SGT ROCK 11B
Member
Why not Elmer Keith that 38 special?
Why not Elmer Keith that 38 special ...
Because I have a 686 Plus in 357 Magnum
Why not Elmer Keith that 38 special ...
Because I have a 686 Plus in 357 Magnum
Why not Elmer Keith that 38 special
- Thread starter IAM Rand
- Start date
- Status
StrawHat
Member
This is one of my revolvers chambered for the 38 S&W Special.
For those who might not recognize it, it is a newer version of the revolver that Phil Sharpe used to create what became the 357 Magnum. Yes, his had Target sights but this is what I have.
This is the revolver that Major Dan Wesson mentioned when asked about heat treated cylinders. His response was something like, “the steel we use is strong enough to handle the pressures without heat treating.”
There was a small but popular conversion of these revolvers that involved deepening the chambers to accept the Magnum cartridge. No blowups have been recorded of which I am aware.
I use the Skeeter load in this revolver and have no issues. I have also loaded stouter and found accuracy dropped off.
If I were to find myself in need of a small bore revolver, a 38 S&W Special is what I would choose.
Kevin
For those who might not recognize it, it is a newer version of the revolver that Phil Sharpe used to create what became the 357 Magnum. Yes, his had Target sights but this is what I have.
This is the revolver that Major Dan Wesson mentioned when asked about heat treated cylinders. His response was something like, “the steel we use is strong enough to handle the pressures without heat treating.”
There was a small but popular conversion of these revolvers that involved deepening the chambers to accept the Magnum cartridge. No blowups have been recorded of which I am aware.
I use the Skeeter load in this revolver and have no issues. I have also loaded stouter and found accuracy dropped off.
If I were to find myself in need of a small bore revolver, a 38 S&W Special is what I would choose.
Kevin
bmcgilvray
Member
Here's an old thread I stuck up here on the Forum years ago showing some of the .38 Special load testing that has been undertaken over the years here.
Some .38 Special Chronograph Tests
Some .38 Special Chronograph Tests
Because we can. That is part of the adventure of reloading. Can I make it better than factory? That is the fun of it for many. Some get excited with 1 hole groups, some get excited by super velocity. I have participated in both adventures and still do occasionally.
Different strokes for different folks.
Rosewood
Rock185
US Veteran
Another interesting discussion. I loaded plenty of .357, but didn't shoot enough .38 Spcl. to bother loading it. Those of us on the Dept. who carried .357s did qualify with the issued Magnum ammo. We were issued the .357 125 grain JHP from Remington or Winchester; whichever happened to have the contract at the time. I did see a K-frame or two, and a Python with damaged forcing cones. The rangemaster asked me to chronograph the .38 and .357 duty ammo the Dept. was issuing at the time. IIRC, the .357 averaged ~1450 FPS in a 4" revolver.
The 158 grain Underwood .38 +P I tested recently averaged 1207 FPS in a 4" revolver, the Underwood 125 grain averaged 1267 FPS. I have no idea what pressures the ammo produced, but can say that primers looked normal and extraction was easy from both the 2" and 4" revolvers.
The N-Frame Smiths, Pythons and similar Colts, etc., use the shorter cylinders. I always figured that those shorter cylinders were used because prior to the introduction of the .357, those size guns were were chambered in the shorter 38 Spcl. Corporate economy, inertia? I sometimes had to make adjustments when I loaded .357 for my N-Frames. The .357 K and L-frames were a pleasure to load for due to their longer cylinders..
I wouldn't want it to get around, but in my dotage I most often shoot .38 Spcl. in my Colt, and S&W J, K, L, and N-frames, no matter the pressures or cylinder length
The 158 grain Underwood .38 +P I tested recently averaged 1207 FPS in a 4" revolver, the Underwood 125 grain averaged 1267 FPS. I have no idea what pressures the ammo produced, but can say that primers looked normal and extraction was easy from both the 2" and 4" revolvers.
The N-Frame Smiths, Pythons and similar Colts, etc., use the shorter cylinders. I always figured that those shorter cylinders were used because prior to the introduction of the .357, those size guns were were chambered in the shorter 38 Spcl. Corporate economy, inertia? I sometimes had to make adjustments when I loaded .357 for my N-Frames. The .357 K and L-frames were a pleasure to load for due to their longer cylinders..
I wouldn't want it to get around, but in my dotage I most often shoot .38 Spcl. in my Colt, and S&W J, K, L, and N-frames, no matter the pressures or cylinder length
Attachments
Okay, so either Shooting Illustrated was reading my mind or I read theirs. Their latest edition has an article about beefing up the 38 Special. Guess I am not so far off base, huh!
The advertised velocities were not earth shattering by any means but, around 1100+ max but, I still think you can push the 38 to the 1200-1500 safely in the newer manufactured revolvers making it more of what Keith was looking for. I still think the 38 is a relevant caliber but, woefully lacking. Look old timers, you can still have your 700-800fps 38s but, why not let the 38 live up to its potential.
Just saying.
The advertised velocities were not earth shattering by any means but, around 1100+ max but, I still think you can push the 38 to the 1200-1500 safely in the newer manufactured revolvers making it more of what Keith was looking for. I still think the 38 is a relevant caliber but, woefully lacking. Look old timers, you can still have your 700-800fps 38s but, why not let the 38 live up to its potential.
Just saying.
ArchAngelCD
Moderator, SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
IMO there is no way to push a .38 Special anywhere near 1500 fps safely. It's difficult to achieve that is a .357 Magnum. (excluding an extremely light bullet)
Do not post data for those loads unless you can link to a reliable source which also gives pressure data.
1500 fps is unrealistic in a .38 Special. So is 1200 fps in most cases. I have a .38 Special +P load with a 135gr bullet that will do 1050 fps from a 4" barrel and that load is pushing the pressure limits of 20,000 psi.
Couple of things here.
1) I have never "published" any load data and wouldn't but, thanks for the warning.
2) You obviously have not seen the published data on Buffalo Bore's website. They have 357 between 1400-1500.
You obviously missed the reason I started this along with the others here that have been doomsday naysayers with loading hot 38 Specials.
I have a 38. Would I ever load 1000+ round to shoot out of it, "Heck no." It is a model 49. Have I loaded 38s hot and shot them out of a 357, Heck yessssssss. Are the new 38s capable of shooting a faster ammo, I believe the quality revolvers could/can. If you think I am crazy then please, by all means, write the editors of Shooters Illustrated and tell them that I and they are crazy. Grab a copy of the latest and see what they have in the article. The guy writing it was using a Korth 38 special. If anyone would/should be concerned about shooting loads that could destroy an expensive gun it would have been him.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 8,926
- Reaction score
- 10,998
Is SHOOTING ILLUSTRATED a real paper gun magazine or some Internet creation? I'm unfamilar with it.
My google fu found it is an NRA publication and is available in paper option.
Rosewood
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 8,926
- Reaction score
- 10,998
Thank you; never heard of it.
It is a magazine put out by the NRA.
If you go back to my original supposition that gun makers are still making the 38 special and that it is still a relevant firearm, why not make it even more relevant. Elmer pushed the envelope in the 38. The only reason the 357 came about was that they didn't want people to load the more powerful 38 into a gun that wasn't designed to shoot the more powerful round (specifically the 38-44). The cartridge is shorter so that you can load a heaver round into it like the Keith 169-173 gr semi-wadcutter.
Somehow I have spoken heresy here and that I am encouraging people to harm themselves by loading the 38 to such a level that they would blow up their 38 special. My original supposition was that the newly manufacturers are making 38s to a point that they could handle a greater velocity round and keeping the 38 even more relevant.
Sigh, I guess I am just a radical.
My experience, I loaded some 357 to almost max from a well respected reloading manual and shot a couple of those in my model 28 and then they sat around on the shelf for couple years and I broke them down and loaded to a more moderate level. There is no way I would consider shooting 357 power level ammo in a 38 special revolver.
The loading manuals are full of +P and baby magnum loads for 38sp. I would guess that there are more bullets and loads for the 38sp than any other cartridge.
To me anything that is not accurate is not interesting. I’ve loaded a lot of revolver ammo and load only one heavy. It’s an old Ruger SBH. It’s running 22.5gr 2400 over 240JHP. Why you ask? Because that is it’s sweet spot or it wouldn’t be cranking that load.
We have a few locals known for blowing up firearms. Do what turns you on.
I don’t think anyone gives the slightest hoot what others do or think. One thing for sure I’m not in awe of somebody hot rodding their 38sp.
To me anything that is not accurate is not interesting. I’ve loaded a lot of revolver ammo and load only one heavy. It’s an old Ruger SBH. It’s running 22.5gr 2400 over 240JHP. Why you ask? Because that is it’s sweet spot or it wouldn’t be cranking that load.
We have a few locals known for blowing up firearms. Do what turns you on.
I don’t think anyone gives the slightest hoot what others do or think. One thing for sure I’m not in awe of somebody hot rodding their 38sp.
Torquemada;But honestly said:Um, I believe that was my point. I believe that the new 38s are more than enough gun and that it can be loaded hotter than what general manufacturing is doing.
I thought that I made that point but, I guess I was making a point over some people's head.
SuperMan
Member
If anyone has a subscription to LoadData.com they have listed .38-44 loads...
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
