Experiment with H&G 319 and 357 Magnum

[FISH4BUGS]

I have a H&G 319 mould which is essentially a long #51, and weighs out at 200gr. It is a SWC plain base design. I have toyed with the idea of loading it in 357 magnum and seeing what I can do with it. First thing, it is too long to fit even the S&W 28 cylinder. Thought about crimping on the shoulder but chose not to.
I trimmed 50 of the 357 magnum cases to 1.19" to fit in the very generous crimp groove and fit the cylinder of the 28. So far without any powder, I can seat the bullets to mid crimp groove, and they fit right into the cylinder. The bullets are virtually flush with the face of the cylinder, which was my intent.
These cases are now known by me as the 357 Short Magnum and are reserved for the S&W 28, and the Rossi 92 when I get a load worked out. When I get it worked out I will probably trim 200 or so cases and keep them VERY seperate from the rest.
I suppose I could have used the 38 Special cases and tried loading them up to max eventually but this seemed more interesting. Trimming these with a Forster Trimmer is no big deal. I am taking .09" off each one which doesn't sound like much but it is more than you think when doing them by hand.
Now......to test with powder. i will use 231 for standard loads, and will use 296 for magnum loads. I'll start lower (probably by 15-20% or so for the 357 load) and see how it goes. I'll bump it up by .1 grain each loading and watch for pressure signs. When I get to find the max load, then I'll start looking at accuracy.
This is a time I really wish I had a chronometer. It would be fun to know how the max 296 loads perform FPS wise and the speed of the 231 loads.
Anyone do something like this before?

[45-70 Chevroner]

There are loads for the 200 gr. Cast boolit in the 38 special. So itt would be best to start there.

[FISH4BUGS]

There are loads for the 200 gr. Cast boolit in the 38 special. So itt would be best to start there.
Agreed...but I really wanted to see how much I can get from the 357 cartridge. The 38 had an English load of a 200gr bullet at some 700fps.
The 38 is always the fallback position. It will shoot in 357's but not in the 38's unless I crimp them on the shoulder. Too long a bullet.

[dubber123]

I shoot a 220 gr. boolit in a F/A .357, and H-110 is the preferred propellant for that one, but have shot heavy bullets from my 6" model 28. With those, 2400 worked better. Depending on how adventurous you are, the 28's are pretty strong. You may be surprised how fast you can get your 200's going.

[P Flados]

When the Lee C358-200-RF came out, I went looking for 200 gr loads. See post 50 for the 38 & 357 load data I found:

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?283606-New-LEE-design-358-200-RF (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?283606-New-LEE-design-358-200-RF)

If you are adjusting your cases so that the boolit will just fit your gun, you will probably have a OAL that is a little longer than a standard 357.

This would tend to keep pressures less than the tested rounds.

For win 296, the load data normally warns to not reduce charges. For a 'heavy for caliber" bullet, this is probably less of a concern, but you may have more empty space if your OAL is longer than the test load. The 1999 Winchester booklet had additional guidance that the problems were more likely "in loads where less than 90% of the available powder space is being used".

[jsizemore]

When I was experimenting with reduced loads in 32-20 and 357, I squibbed a few loads using the slow pistol powders. I discovered VhitaVuori N-110 and life with experimenting was good again. And safe.

[FISH4BUGS]

For win 296, the load data normally warns to not reduce charges. For a 'heavy for caliber" bullet, this is probably less of a concern, but you may have more empty space if your OAL is longer than the test load. The 1999 Winchester booklet had additional guidance that the problems were more likely "in loads where less than 90% of the available powder space is being used".
You know, I have read that for years. But by the same token, I have seen 296 loading data that are reduced more than 10%...by a significant margin.
The good news is that when I get some time (a rare commondity as the holidays get here) I can load 3 with a certain amount of powder, crimp them, and take them out back and shoot into a stump. Come back, up the load by .1gr, crimp them, shoot them, etc. After each load I will watch for pressure signs.
I don't think I need to worry about leading, for they are hard cast (5lb ww to 1lb linotype) and the lube groove is as wide as the Panama Canal, just like the #51's.
Time....the elusive commodity. THAT'S what I need more of.

[FISH4BUGS]

I shoot a 220 gr. boolit in a F/A .357, and H-110 is the preferred propellant for that one, but have shot heavy bullets from my 6" model 28. With those, 2400 worked better. Depending on how adventurous you are, the 28's are pretty strong. You may be surprised how fast you can get your 200's going.

I don't really feel like beating my 60's era 4 screw 6" 28 too badly. I don't doubt they are strong as all get out. BUT, I don't need to find maximum 357 loads and shoot them all the time. I will find maximum and load a couple of hundred and shoot them occasionally.
Personally, I prefer a 357 with an H&G #51 and 5gr of 231. probably 1000 fps....plenty warm enough to shoot all day but not enough to beat up the gun or your wrist.

[P Flados]

You know, I have read that for years. But by the same token, I have seen 296 loading data that are reduced more than 10%...by a significant margin.
The good news is that when I get some time (a rare commondity as the holidays get here) I can load 3 with a certain amount of powder, crimp them, and take them out back and shoot into a stump. Come back, up the load by .1gr, crimp them, shoot them, etc. After each load I will watch for pressure signs.
I don't think I need to worry about leading, for they are hard cast (5lb ww to 1lb linotype) and the lube groove is as wide as the Panama Canal, just like the #51's.
Time....the elusive commodity. THAT'S what I need more of.

When I got close to the end of my 4# can of 1986 vintage Win 296 a few months back, I decided to swap over to I 4227 & bought a Powder Valley 8# jug.

This was largely due to some weird responses I was getting while trying to work up my own 175 gr boolit loads for my 30 Herretts.

With the 30H and the 175 boolit, full power Win 296 loads burned good, felt good, but were pretty much minute of trash can.

Backing down a couple of grs got minute of milk jug and backing off one more got Ok accuracy.

Down from that 1/2 more started getting what seemed to be erratic performance with some loads barking like full power loads and some more like medium reduced loads. It made me very nervous. Having only a very narrow window of OK performance was not where I wanted to be.

Now, do not take me wrong. I burned a bunch of full power Win 296 loads in 357 mag and 357 max and was very happy with the results. I am just saying that this powder is probably better suited for "on the reservation" loads (within ranges of listed loads from component suppliers) as compared to the roll your own stuff.

For the specific application that started this discussion, the Win/Hodgon data indicates that one specific load of Win 296 under a lead 200 gr gives very impressive results. I would expect the published 200 gr lead bullet load to work fine with the Lee 200 that was the topic of my original post or any other relatively standard 200 gr boolit.

If a potential 200 gr boolit shooter asked me to, I would not be the least bit concerned with using my 357 mag and/or my 357 max barrels for my contender (lots of margin to handle hot stuff) to play around with my Lee 200s (205 gr with Water dropped COWW), cases trimmed to the same length and weighed to assure similar powder capacity, his specified OAL, and a specific agreed to primer. I would confirm that there is a range of loads that seem to produced consistent predictable results. I would of course describe the results with the standard "it worked in my gun" disclaimer.

Based on my own observations, I would be much less eager to start reducing 357 magnum 200 gr boolit loads using Win 296 if my only gun was a lighter weight 357 magnum revolver.

[r6487]

look at the bottom bullet on this link--230 grain thunderhead--several of us have been using it thru 9mm suppressors in 357 guns.


http://www.pennbullets.com/38/38-caliber.html

[FISH4BUGS]

look at the bottom bullet on this link--230 grain thunderhead--several of us have been using it thru 9mm suppressors in 357 guns.
http://www.pennbullets.com/38/38-caliber.html

Very nice! The H&G 319 looks like that bullet except the lube groove is lower and wider. 12.5 gr 296 is what I really wanted to know. I'll start at about 10% lower and work up from there. This is a plain based bullet so let's see if it leads the barrel!
As an aside, I learned many years ago to NOT use lead bullets through a suppressor. The maker of mine said go ahead, so I did. I put THOUSANDS of rounds thorugh a 9mm can using 3 different submachine guns. It crudded up the suppressor so bad that I had baffle strikes. The manufacturer changed his mind about lead through a can after that.
Many thanks!