Nope. 357 is much faster than (current) 38 Special +P.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why so much empty space?
- Thread starter Prof Young
- Start date
Nope. 357 is much faster than (current) 38 Special +P.
Is that where .38+P lies?
.38+p was a developmental step on the way to the .357. Look up the .38/44 round, a heavy loaded .38 special meant for use in the large (44 caliber) size frames revolvers.
Today those loads would be called .38 Special+p.
Development continued, using the .38 Special case, and the velocity of the .357 was reached, proving it could be done in a gun that could handle it. When S&W took it to market, they added 0.135" to the case length, to prevent the high pressure round being chambered in .38 Specials that would not safely take it, creating the .357 Magnum round.
I think the confusion today over where the .38+p level is, is because a lot of the .357 loads today are not as hot at the original 1935 loads, and actually overlap hot .38+p levels.
SAAMI has a standard for .38 Special +P. (I'd have to look it up, but I think its 15% over standard .38 pressure) Anything over that standard they call +P+ and there is no standard for that, as far as I know.
I think the confusion today over where the .38+p level is, is because a lot of the .357 loads today are not as hot at the original 1935 loads, and actually overlap hot .38+p levels.
What were the ballistics of the 1935 357 magnum loads compared to today's 357 ammo? Thanks.
Jim Watson
New member
Phil Sharpe showed .38 Special data to Magnum velocity and pressure.
I don't doubt they increased the case length to keep that out of a pre 1920 M&P with non- heat treated cylinder.
Note that they did not increase the OAL by much. The cylinder of a 357 Magnum is no longer than the cylinder of a .38-44 Heavy Duty (except for the recessed rim nonsense.) Elmer Keith complained that he could not load his SWCs in Magnum brass.
You get a lot of different velocity readings for .357 Magnum.
Hodgdon uses a 10" test barrel, some use a 6", some the SAAMI 4" Vented meant to simulate a revolver, some use real revolvers which are wildly variable.
Sharpe's industry contacts used an 8 3/4" or 8 3/8" and were getting 1500 fps.
Bullets are a big variable, too. I think hot copper has greater friction than greased lead.
I don't doubt they increased the case length to keep that out of a pre 1920 M&P with non- heat treated cylinder.
Note that they did not increase the OAL by much. The cylinder of a 357 Magnum is no longer than the cylinder of a .38-44 Heavy Duty (except for the recessed rim nonsense.) Elmer Keith complained that he could not load his SWCs in Magnum brass.
You get a lot of different velocity readings for .357 Magnum.
Hodgdon uses a 10" test barrel, some use a 6", some the SAAMI 4" Vented meant to simulate a revolver, some use real revolvers which are wildly variable.
Sharpe's industry contacts used an 8 3/4" or 8 3/8" and were getting 1500 fps.
Bullets are a big variable, too. I think hot copper has greater friction than greased lead.
What were the ballistics of the 1935 357 magnum loads compared to today's 357 ammo? Thanks.
The original .357 ballistics were reported to be a 158gr bullet at 1550fps from the long barrel (8 3/4") Registered Magnum revolver.
I have also see that load reported as 1500fps, which might just be the difference between guns tested.
Also, note the barrel length as 8 3/4" which was S&W's length for their long barrel at the time. A few years later, the length was changed to 8 3/8" so that the gun would comply with NRA match rules.
SO, rounding down, a bit, a 158gr at 1500 from an 8" revolver.
Some of the ammo sold today is still right up there, but a lot, isn't.
I've seen published speeds of 158s at 1510 fps and Elmer reported 1518 fps in this 1935 article from 8 3/4" barrels, but I have not seen the 1550 fps of which you mention. Do you have a source for that?
No, no source I can easily find, but I don't think that matters much. Individual guns, with the same barrel length, and firing the same ammo can vary, and I've seen as much as 100fps difference in .357s, so one source getting 1500+ and another getting 1550fps isn't anything unusual.
It was the same process Keith applied to the 44 Magnum later, developing the magnum loads in heavy frame 44 Special revolvers that could handle the pressure, then having the case lengthened to prevent accidental chambering in lighter revolvers. In the two 44s this is easy to tell because the finished cartridge lengths are about the same. The Special is actually 0.015" longer, meaning the magnum bullets are seated deeper in the case, leaving no powder space advantage. The 357 cartridge maximum is 0.040" longer, reflecting a small increase in powder space, as its bullets also seat deeper. In both magnum calibers you can find bullets with two cannelures on them; one for being seated deeper in the magnum case and one for the Special case.
jetinteriorguy
New member
I’ve been handloading since 1984. In the process of working on this right now as a matter of fact. Starline states not for use in .38sp. I have about 5000 cases on hand so I’m going to just make my own.A fix to your statement, reload. Starline Brass make cases
Last edited:
You may want to read that again. It says ".38 Short Brass ... Can be fired in most guns chambered for .38 Special or .357 Magnum."
jetinteriorguy, you have the 38 Short Colt confused with the 38 S&W. They are completely different rounds.
A gun chambered in 357 magnum can shoot; 357 magnum, 38 special, 38 long colt, 38 short colt.
The 38 S&W is totally different. The case has different diameter dimensions and shoots a larger bullet = .361".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.38_S&W
A gun chambered in 357 magnum can shoot; 357 magnum, 38 special, 38 long colt, 38 short colt.
The 38 S&W is totally different. The case has different diameter dimensions and shoots a larger bullet = .361".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.38_S&W