Why not Elmer Keith that 38 special

[rwsmith]

I have an old Sierra book....

...that gives higher loads for .38 than are found in today's published data. I have experimented with loads from this, though not the max. I feel that they aren't 'unsafe', as even the lower range was little bit raucous for a .38 and I didn't feel the need to go further.

 

[rosewood]

The barrel fails as result of the force of the second round colliding with the first bullet not from pressure resulting from fire normal round (internal ballistics). These are technically refereed to as obstructions.

Cylinder failures are always the result of over pressure, barrel ruptures are typically the result of obstructions.

.

When one bullet rams into another bullet and there is no where for it to go, that is pressure anyway you look at it. The gases are still pushing and do so until the bullet exists the bore or they find another escape route, whether it is peak pressure or not.

Rosewood

 

[rosewood]

There simply wasn't a cartridge in existence at that time that ran at those pressures, and they didn't know how the guns would react. Even with Keith's testing of the 38, it wasn't done until the 38/44 Heavy Duty came out in around 1930. There wasn't an "overbuilt" 38 Special until then that he could feel comfortable experimenting with.

The SAAMI psi for 9mm is 35K, so is the 357 Mag, so I would say there was already a cartridge that ran at those pressures. Unless they increased the 9mm later in life?? Then that puts back to the argument someone else had about older 9mm possibly being weak and no one cares.

Rosewood

 

[bmcgilvray]

Pre-war advertising, both Colt and Smith & Wesson, indicating that .38-44 loads were suitable for use in their smaller .38 Special revolvers.

 

[smithra_66]

The SAAMI psi for 9mm is 35K, so is the 357 Mag, so I would say there was already a cartridge that ran at those pressures. Unless they increased the 9mm later in life?? Then that puts back to the argument someone else had about older 9mm possibly being weak and no one cares.

Rosewood

What is your theory, then, about why S&W originally introduced the 357 Magnum on the N frame and didn't introduce it in the K frame until as late as 1955?

How does that put back that argument? Like I said, the 9mm was always running at the pressure it runs at today. The guns of that era were designed to run on that pressure. It's so tiny it has to make pressure to run the gun.

Do you think a 1920 Colt Police Positive could handle full power Keith 38 loads or 357 Magnum loads if someone reamed out the chambers?

Hell, even further...why do you think S&W even bothered making a brand new cartridge, the 357 Magnum, and making it longer so that it wouldn't chamber in anything but new guns made in 357 Magnum? Doesn't that seem like a lot of expense and effort if the old guns could handle its pressures? Surely they would have made a boatload more money if their new caliber was backward compatible with the (millions?) of 38 revolvers that already existed by 1935?

 

[smithra_66]

Pre-war advertising, both Colt and Smith & Wesson, indicating that .38-44 loads were suitable for use in their smaller .38 Special revolvers.

38/44 loads are one thing. Keith's 38 Special loads and 357 Magnum loads are another. Colt never chambered a D-frame in 357 Magnum.

 

[rockquarry]

...that gives higher loads for .38 than are found in today's published data. I have experimented with loads from this, though not the max. I feel that they aren't 'unsafe', as even the lower range was little bit raucous for a .38 and I didn't feel the need to go further.

I asked a long-time friend who worked for Sierra many years why they didn't differentiate between standard pressure and +P load data (they do in the most current manual). His response (about ten or fifteen years ago) was that Sierra believed their data to be safe in all quality .38 Special revolvers in good condition.

Whether you agree with such a policy matters little, but I think Sierra's reasoning then was sound and probably would be today as well. It seems there is no point in debating any of this; you're not going to change someone's mind for them. Many here apparently see arguing as a competitive sport and the last word is important to them even if it isn't to a normal person.

 

[bmcgilvray]

I'm not for loading the .38 Special up to Elmer Keith levels or .357 Magnum levels, whichever comes first.

 

[smithra_66]

I'm not for loading the .38 Special up to Elmer Keith levels or .357 Magnum levels, whichever comes first.

Many reasons and answers (durability, why 38 special brass, Keith's load, etc.) are here, from Mr. John Taffin:

GUNS Magazine Handloading for Medium and Large Frame .38 Specials - GUNS Magazine

And more from John: http://www.sixguns.com/tests/tt38spcl.htm

 

[Hoosierville IRN]

OP: I have the Taurus Defender 856, and would not recommend stressing it above what a reputable manual shows as +P. Resist the temptation to get into the mid or higher .357 loads. My Defender went out of time at round number 266 shooting regular low pressure .38 Special rounds. I took two trips to Taurus and a trip to a local gunsmith to get it working right. I wouldn't want to tempt fate with hotter rounds.

 

[daverich4]

That's great unless you want to use the Keith 173 gr. bullet. Then you'd have to use Special cases, unless you have a gun with a really long cylinder like a S&W model 19.

The 586/686 guns will also work. I believe it’s the N frames that won’t.

 

[rockquarry]

The 586/686 guns will also work. I believe it’s the N frames that won’t.

I won't argue, but it will work fine in .357 N-frame guns and Colts. Seat it to an OAL of 1.59" (works in every .357 revolver I've tried it in) or go with Lyman's recommended OAL length of 1.553"(?). You can also taper crimp. The bullet will stay in place under recoil if you taper crimp right. Just yesterday, I loaded a batch of the hollow point version #358439 in both .38 Special and .357.

 

[smithra_66]

The 586/686 guns will also work. I believe it’s the N frames that won’t.

Yep I believe the L frames were built with the long cylinder too.

The N-frames have a short cylinder and the Colt Officer/Python has a REALLY short cylinder! The Keiths stick out the front when loaded in Mag brass.

 

[smithra_66]

I won't argue, but it will work fine in .357 N-frame guns and Colts. Seat it to an OAL of 1.59" (works in every .357 revolver I've tried it in) or go with Lyman's recommended OAL length of 1.553"(?). You can also taper crimp. The bullet will stay in place under recoil if you taper crimp right. Just yesterday, I loaded a batch of the hollow point version #358439 in both .38 Special and .357.

For sure. Keith even recommended crimping over the shoulder if you wanted to use these in Mag brass.

The issue was accuracy. He preferred Special brass with the bullet crimped in the crimp groove because he got better accuracy than crimping over the front drive band. If you're seating the bullet that deep, you're basically using Special brass anyway with the powder capacity you're taking away...why not use actual Special brass and crimp in the proper crimp groove.

 

[rockquarry]

For sure. Keith even recommended crimping over the shoulder if you wanted to use these in Mag brass.

The issue was accuracy. He preferred Special brass with the bullet crimped in the crimp groove because he got better accuracy than crimping over the front drive band. If you're seating the bullet that deep, you're basically using Special brass anyway with the powder capacity you're taking away...why not use actual Special brass and crimp in the proper crimp groove.

I'm not an Elmer Keith disciple but did read much of his material beginning about 1962. My comments are based on my experience.

 

[ruggyh]

When one bullet rams into another bullet and there is no where for it to go,

yes

that is pressure anyway you look at it.

But not from powder burning but as result of a change in momentum and surely would not be measured in psi.

The gases are still pushing and do so until the bullet exists the bore or they find another escape route, whether it is peak pressure or not. and actually decrease
Rosewood

The pressure dissipates through the BC gap and there is no escalation of pressure. The pressure is well below design as the peak occurred while the bullet was still in the brass.

Obstructions damage the barrels in revolvers not the cylinder, Cylinders are damaged over pressure in the cylinder under ALL conditions.

 

[rosewood]

yes



But not from powder burning but as result of a change in momentum and surely would not be measured in psi.



The pressure dissipates through the BC gap and there is no escalation of pressure. The pressure is well below design as the peak occurred while the bullet was still in the brass.

Then why do you get more velocity with a longer barrel? It is still being accelerated.

 

[rosewood]

yes



But not from powder burning but as result of a change in momentum and surely would not be measured in psi.

What would force be measured in? Pounds per square inch is force over area. The total force of one bullet impacting another can be expressed in pounds per square inch. Total force divided by the surface area squared where they are touching is psi.

 

[ruggyh]

Then why do you get more velocity with a longer barrel? It is still being accelerated.

Velocity is a function of total pressure under the curve
A longer barrel increase the time the bullet has pressure applied and area under that curve.

 

[ruggyh]

What would force be measured in? Pounds per square inch is force over area. The total force of one bullet impacting another can be expressed in pounds per square inch. Total force divided by the surface area squared where they are touching is psi.

Most labs would most likely use joules as the total amount of energy in collision studies, as usually the are multiple contributing forces acting in concert.

In simulation software such as Solid Works (which I speculate S&W and most Firearms companies are using to perform stress analysis and prototyping) the output is typically a thermodynamic expression.

When I return to my office I will add some technical resource references on internal ballistics and terminal ballistics for those interested at the real science.