Near-.357 loads in a .38 Special Case?

[ScottRiqui]

I don't have a .357 pistol any more, so this is just idle curiosity, but let's say you have a bunch of .38 brass and not much .357 brass. There's a lot of room inside a .38 cartridge, so could you make up a load with .357 (or nearly so) levels of performance using a .38 case?

Obviously, you'd have to be careful not to use the rounds in a .38 by mistake, but would it work otherwise? Or is the .38 case itself a limitation?

EDIT: There's been some confusion regarding what I'm talking about here - I'm referring to using .38 special brass in a .357 Magnum pistol, but loading the rounds to (or near to) .357 pressures.

[Unclenick]

There are a few inherent drawbacks: less powder capacity, and, since a power load needs a good crimp you usually need to put the bullet in all the way so the case mouth and cannelure (or crimp groove on a cast bullet) are even, so you can't make it up by seating further out. That also means more jump from the case to the forcing cone, which doesn't help accuracy. Also, the shorter case lets lead fouling build up in the last eighth of inch of chamber not covered by its sides. In some instances that gets bad enough to prevent a .357 round from chambering freely and can cause it's pressure to go up by not releasing the bullet freely (or prevent a fast reload).

Fortunately, a solution is readily at hand. When a friend gave me a big bag of .38 Special cases one time, I used the occasion to buy a K38 target pistol a friend of mine was selling. Problem solved.

[oneounceload]

Since you say you no longer have a 357, why are you trying to blow up your gun? 357 pressure levels are 2-3 times what 38 are - NOT SAFE

if you want to shoot 357, buy a 357 and shoot 357 in it

[ScottRiqui]

After re-reading my post I realize I wasn't clear enough (although the last sentence should have given a hint.)

I'm asking about using .38 brass in a .357 pistol but loading it up to near .357 performance.

[bullspotter]

If you want 357 performance use 357 brass, im sure you could stuff x amount of powder from a 357 load into a 38 case and seat the bullet, But im sure its not safe, the case has less volume, Im thinking pressure would be to high for a 357 load in a 38 case. Personaly i load all my 38s to +p loads, and thats it, if i need 357 power I use a 357 load. LOL reminds me of guys telling me their reloads in 300 win mag will out power my 300 ultra.......... When people start pushing for the next bigger round with the smaller round, things start to come apart!!!!!!

[Stumper]

Yes, it is perfectly doable. Skeeter Skelton published his recipe many times for assembling .357 loads in .38 special cases (13.5 grains of 2400 behind a 158 grain Thompson gas check bullet). Elmer Keith's famous 173 grain semi-wadcutter is actually too long to fit in some .357 cylinders if seated to the crimp groove. The answer was either seat it deeper and crimp over the front of the first driving band or seat to the crimping groove in .38 cases-13.5 grains of 2400 either way.
I personally do not like high pressure loads in 38 cases-I have too many handfuls of cartrigdes that didn't get back into their boxes and I own .38 revolvers as well as a couple .357 mags. However, there is no physical reason that it can't be done.

[ScottRiqui]

When people start pushing for the next bigger round with the smaller round, things start to come apart!!!!!!

Agreed - I normally wouldn't even ask the question, but since .38 Special started off as a blackpowder cartridge, there's plenty of excess room in the case when using smokeless powder. As a result, there are a lot of .357 loads that wouldn't even fill a .38 Special case halfway, so you definitely wouldn't have to overstuff the case or anything like that.

In short, I know there are a lot of people that shoot .38 Special in .357 pistols, but is there any reason why you couldn't exceed .38 Special pressures while doing so? UncleNick made some good points regarding fouling the cylinders, but that's the case when shooting any .38 Special loads in a .357, and doesn't really address the pressure question.

[Stumper]

The .38 has plenty of room for powder but it does have less space than the .357....... this means that powder charges must be reduced from the charge used in the longer case.-Not because they won't fit but because the combustion space is smaller. The 13.5 grain 2400 load with the Keith 173 grain SWC in either case was the same because the different crimp locations effectively negated the case capacity difference. If the bullet is seated to the crimp groove in a .357 case the recommended charge to develop comparable velocity and pressure was 15 grains. This is a fairly linear relationship-.38 spl case capacity is approx 10% less than .357 mag and charges are likewise about 10% less for comparable pressures.

[Hog Buster]

A guaranteed recipe for disaster!

[ScottRiqui]

A guaranteed recipe for disaster!

Unless you were to accidentally use one of the rounds in a .38 pistol, I don't see how that's the case. From Stumper's posts, it sounds like it's a reasonable idea.

Or maybe you mis-read the question - I'll edit it to make it more explicit.

[SIGSHR]

IIRC Elmer Keith, D.B. Wesson and Phil Sharpe developed the 357 in 38 Special cases, the ammuinition makers decided to lengthen the case for safety reasons.

[Hog Buster]

ScottRiqui

Me thinks you’ve just hit on a very valid reason for not doing this.

[SL1]

When comparing the .38 Special case to the .357 magnum case, you will find that the case wall is thicker down by the web. And, some .38 Special cases that were originally loaded with the long, hollow-base wadcutters are made with the case wall even thinner at the web than the "normal" .38 Special cases.

Firing the thinner .38 Special cases at 35,000 psi (or even 45,000 psi) instead of the usual 17,000 psi will tend to make the "pressure ring" bulge in the case appear larger in diameter and occur closer to the case head than what happens with a .357 Magnum case. This MIGHT lead to case head separations if reloaded repeatedly to high pressures, especially if you use a carbide die and make the pressure ring area SMALLER than when new with each sizing. That works the brass much more and weakens it faster.

But, doing it once or twice with new or once-fired brass isn't likely to cause separations. And, a case head separation in a revolver typically doesn't hurt the shooter like a case head separation in a rifle can, because the recoil shield in a revolver typically directs the gases out to the sides.

So, from a SAFETY standpoint, the real danger seems to be the possibility of getting such a load into a .38 Special gun that would actually blow-up. THAT can definitely hurt somebody in the vicinity.

SL1

[salvadore]

Do I need to state that these loads aren't for use in .38 spec. revolver? Do not use these loads in .38 revolvers. I use .38 cases exclusively in my .357s. I load slightly less than Skeeter's load using the 358156 bullet. Hugely accurate in my .357s and the jump to the throat is the same as loading in .357 cases since the crimp groove used is the lower one. I load the 358429 with even less 2400 than Kieth's for a nice thumpin load. I have used both of these loads in a 1956 era Colt OP (actually a Colt Marshal, but samo samo), with very satisfactory results. I load round nose and hbwc for .38 spec. only shooters. This aint rocket surgery. Oh yeah, and I don't use jacketed bullets in my revolvers, or auto loaders for that matter. I'm a cheap charly.

[Sevens]

If the question is possibility, the answer is yes.

A simple risk-reward analysis proves this to be fools work. .357 Magnum brass is plentiful and easily obtained, and if you compare the cost of .357 Magnum brass to the cost of a damaged revolver or a person behind or near it in the event that your ".357 ammo in a .38 piece of brass" finds it's way in to an old .38 Special, the conclusion is short, clean and easy.

There's really no good reason to do it and so many reasons not to do it.

Possible? Yes.

[Unclenick]

And you do see SL1's pressure rings among .38 Special range foundlings from time to time. I've wondered if some of those aren't ejected from CAS rifles with chambers slightly enlarged at the breech end to promote feeding?

We had a discussion on another board in which someone insisted that proof loads use special heavy brass. That made no sense to me, as a heavier case would mitigate the proof pressure's effect on the chamber. In the end, I wound up calling SAAMI and speaking with Technical Director Ken Green. He confirmed that proof loads are assembled in standard brass by the manufacturer responsible for the cartridge's standards. (Each cartridge has one SAAMI member ammunition maker responsible for supplying the industry with proof and reference loads.)

So, .38 Special brass from a reputable manufacturer will handle proof loads, which have a maximum value of 27,500 psi in .38 Special. That's tolerating low end magnum pressure, though you can't be sure a case used in a proof load will necessarily be in reloadable condition afterward. So, as Sevens said, it is possible to do. But desirable? Not under normal circumstances if only for the potential of accidental chambering them in your vintage S&W Airweight which, if used enough, may no longer be up to handling proof pressures without bending the frame.

[Slamfire]

Yes, it is perfectly doable. Skeeter Skelton published his recipe many times for assembling .357 loads in .38 special cases (13.5 grains of 2400 behind a 158 grain Thompson gas check bullet).

I use that load in my 357 with 357 cases. Velocities below, I do not recommend using a 38 Spl case even though Skeeter may have.

Its a good load in a 357 case.

Smith & Wesson 357 N frame M27-2


158 LSWC 13.5grs 2400 R-P cases Fed 100 4-Sep-05 T = 80 °F

Ave Vel =1245
Std Dev =22.49
ES = 97.26
High = 1285
Low = 1187
N = 32

[salvadore]

Leapin lizards, I wonder if Keith, Sharpe, Skelton and the rest of the great pistol pioneers remembered to do their 'risk-reward analysis'. Those fools. Being politically correct is a wonderful thing for those who don't want to get out of their comfort zone.

Taking advantage other's research is not without merit, I have been using these loads for at least 30 years and have yet to 'damage' a shooter. I have damaged hundreds of rabbits, possibly thousands of ground squirrels, two deer and a few coyotes many beer cans. I am currently working up a load for a hollow point 358156 load in 38 brass. Like the solid, it shows no pressure signs with 13.5 grains of 2400. I have had no catastrohpic brass failure, neck spits after many loadings,I guess this doesn't happen with .357 brass.

I think encouraging peeps to be careful of double loads rather than worrying about 'risk-reward analysis' with loads that have been proven safe for many decades.

Like I said this aint brain science, and I'm guessing there is still more cheap or free .38 spec. brass out there.

Having ranted, I would caution if you are nervous about using .38 brass then don't

[Sevens]

You are talking about gentlemen who molded much of our industry -- you may simply lump yourself in with them, but I would think better of it. In an open forum where new folks ask advice practically around the clock, not to mention the fact that we are seventy some years in to actually having .357 Magnum brass available, your assertion is as lame as your ability to name drop yourself in to such company.

Leapin lizards, I wonder if Keith, Sharpe, Skelton and the rest of the great pistol pioneers remembered to do their 'risk-reward analysis'. Those fools.

Yeah, they did -- constantly, and they wrote about it. Especially Skelton. I could quote you many examples but I won't bother... he probably shared them with you over a camp fire and a cold beer.

[tube_ee]

between the upper limit of .38 Special +P performance and the lower limits of published .357 Magnum performance.

Given a gun designed for .357 Magnum pressures, there is a wide realm of possible loads that have not been explored between the two. For the publishers of loading data, I get why they haven't explored this territory... if it goes wrong, they're going to be liable.

So you have to accept that there is information to be found between .38 Special +P and .357 Magnum... and you must also accept that, if you go seeking it, you're on your own.

--Shannon

[SL1]

Actually, some older manuals DID show a wide range of .357 Magnum loads, rather than just show a "max" and a "start" that is 10% less. And, some of those got down toward the .38 Special +P range.

And, from a ballistics standpoint, any powder that is listed for both the .38 Special and the .357 Magnum is demonstrating enough stability in its burning characteristics that you should be able to safely use it for loads that generate pressures between the two.

SL1

[salvadore]

"You are talking about gentlemen who molded much of our industry -- you may simply lump yourself in with them, but I would think better of it. In an open forum where new folks ask advice practically around the clock, not to mention the fact that we are seventy some years in to actually having .357 Magnum brass available, your assertion is as lame as your ability to name drop yourself in to such company."

Did I lump myself in with Keith, Sharpe, Skelton etc.? Sorry, I may extrapulate some loads, but am by no means any of these guys. If it appears I name dropped myself with in these folks I apologize, that wasn't my intent. My intent was to point out that I have been using the results of their research very satisfactorily for many years. I was also cautioning new shooters that politically correct risk-reward analysis pointy headed wowsers shouldn't take advantage of their research.

[Sevens]

You keep tossing the "risk-reward" and "politically correct" back at me like it's going to offend me -- no problem. In the end, we are still talking about a forum where new folks who know very nearly NOTHING learn from the words we write.

.357 Magnum brass is produced by the tens of thousands daily. If someone can't find .357 Magnum brass, they likely can't find their own butt with two hands.

What's the point of using .38 Special brass for this project? Is it really because Elmer Keith did the same thing back in the 1920's or 30's?

[Slamfire]

I don't have a .357 pistol any more, so this is just idle curiosity, but let's say you have a bunch of .38 brass and not much .357 brass. There's a lot of room inside a .38 cartridge, so could you make up a load with .357 (or nearly so) levels of performance using a .38 case?

Well the whole question was hypothetical.

Yes you can load extremely hot loads, exceeding even 357 pressures in 38 Spl cases.

And guess what, you can load extremely hot loads, exceeding 44 magnum pressures in 44 Spl cases.

Well I don’t want mini nukes disguised as “Specials”.

That is primarily why I did not recommend it.

I get all the 357 and 44 Mag performance I want in 357 and 44 Mag cases.

Plus the fact that the loads that Keith and Skeeter used, in today’s piso transducer world, are considered very hot.

[FEG]

You keep tossing the "risk-reward" and "politically correct" back at me like it's going to offend me -- no problem. In the end, we are still talking about a forum where new folks who know very nearly NOTHING learn from the words we write.

.357 Magnum brass is produced by the tens of thousands daily. If someone can't find .357 Magnum brass, they likely can't find their own butt with two hands.

What's the point of using .38 Special brass for this project? Is it really because Elmer Keith did the same thing back in the 1920's or 30's?

Couldn't agree more. There's nothing "politically correct" about using the right tool for the job.

Not all .38 Special brass is created equal. I have seen some UMC cases that are obviously much thinner in the body and web than any .357 Magnum case I have ever seen. I doubt these cases are even suitable for .38 Special +P.

Please consider the models that Keith and Skelton were using. The S&W Outdoorsman is considerably heavier than many more recent .357 Magnum designs.

There is no objective reason to use .38 Special cases for .357 Magnum loads. There are plenty of powders suitable for .357 Magnum that are bulky enough to account for the difference in case volume.

Newton was a pioneer in physics, and bridges built according to Newtonian principles are still standing today. That said, he was still wrong. If people had been content to blindly follow Newton, the world would be a very different place.