Overloading 38sp?

[Peter M. Eick]

Jellybean,

Interesting that our manuals are slightly different for Speer 6. Must be different printings. Oh well. I understand your point about metal fatigue and how things tend to build up over time. I realize that the guns can get overloaded and will not blow for a while unless you go catastrophic. All in all, I really don't see our philosophy on reloading is much different. I think we are on similar trajectories so to speak. I went from loading hot to loading light back to now loading for a purpose.

Sort of like Paul above. He is running loads that have performed with for 49 years and found the same thing I did that powders have not really changed much in decades. Also he uses a phrase just like Clark (who posts here often does), "I don't care what the pressure is and who cares" Clark would add "I care what the pressure does". I am of the same ilk but would like to quantify it for the fun of knowing.

At one time I was worried about wear and tear to my S&W's, but today I realize that I only shoot some beaters that fortunately I saved from conversion to something else but that is another story. So I put the wear and tear on a few S&W's. It is really not that many rounds, and considering my age, I realized I will not wear them out in my lifetime. So now I load them for a purpose.

What purpose you might ask? Well, if it is a 38/44, then my purpose is to master the 38/44 Heavy Duty with full power loads. I want to understand what was the better weapon. The 38 Super or the 38/44? I am not sure some days. That is the fun of reloading as I can make real 38/44 loads (1150 with a 158) or 38 Super (1300 with a 130) and go out and play with them. 4756 allows me to easily do this with no pressure signs or issues with my guns. I don't shoot them in K frames though or my Colt D frames.

My next project is to figure out how to duplicate real 357 Magnum ammo. That is 1515 with a 158 out of an 8 3/8" barrel. I went and bought a 7.5" Ruger Redhawk 357 Magnum just for this purpose. That way I can take the wear and tear off my Pre-27's until I am down to chrono-ing the final data.

As Paul says above we are faced with a choice. If I want to approximate the original loads, then I have to use older manuals. Newer manuals just don't get the job done.

As I say, if you look at the original ballistics, all 38/357 rounds have taken one step down the power level in the last 40 years.
Old 357 Magnums = new 357 Max
Old 38/44's = New 357 Magnum
Old 38 Specials= New 38+P (maybe)
Old 38 S&W = New 38 Specials

It is a crying shame we put up with this so willingly but then again the 357 Magnum is no longer considered a big powerful gun anymore. We have the 454 Casull or 480 Ruger or even the 500 S&W for that role today.

 

[M3Stuart]

If I were the OP I'd get .357 brass and load it for .357, or I'd get .38 special brass and load it up to +P.

 

[Jellybean]

Peter,
I've never found any evidence that powders have changed, although other things have, but all in all, there have always been little variances that would affect pressures. Data from the 60's or later is modern data as far as components go and the only real change would be SAAMI changing pressure limits, which is due to all the garbage the gun manufacturers have pushed on the market. But loading for your gun, instead of every gun in a particular caliber, is one of the many advantages of handloading.

Usually I don't load near max. for my handguns, because I don't need to. I really don't understand what you and Paul are saying about not caring what the pressure is, it's pretty important, even if I'm not loading to the top. And the statement that Clark makes is very important too. No. I can't tell you what pressures I'm getting, but I understand them so I know when they are acting up.

I have to make a trigger spring for a CZ 50 before my son leaves town, but after I'm done I'll look around for information about your real .357 magnum ammo.

Edit:
I started thinking I'd probably have start with Lyman Ideal no. 39, but since it was from the early 50's you'd have to be careful because the primers were not as hot as they are now and that would drive up pressures. And then it hit me, this is probably why you aren't getting the velocities from when the cartridge was first created. Hotter primers can change the burning rate of powders, and the hotter the primer the greater the change. They would cause the powder to burn faster, which would raise the max. pressure, but then that could result in a lower velocity. I'll have to look into this... After I get this spring done.

 

[Paul5388]

If the primers or the powder has changed, how do you figure out what loading manual to use? I have powder from the 40s and 50s that aren't even in a manual past the 1960s.

Have you ever tried triple based DuPont Number 6 or HiVel No. 2?

 

[smousefam5]

Several Problems:
1. By putting the load in a smaller case, you change the expansion ratio and raise the pressure an unknown amount.
2. The heads of .357 cases are not identical to .38 cases internally.
3. When someone puts your overlaod in a .38 chamber, guess what? That's WHEN , not if.

Great response!

 

[Paul5388]

An old 1920s .38 Special was used to work up to .38/44 loads, is there any doubt about that? I really don't know what everyone is so concerned about hot .38s being used in a .38 Special. Surely you aren't suggesting today's guns are less strong than a gun that was barely newer than heat treating! In Speer #5 they used 6.0 gr of Unique or 12.0 gr of 2400 with a 158 gr LSWC out of a 6" K38. BBHFarm Gallery :: Speer #5, Speer Inc, 1961 :: aae

 

[blujax01]

An old 1920s .38 Special was used to work up to .38/44 loads, is there any doubt about that? I really don't know what everyone is so concerned about hot .38s being used in a .38 Special. Surely you aren't suggesting today's guns are less strong than a gun that was barely newer than heat treating! In Speer #5 they used 6.0 gr of Unique or 12.0 gr of 2400 with a 158 gr LSWC out of a 6" K38. BBHFarm Gallery :: Speer #5, Speer Inc, 1961 :: aae

As a newer hand loader (3 years), I have been following this thread with both ears open. What a treasure trove of information has been written here.

In Speer #14, 2400 is no longer recommended (with explanation provided), and Unique is shown with a maximum load of 5.2 grains - in the +P section.

While some may say that the lower powder charges are due to the influence of lawyers, it is also generally acknowledged that not only have testing methods and materials, but the very Standards of Unit Measurement have changed since these loads were originally developed.

I would tend to trust the newer text over that written a half century ago. Especially since the text you provided showed the 6 grain max but states that the most accurate is at 5.0.

Still learning...

 

[Paul5388]

If you consider the type of instruments that were used in the development of Plutonium during the early 1940s, I think there was sufficient sophistication for the task at hand. Most are unaware of DuPont using transducers prior to 1965, but DuPont sponsored a team at the University of Michigan to look at the absolute pressure in firearms and they used transducers (page 38). http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/3866/bac6873.0001.001.pdf?sequence=5 Pages 29 and 30 are some of the distinctives, prior to 1965, involved with strain gauges and copper crushers. Strain gauges were used by Norma and CCI to name a couple of users.

We were developing our space program around that same time and ended up with man on the moon shortly afterwards!

 

[Jellybean]

Paul,
I've never tried those powders, but have enough data on hand if I ever find any.

The powders don't change all that much over time, as far as burning characteristics, even if they are changed physically. But the primers certainly have and they can make a huge difference in what you get in return. And the bad part is that often that return is lower muzzle velocities at higher max. pressures. So if you pull a load out of an older manual and use new primers in it, and try to get the same velocity you are well over max. pressure. Maybe not enough to blow your gun up, but enough to make your gun say "ouch, that hurt".

I was just looking at the 2013 complimentary guide from Alliant, which I just picked up at a local bullet casters. A .357 shooting a jacketed 125 gr. bullet at 2000 fps is pretty impressive, especially considering today's sissified standards. Some of the "modern smokeless" powders we are using are about a century old now, or more. And if the more modern primers have affected them as I think, the powder makers are going to develop new powders that will be suitable for them to please the bulk of reloaders that only care about higher velocity. Now, I just hope it's not full of mistakes.

I thought I'd read the .38/.44 ammunition was developed in the N framed revolvers. And that was why the ammunition was named for the gun it was made in, instead of the gun being named after the ammunition, which is what happened with the .357 magnum.

 

[Paul5388]

Smith & Wesson soon realized during testing that this round was too hot for their standard Military and Police .38 Specials. A new model gun was needed to handle the increased pressure and recoil brought by the new round.

38-44 HEAVY DUTY HISTORY

 

[Peter M. Eick]

They did bring out the 38/44 (38 special on a 44 frame) in response to the 38 Super by Colt. They also advertised that the K frame could take 38/44 rounds in later advertisements. I have seen them posted online but I don't have a copy. The issue is the K frame will take the 38/44's but over time will wear it out faster than say a Heavy Duty. I know I would not shoot one of my 38/44 rounds in a K frame though.

Regarding the post above that somehow the "overloaded" rounds will get in a K frame. Not in my house since I don't own any K frames. I have D-frame Colts but they only get Trailboss loads so No big deal. Remember gun safety is between the ears not built into the metal.

Regarding Dupont 6 (Great powder by the way) or Hi-vel 2. I have used both but have not seen any in about 30 years. You are lucky to have some!

Regarding the different powders and primers. This is a very valid point. My observation is powder has not changed much over the decades. It is mostly lot to lot variations. I can't put my finger on an example of hard and fast changes that did not result in a new powder. Sort of like winchester 230 and 231. Different powders for slight changes. The primers are another factor which I will grant. What I do is work up to a velocity target with reasonable powders. My velocity target is where I do the research and the I use 38/44's which give me a bit of extra metal to take slight variations in powder.

The net result of this discussion is I have decided that "some day" I will get a pressure barrel setup and proceed forward. I am not sure if it will be RSI or something more formal.

 

[Jellybean]

Thanks for the link Paul. I put it in my favorites so I can read the whole piece when I get the time.

Here is a link of my own. It's a declassified military film titled "Fundamentals of Ballistics". If you can't view the format, look at the upper left where the images are changing and choose another one. Although the date is 1949, the science hasn't changed.

https://archive.org/details/gov.dod.dimoc.29866

 

[Fishslayer]

I already have plenty of 38 cases and mostly 357 revolvers so I was just wondering if there was any harm loading those same cases to higher energy loads.

"Mostly .357..."

Murphy is lurking in the corner, plotting a way to get one of those hot loads into your or somebody else's .38...

...you KNOW he's there...

 

[jvmm]

If you load 357 mag pressures in a 38 spl case eventually

someone WILL get one of them in a 38 spl , then no more
revolver

that's the main reason NOT to do it

 

[Maximumbob54]

I may as well confess to having done this. But I used a bright blood red coating on the bullets used and seated them in the first crimp groove so they stuck out not just like a sore thumb but even more so. I did test to see and yes they dropped right into a .38 chamber. I did that for a while until Starline came back into supply of .357 brass and I've not done it since.

 

[Jellybean]

Seating them "long" as Maximumbob did will result in lower pressures than if you seated them to the crimp groove/cannalure.

Shooting "ONE" in a .38 will not destroy it, at least if it's a quality made firearm with no plastic or pot metal. If there is more than one shot in a .38 it's the fault of the shooter, as they should know after the first shot there is something wrong. In fact, even if there is only one shot in a .38 it's the fault of the shooter. What ever happened to, "Don't shoot reloads that you don't know anything about."? And that includes any "factory ammo" where there may be any amount of doubt about it's origin.

There is no real difference between the internal design of the two cartridges that will make one bit of difference. The cases are not what decides the pressure limits in a revolver as they are supported in the same way by their cylinders and breech face.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

I still say safety is between the ears and if you think about it, you should have no problems keeping 38/44 reloads out of 38 specials.

This is the same as double charging a case. Some folks say don't reload because you might double charge a case and blow the gun up. I have not found this to be a problem yet because I believe safety is between the ears and requires procedures and processes.

 

[Jaymo]

I've only been reloading since 1991, but NOBODY has ever had any of my reloads end up in their gun except ME.

Who are all these reloaders who are so graciously giving away free ammo?
Sign me up for some of that.

I understand the need to be safe, but MY GOD, we'd NEVER have the .357 OR .44 Mag (much less .454 Casull) if the hand wringers had their way. (not necessarily talking about anyone here)

 

[Paul5388]

Maybe you should be talking about some on this forum? I think the last time I quit this forum was over some nit picking and maybe the old maids with male accouterments helped the departure.

The only Kaboom I have ever had any knowledge of was a supposed factory load in a Glock, but Glocks Kaboom a lot more than S&Ws!

So, I tried to get you out of your doldrums and try some real loads, but other than for a few it goes unheeded. Therefore, I quit again. Adios!

 

[Jellybean]

...I understand the need to be safe, but MY GOD, we'd NEVER have the .357 OR .44 Mag (much less .454 Casull) if the hand wringers had their way. (not necessarily talking about anyone here)

Unfortunately hand wringers are a way of life, especially on the internet. There is no question or comment that isn't going to be unsafe, impossible or illegal to someone, and that goes for every type of forum, not just gun related.

But there is also the other extreme you have to worry about. Most of the material on this forum is nothing new and is easy to address because it's all been done before. Yet there are still plenty of responses from those that choose to ignore the past or are too willing to listen to others that have.

It's not just about being safe, it's also about being smart and careful and learning from mistakes, wether they are yours or someone else's.