Chronographed- Buffalo Bore 38 Spl +P 158 gr SWC “Outdoorsman”

[Hi-Speed]

On the heels of my eye opening chronograph results with Underwood’s 38 Spl +P 158 gr SWC load yesterday, I tested Buffalo Bore’s version.

Buffalo Bore “Heavy 38 Spl +P Outdoorsman 158 gr Hard Cast Keith.” Chronographed ten of these at my shooting spot this morning:

Firearm: Ruger 4 5/8 in Blackhawk
10 shots:
Hi 1186 fps
Lo 1147 fps
Avg 1163 fps
ES 39
SD 11

Notes: Nearly 80 fps slower than Underwood’s 158 gr 38 Spl +P. Buffalo Bore “Outdoorsman” load is exactly that, an excellent duplicate of the Rem UMC 38-44 round of yesteryear. Buffalo Bore did advertise it at 1250 fps, oh well, test barrel specs I believe. Also double the price of Underwood’s heavy 38 Spl +P with same bullet weight. I’m not purchasing anymore but do recommend this load to those wanting a velocity duplicate of the original 38-44 Rem UMC load at 38 Spl +P pressures. I wouldn’t use it in other than a heavy frame 357 Magnum…but that’s me. Please refer to Buffalo Bore’s published information for details.

[44MAG#1]

Thanks for doing that.
From Sundles testing.
➤ 1255 fps -- Ruger GP 100, 6-inch barrel, 357 mag.
➤ 1186 fps -- S&W Combat Masterpiece 6-inch barrel, 38 SPL (circa 1958)
➤ 1146 fps -- S&W Mt. Gun, 4-inch barrel, 357 Mag.
➤ 1167 fps -- S&W Mod. 15, 4-inch barrel, 38 SPL (circa 1968)
➤ 1112 fps -- Ruger SP 101, 3-inch barrel, 38 SPL
➤ 1043 fps -- S&W Mod 66, 2.5-inch barrel, 357 mag.
➤ 989 fps -- S&W Mod 340PD, 1 & 7/8-inch barrel, 357 mag.
➤ 1027 fps -- S&W Mod 642 (pre dash), 1 & 7/8-inch barrel, 38 SPL

[Hi-Speed]

My pleasure!

…I like how Buffalo Bore tests in actual firearms…their advertised 1250 fps is in 6 inch GP100 I see. My results show that Buffalo Bore is indeed honest in their test results! I just wish they would come down a bit in price to be competitive with Underwood’s brand (nearly 2x more with BB).

[charlie b]

I don't mind their price. I only use them when I really need the extra. SD loads or field loads for dangerous animals. I buy two boxes for a gun. Use one box to test function and zero. The others are put in the magazine/cylinders when needed. I don't practice with them. That's what my own cast loads are for. Kinda same thing with bullets like Hornady SD loads.

<Knock on wood> I have never needed to use any of them for their intended purpose so I still have the ones I purchased years ago.

PS I do like the actual chrono data from various firearms, and they are close to what my chronograph shows. Makes choices easier.

[Kosh75287]

Launching a 158-160 gr. LSWC or RNFP at 1000 f/s is the key to making short-barreled .38 Specials most effective. Based on some of the late Col. Jeff Cooper's data, I DO have a load that will launch a 160 gr. bullet at 1000 f/s (if barely), from a 2" barrel. It did so with a comfortable margin from a 3" S&W M36, and a 2.5" S&W M66 (though what's the point?).
I won't share that load here, due to liability concerns, but I experienced no sticky extraction nor primer flattening during work-up with Winchester, Federal or R-P brass. I used small pistol standard primers of various brands neither I nor collaborators could see differences. Paradoxically, when I tried to work up the same load using small rifle primers (I thought as a safety move), I DID get primer weirdness and case stickiness before I broke 1000 f/s.
If someone on this thread has tried a similar work-up I would be interested in hearing their results, whether successful or otherwise.

[charlie b]

Keep in mind those same primers would show no flattening when used in a .357mag. Just because cases don't stick and primers look 'nice' does not mean you are working within safe load ranges.