Author Topic: .38 Special = .357 mag.? (Read 1248 times)

jcn59 · « **on:** January 04, 2009, 04:45:57 PM »

I read in my Richard Lee 2nd edition Reloading Manual that .38 + p cases have a "useful case capacity" of 1.18 cc. AND .357 cases have a "useful case capacity" of 1.15 cc. (Almost identical)

If this is true, could you load a .38 special +P case to (starting) .357 levels using .357 starting load levels, such as 8.0 grains HS6 under 158 gr. SWCGC, and then safely shoot it out of a .357 mag revolver??

I was surprised to read they have the same capacity. Have to check it out.

blpenn66502 · « **Reply #1 on:** January 04, 2009, 05:17:58 PM »

No way it could be true and there is nothing different about a +P case other than the headstamp.

With an identical bullet seated to the same depth, you've got an extra .135 in of length in a 357 which works out to about an additional .221 ccs of capacity (useful or otherwise).

Lyman (49th) shows max of 6.7 gr of HS-6 with a 160 gr cast for 16.2K CUP in the 38 and starts at 8.5 gr at 32.6K CUP for the 357.

So what would the pressure be for that same charge in a 38 case - I'm certain more, how much more, who knows? Would a 357 mag revolver handle it? Perhaps, but why push your luck trying to fire a super hot 38 special cartridge out of a 357?

Graybeard · « **Reply #2 on:** January 04, 2009, 07:09:36 PM »

Just one more example of why you shouldn't pay much attention to Lee info.

Savage · « **Reply #3 on:** January 05, 2009, 02:06:24 AM »

Surely you misread the Lee information, or at least took it out of context. Years ago, we used to gain a little case capacity in .38 cases by seating the bullets out to where the COL was the same as the .357. Don't remember details, and I certainty don't recommend it! The idea came from Skeeter Skelton's musings.

1sourdough · « **Reply #4 on:** January 05, 2009, 05:45:06 AM »

The main potential problem is down the road if someone uses these '38spcl' loads in a 38 spcl gun. I have heard of it before(357 loads in 38 case) but I wouldn't do it because of a chance of a future mix-up.

iiranger · « **Reply #5 on:** January 05, 2009, 06:27:46 AM »

The problem is liability if someone puts one of your super hot .38 loads into a .38... BOOOOOMMMM! Formerly bad, now much worse, liability.

Lyman used to make a bullet with two crimp grooves specifically so you could crimp in either a .357 or a .38 case. Load under was up to you.

.38 was originally almost black powder. Pressure limits in the 15K LUP range. .357 came out 35 years later with pressure at 35K CUP. Approx.

With smokeless, .38 has plenty of powder capacity which is what lead to the .38/44 loads (.38 special in a .44 frame gun) and later the .357 which is only 1/8 inch longer... Then there is the possibility of ringing the cylinder with the shorter case and making .357's hard to extract. Not what I want in a combat gun... I'd stick with .357's since the cheap .38 surplus is pretty much gone. LUCK. Happy new year.

Savage · « **Reply #6 on:** January 05, 2009, 07:04:21 AM »

Back in the 60s there still wasn't much .357 ammo available in my AO. We used .38 spl brass with loads hotter than than should be with the 158gr Lyman LSWC bullet seated out and crimped in the front grease groove. That was my practice load. I had found one box of 50 Norma unprimed .357 brass that I saved for business/hunting loads. There is absolutely NO reason to load .357 loads in .38spl brass with the availability of proper brass and bullets today. The only time someone might have access to my reloads will be after I'm gone. At that time, they're welcome to them!
Savage

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #7 on:** January 05, 2009, 07:24:35 AM »

Before the 357 mag. they had a 38-44 or some such name that used hoter load . the gun was a 38 built on a 44 spl. frame . In the 70's there was an article about them as a mid range load between 38 and 357 , maybe by S.S. can't remember .

jcn59 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 05, 2009, 12:01:07 PM »

Thanks for all the responses. You prompted my to fill a .357 and .38 +P case with powder and I found that the .38 case holds about 95.5% of what a .357 holds. It's not near identical as Lee indicates.

I watched a TV program about a month ago where they fired several squib loads in a S&W .357, leaving 5 lead bullets stuck in the barrel, then they fired a full house .357 load right behind them. This pushed one bullet out the barrel & left a pressure ring inside the barrel. Otherwise no apparent damage. Are the S&Ws tough or what?

Steve P · « **Reply #9 on:** January 07, 2009, 07:17:50 AM »

Shoot 38 loads in a 38 case
Shoot 38 or 357 loads in a 357 case with most powders. READ YOUR MANUAL for cautions on light loads with WW296 or H110.

DO NOT load 357 loads in 38 cases. Split cases and bulged cylinders can be the result. You may not notice until you go to extract your brass from the cylinder. The guys at the range will likely notice when that hot flame and pieces of metal shoot out of the cylinder barrel gap and land just inside their shirt collar.

Rarely do I see 38 brass any cheaper than 357 brass. Load each they way they were meant to be and no problems.......

Steve

Steve P · « **Reply #10 on:** January 07, 2009, 07:26:19 AM »

Quote from: jcn59 on January 05, 2009, 12:01:07 PM

I watched a TV program about a month ago where they fired several squib loads in a S&W .357, leaving 5 lead bullets stuck in the barrel, then they fired a full house .357 load right behind them. This pushed one bullet out the barrel & left a pressure ring inside the barrel. Otherwise no apparent damage. Are the S&Ws tough or what?

This one gun may be tough on this one specific day. Change in heat or humidity could change results drastically. I like to shoot, so will not pull any stunts like mentioned above, even if the gun is mounted in a machine rest, as it could cause injury. Some companies like to push the limits in efforts to complete their "research" or "developmental" work. They can affort to blow up guns and get paid while doing it. Anyone pulling a stunt like this in uncontrolled conditions deserve to be called several names. "Stupid" is one name toward the top of this long list.

Just my opinion on showing this type of thing on TV where someone could get the wrong idea or example.

Steve

jcn59 · « **Reply #11 on:** January 07, 2009, 08:13:49 AM »

This was a national broadcast, produced by people who are experts on firearms, and seen by thousands. Apparently you did not see it.

The "conditions" were well controlled by people who knew what they were doing.

It's a sign of intelligence to get the facts first before you start calling people names. To assume in the absence of supporting facts, that someone was "stupid", is a bit reactionary.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #12 on:** January 07, 2009, 08:25:30 AM »

people test things alot it seems , dosen't hurt a thing . When shooting IMHSA heard of a film where a couple guys wanted to build some heavy hitting XP-100's so the took a 7BR case filled it with bullseye and a 160 gr. bullet then fired it ( a friend saw the film ). They placed the gun in a vise and filmed it as they took cover . Guess it was a safe way to test it . Alot of "stuff" exited out of every place it could , case was destoried , bolt was beat open ( case parts were blocking movement . Funny thing the gun held up and was fired once more with reg. ammo. Guess it prove the XP-100 was strong , but not how strong . at least a couple guys had a fun afternoon ! it also destoried a camera .

wgr · « **Reply #13 on:** January 07, 2009, 08:53:19 AM »

just because they tested that pistol in controiled conditions and were knowledgeable people doesn't make them responsible showing things like that will get people hurt. always someone out there that thinks its safe just because he saw it done yes stupid is the word

gypsyman · « **Reply #14 on:** January 07, 2009, 09:19:41 AM »

Many,many,many years ago, here in Ohio, we had a silhouette shooter, do one of these numbers. In fact, well known he was. Still is. The big bore rams were hard set, meaning that all of the foot that was welded on, was placed on the rail. So it took quite a hit to knock one down. Well, this well know shooter, decided to warm up his .44 mag loads for his Ruger SB. So he came up with duplex loads. Put some fast burning powder in first, with a bunch of slow burning powder on top. Theory was, fast burning powder would ignite the slower burning powder. The pressure would not be as high. Didn't work so well. I wasn't there, but heard first hand that you can blow up a Ruger SB. Back to the drawing board. Lesson learned, stick with well know load manuals, and don't be afraid to double check a load that looks odd. They can make printing errors too!! gypsyman

Steve P · « **Reply #15 on:** January 07, 2009, 09:26:05 AM »

Quote from: jcn59 on January 07, 2009, 08:13:49 AM

This was a national broadcast, produced by people who are experts on firearms, and seen by thousands. Apparently you did not see it.

The "conditions" were well controlled by people who knew what they were doing.

It's a sign of intelligence to get the facts first before you start calling people names. To assume in the absence of supporting facts, that someone was "stupid", is a bit reactionary.

Well, I guess neither of us may have read the others post. Here is my direct quote:

This one gun may be tough on this one specific day. Change in heat or humidity could change results drastically. I like to shoot, so will not pull any stunts like mentioned above, even if the gun is mounted in a machine rest, as it could cause injury. Some companies like to push the limits in efforts to complete their "research" or "developmental" work. They can affort to blow up guns and get paid while doing it. Anyone pulling a stunt like this in uncontrolled conditions deserve to be called several names. "Stupid" is one name toward the top of this long list.

Just my opinion on showing this type of thing on TV where someone could get the wrong idea or example.

Steve

As you can see if you re-read my post. I called no one "stupid". I said "Anyone pulling a stunt like this in uncontrolled conditions deserve to be called several names." You obvious saw the show and it was within controlled conditions.

Now someone is going to see part of this show, not all of it, just part of it, and go test their S&W just to see how strong it is. They won't have the controlled condition, and they could get hurt. Now who is to blame? S&W? The TV show? The guy who thought up the TV show?

I also stated "Some companies like to push the limits in efforts to complete their "research" or "developmental" work. They can affort to blow up guns and get paid while doing it." (I should have said "afford".) But they do this. Just like the new model cars go thru crash test. New firearms are designed, they go thru the engineering stress models, then the R&D or test engineers take the newly designed guns out, put on stress gages, and start firing them with loads higher than SAAMI spec to prove out the design. Can't sell them without confirmation of meeting design specifications.

OK, now imagine for a minute, if you will, that a 14,15, or middle year old kid watched this show. He/she and his buddies decide to take their .22s and maybe a centerfire rifle or pistol down to a rock pit or somewhere to do some plinking. Suddenly they have a misfire. They hear a soft bang, but no bullet out the barrel. They open the action and find a case with out a bullet. The case may even fly out of the action with a little pressure caused by a primer going off. They check the barrel and sure enough, the bullet is part way down the barrel. They don't have a cleaning rod. Nothing in the car is small enough to push that bullet out, but HEY, they saw it on TV, the next bullet pushes the first one out. So they get the next round and fire it in the rifle. When it goes off, pieces fly.................

Sorry, I am not in to promoting any negativity in regards to firearms. In my opinion, your reference about the TV program, even though I should have looked into it further, immediately gave me a negative feeling toward those folks hosting the show. I appologize that it did this and I more humbly appologize if my remarks caused you negative feelings toward me. I am sorry.

I used to watch the "Mythbusters" show on TV. They had some pretty wicked stuff on there that looked kinda neat. Then a couple of shows with firearms and a couple of kids in our area got hurt trying other unrelated stunts. I don't watch this show any more. "Deadliest Catch" did the same thing. I am sure as H3LL not going crabbing in the Bering Sea........

Steve

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #16 on:** January 08, 2009, 02:06:36 AM »

Some people and lacking the smarts to keep themselves from getting hurt/killed . We live in a country where we have to warn people to not touch a spinning mower blade , not to point a loaded gun at some one/thing and pull the trigger if you don't want to shoot it etc. etc. . And if some one forgets to put so many warning labels on a product that you can't tell the color of it they will be sued cause someone was stupid .
For a smart human those programs allow the watcher to see what happens with out danger of injury . Like the guy said you can't fix stupid ! I see nothing wrong with the programs , besides something has to clean up the gene pool !

jcn59 · « **Reply #17 on:** January 08, 2009, 01:22:22 PM »

I don't believe in the "Dumbing Down" of the shooting community, as the lawyers would have it, and I won't be a part of it.

I've been shooting for over 50 years, and I never met anyone who experimented by getting bullets stuck in their handgun barrel, then shot a magnum load to release it. I don't personally know anyone who "magnumized" a published load and blew up their gun. ( I read where Skeeter & Keith each blew up a gun). I don't know anyone who improperly adjusted a trigger, then sued the manufacturer because the gun "went off" by itself.

Most of the liability containment that goes on in this country happens at the hands of lawyers who protect us from things that never happen. That kind of thinking runs parallel to disarming law abiding citizens to make us "safer". We can do without it.

I think the shooting community, including this forum's readers, know what is safe, and if they are not sure, they are smart enough to ask questions. Unfortunately, some of these questions are intercepted by the "thought police" who treat persons who ask questions as their intellectual inferiors. This would include people who have been shooting for years as well as new shooters. More than one newby on this forum has commented on this.

But ! What I did learn from the TV program with the stuck bullet experiment is that if I was involved in a self defense situation with my revolver, and I had to shoot, was this: If the first bullet was a "squib" that got stuck in the barrel, I wouldn't be afraid to fire a shot on top of it if it were a critical situation.

Steve P · « **Reply #18 on:** January 09, 2009, 10:05:33 AM »

I was at a gun store recently where three different people working at the counter let a customer believe that 2 3/4" and 3" shot shells were exactly the same until they were fired. The 3" shell opened up more so became longer. I schooled the customer, and the counter personnel, so that that customer would not purchase the 870 he was holding and try to shoot 3" shells in it's 2 3/4" chamber. (I had looked at the gun earlier myself.)

Most everyone on this and other shooting boards will not do stupid things. Most new people to the sport will look for this type of board to seek information on proper handling.

In the scenario above, if that young kid would have purchased that 870 and been hurt if it exploded the chamber with 3" shells, where would the blame fall? You know....the ^%$#@# media would blame it on the gun and on owning the gun. The truth about what happened would never come out to the general public.

Negative publicity is what is killing gun ownership. It's fine time we get more crime drama's or similar shows where they could show law abiding citizens protecting themselve with handguns and/or other firearms.

Fight the negative publicity and support positive publicity. Send polite requests to your local media to attend local shooting matches. Let them see some of the truth in gun ownership.

Fell off my soap box........

Steve

jcn59 · « **Reply #19 on:** January 09, 2009, 10:25:05 AM »

That was exquisite, Steve.

I remember reading in one of the gun mags where someone was shooting 2 3/4" 16 ga. ammunition in a gun with a 2 9/16 (?) chamber with no ill effect. I know this is not like the example you gave.

I just brought it up because I think there are a lot of assumptions & false information "out there" which have no basis in fact but were created so that people err on the side of safety. Not necessarily a bad thing, but not gospel, either.

ftlupton · « **Reply #20 on:** January 09, 2009, 12:13:12 PM »

I've read about Elmer Keith and his "hot" .38 loads, of course he shot them in heavy built guns. I have loaded and shot a lot of 158 gr lead with heavy loads of Unique. I shoot them in nothing but Ruger Security Six or the Blackhawk and have never had a problem with pressure. I won't even list the load, look up Elmers writings and judge for yourself. I would not shoot them in a J frame or Taurus 85. If I do shoot .357 I shoot new ones.