Discrepancies between Lyman Books for 358429 in 38 spl

[x_il_towman]

Hello all,
I know a few people here know more about this bullet than I do so I wanted to throw this one out & see what the general opinion was.

As with any good caster, I have more than one manual & will always refer to them when I have questions about working up a new load. Recently I picked up the above mention mold & wanted to work up a load for it, so I went to Lyman Cast #3 & this is what I found for Bullseye & took 10% off & made 50 rounds.

Lyman Cast #3 book shows max load of 4.2 when loading Bullseye
http://images60.fotki.com/v367/photos/1/1416379/6868434/DSC07792-vi.jpg

Then for S#!TS & giggles I went to Lyman #49 & this is what I found for the load I just loaded... D'OH !!!!

Lyman # 49 shows 3.2 max load when loading bulleye.
http://images16.fotki.com/v368/photos/1/1416379/6868434/DSC07791-vi.jpg

My question is, Is there a typo somewhere??

Should they be safe to shoot @ 3.8gn of bullseye in a 686 or should I tear them down & chalk it up to having too much information??

Thanks in advance.

[Hamish]

Beagle discusses using 4.6 @ 950fps safely:

http://www.castpics.net/subsite2/ByCaliber/High%20Speed%20.38%20Special%20Loads.pdf

[BOOM BOOM]

HI,
Possible the test guns/barrel were different.
Different lots of powder.
Many other possible variables.

[MT Gianni]

Max pressure 0f 16,800 in LY #3, 15,500 in #49. Why did they stop there? Only the tester knows.

[stubshaft]

In answer to your question, yes it should be okay to shoot it.

[runfiverun]

the pressure is higher in the number three.
i wonder.
they are both using c.u.p. as a pressure giudeline.
maybe they seen something from another source indicating a high pressure spike,
or used a different mold that was heavier or a different test bbl or sumthin.
primer or case change maybe.

[Bret4207]

Could also be different people doing the testing that felt BE was too fast to take beyond that point. Times change. I'm not sure when 49 was published or researched. but #3 was back in the early 70's. The 70's and 80's up into the 90's a lot of things changed by a great deal in terms of powders and what the general thought process on using them was. The days of having only 3-4 powders to choose from slipped away. BE used to used in lots heavier charges than it is today because back then we had to use what as available.

[Rick N Bama]

Lawyers?

Rick

[ku4hx]

As much as I respect Lyman's judgment in the casting arena, in recent years I have begun to question their thought processes in compiling load data.

I've never been one to build loads just 1 granule below chamber bursting pressure. But I expect at least some max charges listed to come close to SAAMI max chamber pressure. Small variations are of course acceptable, and not all appropriate powders will have safe loads at or near SAAMI max. But when a high percentage of max loads are consistently low by as much as 22% (10mm) or 34% (40 S&W) I tend to believe the answer has already been posted ... lawyers.


A couple of years ago I questioned Lyman on these figures. I'm still waiting on a reply.

[44magLeo]

Could be the one book was to standard pressures, the other to +p pressures.???
I just looked in my Lyman's #49th. If you look over at the bullet # 358311 you will see two different pressure level loads with Bullseye. The regular load is 3.6 gr max, the +p is 4.1 max.
The same with several powders and bullet weights.
If you look over in the 357 you will find that 4.1 gr is a starting load.
So yes they will shoot ok. Your 686 being a 357 can handle in exess of 45,000 CUP. 16,500 ain't gonna hurt.
Leo

[Rocky Raab]

If corporate lawyers had that much say, we wouldn't have load manuals at all.

I am fortunate enough to be able to bend the ears of lab people, including head ballisticians. Every one of them scoffs at the "lawyer" line. Actually, it makes them a bit angry. If the reloading public believes that the "real" maximum is a little or a lot higher than what is published, their company is in even greater danger of lawsuits from people who ignore the book numbers.

So what you see is well and truly what they got. If true, why the differences?

First, no lab has the time or manpower to re-test every single load in every cartridge every time they put out a new book. Some loads (especially in less-popular cartridges) can be carried over from manual to manual for a decade or more. Until that round comes up in rotation for re-testing, you could be looking at (for example) 1980 data in a 2000 manual.

Second, nothing stays the same forever. Primers change, powders change, and most of all, lab equipment or in-house rules change. The change from copper crusher to piezo transducer is making a huge difference. (It also isn't cheap, and it simply would not pay to invest in a piezo test barrel for something like the 7.63 Argentine or .30-40 Krag.) In-house rules can radically affect maximum charges. If no single shot can exceed the SAAMI limit, loads will be a lot lower than if the average of shots doesn't exceed it, for example. "Does not exceed" can have several meanings.

Third, just because a given load has been used for a long time without actually blowing guns up does not mean it is a safe load. Guns have safety margins just like cliffs have safety fences. You can cross either one a little way without danger, but you get closer and closer to the edge with every step. Once you are past that fence, a single unforeseen change in anything can take you over the edge.

[williamwaco]

Depends on the gun.

I have always considered 3.5 grains to be max for the .38 special with a 158/160 grain bullet.

I would not shoot those in an old, or a light weight .38.
I would not pull them. I would shoot them in a .357.

If you don't have a .357, that would be your second mistake today.
Where I grew up it was illegal not to own a .357.




.

[dbldblu]

Nice post Rocky Rabb.

[fecmech]

I'm curious, why would you worry about 3.8 BE in a .357 magnum gun?? The 2005 Alliant Powder guide lists over 6 grs of BE in the .357 with both 170 and 180 gr jacketed bullets.
My experience tracks Beagles with 358429. I use 5.0 Unique in my K-38 and it is very accurate. I shot 4.2/BE/358429 with no problems in my K38 but it was not as accurate as the 5.0/Unique so that's what I load when I shoot that bullet.

[MtGun44]

Interesting that my carry load for the ultralight S&W 342 is 5.0 Unique under a HP 358429,
which makes it a 160gr boolit, and it is not a max in the book I check with. The lower book
shows a max of 4.2 Unique with the solid version, while the upper one shows 5.0 as max.

As to powder changing, I have read that Alliant has some of the original batches of Unique and
BE stored in an aquarium under water to preserve it and they use this as a reference for new
batches to provide consistency.

Bill

[x_il_towman]

Thanks all for you answers.. I kinda figured it was something due to powder changes or Legal Mumbo Jumbo. I too noticed that some loads in other weight bullets show +p rating & it just seemed ironic the it was 1 grain different between the 2 books with close to the same P.S.I. ratings, Like it was a typo.


I'm curious, why would you worry about 3.8 BE in a .357 magnum gun??

Because I would hate if it wasn't a typo, accidentally loaded into a .38 & SOMETHING BAD HAPPENED, it could make for a bad at the range..

[Rocky Raab]

Small correction, Bill. Alliant has an 1899 sample of Unique that is stored in water, no Bullseye. And it is tested only very rarely (not for several decades now) but only to show that it still meets its original specifications, NOT to set specifications for today's Unique.

Many of Alliant's powders are marketed as "New and Improved" so they are either different in some way, or the company is lying. Can't be any other way.

[Char-Gar]

Lyman books of different vintages show different max top load? Aww jeeze, that just ruins my day. Who would have thunk it?

[beagle]

I have shot bunches of the 4.6 grain/Bullseye/358429 loaded in .38 Special cases in a .357 chamber (Ruger Blackhawk) and it is a nice plinking and small game load.

Note, I said in a .357 gun. I don't shoot them in my wife's Model 15 Smith although I think it would take them all right. I just don't like to push a gun for something it wasn't intended for.

These loads were intended to duplicate the old .38/44 loads./beagle

[Rocky Raab]

For those of you too young to know, there was a short period of time when heavy .44-framed revolvers were chambered for .38 Special so VERY heavy loads could be fired. It was a police effort, mostly, although at least one such gun was called The Outdoorsman. The need for them went away when the .357 Mag was introduced.

Such loads could very well be hazardous in ANY other .38 Special gun.

[MtGun44]

OK, Rocky, I stand corrected. I had heard that the quality of ingredients was changed to
reduce ash as the "new improved" versions because people complained of Unique being
dirty. Not sure if that necessarily would change the burn rates.

I have some ~35 yr old Unique and ~5 yr old Unique, also same approx vintages of 2400. I
cannot tell any difference on the chrono when I use one or the other of each one.

Bill

[GLL]

The need for them went away when the .357 Mag was introduced.


Rocky:

The need perhaps, but not the desire ! :) :)

Pre-War .38/44 Outdoorsman
http://www.fototime.com/D1C1E88A3D3343A/orig.jpg

http://www.fototime.com/E2A985B719EF63F/orig.jpg

Jerry

[beagle]

The thing about shooting hot .38 Specials in .357 chambers is that you have a large freebore that I suspect reduces the pressure somewhat. In a pistol chambered for .38 Special, you don't have this luxury.

I'd for sure not shoot these in .38 Special guns such as the old Model 10 M & Ps and old model Colts with old time metal standards. If you want to use these loads, stick to .357 Magnums./beagle

[beagle]

Amen to the desire.

I once watched a gunsmith dismantle a nice clean .38/44 belonging to a customer and make a .45 ACP out of it. I almost cried./beagle


Rocky:

The need perhaps, but not the desire ! :) :)

Pre-War .38/44 Outdoorsman
http://www.fototime.com/D1C1E88A3D3343A/orig.jpg

http://www.fototime.com/E2A985B719EF63F/orig.jpg

Jerry

[Rocky Raab]

Singularly beautiful gun there, GLL. And your photography matches it.

Such a gun would induce a nearly lubricious desire - in anyone.

[GabbyM]

Has been my understanding that lots of reloading data changed after testers acquired electronic strain gages. Especially concerning heavy loads of fast powder. I’d assume just because the book list pressure in C.U.P it doesn’t mean they never fired any using a strain gage with computer readout of the pressure curve. Big spikes and all that scary part.

[HangFireW8]

Rather than blame lawyers, blame modern piezo-electric pressure sensors, and like Gabby said, strain gauges. The old copper crusher gauges did not distinguish between sustained pressure and brief peak pressure. Both could result in the same amount of pellet crush. While closing the door on some previously accepted fast powder loads, this new measurement technology opened the door to slower powders with longer sustained pressures... and then the strain gauges came along. They showed that longer sustained pressures stressed guns, especially some revolver designs.

As a result of these innovations, we understand pressure a lot better now, but what we don't understand is why we have to stick to 50 and 70 year old SAAMI standards that were set well before these things were so well understoold.

In the case of the 38/44, it was a fine cartridge unfortunately headstamped "38" and it fit in cheap 38's that were in no way intended to handle them. Once S&W discontinued the 38/44 revolvers intended to handle them, they got tired of explaining what it was supposed to be used in and what not, and just discouraged making any more and told people to buy a .357 Magnum instead.

It's a shame because the 38/44 fits nicely in between the low pressure 38 Special and the high pressure .357 Magnum in both pressure and performance (and muzzle blast). It's a very useful power range. But it is a proven fact that if it fits, someone will try shooting it, and the industry just decided to pretend the 38/44 cartridge never existed rather than try to continue educating shooters.

Of course, as a handloader, you are free to do as you please. Another alternative is to use cut-down 357 cases in your Outdoorsman (or other 44-framed 38). If someone blows up the puny snub-nose 38 with your cartridges, you say, well, the headstamp says 357 magnum, and your gun doesn't, what were you thinking?

Just remember, PLEASE label your cartridges carefully.

HF