Revolver Pressure ratings

[Mr_Sheesh]

Is there a source somewhere to look up "max" pressures for revolvers?

I tend never to push pressure limits, just curious as the data seems to be hard to find.

Rugers and Contenders will take more than average, obviously :)

But S&W N frames, K frames, and other revolvers?

[Crow_Eater]

I'd say, unless expressly stated otherwise, follow SAAMI pressure guidelines.
All aspects of manufacture cost money, and all firearms are products made to be sold for a profit. No manufacturer is going to put significantly more into the materials (steels and other metals) and processing (preparing the materials and general workmanship) than they think they can recoup. And they're competing in a world marketplace.
They are going to make a profit or go out of business; and we've seen plenty of firearms manufacturers either plain go under or end up outsourcing to someplace other than the US of A (including some longtime legendary American companies who no longer make anything here, not mentioning any names). So we can't make the assumption there is a huge safety margin built into the guns we buy, because of the economics of the situation.
I'm sure some of the folks here will pile on with exceptions and yea buts but that's my $0.02 worth, FWIW.

[Greg S]

Google SAAMI and look up your cartridge.

[megasupermagnum]

Yes, SAMMI specs will be the safe maximum for ANY gun in that caliber.

[Silver Jack Hammer]

Brian Pearce in Handloader magazine will run articles that are worth reading. He has written articles on loads for example .44 Redhawk, single action revolvers with different cylinder wall thickness, etc. I’m sure researching the history of his articles would be a good source.

Brian Pearce stated in one of his articles that he had a new .44 Special bored out to .44 magnum and he had been shooting it without any signs of stress. He also said he has worked with labs that pressure test but he can’t publish the data.

[megasupermagnum]

Brian Pearce in Handloader magazine will run articles that are worth reading. He has written articles on loads for example .44 Redhawk, single action revolvers with different cylinder wall thickness, etc. I’m sure researching the history of his articles would be a good source.

Brian Pearce stated in one of his articles that he had a new .44 Special bored out to .44 magnum and he had been shooting it without any signs of stress. He also said he has worked with labs that pressure test but he can’t publish the data.

The problem there is that Brian Pearce is barely more qualified than you or I to say X gun can handle X pressure. We can extrapolate that similar cartridges in the same gun should be able to handle the same pressure, but that is it.

The OP asked specifically about the old Ruger vs S&W debate. There are two parts to that, the actual safety factor, as well as durability. As far as safety, as I said, the SAMMI pressure spec is safe in any gun ever made in that caliber. Now I'm willing to admit that a Ruger Redhawk 44 magnum is likely going to handle more pressure than say, as S&W model 69 44 magnum L frame. But I never worked as an engineer for any firearm company. So how much stronger is the Redhawk, nobody can really know for sure. The redhawk and super redhawk share the same cylinders. Since the super redhawk is offered in 454 casull does that mean the 44 magnum version can handle 60,000 psi? Not exactly. I'm fairly sure the material the cylinders are made of in the higher pressure round is different than the 44 magnum.

Now another wrench in those gears is that while SAMMI is the american standard, much of the world follows the european standard of CIP. Taking that same 44 magnum, the SAMMI standards are 36,000 PSI or 40,000 CUP. The CIP standard is 41,000 PSI. An even bigger discrepancy exists in 357 magnum. In that case, the SAMMI standard is 35,000 PSI or 44,000 CUP, while the CIP standard is 43,500 PSI.

Then we come to load data. Most new load data is to the SAMMI specifications in PSI using the new pressure testing methods. While it has been considered no correlation from CUP to PSI, there is some as proven in the following link. https://www.shootingsoftware.com/ftp/psicuparticle2.pdf

You will find that for the most part, old load data is pretty dang close to the new data. The old timers knew what they were doing. Sometimes, especially in said 44 and 357 magnums, they could be much stronger in the old data. There are multiple factors for this, including new testing methods, as well as weaker guns.

So with safety in mind, is the old data dangerous? I do not consider it dangerous, not in the guns of the time or current guns just as beefy. I would not shoot those loads in a J frame or the model 69. The other factor is durability. This we can say with more ease, as there is nothing at stake except wear and tear. I have said it before that the S&W model 29 is barely adequate for the 44 magnum. By that I mean it will not handle thousands or tens of thousands of rounds of full snort ammo. That can mean different things to different people. But they are perfectly safe. While the Ruger Redhawk can take those same loads and live a long life. There will always be a few examples on both sides to say the contrary, but the Redhawk is more durable than the model 29, as shown by those who fired tens of thousands of rounds a year at steel silhouettes. You mention the K frame in 357 magnum. That gun is quite safe, but can suffer durability problems. That was its intended purpose. It was meant to take the strong rounds, but not to be campaigned on a target shooting binge. A more reasonable diet of a few hundred rounds a year of even extremely strong ammo should cause no harm to the gun for a long, long time. In the case of the J frame, there is no way that it is as strong or durable as the larger guns like the N frame or GP100.

Does that muddy the waters enough?

[Silver Jack Hammer]

Brian Pearce works with labs where chamber pressures are tested and guns are tested, I never have. So Brian Pearce is more qualified than me. Brian Pearce has been involved in the development of cylinders which resulted is greater strength, and I have never been involved in any such project.

My involvement is limited to reloading for guns manufactured to dimensions over 100 years old with modern steels. You may say you and I don’t know anything about metallurgy, and you be right but I have been told modern steels are stronger than older steels and I believe it. When we discuss older data, I reload for cartridges developed during the black powder era.

[35remington]

Some load data of old is considerably in excess of SAAMI specs today as said spec did not exist at the time and the pressure measuring equipment they used was somewhat less than accurate.

Older guns are also made of softer steels. In many cases, such as 38 Special, there is no valid reason to consider anything other than recently published data, and some risk in using old data especially when paired with older guns. The durability issue arises here, and not just for aluminum J frames.

[Outpost75]

It is common for S&W K frame barrels to fail through cracking at the 6 o'clock position over the barrel flat, where the section is thinner due to the clearance cut for the cylinder gas ring.

In 1984 the USBP received 707 S&W revolvers that their weapons specialist at FLETC had major problems with and the INS Director of Training was informed that the revolvers could not be issued due to multiple major category defects.

The initial contract was a canned S&W document of simple description written specifically to disqualify the other two revolver manufacturers. There was no performance requirement and no requirement for acceptance testing. The INS Director requested assistance from DOJ and the US Army Materiel Command to provide a performance spec. which was then provided by the Army. Five "hard fitters" arrived from S&W, along with Dennis Lee S&W Fed Sales Rep and L Kwisnak who was in charge of QA for S&W. They worked on the pile of guns for a week and 34 guns had to be returned to the factory as beyond repair NIB.

The S&W reps requested an "exit interview" with USBP personnel and the Government's Contracting Representative. Attending were a BP Colonel, Major, Captain and their weapons specialist and the Engineering Test Director detailed to FLETC from the Aberdeen Proving Ground.

S&W made their presentation. The BP gunsmith informed them the next contract would require a performance spec firing 10,000 rounds of 357 Magnum ammunition with no failures. Kwisnak of S&W spoke up and said no revolver now produced in the industry could meet such.

The Director then asked "how long a S&W would hold up?" Kwisnak of S&W clearly did not want to answer the question and finally said "3000 rounds." The BP Command Officers were all visibly shaken. The Director then asked what the failure mode was on the S&Ws. Kwisnak clearly did not want to answer and finally admitted, "the barrels crack". The BP Command Officers were NOT amused.

Finally Dennis Lee of S&W asked if there were further questions. The Government's contracting representative from Aberdeen Proving Ground asked Kwisnak what he meant by "crack?" and asked specifically "was there loss of dispersion, loss of velocity or catastrophic failure," (the latter being what had been observed in the failed guns tested at Aberdeen Proving Ground).

Dennis Lee immediately said without answering the question they were late for their flight and the S&W folks all left quickly. The INS Director reviewed the "Confirmation of Information Understood" memo prepared by attendees and addressed to Kwisnak. The BP Command Officers had all come directly to him and reported what they heard and that they were NOT happy. The memo to S&W was in the PO before the S&W folks got to their flight in Jacksonville, being sent registered return receipt. The receipt came back and no response was ever received from Kwisnak.

The next USBP contract contained a 10,000 round endurance requirement based on DR1187, the Federal Revolver Specification for .38 Special written by the US Army during the Vietnam war period for revolvers intended for combat aircrews, security police and CID investigators, with changes to remove any references to Defense Contract Administration requirements and reflected that the ammo would be commercial 357 Magnum. Otherwise, it had the same mechanical/performance requirements as the existing Army .38 Special revolver spec. in use since the 1960s.

Low initial bid was S&W and testing commenced. At the end of the first evening both test samples submitted were "out of time" at 500 rounds. The BP weapons specialist installed a "oversize hand" and the next evening they shot another 500 rounds and the guns were out of time again, rebuilt again and they both took .099" hands to bring them into time. The third night another 500 rounds were fired and they were out of time again and the BP notified S&W they had failed.

Ruger's Government Sale Rep Steve Vogel called me at Newport, NH and informed me that the USBP had referred him to contact specific named engineers at Ruger. As QA Manager I consulted the named engineers, referred the answers to their questions and Steve called back the following morning providing the address of where test weapons were to be sent and that is how Ruger got invited to the competition.

The USBP had purchased 40,000 rounds of .357 Mag 158 Gr. JHP and all ammo was from one ammo lot per the spec. Ruger had sent two Service Sixes with 4" barrels and both guns met the spec and the Border Patrol bought a large number of Rugers.

Steve Vogel requested copies of the FLETC test report both under FOIA and directly from USBP and later had a large number of copies run which Ruger sent out all over the world. Aberdeen Proving Ground soon afterward distributed copies to the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Naval Sea Systems Command, Department of State Security and Rock Island Arsenal.

A follow-on test was conducted for a plain-clothes, round-butt model with 3" barrel. INS investigators bought 500. The Brits also bought a large number as well.

About the time I left the company the Firearms Branch at FLETC had obtained one of the then-new GP100s and last I heard it had 15,000 rounds on it and was doing fine.

I heard later that S&W submitted its L frame, which passed and Ruger did as well so both were qualified and CBP bought low bid. Subsequently the L frame was found to exhibit a "design flaw" which necessitated a nationwide recall on the L frame to replace the striker nose with a smaller one and install a new recoil shield to correspond with smaller diameter striker nose. But in 20,000 rounds we shot up at Ruger testing our competitor's product we did not experience the reverse primer flow problem that led to the recall.

William C. (Bill) Davis of Tioga Engineering was contracted by S&W to determine what caused the reverse primer flow and determined what it was and thus the recall. As Bill explained to me, the hammer pivot pin was mis-located and even when the revolver met indent requirements it would not hold the pressure of full-charge .357 long enough for the pressures to relax. Thus the primer material flowed into the striker opening and locked the guns up where they had to be beat open. About that time there was also an issue with the proofing and the government's QAR was sent to S&W to witness the repeat proof series after some guns were examined at Picatinny Arsenal and confirmed by the BATF laboratory by electron microprobe analysis of the powder residues, that the guns were not proof fired with six proof cartridges, one per each charge hole per the spec., but only one proof load and five regular service rounds.

In reproofing at S&W 1200 proof loads were fired in 200 guns and had 34 failures to fire. Per MILSPEC only one misfire per million is allowed. The misfired rounds were sent to Picatinny Arsenal and their analysis was the failure to fire resulted from excessive off center striker indents. The report obtained through FOIA indicated that was determined that firing pin off center hits in excess of .020" could lead to misfires. It is not uncommon to see off center striker indents in S&Ws weapons upwards of .030" offset.

In the time I was QA Manager for the Newport facility I never saw a Ruger off that much.

[onelight]

That was informative Outpost75 thanks for posting it.
It is sad to hear but informative. Do you think it is any better now? And what manufacturer do you think produces the best quality ?

[megasupermagnum]

Brian Pearce works with labs where chamber pressures are tested and guns are tested, I never have. So Brian Pearce is more qualified than me. Brian Pearce has been involved in the development of cylinders which resulted is greater strength, and I have never been involved in any such project.

My involvement is limited to reloading for guns manufactured to dimensions over 100 years old with modern steels. You may say you and I don’t know anything about metallurgy, and you be right but I have been told modern steels are stronger than older steels and I believe it. When we discuss older data, I reload for cartridges developed during the black powder era.

I had no idea Brian had such an engineering background. He never mentioned it in any handloader article I've read. That's good to know.

[megasupermagnum]

That was informative Outpost75 thanks for posting it.
It is sad to hear but informative. Do you think it is any better now? And what manufacturer do you think produces the best quality ?

And the can of worms is opened...

[onelight]

And the can of worms is opened...
Yup I have no illusions I buy very few revolvers that I am satisfied with stock S$W or Ruger but am usually able to fix or get fixed to suit me. I have had better luck with autos but have had some issues with them to.

[Outpost75]

That was informative Outpost75 thanks for posting it.
It is sad to hear but informative. Do you think it is any better now? And what manufacturer do you think produces the best quality ?

My hands-on experience in that sort of testing ended in 1988.

I can't and won't comment on current product quality.

Suffice to say that an old gun that "works" is worth more than a new one which doesn't.

[jaguarxk120]

No wonder the older guns sell for higher prices.

[fatelk]

Thank you from me as well, Outpost. That was very interesting. I had no idea that S&W had had that many problems.

I understand now why some of you guys cautioned me against a steady diet of magnum loads of any kind in my old Model 66, in my recent thread about working up a good .357 Magnum load. I will heed that advice. I wish Ruger would make a revolver with a feel and trigger more like a S&W. I've really tried to like Ruger revolvers, but I always find myself coming back to S&W.

[missionary5155]

Thank you Outpost. That is pretty much the steel critter shooters leaned early on in the revolver class. Rugers and Dan Wessons were the revolvers to beat.

[megasupermagnum]

Thank you from me as well, Outpost. That was very interesting. I had no idea that S&W had had that many problems.

I understand now why some of you guys cautioned me against a steady diet of magnum loads of any kind in my old Model 66, in my recent thread about working up a good .357 Magnum load. I will heed that advice. I wish Ruger would make a revolver with a feel and trigger more like a S&W. I've really tried to like Ruger revolvers, but I always find myself coming back to S&W.

I've got an unmodified GP100 that will put many S&W triggers to shame. I can't imagine why either one couldn't become amazing with the right gunsmith. As for the durability of S&W, as I understand the K frame 357 magnum was basically intended for carry, mostly by police officers. It was a hotrod if you will. Now I am not S&W lover, I'm a Ruger guy all the way, but I have not heard of any durability problems with the N frame. I've seen no evidence a model 27 won't live at least as long as a Ruger GP100.

[onelight]

What bothers me more than anything is them trying to cheat in guns that don't meet standard to arm our front line guys with .
No excuse for that contemptible behavior. Sad Sad Sad

[onelight]

What bothers me more than anything is them trying to cheat in guns that don't meet standard to arm our front line guys with .
No excuse for that contemptible behavior. Sad Sad Sad

[Outpost75]

What bothers me more than anything is them trying to cheat in guns that don't meet standard to arm our front line guys with. No excuse for that contemptible behavior. Sad Sad Sad

Amen.

[missionary5155]

Well if we could role the clock back to 1978 and through 1984 we would find hundreds of shooters using S&W 357 mag and 44 ag and a few 41 mag realizing that after 500-1000 rounds of practice and match rounds their S&W revolvers were falling apart. Parts broke. Parts wore out fast.
Not writing that some DW & Ruger revolvers did not suffer issues... but most DW and Rugers had few if any issues and were the top accuracy winners week after week.
I still shoot our 1978 DW 357 Mag revolver with loads that would tear a 357 S&W apart. I still shoot our 1982 DW 41 mag with loads that I would never shoot in our two Model 57's. And our Rugers are still chugging right along.

[fatelk]

With the S&Ws, is it the wear and tear from magnum loads that tears them up, or just normal wear and tear from frequents firing?

For example, what kind of longevity could I expect from my model 66 with 85% magnum loads, or a Model 10-5 with 125gr/800fps loads? Would you expect them to last significantly longer with moderate loads?

[35remington]

Can’t speak for the 66 but with standard pressure 38 loads the 10-5 is long lived.

It has yet to be disproven that the milder the loads the longer a gun lasts.

[megasupermagnum]

With the S&Ws, is it the wear and tear from magnum loads that tears them up, or just normal wear and tear from frequents firing?

For example, what kind of longevity could I expect from my model 66 with 85% magnum loads, or a Model 10-5 with 125gr/800fps loads? Would you expect them to last significantly longer with moderate loads?

Again, I never worked as an engineer, and never did any longevity tests.

I think it may be worthwhile to look at how they are failing. Everyone knows about the forcing cone cracking. It has also been said that velocity is the killer, especially those hot 125 grain loads. A heavier bullet should theoretically reduce the damage. The other ways I've seen them wear out involve cylinder endshake, and timing problems, as well as forcing cone wear, but that is a lesser matter in my opinion. Outpost would be better to answer in this regard. I do not consider flame cutting a problem myself. I have never heard of a gun that the flame cutting cause some kind of a problem beyond cosmetic. The cutting only gets so deep and that's that. Now the endshake has been called frame stretching. I don't believe that based on experiencing it on my own gun. Since I did not measure my cylinder when new, I can't say for certain, but what I believe happens is either the star in the rear of the cylinder, or the front of the cylinder that sets against the yoke gets peened over time. When I bought my model 57-1, it had .006" of endshake. S&W's are not tolerant of endshake at all, mine wouldn't even open the cylinder unless pushed to the rear. The fix is easy, you add endshake shims inside the cylinder against the yoke to hold the cylinder to the rear. In my case I added .005" to leave .001" endshake for function. Fixing the endshake is easy, but over time this is also opening up your barrel to cylinder gap. Mine is currently at .009", which is nearing the limit of what most people consider acceptable, but no real problems because of it. The fix if the BC gap gets too large is to set the barrel back. This is means a trip to the factory or gunsmith. The other problem I have never experienced myself is timing. As has been said, the fix is a longer hand to turn the cylinder. I believe I've heard of the cylinder notches or bolt becoming worn, but it can't be too common. One problem with the N frame 44 magnum is that under recoil the bolt can release the cylinder, and allow it to rotate. It is not dangerous per-se, but extremely annoying. This is another reason why I say the N frame limit is really only 41 magnum. There is a stronger bolt spring, but it did not fully cure the problem for me. The N frame was designed for the 357 magnum, and works fantastically with that caliber.

The very best thing, if you like S&W's and want to shoot a large number of strong, old school 357 magnums is to get the model 27, although the L frame is supposed to have been designed to fix the K frame durability issues as well.

[Outpost75]

Problem is that the S&W yoke barrel is soft, usually will not even register on the Rockwell "C" scale, but typically 80-90 Rb in the best case, so once the gun develops measureable end-shake, the longitudinal cylinder movement hammers the gun to death. Yoke barrel can only stretched twice before typical gun develops cylinder gap over pass 0.008"/hold .009" at which point the barrel must be set back a thread and refitted. I have inspected new S&W in the box which came from the factory with cylinder gaps larger than would have been allowed to ship at Ruger in the 1980s. By the time a gun with as little as 0.002" end shake is shot a few hundred more rounds you will also need to have a max.-width hand and cylinder stop fitted. By the second factory rebuild once you shoot it loose again you have exhausted the available oversized parts and you have prodced a $600 paper weight.

N-frames don't have this problem.

If you want to shoot a continuous diet of full-charge .357s buy a Model 27 or 28.

[fatelk]

Thanks guys. Now that I think about it, I remember that I put an endshake bearing in my model 66 when I bought it used about 10 years ago. It's a '72 vintage gun. I haven't shot it a whole lot since I've had it, and it's still nice and tight. I doubt I've shot more than a couple hundred rounds of full magnum loads through it; it gets mostly .38s. I've shot the 586 a fair amount more (had it a lot longer) and it's still tight, no noticeable endshake.

I love threads like this, very informative. I appreciate you guys sharing your invaluable experience. Thank you!

[fatelk]

For curiosity, I just checked cylinder gap on several of my Smiths.
The 66 (with an endshake bushing) is at .008".
The 586 is coincidentally also at .008". I don't remember ever putting an endshake bearing in it, but I may have at some point.
My 629-1 is at .006". I've shot a lot of hot magnums through it, no idea how many, probably high hundreds.
I measured a 29-3 and a 29-8 that are both like new, shot very little, and they're both at .007".
My most-favorite old Model 29-2 that I've had for over 30 years, measures .010". I must have put a bearing in it at some point, don't remember. I have no idea how many rounds I've fired through it, gotta be over a thousand.

I'm getting to where I don't care for the hard kicking magnums so much anymore. Two or three cylinders full of .44 magnum and I'm rather done for the day, so they aren't likely to be terribly abused much in the near future, at least until my boys get a little older, and hit the macho-look-at-me stage. If we ever get into shooting a lot of those, I'll have to buy a Ruger, and learn to like it!

It's funny how boys of a certain age seem to enjoy pain. I took a couple nephews shooting a few years back. They went through about 60 rounds of heavy loaded 45-70 rounds in an H&R single shot, then were laughing and comparing bruised shoulders.

[35 Whelen]

Brian Pearce works with labs where chamber pressures are tested and guns are tested, I never have. So Brian Pearce is more qualified than me. Brian Pearce has been involved in the development of cylinders which resulted is greater strength, and I have never been involved in any such project.


If you read all of Brian Pearce's writings, it pretty apparent he's more than just a cowboy with a computer bunch of guns. I've seen him mention in his columns and articles Rockwell hardness of specific revolver cylinders, loads that were tested by H.P. White labs, etc. He has definitely picked up where Elmer Keith left off.

35W

[Wheelguns 1961]

I don’t trust his load data. He publishes stuff that is way over book max.

[Silver Jack Hammer]

Wheelguns 1961, Can you give an example of Brian Pearce recommending load data way over max? I’m comparing his published data to current loading manuals and manufacturers published load data and I’m not finding it.

[35remington]

Sometimes he is a little over but I have not seen way over when it is considered in relation to known firearm limits. For example Alliant stops at 6.0 grains in the 38 using Power Pistol with a 158 grain bullet at Plus P. Some of his data went to 6.3, a difference that could be ascribed to different cases and specific bullet used.

Some of his Plus P listings I would not shoot much of in an aluminum J frame even if it says Plus P on the barrel.

[megasupermagnum]

I don’t trust his load data. He publishes stuff that is way over book max.

Stop looking in the Hornady manual. I finally had to give mine away.

[Outpost75]

DEA and FBI would not let agents carry any Airweight revolver, even off duty. In DEA testing done at Quantico K-frame Model 12-3s could not survive one trip over their modified tactical revolver course firing 110-grain +P+ Q4070 loads without failing.

261389261390261391

I have two Model 12s and love them, but do not carry +P in them. Only wadcutters or Speer 135-grain Gold Dot loaded to standard pressure with 4.0-4.1 grains of Bullseye.

261392261393

[Larry Gibson]

Is there a source somewhere to look up "max" pressures for revolvers?

I tend never to push pressure limits, just curious as the data seems to be hard to find.

Rugers and Contenders will take more than average, obviously :)

But S&W N frames, K frames, and other revolvers?

I have been studying and researching pressure testing for many years. Also in the last 14 years+ I have pressure tested thousands of rounds of both rifle, pistol and the numerous revolver cartridges. I am unaware of any such "source" for max pressures for revolvers, especially for particular individual make and model revolvers. The manufacturers usually will recommend whether or not to use higher than standard pressure loads in any particular model.

The last post of Outpost75's is a good example. If I recall correctly the M12 Airweight revolver was not even recommended for +P use let alone +P+ 38 SPL ammunition. That 110 gr load was pretty potent as I recall. Would love to pressure test some sometime but haven't seen any in years. Many seem to think all factory and max loads in manuals are at SAAMI MAP for any cartridge.....just isn't always so...… But unless one can pressure test the best advice with reloading cast or jacketed bullets is to adhere to the data in current manuals (where ever possible) and to work up the load as per the instructions in most manuals. The problem is, with most revolver cartridges, over pressure signs usually do not appear until a load is considerably over the recommended MAP for the cartridge.

So how are you, the reloader, supposed to know? You don't.....that's why you should stick to manual data and use a chronograph. It takes pressure to get velocity all other things being equal. If your reloads are appreciably faster than similar loads in manuals then pressure may be greater than you think.....or want for a particular revolver.

As an example; some 26 years back I obtained a Ruger Security Six with a 6" barrel and had on hand a quantity of Hornady 125 gr XTPs. A purview of manuals showed one using Blue Dot and givng very good velocity. I worked up to that load with out any signs of "excess" pressure. The WSP primers were not excessively flat and the cases pretty much fell out of the chambers with little effort from the ejector. Velocity was 1690 fps (Oehler m35P) and accuracy was excellent. I shot perhaps 400+ of those loads finding them deadly on jackrabbits, rock chucks and coyotes. Never any indication of pressure problems. I had about 35 rounds in a box of 50 of that load left when I began pressure testing so decided one day to pressure test that load. Wow....out of the 7.94" Contender Barrel they ran 1940 fps at 42,200 psi! Again accuracy was excellent and no sign of "excessive" pressure. However, while the 42,200 psi was ok in the Contender I thought it being a bit above the SAAMI MAP for 35,000 psi for the 357 Magnum was asking a bit to much of the Ruger Security Six. Was it too much pressure for the Ruger? I can't say as the Ruger appears no worse for it....but I don't shoot that load anymore. I also saw the max load with Blue Dot under 125 JHPs was several gr less in the next version of that manual. That later manual with a milder load (that max load is at the SAAMI MAP) came out after they began using piezo-transducers to measure psi.

[Outpost75]

Larry,

The 110-grain +P+ load is still available in the Winchester Law Enforcement catalog:

Winchester 38 Special +P+ (110) JHP
Symbol: RA38110HP+ – Winchester Ranger Jacketed Hollow Point
Shellcase: 38 Special +P+ nickel plated brass shellcase
Bullet: 110 grain (7.1 gram) Jacketed Hollow Point, Brass jacket, lead core
Diameter 0.357 inch (9.07 mm)
Powder: Clean burning, low flash
Primer: Winchester non-corrosive primer – boxer type
Accuracy: Product Mean of 2.5 inch (6.4 cm) Extreme Spread, 5 shot targets at 50 yards (45.7 m) from a 7.71 inch (19.6 cm) SAAMI test barrel
Velocity: 990 ft/sec (302 m/s) nominal at 15 ft (4.6 m) Fired in a S&W Model 15 revolver with 2 inch (5.1 cm) barrel
Energy: 239 ft-lb (324 joules)
Pressure: 23,500 psi max. average (1,621 bars)
Waterproofing: Lacquer applied to primer annulus and Black Lucas applied to mouth of case

[megasupermagnum]

I have been studying and researching pressure testing for many years. Also in the last 14 years+ I have pressure tested thousands of rounds of both rifle, pistol and the numerous revolver cartridges. I am unaware of any such "source" for max pressures for revolvers, especially for particular individual make and model revolvers. The manufacturers usually will recommend whether or not to use higher than standard pressure loads in any particular model.

The last post of Outpost75's is a good example. If I recall correctly the M12 Airweight revolver was not even recommended for +P use let alone +P+ 38 SPL ammunition. That 110 gr load was pretty potent as I recall. Would love to pressure test some sometime but haven't seen any in years. Many seem to think all factory and max loads in manuals are at SAAMI MAP for any cartridge.....just isn't always so...… But unless one can pressure test the best advice with reloading cast or jacketed bullets is to adhere to the data in current manuals (where ever possible) and to work up the load as per the instructions in most manuals. The problem is, with most revolver cartridges, over pressure signs usually do not appear until a load is considerably over the recommended MAP for the cartridge.

So how are you, the reloader, supposed to know? You don't.....that's why you should stick to manual data and use a chronograph. It takes pressure to get velocity all other things being equal. If your reloads are appreciably faster than similar loads in manuals then pressure may be greater than you think.....or want for a particular revolver.

As an example; some 26 years back I obtained a Ruger Security Six with a 6" barrel and had on hand a quantity of Hornady 125 gr XTPs. A purview of manuals showed one using Blue Dot and givng very good velocity. I worked up to that load with out any signs of "excess" pressure. The WSP primers were not excessively flat and the cases pretty much fell out of the chambers with little effort from the ejector. Velocity was 1690 fps (Oehler m35P) and accuracy was excellent. I shot perhaps 400+ of those loads finding them deadly on jackrabbits, rock chucks and coyotes. Never any indication of pressure problems. I had about 35 rounds in a box of 50 of that load left when I began pressure testing so decided one day to pressure test that load. Wow....out of the 7.94" Contender Barrel they ran 1940 fps at 42,200 psi! Again accuracy was excellent and no sign of "excessive" pressure. However, while the 42,200 psi was ok in the Contender I thought it being a bit above the SAAMI MAP for 35,000 psi for the 357 Magnum was asking a bit to much of the Ruger Security Six. Was it too much pressure for the Ruger? I can't say as the Ruger appears no worse for it....but I don't shoot that load anymore. I also saw the max load with Blue Dot under 125 JHPs was several gr less in the next version of that manual. That later manual with a milder load (that max load is at the SAAMI MAP) came out after they began using piezo-transducers to measure psi.

That is a good example of the discrepancy. You would know better than me, but I'm willing to bet many of those older loads ran in the 40,000 to 45,000 psi range at max loads. These are the loads I like (not the 125 grain specifically), and accuracy can be phenomenal. There is no doubt there is more wear an tear on the gun, but I've seen no evidence that they are unsafe in the guns of the time. That's the price of a hotrod.

[Wheelguns 1961]

In an article for the 41magnum, he states that his go to load is 19.0gns of 2400 with a 220gn bullet. My lyman cast bullet handbook gives 16.2gns of 2400 with the same.

This is in response to silver jack hammer. I must have forgotten to hit the reply with quote button. This is brian pearce load data.

[downzero]

If 990 fps out of a 2" barrel is hot with a 110 grain bullet, you all would hate to see the chrono results from me firing 158 grain SWCs over the chrono last weekend. If I recall correctly, a book load of +P CFE Pistol put them 880 FPS. How is that +P+? Not that there is a standard for such a thing anyway.

[Outpost75]

Winchester spec. for 158-grain lead +P "FBI Load"

Winchester 38 Special +P (158) Semi-WC HP

Symbol: X38SPD – Winchester Super-X Handgun
Shellcase: 38 Special +P nickel plated brass shellcase with cap lacquer
Bullet: 158 grain Semi Wad Cutter HP
Powder Type: Clean burning
Primer: Winchester non-corrosive primer, boxer type
Accuracy: Product Mean of 4.0 inches Extreme Spread 5 shot targets at 50 yards from a SAAMI test barrel
Velocity: 1050 ft/sec nominal at 15 ft fired in a 7.71 inch SAAMI (solid) test barrel
(NOT revolver)
Energy: 386 ft-lb nominal at 15ft fired in a 7.71 inch standard SAAMI (solid) test barrel
Pressure: 20,000 psi maximum average
Waterproofing: Lacquer applied to primer annulus

Typical revolver velocities, as fired in new revolvers gaged at Mean Assembly Tolerance:

___________________________S&W Mod.10, 2”__S&W Mod.10 4”__S&W Mod.28 6”

-------------------------------------- 0.005”cyl.gap____0.005”cyl.gap___0.005”cyl.gap

Winchester X38SPD 158-gr. +P___831 fps, 10 Sd___909 fps, 16 Sd__952 fps, 11 Sd

[.429&H110]

Thanks for the thread! This is fun!
All I know about .44
I learned on this forum.
(Phooey on Rugerforum anyway)
I see y'all are loading .38's .357's
You could try some Buffalo Bore
and see if you like it.
I was tired of lugging a sluggun
so I got a SRH 7" .44mag stainless
(everybody knows .44's not big enough)
(but maybe if you shoot Buffalo Bore)
Qualified with it. BB 320 grain really goes KaBlammo oh my fingers and made the back of the frame kinda hammer peened looking. No harm done. Ruger trigger guard cut my fingers though. Was cold out. Didn't notice the blood 'till my hands warmed up.
270 grain hard lead will go 1200 fps over the chronograph fun to shoot accurate never did get a bear to walk up to it though. Bounce off? I doubt it. Don't hammer your gun. YMMV.

[Silver Jack Hammer]

Wheelguns 1961, Please cite the article. The Alliant website posts 19 gr. of the same powder with a 210 GDHP, as does the current Speer Manuel.

Mr. Pearce has mentioned a custom .41 he had built which is neither a Smith, Colt’s or Ruger. He describes the cylinder as possessing a great deal of strength.

Many of us here have sent a lot 240 gr. boolits downrange with 22 gr. of 2400, myself included. Although we don’t do this anymore, I’ve owned 2 Ruger SBH’s, a Super Redhawk and 3 M29’s. Maybe I abused my wrist when I was younger but I never saw any evidence I hurt any of the guns.

[Wheelguns 1961]

He was using a ruger blackhawk. I don’t know how to post a link with my ipad, but it is from handloader feb. 2003. If you pm me an email address, I will send you a copy. Lyman’s cast bullet handbook lists this load of 16.2 grains at 39,900 cup. I don’t know what that equates to in psi. For the record, I made it to 18.5 when I had enough.

[onelight]

I used to load a 240gc swc winchester bullet on 25 grains of 296 shot enough of those that I shot my model 29 loose.
And probably shot at least 10 times as many 250 grain Keith bullets at 900 to 1000 FPS but I did shoot my mod29 loose it held up pretty well i bought it in about 76 or 77 I put band aids on it (shimmed the cyl.) and she is still going , just feed it the lighter loads now.

[Outpost75]

With the S&Ws, is it the wear and tear from magnum loads that tears them up, or just normal wear and tear from frequents firing?

For example, what kind of longevity could I expect from my model 66 with 85% magnum loads, or a Model 10-5 with 125gr/800fps loads? Would you expect them to last significantly longer with moderate loads?

A Model 10-5 through 10-8 (no experience with later engineering change models) will go 10,000 rounds of standard-pressure .38 Specials with few issues if given an LTI (light technical inspection) by a factory-trained armorer on at least an annual basis, as was normally done during police requals. Firing +P ammunition exclusively for both qualification and duty, an armorer should put hands on the gun every 2000 rounds, as adjustments and parts replacements do become necessary. Firing factory magnums in your 66 armorer inspection was recommended every 1000-1500 rounds and it would be normal to undergo a complete rebuild by 5000 rounds. Dropping back to .38 Special +P+ Q4070 might extend the interval a bit, but inspection every 1500-2000 rounds would still be recommended.

[megasupermagnum]

If 990 fps out of a 2" barrel is hot with a 110 grain bullet, you all would hate to see the chrono results from me firing 158 grain SWCs over the chrono last weekend. If I recall correctly, a book load of +P CFE Pistol put them 880 FPS. How is that +P+? Not that there is a standard for such a thing anyway.

Heavier bullets all around work better. I have no idea why the 125 grain became as popular as it did. Heck, I don't even like 158 grain much. If I'm looking to maximize the potential, I'm looking at 170 to 215 ish grains.

[44MAG#1]

In an article for the 41magnum, he states that his go to load is 19.0gns of 2400 with a 220gn bullet. My lyman cast bullet handbook gives 16.2gns of 2400 with the same.

This is in response to silver jack hammer. I must have forgotten to hit the reply with quote button. This is brian pearce load data.

The bullet is a Saeco 220 gr. seated to an OAL of 1.585 A Keith seated out will take more powder.

[Wheelguns 1961]

The bullet is a Saeco 220 gr. seated to an OAL of 1.585 A Keith seated out will take more powder.

3gns more!

[fatelk]

A Model 10-5 through 10-8 (no experience with later engineering change models) will go 10,000 rounds of standard-pressure .38 Specials with few issues if given an LTI (light technical inspection) by a factory-trained armorer on at least an annual basis, as was normally done during police requals. Firing +P ammunition exclusively for both qualification and duty, an armorer should put hands on the gun every 2000 rounds, as adjustments and parts replacements do become necessary. Firing factory magnums in your 66 armorer inspection was recommended every 1000-1500 rounds and it would be normal to undergo a complete rebuild by 5000 rounds. Dropping back to .38 Special +P+ Q4070 might extend the interval a bit, but inspection every 1500-2000 rounds would still be recommended.

Thank you, very good information. With the amount that I shoot I should be good for quite a long time.

[Outpost75]

Thank you, very good information. With the amount that I shoot I should be good for quite a long time.

Glad to help. If you follow that advice you can pass the revolver on to your children.

[Larry Gibson]

Excellent advise from Outpost75. I fired many thousands of rounds of WC through my Power PPC revolver and never had any sign of wear. Also, I have shot thousands of rounds of 38 SPL standard loads and equivalent factory loads [359477 or TL358-158s over 3.5 gr Bullseye] through my old service revolver, a M15 with 5" barrel made in the late '60s. No sign of wear or end shake.

[44MAG#1]

3gns more!

When you take into consideration the farther seating out of the Keith 220 and the difference in different lots of the same powder, primers and the brands of cases 3 grains isn't unreasonable. More that likely Pearce used Starline cases. He does in most calibers he tests.
So one is entitled to their own opinion but if one takes into account Pearce didn't use the same lot of components and he used a bullet that doesn't seat as deep in the case it very likely he used 3 grains more. One must look at ALL differences not just one.
BTW didn't he use Federal 150 primers?

[downzero]

Heavier bullets all around work better. I have no idea why the 125 grain became as popular as it did. Heck, I don't even like 158 grain much. If I'm looking to maximize the potential, I'm looking at 170 to 215 ish grains.

After shooting a few hundred of the 158s this weekend I may back my load down some anyway, but it's nice to know that the .38 Special with the right powder and bullet still has plenty of power for most uses.

[JeffG]

Outpost75, great information sir.