Overloading 38sp?
- Thread starter Wheeler57
- Start date
shil
Member
With a normal-seated bullet, the air space in the .38 case would be reduced and higher pressures would result. My humble opinion is that it's not worth the effort and risk. I recommend sticking to .357 Magnum cases. I have personally never fired .38 Specials in a magnum chamber just because of the grunge ring that forms in the chamber behind the throat, but, being a handloader, I just load down in a magnum case. This, of course, is not feasible with a shooter who is limited to factory ammunition. To others, the grunge ring is of no consequence. It just takes a bit more scrubbing to completely clean the chambers (or is that charge hole?).
Paul5388
US Veteran
It seems as though there is a total disregard for the pressure data recorded in Speer #5, #6 and #7 to the point of saying there wasn't any equipment used for data collection. In the parsing of all of the "Introductions" it appears there is regression at work instead of progression.
Phil Sharpe reported pressure data in "Complete Guide for Handloading", 1937. You can download a copy here: Milsurps Knowledge Library - 1937 Complete Guide to Handloading (by Philip B. Sharpe)
SAAMI has had pressure specifications since the 1920s, so why is it supposed to be such a foreign concept for bullet companies to actually know what kind of pressures they are recommending in their manuals?
It never seems to bother anyone that the 9mm and .40 S&W are operating under the same or more pressure as a .357 Mag.
Phil Sharpe reported pressure data in "Complete Guide for Handloading", 1937. You can download a copy here: Milsurps Knowledge Library - 1937 Complete Guide to Handloading (by Philip B. Sharpe)
SAAMI has had pressure specifications since the 1920s, so why is it supposed to be such a foreign concept for bullet companies to actually know what kind of pressures they are recommending in their manuals?
It never seems to bother anyone that the 9mm and .40 S&W are operating under the same or more pressure as a .357 Mag.
Last edited:
nicky4968
Member
I have used many. 38-44 loads in a model 28.
Nevertheless, as a general rule, if the. 38 Special won't do the trick, use the Krag.
Nevertheless, as a general rule, if the. 38 Special won't do the trick, use the Krag.
ChuckS1
US Veteran
Whatever happened to starting 10% below the published minimum load and working up?
Paul,
I don't know about Speer 6 or 7, but I have never found any pressure data in no. 5. In fact they pretty much say the same thing found in the intro in no. 8. If you are referring to pictures again, you might want to look who the pictures are credited to. I don't have copies of 6 or 7, but do have their load data in the RCBS.load program. They don't list pressure data there for either issue like they do for other manuals that do list them.
As far as I know, Speer has always told the reader how their data was collected so the reader can make an informed decision about using their products, and they do an excellent job of it too, but that doesn't mean they can't, or don't, make mistakes. They also can't help it if readers chose to ignore that information and the warnings that go with it. They do collect pressure data now, but refuse to print it in their manuals for the very same reason, too many people will use the information incorrectly. At least that's what they say in their manuals.
BTW, thanks for the link, but I already have a copy of "The Complete Guide to Handloading".
I don't know about Speer 6 or 7, but I have never found any pressure data in no. 5. In fact they pretty much say the same thing found in the intro in no. 8. If you are referring to pictures again, you might want to look who the pictures are credited to. I don't have copies of 6 or 7, but do have their load data in the RCBS.load program. They don't list pressure data there for either issue like they do for other manuals that do list them.
That isn't the point of my discussion at all. My point is that if a person is going to handload it's his responsibility to know what he is doing and where his information is coming from. And this goes double for older sources, not that they were not as capable, we just know so much more now.
As far as I know, Speer has always told the reader how their data was collected so the reader can make an informed decision about using their products, and they do an excellent job of it too, but that doesn't mean they can't, or don't, make mistakes. They also can't help it if readers chose to ignore that information and the warnings that go with it. They do collect pressure data now, but refuse to print it in their manuals for the very same reason, too many people will use the information incorrectly. At least that's what they say in their manuals.
BTW, thanks for the link, but I already have a copy of "The Complete Guide to Handloading".
Last edited:
As an aside, the IMR handloaders guide, published in 1997, lists max loads and corresponding pressures) for their powders.
The max 357 magnumload listed for a Rem 357 mag case, rem 125 sjhp and Rem 5 1/2 primer is 8.6 grains of 4756 for 1180 fps from six inch revolver @ 35,800 cup.
People keep talking about "researching" their loads, without referencing the powder manufacturers own testing/listed data?
10 grains of 4756 in a 38 special case? Even if fired from a M66 357 mag revolver, it would seem to be an overload for 357 mag, let alone 38 special.
The max 357 magnumload listed for a Rem 357 mag case, rem 125 sjhp and Rem 5 1/2 primer is 8.6 grains of 4756 for 1180 fps from six inch revolver @ 35,800 cup.
People keep talking about "researching" their loads, without referencing the powder manufacturers own testing/listed data?
10 grains of 4756 in a 38 special case? Even if fired from a M66 357 mag revolver, it would seem to be an overload for 357 mag, let alone 38 special.
That a great read.....
Thanks for that, the book has some great stuff in it. I'm going read some sections in depth because there is valid info there. I'm just going to skip the parts that illustrate all of the 'up to date' presses and powder measures, though.
PS: A picture of that cast iron (aluminum??) powder measure has shown up here before.
Thanks for that, the book has some great stuff in it. I'm going read some sections in depth because there is valid info there. I'm just going to skip the parts that illustrate all of the 'up to date' presses and powder measures, though.
PS: A picture of that cast iron (aluminum??) powder measure has shown up here before.
Peter M. Eick
Member
Jellybean,
Yes my mind is open, but I am also in a somewhat unique position. I am loading for 38/44's. I own only 3 non-38/44 38 specials. All Colts. I keep the trailboss loads in the Colts and they are fun to shoot.
So when I am considering my loads, I am thinking about my 38/44's and so I have a factor of safety built in. I also have many loading manuals. Some quite obscure and I have a treasure trove of internet data. Basically I have saved and sorted every internet thread I thought was useful for well over a decade. Add that to DVD copies of handloader and I have a vast trove of information to weight my decisions with.
So lets take speer 8. They have some hot loads in it for the 38 special but for a 38/44 they are pretty reasonable. I know I have loaded them a lot. I tend to load over a chrono and am looking for a particular velocity to either match the old loading data or what I feel is reasonable.
Let me lay my cards down so to speak. What I do when researching is looking for powders and bullets that are reasonable combinations. I am also looking at the velocities quoted. Like for the 38/44 I am looking for 1150 to 1175 FPS in a 158 grn LSWC. No getting practical, anything from R123 to say 4227 can be made to meet that goal but on the fast side the tolerances for error are small and on the slow side the volume of powder needed exceeds the available space.
What I do I work up and try different powders that can meet my goal of velocity and yet give me good accuracy. I try to find the largest volume (slowest) powder that will meet these goals.
Since my 38/44 reloads will never be shot in any "normal" 38 special I can have a lot of fun with the older data.
I think nothing of loading up Phil Sharpe's 1937 data for 38 special for my 38/44's. I would never let one of those rounds near my D framed Colt's though.
So I hope that explains why I have an open mind, but I am less worried about the Speer 8 data. As some have said they loaded up to "all the gun can handle then backed it down a bit". Fine as long as they did it on a K frame and I am going to load for an N frame.
Yes my mind is open, but I am also in a somewhat unique position. I am loading for 38/44's. I own only 3 non-38/44 38 specials. All Colts. I keep the trailboss loads in the Colts and they are fun to shoot.
So when I am considering my loads, I am thinking about my 38/44's and so I have a factor of safety built in. I also have many loading manuals. Some quite obscure and I have a treasure trove of internet data. Basically I have saved and sorted every internet thread I thought was useful for well over a decade. Add that to DVD copies of handloader and I have a vast trove of information to weight my decisions with.
So lets take speer 8. They have some hot loads in it for the 38 special but for a 38/44 they are pretty reasonable. I know I have loaded them a lot. I tend to load over a chrono and am looking for a particular velocity to either match the old loading data or what I feel is reasonable.
Let me lay my cards down so to speak. What I do when researching is looking for powders and bullets that are reasonable combinations. I am also looking at the velocities quoted. Like for the 38/44 I am looking for 1150 to 1175 FPS in a 158 grn LSWC. No getting practical, anything from R123 to say 4227 can be made to meet that goal but on the fast side the tolerances for error are small and on the slow side the volume of powder needed exceeds the available space.
What I do I work up and try different powders that can meet my goal of velocity and yet give me good accuracy. I try to find the largest volume (slowest) powder that will meet these goals.
Since my 38/44 reloads will never be shot in any "normal" 38 special I can have a lot of fun with the older data.
I think nothing of loading up Phil Sharpe's 1937 data for 38 special for my 38/44's. I would never let one of those rounds near my D framed Colt's though.
So I hope that explains why I have an open mind, but I am less worried about the Speer 8 data. As some have said they loaded up to "all the gun can handle then backed it down a bit". Fine as long as they did it on a K frame and I am going to load for an N frame.
Peter,
I remember your post a while back with the photo of your bookcase, and I also recall a post you started on another forum about books and manuals about a year before that. It was fun to look at your picture to see how many I could identify.
Now I just want to make sure we are in the same discussion.
I have never found a good reliable figure for max. pressure of the heavy duty .38s. Based on load data and what else I've read, I'm guessing about 25,000 psi. It was interesting to look at Phil Sharpe's book because the load data doesn't really fit the narrative next to it on the same page. But, as you said, with the right powder, you should be able to get to your target velocity. Again, and I'm sure you will agree, velocity and pressure are not related like many may think.
Anyway, back to Speer 8. I was mistaken, I do have a copy of Speer no. 6 in digital format, which was good because it answered a question for me. When you look at no. 8 all the loads in the .38 spl. section are not grossly over pressure, which I figured had something to do with every other loading data source and the fact that they cut loads off for a number of reasons. The lead bullet loads in no. 6 didn't appear to be pressure tested, while the jacketed bullets were. (Again, I am talking about .the 38 spl. data here.)
When you look at the data for the bullets / powder loads that were in no. 6 the charges were the same in no. 8, which happens a lot in loading manuals. They did however re-chronograph these same loads as they have different velocities. Anyway, what I'm getting at is, Not every load in Speer no. 8 is excessive and mostly it was the SR4756 loads that were grossly excessive. They are over pressure for .357 magnums too. I almost wonder if they didn't want to spend the money on the crusher slugs that would have been required for testing every load, but that we will never know. I have nothing against loading to a particular firearm, that is where this thread started.
I don't agree with the guys that jump in to any discussion of loading manuals with "I only use Speer no. 8.", especially when directed to people that are new to reloading and/or don't know how to use loading data properly. Sometimes I even wonder if the person that claims to using the book knows why he is using it. As I said earlier, SR4756 doesn't look like a good choice for .38 spl, if you look at any other data source and the data in no. 8 for other cartridges pales in comparison.
I remember your post a while back with the photo of your bookcase, and I also recall a post you started on another forum about books and manuals about a year before that. It was fun to look at your picture to see how many I could identify.
Now I just want to make sure we are in the same discussion.
I have never found a good reliable figure for max. pressure of the heavy duty .38s. Based on load data and what else I've read, I'm guessing about 25,000 psi. It was interesting to look at Phil Sharpe's book because the load data doesn't really fit the narrative next to it on the same page. But, as you said, with the right powder, you should be able to get to your target velocity. Again, and I'm sure you will agree, velocity and pressure are not related like many may think.
Anyway, back to Speer 8. I was mistaken, I do have a copy of Speer no. 6 in digital format, which was good because it answered a question for me. When you look at no. 8 all the loads in the .38 spl. section are not grossly over pressure, which I figured had something to do with every other loading data source and the fact that they cut loads off for a number of reasons. The lead bullet loads in no. 6 didn't appear to be pressure tested, while the jacketed bullets were. (Again, I am talking about .the 38 spl. data here.)
When you look at the data for the bullets / powder loads that were in no. 6 the charges were the same in no. 8, which happens a lot in loading manuals. They did however re-chronograph these same loads as they have different velocities. Anyway, what I'm getting at is, Not every load in Speer no. 8 is excessive and mostly it was the SR4756 loads that were grossly excessive. They are over pressure for .357 magnums too. I almost wonder if they didn't want to spend the money on the crusher slugs that would have been required for testing every load, but that we will never know. I have nothing against loading to a particular firearm, that is where this thread started.
I don't agree with the guys that jump in to any discussion of loading manuals with "I only use Speer no. 8.", especially when directed to people that are new to reloading and/or don't know how to use loading data properly. Sometimes I even wonder if the person that claims to using the book knows why he is using it. As I said earlier, SR4756 doesn't look like a good choice for .38 spl, if you look at any other data source and the data in no. 8 for other cartridges pales in comparison.
Last edited:
I have been reading this thread and it just peaked my interest..I was sure the Federal I have was at 1200 or so fps and wanted to check and sure enough here it is...357 mag. Just thought it was interesting.....
Peter M. Eick
Member
Jellybean,
First off, this has been a fun discussion so lets keep it up. I believe you and I are very close to the same perspective. I have added a bunch of manuals to my collection and continually am searching for more to flesh out the supply.
I think your 25,000 lbs is probably right in the ballpark. I don't know though and am just guessing.
I think in the early 70's there was a velocity race going on in the loading manuals. Speer 8 is the culmination of that race and probably the end of it. If you go pull other manuals from say 1972 and prior, and compare loads you will see they are all in the same ball park. Lets just take Serra 1 as a proxy. My copy says 1971. Lets use jacketed bullet 38 special data so 158's.
630-p Speer 8 10.5, Sierra 10.4
Unique Speer 8 9.0, Sierra 6.4
4756 Speer 8 9.5, Sierra 8.4
AL-7 Speer 8 9.5, Sierra 9.0
They both were using K-38's to develop loads or so they said.
So, Speer is "hotter" then Sierra but sometimes a fair amount and sometimes not so much. The difference in their 4756 loads is 13%. So is that due to different bullets and different hardness or is it due to different pressure standards? Interesting question. To me though I take it that they were both in the same ballpark in terms of their view of sustainable pressure.
If you go pull up say Handloader and read some of the articles from the same vintage you will find they also were giving out data that is quite high by today's view of life.
My current perspective if we were all happy going along with our 38's for decades up loading 6 grns of Unique with a 158 (in Speer 6 if you note, it says the gun is a "pressure test gun") that developed 15,000 PSI (assumed CUP). This progressed unit the early 70's when the velocity race kicked in and Speer 8 comes out (still 6 grns of Unique). Speer 9 we are at 5.3 grns, Speer 10 we are at 4.7 grns and there we sit until today.
So how did we go from a published pressure level of 15,000 PSI (CUP?) in Speer 6 with 6.0 grns of Unique down to 4.7 grns today? It is fun to consider and speculate but at the end of the day what changed?
After we sort that one out, we can try and figure out why the CIP (european) standard for the 38 special is 22,000 and the SAAMI is 17,000.
So after all of this rambling around and consider of things I will lay out the following thesis for the 38 special data:
1) Speer 8 was a product of the times and should be considered as such
2) SAAMI lowered the pressure level for the 38 special and 357 magnum around the same time Speer 8 came out (causality?) and we have dealt with lower pressure limits since.
3) One might be able to load to the 38/44 power levels with suitable powders and based upon the evidence presented in the early 70's but different manufacturers 4756 is a reasonable choice to do so.
Now my approach since I am essentially only loading for 38/44's with 158 lead SWC's. I research different powders and select ones that are reasonable for the task based upon the 1970's data. I then work up loads to achieve my desired velocities or accuracy levels and shoot them in my 38/44's. To date no issues have occurred.
I will admit I am now investigating the RSI pressure trace system to try and hammer out some more data on pressure.
First off, this has been a fun discussion so lets keep it up. I believe you and I are very close to the same perspective. I have added a bunch of manuals to my collection and continually am searching for more to flesh out the supply.
I think your 25,000 lbs is probably right in the ballpark. I don't know though and am just guessing.
I think in the early 70's there was a velocity race going on in the loading manuals. Speer 8 is the culmination of that race and probably the end of it. If you go pull other manuals from say 1972 and prior, and compare loads you will see they are all in the same ball park. Lets just take Serra 1 as a proxy. My copy says 1971. Lets use jacketed bullet 38 special data so 158's.
630-p Speer 8 10.5, Sierra 10.4
Unique Speer 8 9.0, Sierra 6.4
4756 Speer 8 9.5, Sierra 8.4
AL-7 Speer 8 9.5, Sierra 9.0
They both were using K-38's to develop loads or so they said.
So, Speer is "hotter" then Sierra but sometimes a fair amount and sometimes not so much. The difference in their 4756 loads is 13%. So is that due to different bullets and different hardness or is it due to different pressure standards? Interesting question. To me though I take it that they were both in the same ballpark in terms of their view of sustainable pressure.
If you go pull up say Handloader and read some of the articles from the same vintage you will find they also were giving out data that is quite high by today's view of life.
My current perspective if we were all happy going along with our 38's for decades up loading 6 grns of Unique with a 158 (in Speer 6 if you note, it says the gun is a "pressure test gun") that developed 15,000 PSI (assumed CUP). This progressed unit the early 70's when the velocity race kicked in and Speer 8 comes out (still 6 grns of Unique). Speer 9 we are at 5.3 grns, Speer 10 we are at 4.7 grns and there we sit until today.
So how did we go from a published pressure level of 15,000 PSI (CUP?) in Speer 6 with 6.0 grns of Unique down to 4.7 grns today? It is fun to consider and speculate but at the end of the day what changed?
After we sort that one out, we can try and figure out why the CIP (european) standard for the 38 special is 22,000 and the SAAMI is 17,000.
So after all of this rambling around and consider of things I will lay out the following thesis for the 38 special data:
1) Speer 8 was a product of the times and should be considered as such
2) SAAMI lowered the pressure level for the 38 special and 357 magnum around the same time Speer 8 came out (causality?) and we have dealt with lower pressure limits since.
3) One might be able to load to the 38/44 power levels with suitable powders and based upon the evidence presented in the early 70's but different manufacturers 4756 is a reasonable choice to do so.
Now my approach since I am essentially only loading for 38/44's with 158 lead SWC's. I research different powders and select ones that are reasonable for the task based upon the 1970's data. I then work up loads to achieve my desired velocities or accuracy levels and shoot them in my 38/44's. To date no issues have occurred.
I will admit I am now investigating the RSI pressure trace system to try and hammer out some more data on pressure.
Peter,
I don't have the collection of loading manuals you have, but I'll try to keep up with you. I'll address your post topic by topic. I may sound a little erratic since I'm afraid of taking too long with the post and having it thrown out, which has already happened once. Even though windows 8 might have something to do with that since it wasn't that long.
I don't know if there was a velocity war back then, at least not like there is now. It's difficult to compare bullet data from one manufacturer to another because they make their bullets for certain reasons and design them to operate at different velocities. Speer 8 mentions they only tested the loads for velocity over a chronograph, however some of those loads were obviously developed earlier using pressure test equipment, and re-chronographed for an apples to apples comparison. But the reason Speer seemed hotter overall might have been due to the fact that they had to be to achieve optimum performance. Like I said before, not all of their data is overly excessive. It's also good to keep in mind that while bullets may look the same over the years, it's construction might have changed several times.
I quit reading gun/ammo magazines a long time ago. They are the ones that create the markets and usually it's for the wrong reason. They like to drill the aspect of "faster is better" into the readers minds, but that isn't usually the case. Many loading sources cut their data off if the load becomes so inaccurate it is basically useless.
I couldn't find the load that you referenced in Speer 6. There is a lot of talk on the net that powders have changed over the years due to velocities going up or charges going down. It's not so much the powders as it is the primers, they have been improved to give hotter and longer flames to ignite all the designer powders we have now. Primers make a lot of difference in a load. Also there is the normal lot to lot changes of powders and primers that will make a difference in load data, along with a long list of other reasons. But take a look at Lyman manuals and you will often see the exact same load posted for many years. It is obvious if you see identical velocities and pressures for a particular load as that just doesn't happen. They know that there will be little changes and re-testing loads for every edition is just going to confuse everyone.
Also as to your question of Speer 6 to modern manuals and what changed, first there is the SAAMI which did reduce the max. limits for .38 spls. in the early 70's. Also Speer no longer lists pressure data and they explain why in their newer manuals, which may have a lot to do with it.
I heard, and I don't know how true it is, that the CIP has different PSI limits because of the way they test their pressures, much like the difference between our commercial and military ammo.
I don't have the collection of loading manuals you have, but I'll try to keep up with you. I'll address your post topic by topic. I may sound a little erratic since I'm afraid of taking too long with the post and having it thrown out, which has already happened once. Even though windows 8 might have something to do with that since it wasn't that long.
I don't know if there was a velocity war back then, at least not like there is now. It's difficult to compare bullet data from one manufacturer to another because they make their bullets for certain reasons and design them to operate at different velocities. Speer 8 mentions they only tested the loads for velocity over a chronograph, however some of those loads were obviously developed earlier using pressure test equipment, and re-chronographed for an apples to apples comparison. But the reason Speer seemed hotter overall might have been due to the fact that they had to be to achieve optimum performance. Like I said before, not all of their data is overly excessive. It's also good to keep in mind that while bullets may look the same over the years, it's construction might have changed several times.
I quit reading gun/ammo magazines a long time ago. They are the ones that create the markets and usually it's for the wrong reason. They like to drill the aspect of "faster is better" into the readers minds, but that isn't usually the case. Many loading sources cut their data off if the load becomes so inaccurate it is basically useless.
I couldn't find the load that you referenced in Speer 6. There is a lot of talk on the net that powders have changed over the years due to velocities going up or charges going down. It's not so much the powders as it is the primers, they have been improved to give hotter and longer flames to ignite all the designer powders we have now. Primers make a lot of difference in a load. Also there is the normal lot to lot changes of powders and primers that will make a difference in load data, along with a long list of other reasons. But take a look at Lyman manuals and you will often see the exact same load posted for many years. It is obvious if you see identical velocities and pressures for a particular load as that just doesn't happen. They know that there will be little changes and re-testing loads for every edition is just going to confuse everyone.
Also as to your question of Speer 6 to modern manuals and what changed, first there is the SAAMI which did reduce the max. limits for .38 spls. in the early 70's. Also Speer no longer lists pressure data and they explain why in their newer manuals, which may have a lot to do with it.
I heard, and I don't know how true it is, that the CIP has different PSI limits because of the way they test their pressures, much like the difference between our commercial and military ammo.
Well, I can't really argue with most of this. I don't think no. 8 is the jewel many seem to think it is, actually it's more of a liability. I also don't feel that SR4756 is a good choice for the .38 spl/.38 spl +P/.38 heavy duty/.357 magnum family, but that is a personal choice. From what I'd read 2400 was the powder first used to make .38 heavy duty ammo and it appears to have been a good choice. But I don't own one so I don't worry about it all that much. I have nothing against anyone that shoots max. loads as long as they know how to do it. Today we have too many people that thinks the only way to go is to find the highest velocity and load it without working up to it.
Paul5388
US Veteran
It really doesn't seem like some have been reloading since the time when we were lucky to have one manual. The first one I bought was Speer #7, but that was just to have something at home to look at.
The common approach in that time was to pick a load for a particular cartridge and start loading. We normally used max, or pretty close to max loads and never blew any guns up. I still use a load we've used since 1964 in 7mm Mag that is almost equivalent to 7mm STW loads.
I have used Speer #8 loads since they came out, especially with Handloader Digest agreeing with Speer #8 on 14.0 gr SR 4756 with a 125 gr bullet. In fact the first deer I shot with a handgun was using that load at a suggested 1600+ fps. Years later I clocked that load out of the same M28-2 at 1575 fps MV using the same Sierra JHCs. Golden Sabers will clock at 1625 fps, like Speer said.
To assume any load you chose will produce anything close to published velocity and/or pressure is pretty much a pipe dream. Every gun is an individual within the strength of the materials used in its manufacture.
The common approach in that time was to pick a load for a particular cartridge and start loading. We normally used max, or pretty close to max loads and never blew any guns up. I still use a load we've used since 1964 in 7mm Mag that is almost equivalent to 7mm STW loads.
I have used Speer #8 loads since they came out, especially with Handloader Digest agreeing with Speer #8 on 14.0 gr SR 4756 with a 125 gr bullet. In fact the first deer I shot with a handgun was using that load at a suggested 1600+ fps. Years later I clocked that load out of the same M28-2 at 1575 fps MV using the same Sierra JHCs. Golden Sabers will clock at 1625 fps, like Speer said.
To assume any load you chose will produce anything close to published velocity and/or pressure is pretty much a pipe dream. Every gun is an individual within the strength of the materials used in its manufacture.
Peter M. Eick
Member
Paul,
I can agree that I remember my first manual. It was the only manual my dealer had and it was a Speer 9. The wealth of data I have in my library today was a pipe dream back in the 70's.
I have found that over a chrono, lots of old loads did reasonably close to the published speeds. Probably more so then today I believe.
Jellybean,
The Speer 6 loads are from pg 300, lower right corner.
I can see your point about not liking 4756. It is an interesting powder that serves double duty to me. I run it in my 38 Super's where it is great with lead. So I run the same stuff in both and it saves me a bit of logistics. I have never found 2400 to be particularly better than 4756. I actually find it burns a bit dirtier and holds up the ejector star more often so I don't use it as much. Since I now have 14 lbs of 4756, I will probably be using it for at least a few years so I might as well enjoy it.
I do agree that many folks just try to get the highest velocity. I know I am always aiming for a target. 1300 fps with a 130 in 38 Super and 1150 with a 158 in 38/44, and finally 1515 with a 158 in 357 Mag out of my 8 3/8" Pre-27's. In every case these are above "modern" book loads, but they were the original ballistics for the gun and ammo. Hence the fun and desire of reloading.
As Paul points out above, he has been using a load since 1964 and it has continued to work just fine. I felt the same way about speer 10. I used that manual for over 15 years as my only manual because it worked, the loads worked and why change? I think if you had carefully worked up using Speer 6, Sierra 1 or even Lyman 45 and they worked well in your gun it would be no big deal.
I have spent most of the morning reading about the RSI pressure trace system. I will probably buy one just to put on my contender so I can start measuring some of the pressures we are talking about.
I can agree that I remember my first manual. It was the only manual my dealer had and it was a Speer 9. The wealth of data I have in my library today was a pipe dream back in the 70's.
I have found that over a chrono, lots of old loads did reasonably close to the published speeds. Probably more so then today I believe.
Jellybean,
The Speer 6 loads are from pg 300, lower right corner.
I can see your point about not liking 4756. It is an interesting powder that serves double duty to me. I run it in my 38 Super's where it is great with lead. So I run the same stuff in both and it saves me a bit of logistics. I have never found 2400 to be particularly better than 4756. I actually find it burns a bit dirtier and holds up the ejector star more often so I don't use it as much. Since I now have 14 lbs of 4756, I will probably be using it for at least a few years so I might as well enjoy it.
I do agree that many folks just try to get the highest velocity. I know I am always aiming for a target. 1300 fps with a 130 in 38 Super and 1150 with a 158 in 38/44, and finally 1515 with a 158 in 357 Mag out of my 8 3/8" Pre-27's. In every case these are above "modern" book loads, but they were the original ballistics for the gun and ammo. Hence the fun and desire of reloading.
As Paul points out above, he has been using a load since 1964 and it has continued to work just fine. I felt the same way about speer 10. I used that manual for over 15 years as my only manual because it worked, the loads worked and why change? I think if you had carefully worked up using Speer 6, Sierra 1 or even Lyman 45 and they worked well in your gun it would be no big deal.
I have spent most of the morning reading about the RSI pressure trace system. I will probably buy one just to put on my contender so I can start measuring some of the pressures we are talking about.
Paul5388
US Veteran
Peter, I also have great reservations about pressure trace. Much of that may come from a lack of understanding how they work, but some of the uses just don't seem right. I'm pretty sure stainless (of whatever composition) doesn't expand at the same rate as carbon steel (of whatever composition). That makes traces kinda like shoes, one size doesn't fit all.
and then there is this manual that has some "Hairy" loads from some of the Sierra data.................
Might be ok for a K frame but some of the 38 special data is pushing the envelope for my J frame .
On page 28 with the 140 gr ........ you might want to ease in to that maximum charge of W231. I never got there due to the fact that I had reached 897 fps in my M49, before I got there.
One of a few with the Sierra data in this book.
Might be ok for a K frame but some of the 38 special data is pushing the envelope for my J frame .
On page 28 with the 140 gr ........ you might want to ease in to that maximum charge of W231. I never got there due to the fact that I had reached 897 fps in my M49, before I got there.
One of a few with the Sierra data in this book.
Peter,
My digital copy of no. 6 has the 146 gr. half jacketed SWCHP on the bottom of page 300, it does have the other information you gave, except in my newer Speer manuals they list a max. of 5.1 grains of Unique for it. The reduction could have been for any of the reasons I listed, and probably others.
Thanks for the info about 2400, I'd never used it myself but was thinking about trying it someday. I just don't get into shooting the cannons anymore, or even the small artillery. I was mostly into police duty shooting and looked more for ideal bullet shape and accuracy at velocities that were controllable for the type of shooting I was doing. I've used several types of powders for testing loads but pretty much settled on Bullseye and Unique for my favorites. Then as other people would ask me to load a box of ammo for them I'd use up the other stuff I had on hand.
And to be honest, one of the reasons I had even tried Bullseye and Unique, and was thinking about trying 2400, was that they have been around for a very long time. My oldest reloading data is from J.R. Matterns "Handloading Ammunition" and "The Ideal Hand Book of Useful Information for Shooters" No. 24. I have nothing against using data from older manuals, as long as it is done properly. Always start low and work up, and that is what Speer No. 8 warned, but too many people didn't heed that warning.
And the fact that Paul, or anyone else, has been using maximum data from an old manual and never blew their gun up doesn't mean they aren't over the maximum specified pressure for the cartridge they are shooting, in fact it doesn't mean much of anything at all. Let's use Paul as an example.
Even though he might have chronographed his load when he first developed it and chronographed his loads now, it would not mean a thing. Velocity will not tell you what pressure you are getting and small differences in velocity can mean thousands of pounds of pressure differences. He might be getting more pressure now than he did then or he might be getting less, or it might be so close it might be the difference between loading a batch this week and a batch next week.
The fact that he didn't blow his gun up doesn't mean he's not over pressure. Many people think that if your load is over pressure, by any amount, your gun will vaporize with the first shot. It doesn't work this way. Firearms can usually take considerably more pressure than specified max. before a catastrophic disaster, and some types and makes of firearms will even take more than others. No matter what type of firearm you have it does have to absorb the energy from the ammunition though, and this is a fact many people seem to ignore. It's not just a matter of how much pressure it will take, but how much for how long. Now his rifle may take the pressure from his load for a very long time and never have a problem, or if it is excessively over loaded it might only go for a few more years before anything starts to show. And there are variables too about how much it is shot and if it is shot with the same load all time. I love older S&W revolvers and even though I love to shoot them, I tend to under load them, especially since I bought them all used and don't know what has been shot in them before I bought them.
As far as which reloading manual I started with, it was none. I didn't know much about reloading and didn't know anyone that did, but it just so happened that when I was standing in the store with a stupid stare on my face looking at reloading stuff, an old guy that I didn't know gave me some information that was invaluable. Reloading manuals are highly over rated and are mostly a waste of paper, unless you happen to have the "70 calibers" or so, they list data for. It seems that most of the people that I meet at the range now days don't understand them or how to use them, and don't want to take the time to learn. They are perfectly satisfied with buying every one of them to find the best "recipe" with the highest velocity for their gun. Which again, I don't really care what they do, unless they are standing next to me on the range.
My digital copy of no. 6 has the 146 gr. half jacketed SWCHP on the bottom of page 300, it does have the other information you gave, except in my newer Speer manuals they list a max. of 5.1 grains of Unique for it. The reduction could have been for any of the reasons I listed, and probably others.
Thanks for the info about 2400, I'd never used it myself but was thinking about trying it someday. I just don't get into shooting the cannons anymore, or even the small artillery. I was mostly into police duty shooting and looked more for ideal bullet shape and accuracy at velocities that were controllable for the type of shooting I was doing. I've used several types of powders for testing loads but pretty much settled on Bullseye and Unique for my favorites. Then as other people would ask me to load a box of ammo for them I'd use up the other stuff I had on hand.
And to be honest, one of the reasons I had even tried Bullseye and Unique, and was thinking about trying 2400, was that they have been around for a very long time. My oldest reloading data is from J.R. Matterns "Handloading Ammunition" and "The Ideal Hand Book of Useful Information for Shooters" No. 24. I have nothing against using data from older manuals, as long as it is done properly. Always start low and work up, and that is what Speer No. 8 warned, but too many people didn't heed that warning.
And the fact that Paul, or anyone else, has been using maximum data from an old manual and never blew their gun up doesn't mean they aren't over the maximum specified pressure for the cartridge they are shooting, in fact it doesn't mean much of anything at all. Let's use Paul as an example.
Even though he might have chronographed his load when he first developed it and chronographed his loads now, it would not mean a thing. Velocity will not tell you what pressure you are getting and small differences in velocity can mean thousands of pounds of pressure differences. He might be getting more pressure now than he did then or he might be getting less, or it might be so close it might be the difference between loading a batch this week and a batch next week.
The fact that he didn't blow his gun up doesn't mean he's not over pressure. Many people think that if your load is over pressure, by any amount, your gun will vaporize with the first shot. It doesn't work this way. Firearms can usually take considerably more pressure than specified max. before a catastrophic disaster, and some types and makes of firearms will even take more than others. No matter what type of firearm you have it does have to absorb the energy from the ammunition though, and this is a fact many people seem to ignore. It's not just a matter of how much pressure it will take, but how much for how long. Now his rifle may take the pressure from his load for a very long time and never have a problem, or if it is excessively over loaded it might only go for a few more years before anything starts to show. And there are variables too about how much it is shot and if it is shot with the same load all time. I love older S&W revolvers and even though I love to shoot them, I tend to under load them, especially since I bought them all used and don't know what has been shot in them before I bought them.
As far as which reloading manual I started with, it was none. I didn't know much about reloading and didn't know anyone that did, but it just so happened that when I was standing in the store with a stupid stare on my face looking at reloading stuff, an old guy that I didn't know gave me some information that was invaluable. Reloading manuals are highly over rated and are mostly a waste of paper, unless you happen to have the "70 calibers" or so, they list data for. It seems that most of the people that I meet at the range now days don't understand them or how to use them, and don't want to take the time to learn. They are perfectly satisfied with buying every one of them to find the best "recipe" with the highest velocity for their gun. Which again, I don't really care what they do, unless they are standing next to me on the range.
.38 case is shorter than a .357 case, which can cause pressures to increase.
.357 chamber is longer, which can cause pressures to be decreased.
Cylinder gap will also affect pressure.
You can load .38 to .357 pressures, but it requires using less powder than you would in a .357 case or chamber.
That said, I would ONLY load those in a .357 magnum revolver, not in a .38.
I don't honestly see myself loading them that hot.
Buffalo Bore loads .38 loads for defensive use and outdoor use that are as hot as I want to shoot.
Even today's factory-neutered .357 loads are more than I care to buy/shoot on a regular basis.
If I want real ,.357 mag loads, Buffalo Bore offers everything I could possibly want in that round.
My only uses for hot ammo are hunting and SD.
The majority of my shooting is with mild target loads. Powder goes further and hand fatigue/pain are a non-issue.
.357 chamber is longer, which can cause pressures to be decreased.
Cylinder gap will also affect pressure.
You can load .38 to .357 pressures, but it requires using less powder than you would in a .357 case or chamber.
That said, I would ONLY load those in a .357 magnum revolver, not in a .38.
I don't honestly see myself loading them that hot.
Buffalo Bore loads .38 loads for defensive use and outdoor use that are as hot as I want to shoot.
Even today's factory-neutered .357 loads are more than I care to buy/shoot on a regular basis.
If I want real ,.357 mag loads, Buffalo Bore offers everything I could possibly want in that round.
My only uses for hot ammo are hunting and SD.
The majority of my shooting is with mild target loads. Powder goes further and hand fatigue/pain are a non-issue.
Last edited:
Paul5388
US Veteran
I think much of the problem resides in frequenting ranges. The real data is shown in the critters taken in real life situations. Then it is the elements and the prey that tell how effective a particular load is in that unique setting.
My loading philosophy has changed over the years from light and fast to heavy and fast. SR4756 certainly gives me fastest velocity with lighter bullets in .38 and .357, but a 158 gr with 15.0 gr of 2400 and a standard primer in .357 gives me more energy at the target. In a rifle, I still use 139-140 gr bullets in 7mm Mag like it has had from 1964, but I did find it is actually a published load!
Published loads are just that and little more, it's a privilege few wildcatters enjoy from a powder/bullet manufacturer. Even with SAAMI spec chambers the reamer will have some wear from one gun to the next and will produce different results in individual guns.
As far as metal fatigue, I have a 1903A3 two groove that is just 6 months older than me. It still shoots 1" groups at 100 yards, so 70 years hasn't seemed to have hurt it. I still use brass that was made when it was a new gun, so even brass lasts better than what people think, if you keep it out of the dirt.
In the "older" days, we didn't have access to chronographs, so we never knew what the actual velocity was. However, I bought one a few years ago and clocked old 7mm Mag loads that used bigger tubes than current IMR 4350. In the same gun they have always been shot in, they clocked 3290 fps and within 10 fps of the same load with new IMR 4350. Who knows what the pressure is and who cares? It has performed well for 49 years and hasn't hurt anything other than the intended target and that's all that really matters.
So, if you don't want loads that approximate the original loads, use a modern manual, otherwise you'll be using the older ones.
My loading philosophy has changed over the years from light and fast to heavy and fast. SR4756 certainly gives me fastest velocity with lighter bullets in .38 and .357, but a 158 gr with 15.0 gr of 2400 and a standard primer in .357 gives me more energy at the target. In a rifle, I still use 139-140 gr bullets in 7mm Mag like it has had from 1964, but I did find it is actually a published load!
Published loads are just that and little more, it's a privilege few wildcatters enjoy from a powder/bullet manufacturer. Even with SAAMI spec chambers the reamer will have some wear from one gun to the next and will produce different results in individual guns.
As far as metal fatigue, I have a 1903A3 two groove that is just 6 months older than me. It still shoots 1" groups at 100 yards, so 70 years hasn't seemed to have hurt it. I still use brass that was made when it was a new gun, so even brass lasts better than what people think, if you keep it out of the dirt.
In the "older" days, we didn't have access to chronographs, so we never knew what the actual velocity was. However, I bought one a few years ago and clocked old 7mm Mag loads that used bigger tubes than current IMR 4350. In the same gun they have always been shot in, they clocked 3290 fps and within 10 fps of the same load with new IMR 4350. Who knows what the pressure is and who cares? It has performed well for 49 years and hasn't hurt anything other than the intended target and that's all that really matters.
So, if you don't want loads that approximate the original loads, use a modern manual, otherwise you'll be using the older ones.
Similar threads
