38 Special loads in 357 Brass

[Bzcraig]

Given the longer 357 case, are there any issues with loading 357 brass using 38 data? Will be loading for my first revolver as soon as new dies and such arrive.

[grumman581]

Instead of looking at the length of the brass, look at the max overall length of the loaded round.

In other words, go for it.

[Tatume]

Don't load the lightest 38 special data in 357 cases without taking precautions. If your load book predicts 800 fps in 38 special, you might see 750 or so in 357 cases, which will be just fine. But a load predicting 700 or less that would be fine in 38 special cases might stick a bullet in your bore if loaded in 357 cases. Therein lies the precaution; check for obstructions when firing the lightest loads.

[btroj]

Why not just use 38 special brass?

Most load manuals do list some loads where the starting charge is pretty reasonable for 357 mag brass. Look at the faster burning powders.

Like Tatume mentioned, using low end 38 data in a mag case could lead to stuck bullets.

[Tatume]

One reason for using 357 brass is having an abundance of it. When I pick up boxes of once fired brass (in original boxes!) at the range, I get a lot more 357 then 38 special. Like the OP, I like to shoot target loads.

[bobthenailer]

I personaly ony use 357 brass in a gun chambered for it .
Over the past 40 odd years and many 357 mag firearms and many cast bullet designes from 148 to 180 gr bullets, 4.0 to 4.5 grs of Bullseye or Tightgroup powder @ approx 800 fps should work extremely well with 1 1/2 " or better groups at 25 yards and in some guns 1" at 50 yards from the bench with optics

[N4AUD]

I don't own a .357 but do have a .38 Special, so I trim the .357 brass to .38 length. This is not an unsafe practice obviously.

[Ed_Shot]

I don't own a .357 but do have a .38 Special, so I trim the .357 brass to .38 length. This is not an unsafe practice obviously.

This is not a criticism, just an observation and I might learn something. The web at the base of a .357 case is much thicker than the same area on a .38 Spl case. Seems like a .357 case shortened to .38 Spl length would have less volume than a standard .38 Spl case which might lead to pressure issues.

[Tatume]

Hi Ed,

The brass is often thicker on the sides too, so the potential for increased pressure is there. Carefully working up loads will negate the risk, but you are right, it should be recognized.

Take care, Tom

[bangerjim]

I load both 38spl and 357mag and pretty much stick to the published data for the powder I am using. I have noticed a difference in the construction as pointed out above. So far, no problems with light loads in either....based upon the light load for that case/powder!

banger

[Hammerhead]

There's plenty of data for light .357 loads, no reason to use .38 data in the longer brass.

With plated and jacketed bullets there is a very real danger of sticking a bullet in the bore with .38 data in .357 brass.

[Tatume]

There's plenty of data for light .357 loads, no reason to use .38 data in the longer brass.

I have manuals from Sierra, Hornady, Speer, and Barnes; there are no 357 Magnum loads comparable to 38 Special velocities in any of them. Muzzle velocities start at about 1100 fps and go up from there.

There may be some data in the Lyman manual, but I cannot find mine at the moment. Hodgdon ( http://hodgdon.com/ ) does have some 357 Magnum data in the 800 fps range, so there are some trusted data out there. Then there are unreliable Internet sources.

Given the shortage of reliable data, I find extrapolating from 38 Special data to be reasonable. Personally, I like Bullseye for wadcutter loads, and by starting in the upper reaches of 38 Special wadcutter data a safe 750 fps load can be assembled in 357 Magnum cases, after running a few test loads.

[N4AUD]

This is not a criticism, just an observation and I might learn something. The web at the base of a .357 case is much thicker than the same area on a .38 Spl case. Seems like a .357 case shortened to .38 Spl length would have less volume than a standard .38 Spl case which might lead to pressure issues.

I don't load "hot" and always look for signs of pressure, so far no problems. I don't think any of the loads I've used have filled the cases or been compressed loads. I'm not much into pushing the limits any more.

[grumman581]

There's plenty of data for light .357 loads, no reason to use .38 data in the longer brass.

With plated and jacketed bullets there is a very real danger of sticking a bullet in the bore with .38 data in .357 brass.

I seriously doubt this unless you are already using a .38 load that is already just barely making it out of the barrel. The .357 is only 0.04" longer overall than the .38. Sure, the brass is longer on the .357, but the bullet is set further back in the case so that it does not exceed the max OAL specified for the cartridge. As such, there is also only 0.04" of extra powder capacity / space between the powder and the bullet of the .357 compared to the .38. I do not think that 0.04" of increased space between the powder and the bullet is going to reduce the pressure enough to keep a bullet from coming out of the barrel.

[Tatume]

I seriously doubt this unless you are already using a .38 load that is already just barely making it out of the barrel. The .357 is only 0.04" longer overall than the .38. Sure, the brass is longer on the .357, but the bullet is set further back in the case so that it does not exceed the max OAL specified for the cartridge. As such, there is also only 0.04" of extra powder capacity / space between the powder and the bullet of the .357 compared to the .38. I do not think that 0.04" of increased space between the powder and the bullet is going to reduce the pressure enough to keep a bullet from coming out of the barrel.

Just quoting the first manual within reach, Speer lists COL for 158 gr LSWC as 1.44" in 38 Special and 1.57" in 357 Magnum. The difference of 0.13" powder space is enough to affect pressure. Hornady lists 1.45" and 1.59", respectively (0.14" difference). The fact that revolver bullets are usually crimped in locations fixed by the crimp groove or cannelure means that the difference in powder space is dictated by case length. Bullet seating depth is not optional.

[Char-Gar]

There is no problem using 38 Special powder charges in 357 Magnum brass. You will get lower pressure and velocity due to the extra air space. To have the same ballistics you must up the powder charge a smidge.

I may be some kind of an idiot, but I have never measured or worried about the over all length of a loaded sixgun round. I just seat the bullet in the crimp groove or cannalure and as long as the bullet doesn't bind the cylinder I am good to go. I started handloading far before folks started to worry about this and I never developed the habit. In those days, we just used the same powder charge with any bullet of more or less the same weight, give or take 5 gains. No big deal.

[Tatume]

There generally is no problem, as long as charges are not too light. I have stuck bullets in revolvers by using extra light charges. Using very light charges intended for 38 Special cases can cause the condition if 357 Magnum cases are substituted. The COL is not important, as you say, and we really don't have much control over it anyway if we use the crimp groove or cannelure on the bullet. The additional case volume is important, if charges are very light.

[grumman581]

Just quoting the first manual within reach, Speer lists COL for 158 gr LSWC as 1.44" in 38 Special and 1.57" in 357 Magnum. The difference of 0.13" powder space is enough to affect pressure. Hornady lists 1.45" and 1.59", respectively (0.14" difference). The fact that revolver bullets are usually crimped in locations fixed by the crimp groove or cannelure means that the difference in powder space is dictated by case length. Bullet seating depth is not optional.

I was just quoting what I saw on the wiki page for the two cartridges. I hate having to be forced to actually *walk* to the bookshelf, pull the book out of it, find my magnifying glass, and then try to read the small print in the actual reloading manuals...

OK... Here goes... Lee Modern Reloading Second Edition:
.38 special -- 1.550"
.35 mag -- 1.590"
Difference of 0.04"

Lyman #49
.38 special -- 1.550"
.357 mag -- 1.590"
Difference of 0.04"

Instead of looking at the cartridge specification, you were probably looking at one particular loading specification and Speer and Hornady were creating loadings that were not at the max cartridge OAL.

[9.3X62AL]

My practice in transposing 38 Special data to 357 Magnum cases (and 44 Special data into 44 Magnum cases) is to take the Special load data using a bullet of same weight and form and multiply that load's powder weight by a factor of 1-1/10. Skeeter's Load in 44 Special......7.5 grains of Unique under Lyman #429421......7.5 grains X 1.1 = 8.25 grains. I load 8.3 grains of Unique under #429421 in 44 Magnum cases, and get the same 925-950 FPS from my 5.5" Redhawk that 7.5 grain gives to my S&W 624 x 6.5". Very docile in that Ruger Boat Anchor.

[Tatume]

The SAAMI cartridge drawings do indeed show a 0.04" difference in maximum overall length of 38 Special and 357 Magnum cartridges. That in no way reflects the reality of existing bullet designs. Consider the common wadcutter as an example. Seated flush with the case mouth, the difference in cartridge length is the difference in case length (the two being the same things). Therefore the difference in usable case volume is directly related to the difference in case length (minus variations in construction).

http://www.saami.org/PubResources/CC_Drawings/Pistol/38%20Special_38%20Special%20+P.pdf
http://www.saami.org/PubResources/CC_Drawings/Pistol/357%20Magnum.pdf

[Bzcraig]

This thread is another reason I appreciate this site and you guys. I pose a fairly simple question but as the thread progresses I end up with much more than I bargained for. Keep up the discussion!

[Beagle333]

Given the abundance and low prices of .38 brass, I would suspect you would have no trouble swapping your .357 brass for an equal quantity of .38 brass and the swapper would pay your shipping! :D Win-win!

[grumman581]

The SAAMI cartridge drawings do indeed show a 0.04" difference in maximum overall length of 38 Special and 357 Magnum cartridges. That in no way reflects the reality of existing bullet designs. Consider the common wadcutter as an example. Seated flush with the case mouth, the difference in cartridge length is the difference in case length (the two being the same things). Therefore the difference in usable case volume is directly related to the difference in case length (minus variations in construction).


http://www.saami.org/PubResources/CC_Drawings/Pistol/38%20Special_38%20Special%20+P.pdf
http://www.saami.org/PubResources/CC_Drawings/Pistol/357%20Magnum.pdf


Agreed, but if you are attempting to transfer .38 load data to .357 brass, you should not be changing the overall length from the base to the end of the bullet. As such, definitely might be possible that the bullet would need to be set back in the .357 brass to achieve this same length with certain types of bullets. If you start changing the OAL, you are not just transferring load data, but developing a completely new load. You should start out by having the same length and then start changing one thing at a time to see what you get. My experience in transferring .38 loads to .357 brass is that any *normal* .38 load is not going to get stuck in the barrel of the .357, even if you increase the OAL to the maximum that the .357 allows. If you have an extremely reduced .38 load (e.g. 300 fps), you are getting in the area where you need to be careful (whether you are using .38 or .357 brass).

[Taylor3006]

One reason for using 357 brass is having an abundance of it. When I pick up boxes of once fired brass (in original boxes!) at the range, I get a lot more 357 then 38 special. Like the OP, I like to shoot target loads.

Couldn't ya just trade some of the 357 brass for some 38 sp brass on the forums here?

[9.3X62AL]

My practice in transposing 38 Special data to 357 Magnum cases (and 44 Special data into 44 Magnum cases) is to take the Special load data using a bullet of same weight and form and multiply that load's powder weight by a factor of 1-1/10. Skeeter's Load in 44 Special......7.5 grains of Unique under Lyman #429421......7.5 grains X 1.1 = 8.25 grains. I load 8.3 grains of Unique under #429421 in 44 Magnum cases, and get the same 925-950 FPS from my 5.5" Redhawk that 7.5 grain gives to my S&W 624 x 6.5". Very docile in that Ruger Boat Anchor.

I should add here that I have chronograph-verified these results pretty extensively over the years. I DON'T work in the other direction, attempting to create Magnum ballistics in Special cases for use in the Magnum revolvers. The rationale here was to get Special performance using Magnum cases lengths, because I despise cleaning the crud out of chambers that forms between the Special's case mouth and the chambers' throat origins. It's nasty, and tough to remove after an extended firing session of that sort. I, my wife, and my kids don't always want to get hammered with full-tilt recoil and thunder from the MagRevs. The Special loadings are an all-day delight that don't induce flinch. This ability to down-load at the reloading bench without affecting reliability is one of the revolver's principal advantages over the bottom-feeding sideiron and holsterplastik that make up our handgun collections nowadays.

[Char-Gar]

I should add here that I have chronograph-verified these results pretty extensively over the years. I DON'T work in the other direction, attempting to create Magnum ballistics in Special cases for use in the Magnum revolvers. The rationale here was to get Special performance using Magnum cases lengths, because I despise cleaning the crud out of chambers that forms between the Special's case mouth and the chambers' throat origins. It's nasty, and tough to remove after an extended firing session of that sort. I, my wife, and my kids don't always want to get hammered with full-tilt recoil and thunder from the MagRevs. The Special loadings are an all-day delight that don't induce flinch. This ability to down-load at the reloading bench without affecting reliability is one of the revolver's principal advantages over the bottom-feeding sideiron and holsterplastik that make up our handgun collections
nowadays.

I have done the same thing for the same reasons for a very long time. I like your approach to establishing the correct powder charge. Very well done.

[Bzcraig]

I don't have brass for either at this point. This is my first revolver purchase and I am trying to shortcut having to buy 38 and 357 brass if I can and wanted to hear from the experts hear what they have done in like fashion. So far I am encouraged that buying 357 only brass would give me the 'gallery' loads for my wife, within reason and safety, and still allow me to load full house magnum if I choose.

[Shiloh]

Never had an issue when I did it. 2.8 of Bullseye worked fine for 148 gr WC. I did bump it to 3.1 for later loads just to sweeten it a bit for the longer case. Pretty much just use .38 brass for .38 loads now.

Shiloh

[9.3X62AL]

I don't have brass for either at this point. This is my first revolver purchase and I am trying to shortcut having to buy 38 and 357 brass if I can and wanted to hear from the experts hear what they have done in like fashion. So far I am encouraged that buying 357 only brass would give me the 'gallery' loads for my wife, within reason and safety, and still allow me to load full house magnum if I choose.

The only caveat I would insert here is to plainly label each lot of 357 loads so as to identify them as the 38-like loads or the Thunder And Lightning concoctions. Most of us are pretty dogmatic about such things, so this is just a heads-up.

[Bzcraig]

The only caveat I would insert here is to plainly label each lot of 357 loads so as to identify them as the 38-like loads or the Thunder And Lightning concoctions. Most of us are pretty dogmatic about such things, so this is just a heads-up.

Yup, understood and I too am pretty anal about that stuff. I label every batch of rounds I load and if for some reason don't find the label, I pull them down.

[Tatume]

To carry this idea to an extreme, I'm getting ready to load some 38 wadcutters in 357 Maximum cases for use in a 10" Contender. I'm going to use them for plinking ammo on falling plates at 25 yards. Since I can't get 22 LR ammo, I figure this to be an inexpensive alternative.

I'm also toying with the idea of a 308 wadcutter mold to be used with a 30 Herrett barrel on the same Contender. With an appropriate charge of Bullseye it should make a nice 22 LR substitute.

Take care, Tom

[sniper]

For some years, I have used a formula similar to 9.3X2AL:
I use 2400, Unique and Universal powders, and take the reloading manual's maximum load for 38 Special, or 38 +P loads, add 5%, for the length/capacity of the 357 brass, and fear not! :bigsmyl2:

That gives similar results to 9.3's figures... 5.3gr. X 1.05= 5.4736/5.5gr. Unique. 1.1X=5.83 gr. Slower than the starting 357 loads in most of my reloading manuals. I load what I call "hot .38/mild magnum" or, if you wish, 38-44 loads, and find them safe and very satisfactory...so far, at least.
I shot hundreds of the 5.5gr. loads in IPSC competition.

I now use 5-8-5.9gr. Unique , 10.5 gr. 2400 (Skeeter's "medium" load is not to my liking!), and I haven't settled on a Universal load, but 5.2 gr. seems to work fine. I have to use 357 brass, because that's all I have, and either flavor of brass is scarce as hen's teeth in my neck of the woods.

I wouldn't feel too threatened, using any of the 1.05X loads in .38 brass, if I could live with the shortened case life.8-)

[fouronesix]

I do it all the time. Actually much prefer shooting 357 brass because the shorter 38 in the longer chamber allows for one heckuva carbon ring to build in front of the case mouth.

The thing that happens with the longer 357 is that because of the larger case capacity the 38 equivalent loads in the 357 will show lower pressures thus lower velocities.

The only remote possibility for trouble would be to load very slow or ball or hard to ignite type powder (in other words the WRONG type powder) in the 357, shoot in cold conditions and have a start-stop-start pressure issue in a revolver. Stick with faster, easier to ignite powders and that potential, as remote as it may be, is eliminated.

[Hammerhead]

I seriously doubt this unless you are already using a .38 load that is already just barely making it out of the barrel. The .357 is only 0.04" longer overall than the .38. Sure, the brass is longer on the .357, but the bullet is set further back in the case so that it does not exceed the max OAL specified for the cartridge. As such, there is also only 0.04" of extra powder capacity / space between the powder and the bullet of the .357 compared to the .38. I do not think that 0.04" of increased space between the powder and the bullet is going to reduce the pressure enough to keep a bullet from coming out of the barrel.

I stuck a plated DEWC in my 4" .357 using .38 lead data. The combination of increased case length and lead data used with plated bullets was enough to drop that bullet in the center of my barrel.
Probably would not have happened with a lead DEWC or if I had used .38 brass.
Probably would never happen with more aggressive SWC or JHP loads.
Just wanted to warn that it is a real danger in some cases.

[grumman581]

I stuck a plated DEWC in my 4" .357 using .38 lead data. The combination of increased case length and lead data used with plated bullets was enough to drop that bullet in the center of my barrel.
Probably would not have happened with a lead DEWC or if I had used .38 brass.
Probably would never happen with more aggressive SWC or JHP loads.
Just wanted to warn that it is a real danger in some cases.

Good point... What OAL were you using? Assuming the same OAL, this just shows that a jacketed bullet has more resistance than a cast lead bullet and we should be very careful about assuming that we can get away with using jacketed data for cast.

[Baja_Traveler]

I realize we are in the pistol section here but this may apply. So this weekend I shot a levergun silhouette match, and as I'm watching one of our top shooters win with a 357 Rossi in the pistol caliber match, I'm noticing it has zero recoil, is tack accurate, and sounds not much louder than a .22! I asked him what the heck he was shooting and he said his go-to light 357 load was a 158gr truncated cone cast 20-1 over 6 gr of HS6. I don't have HS6, but he suggested using W231, which I do have (Winchester site had 4gr as middle of the road) put my 158 grease wagon over the top of it, and my god what a load. 25 rounds in quick succession and the barrel was barely warm, shot like a 22 and as accurate as I can shoot. Here's the last 15 shots on a 100 yard sighter, elbows on the bench (should have brought a rest I know...)
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/10/15/uqe6a7uv.jpg

[Hammerhead]

disregard please

[grumman581]

I still like 357 data in 357 brass. Many powders at 38 levels in 357 brass can have wild velocity swings and much lower velocity than you would expect. Some powders do OK at 38 levels, but many really need to be bumped up to reach a consistent level of performance.

I haven't encountered that as a problem, but I'm usually only experimenting enough to get a low velocity round that is quiet and can be used for pests or to introduce new shooters to the sport. I haven't tried a lot of powders. I've used Hodgdon Clays and Alliant Promo (Red Dot equiv). I find these to be economical and fairly quiet with the 2gr or so of powder that I'm putting in them. I load .38s and .357s with the same amount of powder and to the same OALs. When I chrono them, I cannot see a consistent difference between the .38 and .357 brass velocities.

[9.3X62AL]

With the commentary here about 38 Special and 357 Magnum brass loadings being seated to the same overall lengths and using the same powder weights......I should add here that my "110 Per Cent Rule" DOES NOT assume same overall loaded lengths. Quite the opposite, actually--with a given boolit, I crimp at the same boolit location (most often the design's OEM crimp groove), resulting in an overall length variance that corresponds to the respective case lengths' variance between the calibers.

Some boolit/revolver combinations may require Grumman 581's method. One that comes to mind is most ideations of Lyman #358429 and 357 Magnum cases in S&W N-frame 357s. These have short 38 Special-length cylinders & chambers that are a throw-back to the 38-44 Outdoorsman revolver series from which the company's 357 Magnum was originally derived. In my pre-27 example, the use of #358429 requires seating around the front drive band edge in order for it to chamber and function. 357 Magnum-level loadings for that revolver/boolit combination need adjustment downward from those used in my S&W L-frame and Ruger BisHawk, whose chambers can accomodate #358429 seated to crimp where Elmer intended a roll-crimp to go. Much of Mr. Keith's rationale for designing #358429 in this long-nosed fashion was to get bullet length OUT of the case and allow for more powder space, and its intended original venue was the 38 Special case.

#358156 gets a lot more use in my N-frame than does #358429; though it obliges use of a gas check, it is a bit handier to use and has a bunch of data published that already caters to the required shorter seating depth of N-frame revolvers.

[BCRider]

I've been loading up cowboy loads in both .38Spl and .357Mag casings since my Rossi rifle likes the longer cases and I don't really have enough .357 brass to load both rifle and revolver ammo.

What I did was go with a mid power load of 4.0gns of Tightgroup behind 130gn LRNFP boolits for the handguns and 4.2gns of the same Tightgroup behind the same boolits for the .357Mag cases. Near as I can tell this 0.2gn difference has compensated for the volume change just about spot on and the rifle rounds feel very similar in recoil to shooting some pistol ammo.

I'm sure that the 0.2gn jump will change based on the powder and amount used but the idea of taking a .38Spl load data and increasing it by the 5% indicated by my experience seems decent enough.

[grumman581]

This thread is another reason I appreciate this site and you guys. I pose a fairly simple question but as the thread progresses I end up with much more than I bargained for. Keep up the discussion!

Like with a lot of things in life, a simple question only results in a simple answer if you don't know much about the subject (or if you are just feeling too lazy to give a complete answer). Someone once said that the definition of an expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less. :)

[Tatume]

After shopping around and finding outrageous prices everywhere, I went directly to Starline. They offered 500 357 Rem Mag cases for $76, shipped. Even though backordered until the week after next, I jumped on them. Everybody else who has them is asking more than twice that, plus shipping. I'll be loading a lot more 38 Special loads in 357 Mag cases in the near future!

[Bzcraig]

After shopping around and finding outrageous prices everywhere, I went directly to Starline. They offered 500 357 Rem Mag cases for $76, shipped. Even though backordered until the week after next, I jumped on them. Everybody else who has them is asking more than twice that, plus shipping. I'll be loading a lot more 38 Special loads in 357 Mag cases in the near future!

I did the same thing because of a heads up from Matt (Grumpa). I got in on the current run of Starline brass but thought I missed it. When I asked about it I was told the next production run would be in about 6weeks. They also responded via email very quickly, good customer service so far.

[Newtire]

One thing you might consider is the possibility of a carbon ring building up using the .38 special brass. I had this happen with my .32 magnum H & R using .32 Long cases. You just have to run a brush thru it though and it is gone. Can't tell you how many .22 shorts we used to shoot in a Stevens Crackshot a friend owned. They were cheaper by 20 cents a box then-that was a Pepsi 12 oz. bottle and a Snickers bar difference.