After a bit of debate, Phil also admitted that his "design" was simply a shortened (4/5s? 5/6?) Keith bullet. He simply shrunk the bullet to make it fit the early 357s.Originally Posted by Jim Watson
Elmer & Phil never did seem to like each other much.
Let's see, now; I had read 600 the first year, and that is indeed 12 a week.
I recall the 5/6 scale.
They definitely did not get along. Not as vicious as the feud with that English professor guy, but still not a collegial arrangement.
Elmer preferred bigger bores anyhow.
Sharpe was in cahoots with gun, ammo, and powder companies on the .357, so he had pressure tested data while Keith was straining the guns.
Code Name: JET STREAM
Keith and Cooper did not get along either. Keith seemed not to tolerate disagreement.
I got to shake Elmer's hand at the NRA convention one year.
He made a lot of points with me because he was talking to members. The other gunzine writers and industry figures were flocking together without much interaction with Mere Members.
He did write in his next G&A column that he was plumb worn out by all the attention.
Code Name: JET STREAM
Back in the mid 1970s (when I was a young wipper-snapper) I loaded a lot of hand cast from wheel-weights 358429s over 10.5g of 2400 in 38 Special cases. Got that load from a Lyman handbook. I shot it in both my duty M28-2 and my Ruger Blackhawk. Shot exceptionally well as I recall.
More recently I got interested in the 38/44 cartridge when I acquired my firest Heavy Duty S&W (N-frame). The original claim for the factory load was a 158g bullet @ 1125 fps. Barrel length was not specified but the most common in the early HDs was 5". I come close to duplicating that performance with 158g plated bullets over 11.5g of 2400. Last time I chronographed it I got 1141 fps from my 5" HD and closer to the origional velocity in my 4" HD with 1130 fps. This performance is duplicated almost to the FPS with Buffalo Bore's +P 158g Heavy 38 Special loadings. If I were to carry one of the HDs the BB would be my carry ammo, with the hand loads for practice.
Being the curmudgeon I am I don't see the need for Magnum ammo anymore as this 38/44 ammo and hand loads do everything I need a medium bore to do, and do so more controllably than Magnums. If I needed more power I would go to a bigger cartridge/bullet (I hear the 45 Colt calling - smile).
Dave
Last edited by Dave T; 05-10-2019 at 12:42 PM.
Using a 145 LHP in a 38 Special case and 6.7 grains of Power Pistol. Accurate and it is chronos at 962fps out of a Kimber 2" and 1079 out of a Ruger MC 4.2" no signs of high pressure, but it would be a 38/44 load. I only shoot this load in weapons chambered for 357 Magnum. Bullet from GT Bullets in Georgia.
Had an interesting development regarding heavy 38 Specials yesterday, shooting my latest 38 Special acquisition. I found a USFA 38 Special single action sporting a 4-3/4" barrel. Gun appears to be in excellent condition so I took it to the range for a test fire before my newest student showed up. My intent, even when I was just looking for a 38 single action, was to shoot my 38/44 loads hand loads.
That was the ammunition I had with me for the test fire, but I only got to the 3rd round before the cylinder bound up so tightly it couldn't be turned by pulling back on the hammer, even with two thumbs. Ultimately I had to take out the cylinder pin, cock the hammer far enough to drop the bolt, them beat on the cylinder with the heal of my hand until it finally started to move and eventually came out.
The three fired primers told the tale once I could see them. Because of the traditional cone shaped firing pin USFA used, and the correspondingly large opening in the firing pin bushing, the near 357 Mag pressure of my 38/44 loads caused the primer to flow back into the bushing, jamming up the cylinder to the point it wouldn't turn. This ammunition has never caused a bit of trouble with any of the Heavy Duty S&Ws I've owned or in any 357 Magnum chambered revolver I've tried. USFA, in making their near copy of a 1st Generation Colt made it just a tad too traditional for this loading of a 38 Special. The gun (cylinder, barrel, and frame) are obviously strong enough for the 38/44 but the primer cups aren't strong enough to maintain their integrity up against that big opening in the FP bushing.
I've going to have to come up with a new "heavy" hand load, more like a +P 38 Special, to shoot in this particular single action revolver. I suspect Elmer would be disappointed with me. (smile)
Dave
Wow, good to know. I was thinking about loading up the same load for my m64 & M15. Which primers are you using?
I got around 1050 with a 158 hardcast, both swc and truncated, over 5.2 of unique. It's max in the current publications and cleaner burning than lower amounts.
@03RN - Note that the problems he had were due to the use of a clone of a first generation SAA, not due to the primers. Pressures were different in 1873.
Hmm, interesting@03RN - Note that the problems he had were due to the use of a clone of a first generation SAA, not due to the primers. Pressures were different in 1873.
Reply With Quote