357 Ring Of Fire Update

[74A95]

I have no idea. I don't reload for .38 Super.

If you trust Wikipedia, they list a 124-grain projectile at 1,411 fps.

The Hodgdon/Winchester on-line reloading data site lists one load for .38 Super, again a 124-grain projectile. They show 1,245 fps at 34,600 psi.

In commercial ammo:

PPU ...................... 130-grain, 1,214 fps
Geco ..................... 124-grain, 1,290 fps
Remington UMC ..... 130-grain, 1,215 fps
Aguila .................... 130-grain, 1,220 fps
PMC ...................... 130-grain, 1,092 fps
Fiocchi ................... 129-grain, 1,180 fps
Magtech ................. 130-grain, 1,215 fps

I guess it depends on what source you look at.

Commercial ammo: Actual chronographed values: www.38super.net

Buffalo Bore 125 = 1390 fps
Corbon 124 = 1375 fps
Georgia Arms 124 = 1386 fps
Wilson Combat 124 = 1383 fps

Commercial ammo loaded to make Major power factor pushes a 124 grain bullet to 1447 fps. https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2017/2/22/atlanta-arms-elite-38-super-ammunition/

The Hodgdon/Winchester on-line reloading data site lists one load for .38 Super, a 125 grain HAP, at 1,399 fps at 29,700 CUP (SAAMI max is 33,000 CUP; 36,500 psi). In fact, they have several loads listed at over 1300 fps in the 124/125 weight range.

Western powders shows published velocities with 124/125 grain bullets around 1400 fps with A#7. An article that used that data found speeds over 1400 fps: http://www.shootingtimes.com/reloading/super-powders-for-the-38-super/

Vihtavouri shows a load with a 124 grain bullet and N105 at 1501 fps from a 5.5 in. barrel.

Some of the old IPSC loads in 38 Super are very similar to Dave's values. http://www.k8nd.com/documents/hl38sup.pdf

People who have given Dave grief are the ones that don't handload cartridges like the 38 Super and 9X23 so they don't know what they're really capable of even staying within their pressure limits, and they only look at limited resources for their 'estimates' of pressures and velocities.

If you have experience loading these cartridges at the high end, and you look at better informed places on the web, you'll see that Dave's numbers are reasonable.

I'd love to get my hands on some Norma R123 to see if it really lives up to QL's estimates.

 

[JohnKSa]

Some of the old IPSC loads in 38 Super are very similar to Dave's values.

Having looked through the sources and loads that you provide, I don't really agree that the numbers are "very similar" to the ROF performance claims, but let's take your claim as true for the sake of argument.

If .38 Super performance numbers really are "very similar" to ROF performance, then what's the point of the ROF? Why not just use the .38 Super instead--especially since it operates at lower pressures.

It should be pretty obvious that there are only two logical options here. Either the numbers aren't "very similar" or there's no practical reason for the ROF to exist.

People who have given Dave grief are the ones that don't handload cartridges like the 38 Super and 9X23 so they don't know what they're really capable of even staying within their pressure limits, and they only look at limited resources for their 'estimates' of pressures and velocities.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you claiming that a cartridge claimed to operate at a maximum pressure of 45,000PSI will be able to outperform a cartridge with virtually identical dimensions that operates at a maximum pressure of 55,000PSI?

 

[mikejonestkd]

Here's some data on what others have done with the 38 super, just for comparison:

http://www.k8nd.com/documents/hl38sup.pdf

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The Hodgdon/Winchester on-line reloading data site lists one load for .38 Super, a 125 grain HAP, at 1,399 fps at 29,700 CUP (SAAMI max is 33,000 CUP; 36,500 psi). In fact, they have several loads listed at over 1300 fps in the 124/125 weight range.

With respect, I checked the Hodgdon/Winchester on-line site immediately before posting my information to which you responded. The site lists NO loads for .38 Super, and ONE load for .38 Super +P. And that one load is for a 124-grain projectile, not a 125-grain HAP. The velocity is what I posted, not what you posted.

http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/data/pistol

The load I found on that site pushes a 124-grain projectile to 1,245 fps at 34,600 psi. Do you really think it's possible for a load out of the same case to push a heavier (marginally) projectile 12 percent faster at something like 10 percent lower pressure?

BTW -- the Hodgdon/Winchester on-line site returns pressures in psi, not CUP, so your data could not have come from that source.

 

[74A95]

Aguila Blanca

You're dead wrong. Look again. Look under the data for 38 Super Auto. There is data for 10 bullet weights from 90 to 150 grains, and 13 powders.

Here's some:

BULLET WEIGHT
125 GR. HDY HAP
Starting Loads Maximum Loads Manufacturer
Powder Bullet Diam. C.O.L. Grs. Vel. (ft/s) Pressure Grs. Vel. (ft/s) Pressure


Hodgdon Lil'Gun .356" 1.210" 12.2 1,285 23,900 CUP 13.6C 1,399 29,700 CUP
Hodgdon Longshot .356" 1.210" 5.8 1,170 25,500 CUP 6.6 1,294 32,400 CUP
Winchester 572 .356" 1.210" 5.5 1,135 26,000 PSI 6.3 1,266 34,800 PSI
Hodgdon HS-6 .356" 1.210" 6.9 1,175 25,700 CUP 7.7 1,300 32,300 CUP
Hodgdon CFE Pistol .356" 1.210" 5.5 1,166 26,500 CUP 6.1 1,259 32,300 CUP
Winchester AutoComp .356" 1.210" 5.5 1,148 24,800 CUP 6.0 1,240 31,200 CUP
IMR IMR Unequal .356" 1.210" 6.0 1,170 28,400 PSI 7.5 1,333 34,200 PSI
Hodgdon Universal .356" 1.210" 4.5 1,105 25,500 CUP 5.1 1,202 31,700 CUP
Winchester 231 .356" 1.210" 4.8 1,113 27,100 CUP 5.4 1,237 31,900 CUP
Hodgdon HP-38 .356" 1.210" 4.8 1,113 27,100 CUP 5.4 1,237 31,900 CUP
IMR IMR Target .356" 1.210" 5.0 1,161 27,100 PSI 5.6 1,251 27,100 PSI
Hodgdon Titegroup .356" 1.210" 4.2 1,082 25,400 CUP 4.8 1,200 31,600 CUP
Hodgdon Clays .356" 1.210" 3.6 1,034 25,900 CUP 4.2 1,132 32,100 CUP
Hodgdon Titewad .356" 1.210" 3.8 1,050 26,300 CUP 4.4 1,136 31,200 CUP

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Aguila Blanca

You're dead wrong. Look again. Look under the data for 38 Super Auto. There is data for 10 bullet weights from 90 to 150 grains, and 13 powders.

Look again ... where? I gave you the link to the Hodgdon/Winchester on-line site, and I double checked before I posted. That's the on-line source. If you found some other on-line data from Hodgdon, please post the link to it.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Here's the latest performance data for the 357 Ring Of Fire cartridges.
The starting pressures are 37,000 PSI, and the maximum pressures are
45,000 PSI. The C.O.A.L has been reduced to 1.280 to accommodate a wider range of pistol magazines and hopefully appeal to a larger group.
125 gr. Speer JHP, JSP
POWER PISTOL 1475-1581
140 gr. Sierra JHP
POWER PISTOL 1347-1441

...

Dave, it would be much more informative if you would include the pressures with each of those loads, as well as the powders and charges used for each. Can we assume that the pressures you indicate are still assumptions generated by Quick Load, rather than actual tested pressures?

 

[ShootistPRS]

I just checked for the 38 super and there are a lot of bullets and powders listed.
I checked the 38 super +P and there is only one powder and several bullets listed.
Perhaps you should check again?

 

[74A95]

Look again ... where? I gave you the link to the Hodgdon/Winchester on-line site, and I double checked before I posted. That's the on-line source. If you found some other on-line data from Hodgdon, please post the link to it.

Aguila Blanca

I used the link you posted: http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/data/pistol

follow the instructions I gave you and look again. I guess that means you'll have to TRIPLE check since you missed it the first two times.

ShootistPRS found the data I mentioned at that same link.

 

[mavracer]

Having looked through the sources and loads that you provide, I don't really agree that the numbers are "very similar" to the ROF performance claims, but let's take your claim as true for the sake of argument.

If .38 Super performance numbers really are "very similar" to ROF performance, then what's the point of the ROF? Why not just use the .38 Super instead--especially since it operates at lower pressures.

It should be pretty obvious that there are only two logical options here. Either the numbers aren't "very similar" or there's no practical reason for the ROF to exist.

Folks have been hot rodding the 38 super in 1911's with supported chambers since the early '80s look at his last link and take note of the guys that are shooting 38 Super making major PF I saw some PFs over 180.
Yes these loads are above SAAMI specs but plenty of data exists for folks that know what they are doing.
So I'm going with B there's no practical reason for the ROF to exist.
All the reasons are ultimately the tail wagging the dog.
If there was a demand for the ring of fire to exist, the 9X23 would fill it and be popular. If there was demand for 158-180gr bullets out of 38 Super and 9X23 ammo companies would make it.