Elmer Keith’s .38 special load data

[Forrest r]

Forrest r - That hasn't been my experience with the H&G #51 in .357 Magnum or .38 Special. Neither of us have tested using all the same bullets. My work has been limited to comparisons with #358439, #358429, and #358156. I've tried these in various alloys and diameters. I prefer the #51 over the others I've used. I'm not a powdercoater; I've had good results with conventionally sized and lubricated bullets.

Yup & people like skeeter designed the 358156 because every thing he tried failed including the H&G #51. But for some odd reason your #51 out preforms everything else.

The very nature of the design shows the era in which it was made. Namely the need for large amounts of substandard at best lubes. Hence the small drive bands and large lube groove. That cramer # 26 is from that era (that large square lube groove thing). But the cramer design has a huge bottom drive band/bullet base that does an excellent job of sealing the cylinder throats and bores.

I'm glad the #51 works for you, the rest of the world, not so much. Don't think so??? Take a hard look at what's being sold by commercial caster for the last 30 years, it sure ain't a copy of the h&g #51. If it's such a good design you'd think people would be putting their hard earned $$$ down and buying them or asking the commercial casters to make them so they could buy them.

 

[Forrest r]

The real difference between the H&G #51 and the cramer #26 is:
They both are smaller then the keith 358429. After that the 26 has a larger bottom drive band and larger middle & top drive bands.

The larger bands seal better, are more efficient and grab the rifling better improving accuracy and decreasing the chance of stripping a fliers. Fliers using th #51 are caused from the weak bullet base going to the least point of resistance, hence tipping.

Anyway matters not to me what 1 uses or thinks is best. Simply take a hard look at what your using and what bullet designs are selling.

 

[Doug M.]

The .38/44 was loaded to much higher pressures than standard .38 Special, and higher than the current .38 +P. This is not new information, and it has been repeatedly posted on this forum. While the HD/Outdoorsman were referred to by that label, it is because the higher pressure loads were intended for the N frame revolvers. However, even back then, both S&W and Colt said the hotter loads were safe to shoot in the medium and even smaller frames.

While the OP's interests are not likely to be worth the energy to study or load, the hand wringing about the 10-6 being put at risk by a really stout load (although I think the one mentioned is likely a bad idea, I'm not a handloader and I leave it to others to quibble) is just over the top.

Worried about armor? Practice face shooting. Not HEAD - face. Draw a triangle from the outside corners of the eyes to the split at the bottom of the nostrils and get good at hitting that zone on demand as a stopper.

 

[DB404]

There are many myths circulating in our hobby. Some are moderately accurate, but most are less than that. Elmer and pressure is always a good one for the arm chair experts to trot out. It gets its legs from people repeating what they’ve read some where on another site, or heard from the part time counter guy at their LGS. Others have posted accurately here about Elmer. Best cure for bad info is to do a bit of research to correct the problem. The 38/44 was an N frame revolver designed for use with higher pressure than standard 38 Special loads. Ammo was sold in boxes marked 38/44 S&W. Smith had (IIRC) been urged to bring it out by both law enforcement and outdoorsmen, which lead to it being named the 38/44 Outdoorsman. Keith designed Lyman-Ideal bullet 358429 for use in the N frame 38/44, not a K frame. The hollow point version when cast correctly increases the rounds effectiveness significantly. Like others have urged, read Elmer but I would also encourage you to read Glenn Fryxell’s articles on loading .38 hollow points and SWCs. His writings are probably going to be more helpful for you finding what you’re after than Elmer’s.
Good luck. Read.

All the best - Dave
Strongly held and widely held opinions are not necessarily the same as a well informed opinion.

 

[Luke Duke]

The .38/44 was loaded to much higher pressures than standard .38 Special, and higher than the current .38 +P. This is not new information, and it has been repeatedly posted on this forum. While the HD/Outdoorsman were referred to by that label, it is because the higher pressure loads were intended for the N frame revolvers. However, even back then, both S&W and Colt said the hotter loads were safe to shoot in the medium and even smaller frames.

While the OP's interests are not likely to be worth the energy to study or load, the hand wringing about the 10-6 being put at risk by a really stout load (although I think the one mentioned is likely a bad idea, I'm not a handloader and I leave it to others to quibble) is just over the top.

Worried about armor? Practice face shooting. Not HEAD - face. Draw a triangle from the outside corners of the eyes to the split at the bottom of the nostrils and get good at hitting that zone on demand as a stopper.

Yea! and use a .22 magnum! No recoil, no chance of blowing your hand off and no reloading concerns. Practice with a .22 LR

 

[rkrcpa]

I was re-reading an article by Brian Pearce about 38/44 loads. His data showed the Keith load of 13.5 grains produced close to 35K psi. Clearly in the realm of the magnum.

The Keith loads are historically interesting yet still have relevance to the careful handloaders of today.

 

[1Aspenhill]

The 38/44 S&W Special cases made by Remington were marked that way. The boxes clearly stated that they were for the Heavy Duty and large frame Colts.Remingtons load was a 158gr metal point bullet at about 1150fps if I remember correctly. I’ve been working up a load using SR4756.

 

[Nevada Ed]

By the way........

here is what a old style Balloon case looks like.......
vs the new style cases.

I can see where there "Might" be a slight pressure change............
Hellow !!

 

[Tim357]

Factory 38/44 loads were not loaded to the same pressure and velocity as Mr. Keith's loads. The factories kept pressures at levels that would not result in a catastrophic failure if one happened to find its way into a smaller framed gun. 11 grains 2400 with 158 grain SWC gives around 1100 fps in a 3 or 4" revolver. The old Lyman manuals showed this load, and tested it in a K 38.
YMMV

 

[BillBro]

"refuse to pay scalpers, flat out, if an ******* scalper owned the last box of ammunition in the world I would sooner improvise my own using range scrap, repurposed chemicals for primers, home made black powder, and melted fishing weights before I paid the *** a penny over retail. Scalpers are why the rest of us can’t find ammo and components"


I might have to disagree with you just a bit here. People can ASK whatever price they wish for anything they wish to sell, its the people who have more money than sense who are mostly to blame for the stupid prices of ammo, reloafing components and firearms we see these days.

Niw, have you ever heard of RimRock Bullets? They make some fantastic 158gr cast lead hollowpoints that may make you feel all warm and fuzzy carrying them in that pocket.

g/ch .38/.357 158 gr. SWC-HP per 100/ in a plastic ammo box

And...

.357 Keith SWC-FB 170 gr. per 700

 

[ddixie884]

I concur on the Rim-Rock bullets. I buy them in bulk as $130.00 orders get free shipping. Some very interesting bullets on their Site.........

 

[38SPL HV]

I tried the 358429 38-44 Keith load in a Ruger 4 5/8 BH some years back. I shot a cylinder full and pulled the few remaining. I like to use magnum cases with 11.0 grs 2400 with the 358429 seated “short” crimped over front driver band (1.553” OAL). Load gets approximately 1,135 fps from my 4 5/8 inch which is plenty enough for me.

 

[diyj98]

Prove it!

I have been reading Elmer's writings since the late '60s and have only found 2 blow-ups.

That he admitted to And we all know that Elmer would never stretch the truth.........

 

[boatbum101]

FWIW I too played around with Uncle Elmers' loads . Even have a pre Model 23 ODM ( never could afford a pre-war ) which is an N-frame chambered in 38 spl. Pre-war 38/44 loads pushed a 158gr @ 1150-1200fps from a 6 1/2" barrel . His 358429 run between 168 - 173gr depending on alloy . Make a long story short I never did get to 13.5grs , stopped @ 12.5grs . Why ? Simply that a 173grs @ 1320fps is firmly in 357 territory . FWIW I won't shoot the 12.5 load in my gun as it's a 1953 vintage & I got a 357 , 41 & a 44 too . 7.0grs of SR4756 gives 1150fps with the 358429 in my gun , 8.0grs with a 158 .
Your gun = your business . My advise is try 5.0grs Unique with Keith bullet . 5.5grs is +P , 6.0grs aint in published data range , 6.5grs is mid range 357 , 7.0grs is considered max 357 load with Keith bullet . When one ventures past published data they're on their own . Start low & work up , first sign of pressure back off .

 

[Muley Gil]

Remington manufactured ammo for the .38/44 which was intended for the N-framed S&W .38/44 HD Outdoorsman revolver , which were introduced in 1930 .
It was simply the .44 cal N-frame revolver chambered for 38 special ... This book "Sixgun Cartridges & Loads " was written in 1936 ... the 357 magnum came out in 1934 so the .38/44 predated the 357 Magnum ... it was the stepping stone to the magnum .
I have only seen photo's of .38/44 HD cases and that was how the head stamp read 38/44 ( I dont remember if it had SPCL or HD on the case ) and UMC or Remington .
The .38/44 HD Outdoorsman and .38/44 HD ammo was introduced in 1930 . The HD stands for Heavy Duty .

On page 150 of EK's reloading book , under the heading ".38/44 Special " : "Ideal #358429 or #358431 , the bullets being crimped in their crimp groove , Remington .38/44 cases , and Remington primers ."

I am pretty sure that the 1934 introduction of the 357 Remington Magnum made the .38/44 obsolete ... I am not sure how long production of the ammo continued by Remington...
But ... Buffalo Bore still makes a loading of the .38/44 HD , or they did ... pre pandemic !

I started reloading in 1967 and haven't picked up a single case ... and I pick up every brass case I can get my hands on ...
I wonder if Buffalo Bore will sell me a case for my case collection?
Gary

The .38/44 Heavy Duty and .38/44 Outdoorsman were cataloged until 1966. Don't know how long ammo was loaded.

I do know that if I was issued a .38/44 as a police officer, I would have wanted a heavier load than the standard .38 special 158 grain round nose at 800 fps. Why carry an N frame if you're only going to carry that wimpy load?

 

[ddixie884]

EMK didn't care enough to lie.

That he admitted to And we all know that Elmer would never stretch the truth.........

EMK told off on himself on a lot of things. If you read his article on the "Last Word" in the American Rifleman he said that he split the barrel on his wife's SAA in .45Colt in 5 places using #80 powder.

He truly started low and worked his way up as money was tight and he couldn't afford to buy a replacement for a blown up handgun. See below...

 

[USBP SW]

In the 70's I believe there was a Skeeter Skelton? load that was for use in heavy framed .357 revolvers. I was operating on a shoestring budget and welcomed any cost saving measures. The load utilized the readily available .38 special cases, the Lyman 358156 gas checked bullet, seated to the first driving band instead of the crimping groove, with 13.5 grains of 2400 powder. The load worked fine in my Highway Patrolman revolver, potent, accurate and produced .357 performance without the .357 cases.

 

[moosedog]

Quote "If you have ever EVER read Keith's writings you would know that he did not give a damn about pressure. He'd load up a cartridge until the gun blew up then get another gun and shoot some more."

More internet bull.
I grew up on Elmer Keith and even corresponded with him when he was writing for Guns and Ammo. Elmer was never a wealthy man and treasured his guns more that most of us. He created several of our best cartridges that we have today, and it was done with very rudimentary tools and powders in comparison to modern reloading.

 

[LostintheOzone]

I'm working up a load for a model 28. I'm not interested in 38 spl loads but I'm using 2400 in 357 cases. The cowboy loads for 357 are inaccurate and not worth anymore effort. I'm at 12 grns now and loading some ladder loads to 13 grns in the next few days.

I'm not a yuge EK fan so his load data isn't something I would care to explore.

Pressure testing is more reliable. Stop when you reach what the cartridge was designed for.

Works for aircraft also. You've been warned.

 

[mike campbell]

I am not against "Hot Roding" a load in a weapon................

as long as the pressure of the load is ment for the size frame used.

There is a large difference between a j, K & L frame revolver, in the amount of pressure that they will take.

I might have been on the ragged edge with my testing but with the use of my chrony...........
only 1, 2 or just 3 loads were fired before I unloaded the weapon and logged
these loads as unfit, for use.

Most of us TRUST the newer loading manuals available to us but................
there are a few loads in some manuals that I will not go near
after working up, so far and thinking....... no way !!

Later.

"There is a large difference between a j, K & L frame revolver, in the amount of pressure that they will take.

Where would one find documentation on this large difference in pressure that a S&W .357mag J frame will take versus a K frame?