The Load
- Thread starter DanMartin
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Spotteddog
Member
I always thought "The Load" was the FBI load of a 38 spec +P 158grlswc??
scattershot
Member
I asked the same question a couple of months ago. Here's a link to the thread...
http://smith-wessonforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5701039...961031433#3961031433
http://smith-wessonforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5701039...961031433#3961031433
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
Dan,
That thread almost cause family members to disown one another!
(Just Kidding!)
As the originator of the third thread on the subject on this forum, I have to admit that there was a little manipulation on my part to keep it going. I posed other questions and inserted other factors to raise new questions spurring discussion.
Some have called it playing "Devil's Advocate" and I greatly detest that analogy.
What some of us were trying to do is bring back some of the faded glory of the 38spl. It has been "wimpified" in recent years. The 38/44 revolvers of old could handle "THE LOAD" just fine while it has been reported that some smaller framed firearms have suffered catastrophic failures after firing only one round.
I would not use "THE LOAD" in an alloy framed or cylindered revolver. That's me. Others have.
"L" framed 357mag firearms, "K" framed 357mag firearms, "N" framed firearms are another story though. But that is just me.
The official nomenclature of "THE LOAD" is this:
"The Speer #8 reloading manual's starting 38spl recipe for a 158gr LSWC and SR4756 powder"
"THE LOAD" was coined by NKJ_nut and simply implies that it "was THE LOAD that couldn't be mentioned."
Rest assured of one thing though, it is WELL outside of the SAMMI standard for pressure specifications for the 38spl.
Use it or not, you are the one responsible for your actions.
I hope this helps.
That thread almost cause family members to disown one another!
As the originator of the third thread on the subject on this forum, I have to admit that there was a little manipulation on my part to keep it going. I posed other questions and inserted other factors to raise new questions spurring discussion.
Some have called it playing "Devil's Advocate" and I greatly detest that analogy.
What some of us were trying to do is bring back some of the faded glory of the 38spl. It has been "wimpified" in recent years. The 38/44 revolvers of old could handle "THE LOAD" just fine while it has been reported that some smaller framed firearms have suffered catastrophic failures after firing only one round.
I would not use "THE LOAD" in an alloy framed or cylindered revolver. That's me. Others have.
"L" framed 357mag firearms, "K" framed 357mag firearms, "N" framed firearms are another story though. But that is just me.
The official nomenclature of "THE LOAD" is this:
"The Speer #8 reloading manual's starting 38spl recipe for a 158gr LSWC and SR4756 powder"
"THE LOAD" was coined by NKJ_nut and simply implies that it "was THE LOAD that couldn't be mentioned."
Rest assured of one thing though, it is WELL outside of the SAMMI standard for pressure specifications for the 38spl.
Use it or not, you are the one responsible for your actions.
I hope this helps.
leon riverrat
Member
As noted "the load" is well outside the SAAMI pressure limits for the 38 special. I had a load pressure tested which was .5 grain less than the Speer manual #8 starting load that gave 36,690 CUP in an 8" pressure barrel and a velocity of 1241fps. "and the angels sing"
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
Leon,
Not that I doubt you at all BUT there were other tests made of "THE LOAD" by reputable sources and the pressure was no where near what you have posted.
In the age of the Internet it is possible to make fantastic claims with no real basis in fact. Now, don't think I am pointing that at you but do you have certifiable proof. A .pdf or .jpg of your test results from a well known laboratory or other testing facility.
I was going to take up a collection to have such a test made and posted it on this forum. I only had one taker and I didn't want to shell out $400 for my part!
Of course, none of the critics from the other thread showed any interest putting their money where their mouth was either!
Wesprt
Member
8 grains of SR4756 under a 158 SWC in a .38 special case with a standard primer, since no one has actually said it yet
bmcgilvray
Member
Ah Wesprt, you've done it now! Brother will be fighting brother. Father will be fighting son. States will be seceding. Armys will be marching.
Paul5388
US Veteran
A little over a year ago, I clocked THE LOAD out of a 6" M28-2 at 1135 fps (1160 fps MV). I clocked the same load and same 2004 lot of powder on the same day out of a 4" M66-2 at 1140 fps (1165 fps MV).
Even though Speer shot theirs out of a K frame (6" M14 at 1140 fps), I think using an N frame or .357 would be the prudent thing to do.
Even though Speer shot theirs out of a K frame (6" M14 at 1140 fps), I think using an N frame or .357 would be the prudent thing to do.
Wyatt Earp
Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2007
- Messages
- 996
- Reaction score
- 16
THE LOAD sounds a lot like Buffalo Bore's 158 grain +P LSWCHP.
Hoptob
Member
Leon,
I second Skip's request to post some documentation if possible. Your pressure number is close to where I expected it to be though. IMR 2005 manual shows 7.7 gr. of SR4756 under 158 gr. Rem LSWC in 357 magnum cases at 35,800 CUP.
Also, I agree with Paul, Jesse and Skip that it's a prudent thing to use this type of loads in guns rated for 357 magnum.
Mike
dennis40x
US Veteran
The information by leon riverrat is being disputed?
This appears to be a two-way street; smith crazy should validate his reputable sources information. One shouldn't ask another to provide their information if the requester doesn't do the same.
In other words this is my documentation and sources that I've formulated my position on. Would you please provide yours so we may resolve this disputed subject?
This appears to be a two-way street; smith crazy should validate his reputable sources information. One shouldn't ask another to provide their information if the requester doesn't do the same.
In other words this is my documentation and sources that I've formulated my position on. Would you please provide yours so we may resolve this disputed subject?
leon riverrat
Member
My reason for posting the data on the results of the testing I had done was to raise a red flag for DanMartin and any others who plan to load 38/44 level loads. He admits to being new to reloading and is seeking information. Loads of this type are not the place for inexperienced reloaders to begin in my opinion.
"and the angels sing" chapter in Phil Sharpes old book should be required reading for any new comer to reloading.
The testing I had done was for 3 different loads and was done for my use and information by the H.P. White labratory. If you are loading outside the box I would reccommend that you have your loads tested. I was pleased with the work done by the White Lab.
"and the angels sing" chapter in Phil Sharpes old book should be required reading for any new comer to reloading.
The testing I had done was for 3 different loads and was done for my use and information by the H.P. White labratory. If you are loading outside the box I would reccommend that you have your loads tested. I was pleased with the work done by the White Lab.
Peter M. Eick
Member
This weekend I picked up a copy of lyman 40 and 42. They state that in "heavy framed guns only" meaning my 38/44's, they recommend
13.5 grns of "2400 rifle" with 150's and 6.5 grns of Unique. This pretty well matches the velocities for Speer 8's top end loads if you extrapolate out the 150 to 158.
13.5 grns of "2400 rifle" with 150's and 6.5 grns of Unique. This pretty well matches the velocities for Speer 8's top end loads if you extrapolate out the 150 to 158.
Similar threads
- Locked
