Another .38 Spl. & .357 Mag to ID

I have this load in both .357 Mag. and .38 Spl. It contains 2 lead balls, total weight is 140 gr. Uses R . P cases. The balls are round, not flattened as they appear in the poor scan.

IIRC, this WAS a factory Remington load in both calibres, apparently to increase the chances of a hit.

SDC–I agree that this is not a workbench handload, but I don’t think it was a Remington product. These date to about 1985. When George Kass and I had Forsenic Ammunition together, I remember selling these. As I recall, they came from one of the many self defense companies that abounded back then.

I had a picture of the Remington Multi ball box, until we got the new computer. It sure looked Factory, and I’ll see if I can find the pic.

At some point during the last 25 years or so, Remington did produce Multi-Ball rounds in .38 Special and .357 Magnum. I’d need to dive into my library to figure out when. They used two 000 Buck pellets.

As recently as 1992 Remington was selling 140 gr Multi Ball cartridges in both 357 Magnum and 38 Special. I’ve never shot any of the factory cartridges but have loaded my own with 000 buck and I’m here to tell you that all they do is lead the bore so badly that you wish you had never thought of trying them.


Well, the evidence is becoming conclusive that these are a Remington Factory loading. My note packed with a pull-down and 1 each of a loaded .38 Spl. & .357 Mag., all with R . P headstamps, states “140 gr. Payload 2 (000) Buck”. This all fits exactly what all of you have reported above. Plus there is another strong piece of evidence, that being my usual methodology. Normally, if I get a cartridge from a known source and it is headstamped with a different company, such as a Hi-Vel, Inc. item using W-W cases, I write the name of the producer on the side of the case or on a note with the cartridge. In this case, I wrote nothing, so that would indicate it was a product of the company on the headstamp. The problem, and the reason for the posting in the first place, is that while that was my usual practice, I occasionaly neglated to do it or the marking has been rubbed off.


You must have missed your nap that day. :) :)

My source is a 1992 SHOOTERS BIBLE. John Moss has just about every catalog known to man and if he sees your post he can probably give you page, paragraph, and line. I believe he is at the CA Show so probably hasn’t seen any of this yet.


Ray–If you found it listed in the 1992 Shooters Bible, that is good enough for me. The latest one I have is 1987. It is not listed in that one.

the best source for this type of information is probably the catalogs of the factories that produced the cartridges, rather than Gun Digest or shooter’s Bible. This load was introduced in calibers .38 Special and .357 Magnum in the Remington 1989 catalog. The loads are marked with a Star, indicating in that catalog “New for 1989.” As confirmation, I can say they are not listed in the 1988 Remington catalog. The last listing of these loads appears in the 1994 catalog. they are not listed in the 1995 Edition.

These loads performed poorly in tests done, as I recall at Letterman Army Institute of Research, Wound Ballistics Lab. Among other faults, the two buckshot projectiles tended to weld themselves together when fired and thus became a single bullet of rather poor wound ballistic qualities. I do not think this happen with each cartridge fired, but often enough to negate any perceived usefulness of these cartridges. It is not surprising that they did not stay in the line long. these gimmick self-defense loads seem to come and go with some regularity.

I wish I did have every catalog known to man. I have a decent library, but catalogs are a problem. It has become impossible to buy any meaningful quantity of the older catalogs unless you are Bill Gates, and missing a SHOT show, as I did this year, makes it very difficult to do justice for that year’s offerings in literature. I think so far I have managed to get less than ten 2007 catalogs. Of course, the information is on the internet, but it is expensive to print it all out, and I am not a computer person as most users of this Forum are painfully aware.

We will continue to do the best we can though.