nature once again!
He did tell me that reading all of the pressure signs, primer, sticky cases, heavy bolt lift, and our other readable tea leaves, was proven with the #43 to be right about 75,000psi!
Needless to say, and this is how he put it, that is much closer to proof ammo than a standard load that most handloaders are looking for!
It would be ONE MEAN 38 SPECIAL though!
