Over loaded 38 sp?

[John Hill]

I still have a box of .38 sp that I loaded in 1973. My notes on the box says that it is lswc over 11 grains of 2400 powder. I checked my current Lyman book and it indicates that this is way over the max load. I have reason to believe that I shot some of these in the day. Do other books show that these could be safe to shoot in a 38 sp? If not, what about my 357?
They are lead boolits and appear to to be heavily crimped so I can't pull them.
If no one says that this is a safe load, I'll just throw them away. I would like to save the brass.
Thanks
John

[Dusty Bannister]

Even heavily crimped, you should be able to pull them with an impact puller.

[bruce381]

pull 1 or 2 apart and weight the charge to make sure, if it bothers you pull them all apart

[shoot-n-lead]

If you have a .357 revolver...shoot them in it.

The 358156 has been loaded in 38 brass and loaded out...over a good bit more powder than that, and shot by the thousands.

[tazman]

I have 2 old manuals, probably from the late 50's to mid 60's that show that exact load for 38 special. Non of my newer manuals go above 8.3 grains for standard loads.
It sounds like you need to use them in a 357mag or pull them apart. I am in the process of that kind of thing with some old 38 loads loaded to old plus P levels. With a good inertial puller it can be done, but it is work.
Best option is to burn them in a 357 mag.

[brassrat]

I was surprised that 11 gr. was that much over recommended .38 loads. I would maybe check one and then use the .357.

[2wheelDuke]

I'm a bit too young to know for sure, but I believe that 2400 was reformulated when Alliant took it over. The old load data for Hercules show some high numbers compared to modern manuals. It could be that modern manuals are a little extra conservative given today's legal climate.

I'd second running them in a .357 for starters.

[nicholst55]

My Lyman #45 manual lists that combination as a max load, producing a tad over 1,000 FPS. That's more than a bit stout by current standards. As stated above, either pull them or shoot them in a .357 Mag.

[John Hill]

If I shoot them in my 357 mag, is the volume in the 38 sp case enough to not cause too much pressure? If it were in a 357 mag case, there would be more room. I guess that since several of you said that the old manuals (for the 2400 powder of that date) showed that load, I guess that they are not mistakes. I may shoot them up tomorrow in the 357 mag and report what happened. If you see on CNN that "old guy in North Carolina blew himself up" you will know it was me. Ha!
Thanks for the replies.
John

[Char-Gar]

If I shoot them in my 357 mag, is the volume in the 38 sp case enough to not cause too much pressure? If it were in a 357 mag case, there would be more room. I guess that since several of you said that the old manuals (for the 2400 powder of that date) showed that load, I guess that they are not mistakes. I may shoot them up tomorrow in the 357 mag and report what happened. If you see on CNN that "old guy in North Carolina blew himself up" you will know it was me. Ha!
Thanks for the replies.
John

you and your revolver will both be fine.

[Outpost75]

If you have a .357 revolver...shoot them in it.

The 358156 has been loaded in 38 brass and loaded out...over a good bit more powder than that, and shot by the thousands.

Agree, safe in a .357 revolver or RUGER .38 Special.

NOT something to shoot in a D-frame Colt or K-frame S&W.

I load 11 grs. of current Alliant #2400 with 150-170 grain bullets as a ".38-44 High Velocity" load in the N-frame .38 Specials, Ruger Police Service Six, Speed Six, Security Six, GP100, SP101, Blackhawk, Vaquero, etc. No issues in those.

[44man]

Books have changed but I do not believe 2400 has. Just the name. There is the lawyer thing today. if they shot back then they will shoot today.

[rintinglen]

Back when we "highly experienced" (ie, old) fellows first started shooting and reloading, there was no such thing as "+P" for 38 specials. There was, however, the 38-44, which as a high velocity loading intended solely for use in "strong, large-frame revolvers." Specifically, it was designed for use in the likes of such guns as the Colt New Century Shooting Master, the Single Action Army and the N-frame S&W 38's. Colt also advertised their Official Police series as suitable for such use, though I personally regard such statements as advertising hype, not reality, especially in light of the lack of parts support for the older Colts today.
Regardless, a great many loads that today would be fair-to-middlin 357 loads were shot and reported and published for use in 38-44 approved revolvers. A pretty much standard practice was to reduce 357 loads by 10% and go blithely down the trail. When the lawyer revolution hit town in the late 60's and early 70's, Reloading Manuals swiftly throttled way back and now days there is no such overlap. Given that 357 brass is now readily cheaply available, there is no good reason to over-load 38 brass that may inadvertently find its way into a revolver of lesser strength.

[Char-Gar]

I recalled reading an article by Kent Bellah in a mid-60s issue of Guns Magazine about the used of high end loads of 2400 in 38 Special round. It was popular in those days for some scribes to use 12 to 13 grains.

Bellah found that 12 grains of 2400 would unlatch the cylinder of his 38-44 HD and he considered 11 grains to be the max, but he preferred to drop back to 10 grains. In those days, it was common to see some pretty hairy loads put into print.

Today most folks think that the loads of today are the product of lawyers and their over concern for products liability lawsuits. I really don't think that is true. We just now know how very very gnarly some of those loads truly were.

Early on in my reloading (1959 to be exact), I learned my lesson about red line loads, when I started blowing primers and welding case head to the bolt face of a good 300 Weatherby rifle. One of the older and wiser heads sat me down and gave me a "good talking too" about the foolishness of such loads and the possible consequences. I took the lesson to heart and have never pushed the red line again.

[beagle]

Hello from an original NC boy.

I have shot the following load in my Ruger Blackhawks for years.

.38 Special case 358429 sized .3586 over 11.0 grains of 2400 and a WSP primer. Av velocity was 1064 FPS. As a bonus, the 358429 weighed in at 171 grains and the 358156 is a lighter bullet which will decrease the pressure from my load.

No problems in a .357 as once the powder is ignited and the bullet hits the cylinder throat, the powder capacity in the chamber assumes the dimensions of a .357 case and chamber volume will be increased and pressure will go down.

I use a lot of .38 Special cases loaded to the old .38/44 standards in my .357s both Ruger Blackhawks and a .357 Marlin M1894 carbine.

Shoot 'em in a .357 and be happy./beagle




















QUOTE=John Hill;3531275]If I shoot them in my 357 mag, is the volume in the 38 sp case enough to not cause too much pressure? If it were in a 357 mag case, there would be more room. I guess that since several of you said that the old manuals (for the 2400 powder of that date) showed that load, I guess that they are not mistakes. I may shoot them up tomorrow in the 357 mag and report what happened. If you see on CNN that "old guy in North Carolina blew himself up" you will know it was me. Ha!
Thanks for the replies.
John[/QUOTE]

[Ricochet]

Back in the '70s I wrote to Lyman questioning whether that load was really OK. They didn't reply. They had pretty hot ones for .44 Special, too.

[Tackleberry41]

Lawyers can seem to make a mess out of anything. And back in the 60s may have been fewer low end 38 revolvers to worry about, nor were there plastic framed ones like now. So what may have been perfectly safe in the 60s, isnt now due to Rossi or Taurus guns. And I would imagine there were fewer morons hand loading in the 60s. So reloading manuals go with the load thats safe for everything and everybody. I go looking thru a speer manual I bought in 92, alot of the loads in there are higher than recently bought ones. So it wasn't some big jump in data, but slowly crept down, the moron factor of any equation.

[warf73]

Guess I'm a little confused, the load your talking about was loaded in 1973 correct? The load was using 2400 powder manufactured in that era correct? The book (era book)called out what you dropped in 1973 correct? You also shot these loads during that time and since correct?

Then what does it matter what has changed in the current books, or if Alliant has changed the formula of 2400 powder that is being produced today? You are talking about shooting loads that are 43 years old.

So what if it over max today it wasn't then.

Now if your talking about using that old data on todays 2400 then I could see a problem.

Guess NO ONE has ever shot loads manufactured back in the 40's,50's, 60's, or 70's in the 2000's? I pheasant hunt every year with my grandfathers 16ga. using Remington ammo manufactured in the 50's. From what everyone is saying I should destroy these rounds because TODAY they could hurt the gun because old ammo is bad today. Guess I better throw out my 60's era 308W milsur ammo, and tell my dad to stop shooting that 40's era 06 ammo in his M1 grand also.

I agree technology has changed how we load today, I have books (older)that call out CUP and my new books call out PSI. The PSI is more precise in tell us whats going in the chamber and why some loads were reduced.

If it was my ammo I would shoot it as I knew back in 1973 the ammo was safe then and did no harm to my gun or me. I don't know anyone that would save ammo 43 years that blew up there gun and removed there fingers to try and shoot it again later.

[John Hill]

I went out today and shot 100 rounds of the "hot stuff" through my 357 Python. It was indeed loaded by me in 1973 and I shot some then but not since today. I did use the 2400 available in 1972 and did refer to a manual. I was younger then and tended to always "push the envelope of safety". I think that it is called young and stupid. Today, 99 went bang and one primer wouldn't fire. All rounds that fired smoked like they were black powder. My shooting bench was covered in what appeared to be un-burnt powder and the plastic box that I dumped the spent brass into was full of the same un-burned powder. At least one brass split, maybe others that I will find when I clean and closely inspect each piece.
The report was extra loud and the recoil was much more than a subsequent "modern" box that I had recently loaded with 4 grains of W231 and 158 gr LSWC.
I also have two cases of 12 ga skeet loads that I loaded in the early 70's. They are old paper Federal shells. They have swollen a bit and don't feed properly in my pump shotgun so I bought a couple of cases of clay targets and will borrow my brother-in-law's thrower and run them through my Browning over and under.
Just reporting back.
John

[shoot-n-lead]

Good deal...at least you have some more brass, now.

[HangFireW8]

The old 38/44 represents a good middle-ground performance level, between 38 Special +P and .357 Magnum. They were never intended for K-Frames or snubbies. Unfortunately, it was the victim of standardization and Winchester's desire to push the 357 Magnum at SAAMI at the unneeded expense of the 38/44. If you recall Winchester was in the habit of picking winners and losers, like deciding that that 16 ga had to go in order to better promote their 20 ga Magnum.

[Uncle R.]

<SNIP> All rounds that fired smoked like they were black powder. My shooting bench was covered in what appeared to be un-burnt powder and the plastic box that I dumped the spent brass into was full of the same un-burned powder. <SNIP>


I have loaded heavy .38 loads with 2400 powder in accordance with some older manuals that reside on my book shelf. I shot those loads in K frame .38s without concern and without problems. I finally abandoned 2400 in .38 special loads not from worries about safety but due to bad results. I got very poor accuracy and lots of unburned powder just as you describe. I don't think 2400 burns well at plus P .38 pressures.

Even in very hot .44 magnum loads 2400 always gave me some unburned powder, but those .38 loads were downright nasty.

Uncle R.

[oldcanadice]

For what it's worth: I have an old letter (1963) from Elmer Keith on a Guns & Ammo Letterhead that says 12gr 2400 with his 173gr bullet cast at 1:16 and sized to .357 makes a "fine" small game load in a Combat Masterpiece. For those who don't know, that's a K frame.

I shot a bunch. Gun was fine. Wouldn't want to shoot them in a J frame.

[35remington]

For gun longevity and a repeatable level of pressure that conforms to SAAMI standards the old loadings should be abandoned. Smith frames were not all that hard until fairly recently, and "loosening loads" such levels of powder and power indeed were. Peruse the Speer #8 for more "don't do that" loads than you can shake a stick at.

Are today's load levels a smarter ideas?

Yup.

[scottfire1957]

Bingo.


Edit: meant to concur with warf.
Guess I'm a little confused, the load your talking about was loaded in 1973 correct? The load was using 2400 powder manufactured in that era correct? The book (era book)called out what you dropped in 1973 correct? You also shot these loads during that time and since correct?

Then what does it matter what has changed in the current books, or if Alliant has changed the formula of 2400 powder that is being produced today? You are talking about shooting loads that are 43 years old.

So what if it over max today it wasn't then.

Now if your talking about using that old data on todays 2400 then I could see a problem.

Guess NO ONE has ever shot loads manufactured back in the 40's,50's, 60's, or 70's in the 2000's? I pheasant hunt every year with my grandfathers 16ga. using Remington ammo manufactured in the 50's. From what everyone is saying I should destroy these rounds because TODAY they could hurt the gun because old ammo is bad today. Guess I better throw out my 60's era 308W milsur ammo, and tell my dad to stop shooting that 40's era 06 ammo in his M1 grand also.

I agree technology has changed how we load today, I have books (older)that call out CUP and my new books call out PSI. The PSI is more precise in tell us whats going in the chamber and why some loads were reduced.

If it was my ammo I would shoot it as I knew back in 1973 the ammo was safe then and did no harm to my gun or me. I don't know anyone that would save ammo 43 years that blew up there gun and removed there fingers to try and shoot it .

[35remington]

Not necessarily blowing up the gun, but eating away at its lifespan at an accelerated rate. We're not saying don't use old ammo.

We're saying don't use hot old ammo. That is an important distinction.

The manufacturer of the gun doesn't recommend it either, as some of these are past +P+ loads. If the manufacturer does not rate the gun for it....perhaps one should take heed of that.

[Petrol & Powder]

Perfectly safe in a .357 magnum. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE; shoot them up immediately before they get out of those boxes and accidentally mixed up with other 38 Special cartridges.

I agree with Outpost, probably not good if one of those rounds found its way into an old D frame Colt or similar gun.


Take that ammunition and ONLY that ammunition to a range with a .357 magnum revolver and ONLY a .357 magnum revolver. Shoot that ammo up, have fun and take your 38 Specials cases back to the loading room.

[Forrest r]

A little reading material about loads with the 38spl/2400/38-44 heavy's from americanhandgunner

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi56M_x4-DKAhVDyT4KHXKCCSoQFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Famericanhandgunner.com%2Fthe-3844-heavy-duty%2F&usg=AFQjCNF6RIyR3ADR7x0uA55Qb-pLTu8pQQ

[s1120]

I have a box of 357 my dad loaded back in the day with 15gr of 2400 under a 150gr sjhp. Not wanting to shoot them out of the old model 19, so they sit on the shelve. One day Ill either get a N frame, or might just pull them down.

[Trapshooter]

When these threads come up, lawyers always get blamed for reductions in maximum charge weights.
(Some probably deserve it ;) ).

The real cause of changes to load data over time are people like Ken Ohler, Bill Ruger's engineers, and hotshot chemists at Alliant and ADI. Improvements in measurement technology have exposed details of propellant burn (pressure vs time for example). Engineers have developed better alloys, improved machining technology, and improved testing methods which allow them to design and build reliable, serviceable products with well defined safety margins based on standards from various industries. Computers analyze measurements, operate machine tools, and assist in design analysis and quality control. The powder people have improved their products to make them more consistent over temperature, and improved batch to batch consistency.

Some old data was pressure tested and determined to be good if the copper or lead crusher reading was "acceptable". Some data was deemed safe if it didn't blow up the developer's gun after some length of testing. Both methods were state of the art at the time, but critical information was not exposed by the test method.

When these loads caused premature excess wear, it probably wasn't unusual to write it off as that particular gun being weak, or the gun maker was blamed. Again, engineering and manufacturing technology couldn't always prove otherwise.

We know more about the materials, can measure things more precisely, more accurately, and in more detail, and can afford to do a lot more design testing. We have a better understanding of where "the ragged edge is", and how close we are to it.


Trapshooter

[Cleve Branch]

Something I read some time back in a loading manual I believe, said to use load data from the same time period the powder was made. Composition of powder has changed slowly over time. Powder from the present time is hotter than some from the past. Hense the reason for new load books, maybe just marketing statagies.
I don't know if this is just a disclaimer or truth,just something I use for safety. Just some info I thought I would pass on.

[John Hill]

All, great comments. Rest assured they are all gone now. Now to go pour some .45 230 gr LR. and load up for my new Springfield Armory Range Officer .45 ACP. I received the Lee boolit mold and dies from Midway today.
Thanks
John

[GONRA]

GONRA has NEVER received a decent response to this curious ".357 Magnum" issue.
Hava .357 magnum S&W AirLite PD 5 shot ultra light weight revolver.

Here's my "standard wimpy load" in this light weight revolver:
125 grain .357 inch diameter Rem SJHP bullet Cartridge: 1.578 OAL.
7.3 grains WW231 powder WW No. 1 ½ M primer.

When I used "reloaded .357 Mag pickup range brass" some cases STUCK IN THE CHAMBER!
When I used BRAND NEW NICKEL PLATED IMI .357 Magnum cases, no problem.

This is the ONLY revolver I own.
Have been reloading every kinda "selfloading rifles and pistols" cartridges
for 55 years + and never ran into an issue like this????

Bet you experts out there can explain this? ???

[Petrol & Powder]

I'm not sure what GONRA's question is?

[CHeatermk3]

Third person interrogatives puzzle cheatermk3 too...

[35remington]

I sure can explain it. There's something wrong with the reloaded range pickup brass he uses as they are currently reloaded. Something he does incorrectly in reloading, most likely. That or there's something wrong with the brass that isn't addressed in the reloading step.

Easy peasy. Not all that hard to explain given when he's set forth. The mystery is why it is a mystery.

35remington has given you aid! Now that he has helped you your life is brighter and full of hope!

[Petrol & Powder]

Petrol & Powder thinks 35remington went to the school of speaking in third person along with Bob Dole. :kidding:
But thank you!

[ksfowler166]

Books have changed but I do not believe 2400 has. Just the name. There is the lawyer thing today. if they shot back then they will shoot today.
You are correct my friend, a while back I emailed Alliant about that issue and here is their reply.

I would like some help dispelling or I guess confirming some internet rumors. Specifically that when Alliant took over Hercules that 2400 was reformulated and is somehow hotter than the old 2400. Thus requiring the use of new load data.

I realize that powder companies rework powders to make them cleaner burning but it was my understanding that the burn rate and pressure curve remained the same. As well as can be expected with lot to lot variation.

So did Alliant really reformulate 2400 and make it a hotter powder? It seems to me that would open up the company to legal suites if some used published data from an older source and had the gun damaged or himself.

Alliant bought Hercules in 1995. Yes, Alliant made many of the powders much cleaner burning.
If the 2400 was made hotter, it would have to have a name change. So your assumption at the end of your question is correct. The 2400 is the same burn rate.
Thanks,
Shoot Straight
DuaneVB
CCI/Speer/Alliant
2299 Snake River Ave.
Lewiston, ID

[Echo]

you and your revolver will both be fine.

Plus One...

[GONRA]

Petrol & Powder - issue is - what can be the problem be with Range Pickup .357 Magnum brass
that makes it stick in GONRA's revolver cylinder chambers,
when BRAND NEW .357 Magnum brass doesn't?

35Remington - As far as reloading technique goes, at 78 years old,
have to be Really Paranoid about powder weight, etc.
Double weigh powder charges on a RCBS Electronic Scale,
then usual Beam Balance Powder scale to MAKE SURE I don't copulate up.

[Char-Gar]

Petrol & Powder - issue is - what can be the problem be with Range Pickup .357 Magnum brass
that makes it stick in GONRA's revolver cylinder chambers,
when BRAND NEW .357 Magnum brass doesn't?

35Remington - As far as reloading technique goes, at 78 years old,
have to be Really Paranoid about powder weight, etc.
Double weigh powder charges on a RCBS Electronic Scale,
then usual Beam Balance Powder scale to MAKE SURE I don't copulate up.

There is no good reason why the range brass should stick and the new brass does not. If that is indeed taking place, it is a bo-bo in the reloading process. Not looking over your shoulder, when the reloading takes place, I can't possible tell you the reason. I doubt if anybody else can either. You are asking a question for which there is no answer. You can ask it until the cows come home, but there will still be no answer.

[brassrat]

Maybe try a reg. primer?

[dondiego]

Whatever you do.......don't copulate up!