The Load
- Thread starter DanMartin
- Start date
"Scotty, I need more power!"
"I can't hold her together much longer, Captain!"
"I can't hold her together much longer, Captain!"
Paul5388
US Veteran
Mike,
In 1964, DuPont said it took 9.5 gr of SR 4756 in .357 brass to generate 1345 fps at 35,800 cup. For Dennis' benefit, here's the documentation.
Many people judge how close they are to maximum loads by comparing the velocity they record with a published load velocity. That's about like comparing with the heads of Hydra!
How do you know which one is the "right" one?
Here's an article on velocities most of you should be familiar with, and if not, you need to be.
http://www.bbhfarm.com/gallery/album15/aab?full=1
http://www.bbhfarm.com/gallery/album15/aaa?full=1
The bottom line, you don't have a clue about pressure in your gun, since it isn't very close to what was used in pressure testing labs. You also don't have a clue as to how the pressure correlates to velocity, since there is such wide variation in results in different guns.
In 1964, DuPont said it took 9.5 gr of SR 4756 in .357 brass to generate 1345 fps at 35,800 cup. For Dennis' benefit, here's the documentation.
Many people judge how close they are to maximum loads by comparing the velocity they record with a published load velocity. That's about like comparing with the heads of Hydra!
How do you know which one is the "right" one?
Here's an article on velocities most of you should be familiar with, and if not, you need to be.
http://www.bbhfarm.com/gallery/album15/aab?full=1
http://www.bbhfarm.com/gallery/album15/aaa?full=1
The bottom line, you don't have a clue about pressure in your gun, since it isn't very close to what was used in pressure testing labs. You also don't have a clue as to how the pressure correlates to velocity, since there is such wide variation in results in different guns.
That's a good point Leon and should be given heed!
dennis40x
US Veteran
Paul I didn't ask the question for my benefit. The point was made for the collective benefit of those reading the subject matter.
leon reverrat had his loads tested by H.P. White. The testing results can be accepted or disputed dependent on one's view point.
Paul5388
US Veteran
You're right Dennis, so let's just say it's for verification for everyone, that the data is different, depending on who tested it and when it was tested. That's a situation that doesn't instill confidence in the results as being meaningful and/or useful.
Wyatt Earp
Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2007
- Messages
- 996
- Reaction score
- 16
No, the paper won't.
But many here load for other purposes. Purposes where penetration through flesh and bone and tissue disruption are all important concerns.
In those instances the difference in power is noticeable.
Paul5388
US Veteran
Maybe because a .38 with a LSWC is all that's needed for these situations, to produce results like this?
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
Dan,
I am going to take your question as a truly inquisitive one and answer accordingly.
Erich, who was the first one to post about "THE LOAD", was doing a personal experiment. For a whole year he was going to carry nothing but 38spl revolvers for CCW.
That being said, I'm just guessing here, while looking at the data/loads available for present day 38's, felt the same way you did. The difference came because Erich reloads. He wondered about the 38/44 loads of yesteryear and wondered why they weren't in use today. His firearms could handle those type of loads and being the only carry gun for a year, I think he wanted the maximum power available.
There were many other loads that were tested during that year, "THE LOAD" was only one. Several of us are carrying 38spl bugs stoked with it now.
FWIW
(p.s. Don't be lazy, read the other thread. Most of these questions will be answered there.)
I don't know that you would or should. I certainly wouldn't if I had doubts.
But given the uses you have stated It would be better to just find a different load. A load like this would be poorly suited to the purpose.
ChuckS1
US Veteran
Last year I bought a copy of Speer #8 specifically for data on "The Load". Worked up to it in my Outdoorsman and, other than finding that the Remington primers weren't up to the task and switched to Winchester, I had no problems with it.
That being said, I don't think I'd make a steady diet of it in my K-38 either.
That being said, I don't think I'd make a steady diet of it in my K-38 either.
Paul5388
US Veteran
I found this stashed away in an obscure place, so I think posting it may help understand pressures and their reporting a little more.
Here's some data showing over 5,000 psi difference between a .357 Mag solid barrel and a revolver barrel.
When you consider the other data in this clip, different test data becomes very apparent for a variety of reasons.
You may also notice the load was SR 4756.
Here's some data showing over 5,000 psi difference between a .357 Mag solid barrel and a revolver barrel.
When you consider the other data in this clip, different test data becomes very apparent for a variety of reasons.
You may also notice the load was SR 4756.
10-4. I get it. Sadly, I don't live in a state that allows a CCW, it says it does, but getting a permit is another story. I had a brief career in law enforcement (1975), and it was at a time when the department provided Model 19 and Model 66 Smith's but required the first 6 rounds to be .38. (158 grain LRN) After I left, the department went to 125 grain JHP .357.
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
In the great classic "Chicken Run" I think they changed it to "Thrust, I need more Thrust!"
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
I left something out of my post to dennis that needs to be said. I never said I doubted Leon had data or that his data was no good. I simply asked if he had it.
Like dennis said, at that point we can accept it or reject it.
I feel quite comfortable that his bullets were tested and that they gave the results he has posted.
That being said, I don't for a minute believe my loads are near the pressure he has posted.
I am only using primer condition and extraction to determine that though. Here is why. If I load up some Lil' Gun or AA#9 and run a load that in the books says I am getting into the 35,000psi or CUP range, I get completely different results in appearance/extraction than what I get with "THE LOAD". I have shot loads with the same brand of primers in 357mag that have given me extremely flattened primers with a different powder that are supposed to be in the same pressure range, 35,000cup or psi or whatever.
It only seems to get folks riled if it came out of the Speer #8 or is with SR4756. Why is that?
Elmer and Skeeter absolutely broke every handloading rule when it comes to data and people laud them, idolize them, almost worship them and their experiences. That seems like a double standard to me. I neither want or seek that kind of recognition, I am just covering ground they trod, simple as that.
Like dennis said, at that point we can accept it or reject it.
I feel quite comfortable that his bullets were tested and that they gave the results he has posted.
That being said, I don't for a minute believe my loads are near the pressure he has posted.
I am only using primer condition and extraction to determine that though. Here is why. If I load up some Lil' Gun or AA#9 and run a load that in the books says I am getting into the 35,000psi or CUP range, I get completely different results in appearance/extraction than what I get with "THE LOAD". I have shot loads with the same brand of primers in 357mag that have given me extremely flattened primers with a different powder that are supposed to be in the same pressure range, 35,000cup or psi or whatever.
It only seems to get folks riled if it came out of the Speer #8 or is with SR4756. Why is that?
Elmer and Skeeter absolutely broke every handloading rule when it comes to data and people laud them, idolize them, almost worship them and their experiences. That seems like a double standard to me. I neither want or seek that kind of recognition, I am just covering ground they trod, simple as that.
dennis40x
US Veteran
Don't worry Skip I don't have you confused with Elmer and Skeeter. Their dead and your alive and there is some thing to be said for that.
As for "The Load" I think its time to move on. There are those whom are advocates and there are those that aren't. I don't see anyone one changing their position on this subject. Let us simply agree to disagree and maintain a semblance of civility.
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
Agreed!
Hoptob
Member
Agreed.
Next time someone asks "What is THE LOAD?" I am going to say:
"THE LOAD is the load that you and your revolver like most." Period.
Mike
Similar threads
- Locked
