Gold Dot .357 Mag Loads to 45,000 CUP?

[SL1]

I recently purchased Speer's Reloading Manual #14 and was disappointed to see their data for the .357 Magnum. It is based on the newer SAAMI pizoelectric pressure standard (35,000 psi) instead of the older SAAMI standard of 45,000 CUP. The maximum velocity listed for their 158 gr. Gold Dot bullet is only 1265 fps from a 6" revolver barrel (S&W #19). The loads for various powders are significantly lower than loads currently published in other sources that I have seen. But, those other sources do not specify Gold Dot bullets. For example, their #14 manual lists 14.7 gr of WW-296 as a maximum load, whereas Winchester (and now Hodgden) typically list 16.6 gr of the same powder for that weight of "jacketed bullet." The old Speer Reloading Manual #10 actually listed a maximum charge as 17.8 gr of WW-296 with a muzzle velocity of 1326 fps from a 6" barreled Ruger "Security Six." But, that was for their old "cup and core" style bullets, and was hotter than I thought wise back then, even though their manual says that "These loads are sligthly under the 46,000 cup working pressure of this cartridge."

So, things have really changed a lot, and I can't tell (from what I have seen) how much charge weight change is due to the change in pressure standard and how much is is due to changes in bullet construction. I have seen some loads published in places like "Handloader Magazine" that push Gold Dots very fast from a 6" .357 magnum revolver, but there was no indication that those loads were pressure tested.

Can anyone on this forum direct me to pressure-tested data for 158 gr Speer Gold Dot bullets in the .357 Magnum cartidge that use the older copper crusher standard of ~45,000 cup?

SL1

[WIL TERRY]

Why do you think SAAMI dropped the old CUP pressure units ???
There are plenty of old manuals around with the old data.
The bullet construction as you have noted it had NOTHING to do with the pressure changes one way or the other.

[SL1]

Wil,

You seem to have missed the point of my question. The new manual has loads for the new bullets with the new pressure standard. I want loads for the new bullets with the old pressure standard, which has been safe enough in my gun for about 30 years. Bullet construction CAN make a substantial difference in pressure, and Gold Dot plating and forming construction is quite different from the older cup and core construction. So, loading the new Gold Dot bullets with the old data may or may not stay under the old pressure standard. It would not be a wise thing to do without more investigation.

I do know how to work-up a load using expansion ring measurements to try to match an unpublished load to a load published with pressure data, so that, as far as I can tell, the loads produce similar pressures in my gun. If I must, I can do that, starting with published loads for Hornady XTP bullets. But, it is not a very accurate process, and it requires quite a bit of effort to make it even reasonably accurate. So, I try to find pressure-tested loads for the bullets and powder I want to use. My question is whether any of the forum members know of any.

If you can't help me with finding the data, please don't argue with my question. If you want to discuss why the .357 magnum pressure standards have been reduced over the years, please start a new thread instead of hijacking this one.

SL1

[Crosshair]

Why do you think SAAMI dropped the old CUP pressure units ???

People kept breaking their hands shooting lightweight Scandium frame revolvers.

[Sarge]

SL1,

Will has forgot more about internal ballistics than most of us will ever know. Trust me on this.

Given what you are trying to accomplish, I suggest you submit your inquiry the the manufacturers of the bullet and powder you are trying to combine toward that goal.

Changing any component of a published load recipe changes the pressure and the top of the MAP is no place to fly blind.

[Hook686]

From what I understand, it is not wise to go above the maximum load data, nor below the minimum load data for W296 ... a very tight band usually exists that is deemed safe.

From the OP's post, I gather that the maximum safe load, with the new data, is less than the minimum safe load in the old/other load data tables; and to go to above the minimum safe load with the old/other data tables puts one will above the new listed maximum safe load in the Speer's Reloading Manual #14.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. W296 is not my favorite powder.

[Crosshair]

I wish they would list the pressure data and let us decide for ourselves.

[The Tourist]

I was always taught that data from a strain gauge was the real story over info gathered from a copper crusher.

A strain gauge shows force over time, while CUP just tells you the max force.

For example, when the 10mm Auto first came out, initial info showed that it violated every safe and sane idea of ballistics known to man.

However, info provided from a strain gauge showed that the max pressure rose and fell (or were falling) before the bullet had cleared the mouth of the case.

In other words, while severe, pressures were successfully contained before the barrel and locking lugs ever took the force of the blow.

Go with info from a strain gauge.

[BillCA]

I was always taught that data from a strain gauge was the real story over info gathered from a copper crusher.

The electronic peizio measurement systems are more accurate and also display pressure over time. This is the main reason you see fewer and fewer references to CUP readings which only give peak pressure.

For example, their #14 manual lists 14.7 gr of WW-296 as a maximum load, whereas Winchester (and now Hodgden) typically list 16.6 gr of the same powder for that weight of "jacketed bullet."

So for the Speer Gold Dot bullet, Speer has listed a lighter load than what the powder-maker lists for a generic JHP for the same weight. This could be due to several reasons;
1. Loss of projectile cohesion at higher velocities (jacket shedding/peeling)
2. Loss of controlled expansion beyond 'x' velocity (cratering)
3. Loss of accuracy when pushed beyond certain velocities
4. Diminishing gains in velocity for increased charges
5. Near-Max pressures
6. Length of projectile and/or base design
7. Excessive flame/heat production (causes throat erosion/topstrap cutting)


It's not unusual to find anywhere from 1/2 grain to 1.5 grain differences between two current manuals for a given powder/projectile-weight-type. At one time I had 3 manuals that gave different max loads for the same JHP weight with the same power.... and the velocities within 50fps of each other!

I think it's doubtful you'll find any commercial load data using CUP measurements, especially with newer designed bullets like GDHP, simply because the industry is moving away from measuring pressures in CUP. But I'm certain that the Speer reloading manual offers loads that are within the SAAMI standard pressure (regardless of whether you call it CUP, PSI, KPa (kilopascal) or kumquats).

[SL1]

Well, it looks like nobody has knowledge of the data I am seeking, but a lot of people seem to want to talk about it anyway.

What you all seem to be missing is that the indusrty standards group, SAAMI, has downgraded the .357 Magnum performance a lot (and the .44 magnum a little) by adopting new pressure standards with new procedures and measurung instruments. These new procedures do not even pretend to get peak instantaneous pressure up to the older measure of pressure, which was effectively a bit more of an average pressure near the peak. The new standard is 35,000 psi, while the old standard of 45,000 cup was THOUGHT to be 45,000 psi (and written as such) until they used piezioelectric equipment and saw the time trace of the presssure. Then, they started writing "copper units of measure" instead of "psi" when the data came from a copper crusher instrument, to differentiate the data type. When standards were adopted for the new data, some cartridges, particularly those for bolt action rifles, were given higher psi limits than the older cup limits.

For example, the .270 Winchester was increased from 54,000 cup to 63,000 psi. If SAAMI had insisted that the .270 Winchester be limited to 54,000 psi on the piezoelectric equiment, then the top muzzle velocity would have decreased from about 3100 fps to about 2800 fps for a 130 gr bullet. (Note that the factories actually load to about 2950 fps, anyway.) So, if you look in the Speer #10 manual, you see the same maximum load data as in the new Speer #14 manual. but you see that the pressures are "below 63,000 psi" instead of "below 54,000 cup." Because the poweder charges and muzzle velocities are the same in an indstry spec test barrel, we know the actual pressure curve is the same. It is just being measured differently (and inexactly) by two different and imperfect methods.

That is NOT the case for the .357 magnum. All data sources showed a drop in maximum powder charges, and a drop in resulting muzzle velocites, when switching standards, even though the bullets did not change. Some sources intentionally went back to the copper crusher method for the .357 to avoid the 100 to 150 fps loss in maximum velocity. (For example, see Accurate Powders manual #2). This is OK with SAAMI, because either method is acceptable under the standard.

So, for bullets where data is available from both measurment types, a handloader can choose the pressure limit one wishes to load to. For the older bullets, such as Hornady XTPs and earlier, it is usually possible to find a data source each way. The bullet manuafactures seemed to promptly go to the piezo method while the powder manufacturers seemed to hang with the crusher method. That is not surprizing, since the powder makers compete on velocity and clean combustion while the bullet makers compete on expansion and weight retention.

My probem is that the Speer Gold Dot bullets are too new to have much data developed for it by the powder manuafacturers. All I have seen for the Gold Dots is Speer's data limited to the new standard, plus some loads developed by handloaders and published in sources like "Handloader" and "The American Rifleman." That data is notably higher in velocity than Speer's data, but was probably not pressure tested. It was probably worked up using pressure ring measurements (as I mentioned in a previous post) to have the same apparent effect on cases as the older 45,000 cup loads. As I said before, that is a method I can and have used, even though it is not very accurate. But I prefer to have some better pressure measurements for my loads. That is why I am asking if anybody knows of some.

I also want to make a comment on "The Tourist's" tale about the 10 mm auto. He seems to think that the barrel and action do not experience any forces until the base of the bullet clears the case mouth. That is clearly incorrect. Obviously, if the chamber was not there, the case would explode and the bullet would not move very much. The chamber needs to contain the pressure from the moment after igniton when the case walls expand against the chamber wall and stop moving out. They are designed to do that before the bullet clears the case mouth so that the case forms a tight gas seal and gas does not come out the breech. What "The Tourist" is missing (and probably the gun writer who gave him the bad info) is that the piezoelectric systems measure pressure at the case mouth, instead of through a hole in the case body like the crusher systems do. So, the data the writer was looking at would not have shown a pressure until the bullet base left the case mouth and exposed the transducer to the gas. Yet another type of pressure measuring system that reads chamber steel expansion as a function of time would more realistically show pressure as a function of time.

This example does illustrate that neither the crusher system nor the piezoelectic system fully capture the true pressure curve, due to limitations in both methods. If the peak pressure occurs before the bullet clears the case mouth, the piezo system will miss it. That is more likely to be what happens with fast powders in revolvers than with slow powders in bottleneck rifle cases. So, it is understandable tha SAAMI could pick a lower psi number than the cup number for some revolver cartridges. But, the piezo method also measures the peak pressure over a very short time, compared to the crusher system, which measures the net effect of the entire pressure curve on a small cylinder of copper. So, it is also understandable why the peak piezo pressure could be above the cup value and still be the same actual pressure curve. The two effects are competing in opposite directions, and the net effect depends a lot on the specifics of the cartridge, chamber and powder.

But, for the .357 magnum, it is clearly not true that the new 35,000 psi standard produces the same pressure curve as the old 45,000 cup curve with the same powders and bullets. The new pressures obviosly are lower because they are achieved with less power and produce lower velocities.

I do not know why SAAMI chose to do that to the .357 magnum. But, remember this is an industry group with commercial motivations, not a bunch of angels who have been trained as engineers to look after the mortal souls of handloaders. There are other things for them to consider, such as selling new guns and cartridges that, in order to sell, need specs that look better than the old ones that so many people already own. And then there is the U.S. concern about lawsuits. No matter what the reasons, it is indipsutable that the .357 magnum has been down-powered by the new standard. So far, I have not heard an explanation that passes this old engineer's sniff test.

SL1

[Sarge]

SL1 on SAAMI

But, remember this is an industry group with commercial motivations, not a bunch of angels who have been trained as engineers to look after the mortal souls of handloaders. There are other things for them to consider, such as selling new guns and cartridges that, in order to sell, need specs that look better than the old ones that so many people already own. And then there is the U.S. concern about lawsuits. No matter what the reasons, it is indipsutable that the .357 magnum has been down-powered by the new standard. So far, I have not heard an explanation that passes this old engineer's sniff test.

...and on all that, we are in 100% agreement.

[steveno]

I think one reason why rounds have been downloaded a little bit is because the measuring equipment is so much better. nobody was really sure what the pressure really was. back then if the bolt lifted without any effort , the primers looked ok(?) or cases fell out of the chamber it was considered ok. none of the indicators are a valid measure. if you want to see some scary loads look at the OLD Lyman manuals 40 years ago. I have and use some of these old manuals but I take everything with a grain of salt. because you are dealing with different units of measurement you can't says that a 35,000 psi load is less than 45,000 cup. the difference isn't worth worrying about out of an individual firearm

[SL1]

Steveno,

I agree that some of the old loading manuals had scary loads. For example, the Lyman 44th edition (1967) lists a "Factory duplication load" for 158 gr gas-checked lead bullets in the .357 mag as 11.6 grains of Herco, giving 1388 fps from a 5" S&W Model 27 revolver barrel. Interstingly, it lists 15.0 gr of 2400 as producing only 1270 fps. So, here is direct evidence that the factory loads were hotter than even the old standard of 15.0 gr of 2400, since that factory load was fired in the same test revolver for comparison. Lyman was obviously using a chronograph to test loads in those days, but there is no statement or other indication that Lyman was using pressure testing equipment. In a later Lyman manual (1980 Cast Bullet Handbook), they list the 15.0 gr of 2400 as producing 1362 fps from a 4" vented test barrel with a 150 gr lead bullet, and list the pressure as 41,400 cup. The bullet in the newer manual was plain-based and the alloy had changed from #2 alloy to linotype. The Herco load had been dropped to 7.8 gr producing 1225 fps and 41,900 cup. So, it seems that the use of pressure testing equipment had changed their minds about what was an appropriate Herco load.

But, I don't agree with you that the later handload data changes are insignificant with the change of the pressure standard from 45,000 cup to 35,000 psi. It means a loss of about 100 to 150 fps and 100 to 150 ft-lbs. That is a substantial difference in terminal ballistic effect. This is not the same as the variation among different revolvers, which can be just as large. All revolvers, slow and fast, will shoot the new loads slower than the old loads.

SL1

[sw_florida]

Your new bullets are 158 gr copper-jacketed, right? Look at old loading data for 158 gr copper-jacketed bullets. What is the problem? Or am I misunderstanding something?

[sw_florida]

Is the problem that old loading data use powder that is no longer on the market? Well, I do not reload, but here is what I would do. Today's whimpy velocities yield about 500 ft/lbs from a 4" barrel. You want 600 ft/lbs, old school. 600 ft/lbs is 20% more energy than 500 ft/lbs. Use 20% more gun powder in your casings. That's how I would do it. Good luck.

[Unclenick]

SW_Florida,

What you suggest is extremely dangerous. You are correct that 20% more powder contains 20% more total energy. What you forgot is that adding 20% more powder does not increase the space in the case by 20%. Indeed, it decreases remaining air space. With less space, the now greater volume of combustion gases will build pressure faster, increasing the burning speed of the powder. Thus pressure reaches a new, higher peak pressure earlier in the bullet's travel, causing a disproportionate pressure increase. The earlier, higher pressure also burns the powder more completely. Essentially fixed quantities, like bullet start pressure and the force needed to engrave the bullet onto the rifling become a smaller portion of the total force generated. The net result is that the ballistic efficiency, which is the percent of energy in the powder that gets converted to kinetic energy in the bullet, goes up. Because it goes up you don't actually need 20% more powder to his the old value.

[Unclenick]

There seem to be quite a number of misconceptions that have popped up in this thread, some with potentially hazardous consequences. Aside from the last one, above. I'll forget some, but here are the ones sticking in my mind goes:

Copper crushers are very imprecise in producing actual pressure numbers. That is why their output is given Copper Units of Pressure (CUP), and not PSI, though they once were. After it was figured out the real PSI could vary quite a bit from what the copper slug said it should be, they made the change to the CUP. If you measure three known pressures by the copper crusher method and three by any one of the three Piezo methods (SAMMI center ported chamber, CIP ported neck, or Conformal Piezo Film transducer (considered most accurate, but most expensive because the transducer is destroyed during each shot), the data points will only match vaguely. Sometimes the copper crusher will read too high, most often at lower pressures, and sometimes too low, most often at higher pressures. The Piezo device won't be dead on, either, but it will be closer. To learn more about this, see physicist Denton Bramwell's article, Correlating PSI and CUP, available on RSI's website under Support|Technical Articles.

Interestingly, while SAMMI puts 35,000 PSI as the maximum pressure for the .357 Magnum today, the CIP puts it at 3000 bar, or 43,511 PSI. Why the difference? We have both a lot more liability lawsuits and a lot more older and poorly maintained firearms than the Europeans do. There are a number of older rounds where SAMMI peak pressures have been reduced over time because of this concern, while the CIP maximums don't necessarily follow suit. The discrepancy is usually smaller for modern rounds, like the 40 S&W.

During the famous H.P. White Laboratory tests, the strain gauge was found inferior to the Piezo transducer, but that was awhile ago. Electronics for measuring strain gauges have been improved, so this accuracy ranking has now reversed. Again deferring to Denton Bramwell's calculations, the standard deviation of errors for a modern strain gauge system is now lower than for the Piezo transducers by a good bit, and the Piezo transducer's standard deviation of error remains significantly lower than the copper crusher's.

Same velocity from different lots of factory loads does not mean same pressure curve. Handloaders use cannister powders which are carefully blended with previously held over faster or slower lots (whichever is needed) to keep their burning rates constant in a standard condition. That is how we handloaders often find our pet loads unchanged from one lot of powder to the next (though this should never be assumed; always back off 10% and work a load up over again for each lot). The ammo factories don't want to pay for all that blending and storing. They use the unadjusted non-cannister grades straight from the factory. They adjust their powder charges for each lot of loads from a powder lot. They try to match velocity performance, but if the pressure is creeping up, they will sacrifice performance to keep a safe pressure margin. They occasionally let a hot batch get past them, but not often.

It is a poor practice, used in many manuals, to assume the same charge will suit all bullets of the same weight and general construction (i.e, jacketed lead core, cast, bronze solid, etcetera). In a large bottleneck case, you can get away with this. In pistol cases small changes in bullet base position affect pressure measurably. In the case of putting a Speer 158 grain JHP over a full load of 296, leaving the load alone, then substituting the Speer Gold Dot of the same weight at the same COL, the pressure is increased about 4000 PSI. That is because the Gold Dot bullet is 0.050" longer and sticks that much further down into the case.

Nonetheless, the above difference is not enough to account for how much Speer changed their recommended 296 load. Underloading 296 like that for a revolver is, according to Hodgdon, putting you at risk of sticking a bullet in the barrel. 296/H110 is hard enough to light that it can squib out when the bullets gets far enough forward for the barrel/cylinder gap to start bleeding gas away. I am beginning to think Speer just isn't very careful with their manual authoring.

As to mimicking the old pressure standard with 296/H110, one of the characteristics of this powder is high velocity for low pressure, relatively speaking. As long as you don't compress the charge, you will get enough behind the 158 Grain Gold Dot in a .357 case to exceed the CIP maximum limit. Fill the case to the depth the bullet base will be seated to, and you should be just fine. How many grains that is depends on the capacity of your particular cases? In a case with 26 grains of water capacity and the Gold Dot seated to 1.590" COL, it is about 16.5 grains of 296/H110. Work up slowly to that, watching for pressure signs and stuck bullets. It should run around 1350-1400 fps from a 6" tube.

Oh, and do not trust case head or pressure ring expansion (either one) as a good pressure indicator. For the third and final time, I'll mention a Denton Bramwell article: It is called CHE, PRE, RIP (case head expansion, pressure ring expansion, rest in peace). He demonstrates just how poor the correlation is. It's been awhile since I read it, but I believe that with a 45,000 PSI real pressure, these indicators might claim you are at over pressure at anywhere from 30,000 PSI to 60,000 PSI. I may have remembered the numbers incorrectly, but it was that kind of error. Big. His articles are here.

[rogn]

Im amazed at the depth of information and knowledge displayed here today, but has everyone forgotten that the barristers run or should I say that they direct the everyday functioning of industry. There are a bunch of marginal guns out there and one of the best is the S&W 66, beautiful weapon, but it does tend to get weak kneed after too much of SW's energy. I always thought one of the CARDINAL rules of handloading was to tailor your loads to those your weapon can accept gracefuly, not to blindly follow some data in print. Some of the "safe" loads in print with a marginal lot of powder can give you a "flat topped" revolver. SW may experience that while "experimenting". My limited experience has shown me that any change in any component may be a surprise, any change in ambients can be eye opening. I try to test all my loads, by a gradual work up and allow the seat of my pants tell me if it feels OK. A full grain under max in .357 and Ive got to beat the ejector with a block of wood to get cases out--My pants tell me this load or lot of powder aint just what the datum says. And Ive seen this happen. Id love to have a sitdown chat with most of the posters on this thread cause there is a heII of a lot of knowledge Id wish to absorb.

[SL1]

Unclenick,

Thank you for the discussion and especially the link. I've printed several articles there for reading later. (I've been handloading and reading about it for about 30 years, so I was aware of most of what you wrote and agree with it. But, I can always learn more and you have added some new things to my knowledge base.)

I initiated this thread because I was thinking about trying Hodgdon's Lil' Gun in my .357 mag. It shows a very low pressure with 18.0 gr behind a Hornady 158 gr XTP (25,800 cup in Hodgdon's manual) with a velocity just slightly below H110. The H110 load shows 40,700 cup. The velocities in Hodgdon's manual are not helpful because they are for a 10" (apparently not vented) barrel. I am intersted in velocities in a 6" revolver barrel.

I wondered if the pressure data was a misprint, so I called Hodgdon's and talked to a tech. He says it is correct. I asked him why they stopped increasing the charge at 18.0 grains with the pressure still so low, and he said it was because the case was full, and "ball powders should not be compressed." I'll take his word for that and not attempt to compress any Hodgdon spherical powders. But I do see a lot of compressed charges in manuals for other ball powders, such as AA1680, and it makes me wonder. I've never tried a compressed load, and don't intend to.

The Hodgdon tech was not very helpful in explaining why Lil' Gun shows such a low pressure for this particular load. All he would say is that there was another 20 years of powder technology development in Lil' Gun since H110. But, I noticed that Lil' Gun shows pressures much closer to H110 in other metallic cartridge loads, and seems to be faster than H110 in the .410 shotshells that it was developed for. That makes me wonder if Lil' Gun would show a sharp pressure jump at some point as charges increase in my cartridge of interest, the 158 gr .357 mag. I also wonder about the shape of the pressure curve that comes with Hodgdon's max XTP load and whether it might have more potential for gas cutting in the cylinder gap area of my revolver, since it seems that the gas must be pushing the bullet softer but longer than the typical max loads with other powders. The .357 Maximum cartridge showed this problem because it used a lot of relatively slow powder. I'm interested in using a powder that gets good velocities without upper-limit pressures, but I'm not sure that pressure is the only thing to worry about in terms of gun longevity.

Anyway, I do not know of any pressure-tested loads for Lil' Gun with 158 gr Gold Dot bullets in the .357 mag. (Speer's new manual does not list that powder in the .357 mag except for heavier bullets.) There is a load printed in vol 240 and repeated in some later editions of Handloader Magazine that shows 19.0 gr of Lil' Gun pushing a 158 gr Gold Dot to 1493 fps out of a 6" barrelled GP-100. But, it does not appear to have been pressure tested. Since 16.6 gr of H110 produced only (a more expected) 1329 fps with Gold Dots from that same gun, I am somewhat concerned that this Lil' Gun load has crossed some sort of internal ballistics threshold to produce that much velocity. I did carefully measure the volume of the internal powder space for properly seated 158 gr XTPs and Gold Dots, and the volume ratio between the two cartridges is close to 18:19, so the Gold Dot load does seem to be reasonable from a loading density standpoint. But, when something seems too good to be true, I investigate very carefully before getting involved.

So, any thoughts on the 19.0 Lil' Gun load with the 158 gr Gold Dots?

SL1

[hikingman]

Now I've heard it, the lightweight frame guys are shooting hot loads through those? Oops!

[Bullet94]

This thread has been interesting . I’ve wondered about the low velocities listed by Speer for the 158gr Gold Dots too. I attributed the low velocities to the Gold Dots being plated. I don’t have any pressure testing equipment so I stay within the manuals. If you want more velocity using 158gr bullets, I’d suggest trying Hornady XTP’s.

[SL1]

Bullet98,

I don't think the 35,000 psi loads in the .357 MAGNUM are reflecting limits of the plated bullet design used in Gold Dots. The same Speer manual lists the same bullets in the .357 MAXIMUM at 48,000 cup and velocities reaching 2,000 fps! So, it would seem reasonable to assume that the same bullets would work OK in a .357 magnum at 45,000 cup and about 1400 fps. My only problem is finding out how much powder produces the 45,000 cup in the .357 magnum case. Because of the differences in bullet design, it is not necessarily the same amount of powder that produced 45,000 cup with the older cup & core Speer bullets in the older Speer manuals, nor the same amount of powder that produces 45,000 cup with Hornady XTPs in some current manuals.

SL1

[Bullet94]

My Speer manual is the number 13 and it doesn’t show any Gold Dots for 357 Maximun, only jacketed bullets. Good luck finding the data you want.

[FM12]

I can't testify as to cups, psis etc, but I can tell you one thing about ww296 and h110: You use too LITTLE in .38 special loads and you'll wind up with squib rounds, all day long.

You really don't want to know how I know this.

If you use either of these powders, I recommend: 1. Heavy bullets 2. heavy crimp 3. Full loads and 4. magnum primers, and only in the magnum calibers.

NOT recommended for .38 specials.

These are my observations, YMMV.

[.45 COLT]

Without entering the discussion - some of the comments/suggestions are downright scarifyin' - a note on LIL'GUN:

SL1 - I've loaded that LIL'GUN load, 18.0 grains, for a number of years, both GOLDDOT and XTP bullets. It produces ~1360 FPS at 5 feet from the muzzle with any of my 4 5/8" barreled Blackhawks.

DC