2400 with 158gr boolits

[txbirdman]

My problem might have been the mould itself. My favorite plain base .38/.357 mould is the RCBS 150 gr. Of course with my alloy it was also about 155 to 158 gr.

[curioushooter]

6 grains Unique is just a dandy and with careful shot placement will probably kill all that I need to kill.

6 grains of Unique is a dandy load indeed! It does 1100 FPS in my M19. One weird thing I've found is my M19 shoots cast better than my 686 while the 686 does both better accuracy and velocity with jacketed. I think it is the rifling. My 686 has narrow shallow grooves. The M19 has broad deep grooves so I think it both gets more "wrenching effect" on the soft cast boolit and it pushes more lube out.


I tested this with the large hollowpoint in 91-6-3 and it expanded impressively to over .6 with 13" of penetration. Can't find picture right now (it's on the camera I think).
I was really surprised at the performance of this "357 Medium" load because it is hardly more potent than a 38+P, is very efficient, minimal recoil, etc. It would seem to have high accuracy potential. I think it may work better with a softer alloy and lube. And probably doesn't need a gas check. If you are looking for just the best performance possible with the least recoil it may be the best load yet.
I personally like the 13.5 grains of 2400 because it is nearly 100% case fill, adds another 150 FPS which ensures plenty of velocity over ranges of up to 50 feet to ensure expansion, and penetrates deeper...to 16" which I what I consider minimum on a critter like a deer. But this kind of performance is only because of hollowpoints.
I don't have the Lyman gas check SWCs. I do have the Lee gas check SWC, the 358429 and a RCBS 358-150-KT. I also have a SAECO 358-158-Round Nose bullet. My observations on gel is that unless there is a hollowpoint it doesn't expand at real world (like a 4" revolver) 357 handgun velocities unless you are going way over max. It just doesn't. Push it to 1400+ (which is trivial in a rifle or Contender) and it starts to. 1500 and it works reliably well whereas 1400 can be iffy. At 1200 and less it's a 35 caliber icepick, and it makes no difference what the nose looks like. I haven't shot any wadcutters into gel yet, but I've found ZERO difference among round nose, wide flat nose, or SWC designs. All the agonizing over nose profile is mostly nonsense IMO. Hollowpoint or go home in handguns. Even big bore stuff I say go home. A 43 caliber or 45 caliber icepick isn't impressive when you can get 60-70 caliber expansion and 16" of penetration out of 357 Magnum running under max loads. Maybe I could lower the velocity threshold by softening the alloy, but running the sort of pressures I am I think that is asking for trouble. 91-6-3 is not a hard alloy either...its softer than #2 and a touch harder than water quenched wheelwights. For what it's worth my lee hardness tester returns values ~12 BHN for 91-6-3 day of casting. It might harden up a point over time.

[dogdoc]

6 grains of Unique is a dandy load indeed! It does 1100 FPS in my M19. One weird thing I've found is my M19 shoots cast better than my 686 while the 686 does both better accuracy and velocity with jacketed. I think it is the rifling. My 686 has narrow shallow grooves. The M19 has broad deep grooves so I think it both gets more "wrenching effect" on the soft cast boolit and it pushes more lube out.


I tested this with the large hollowpoint in 91-6-3 and it expanded impressively to over .6 with 13" of penetration. Can't find picture right now (it's on the camera I think).
I was really surprised at the performance of this "357 Medium" load because it is hardly more potent than a 38+P, is very efficient, minimal recoil, etc. It would seem to have high accuracy potential. I think it may work better with a softer alloy and lube. And probably doesn't need a gas check. If you are looking for just the best performance possible with the least recoil it may be the best load yet.
I personally like the 13.5 grains of 2400 because it is nearly 100% case fill, adds another 150 FPS which ensures plenty of velocity over ranges of up to 50 feet to ensure expansion, and penetrates deeper...to 16" which I what I consider minimum on a critter like a deer. But this kind of performance is only because of hollowpoints.
I don't have the Lyman gas check SWCs. I do have the Lee gas check SWC, the 358429 and a RCBS 358-150-KT. I also have a SAECO 358-158-Round Nose bullet. My observations on gel is that unless there is a hollowpoint it doesn't expand at real world (like a 4" revolver) 357 handgun velocities unless you are going way over max. It just doesn't. Push it to 1400+ (which is trivial in a rifle or Contender) and it starts to. 1500 and it works reliably well whereas 1400 can be iffy. At 1200 and less it's a 35 caliber icepick, and it makes no difference what the nose looks like. I haven't shot any wadcutters into gel yet, but I've found ZERO difference among round nose, wide flat nose, or SWC designs. All the agonizing over nose profile is mostly nonsense IMO. Hollowpoint or go home in handguns. Even big bore stuff I say go home. A 43 caliber or 45 caliber icepick isn't impressive when you can get 60-70 caliber expansion and 16" of penetration out of 357 Magnum running under max loads. Maybe I could lower the velocity threshold by softening the alloy, but running the sort of pressures I am I think that is asking for trouble. 91-6-3 is not a hard alloy either...its softer than #2 and a touch harder than water quenched wheelwights. For what it's worth my lee hardness tester returns values ~12 BHN for 91-6-3 day of casting. It might harden up a point over time.

Experience on living critters by me and others much more experienced than I indicates a flat nose or swc is a better killer. Round nose just do not seem to deliver the shock on living things that the others do. I agree in a 357 mag that a good hollow point like a Hornady xtp is best.

[9mmskng]

Heaviest charge of 2400 I ever loaded for 357mag/158gr bullet, was 13.0grs. Plenty warm with lead bullets.

[robg]

Used 11.5 grains as a good mid range load in my 686 before they banned them.

[Petander]

An absolutely shameless copy-paste here:

----------------------------


Mar 17, 2013 · #4
Sr40ken, The 357 Magnum has quite a history. It was developed in 1935 using a S&W N-frame revolver ... now known as a S&W Mod 27 or 28. These revolvers had beefy barrels, massive cylinders, and heavy frames that could hold very high pressure. When SAAMI standardized the 357 Magnum, maximum chamber pressure was rated at 46,000 CUP, which translates to 43,500 psi in modern terms.
In 1955, Bill Jordan (famous US Border Patrol Agent and gun magazine writer) got an idea and worked with S&W to make a lighter weight revolver more suitable for law enforcement. S&W used the popular 38 Special K-frame with a much smaller cylinder and frame than the massive N-frame, yet with a special heat treated cylinder that would hold up to SAAMI pressures. This revolver went into production in 1957 as a S&W Model 19. In 1972, S&W made the very first stainless steel revolver, a Model 66 ... which was identical to a blued Mod 19 ... also chambered in 357 Mag. Problems with these guns surfaced soon after they were released, however S&W put the word out to LEAs to shoot lower powered 38 Specials for qualification or practice and save 357 Mag ammo for duty loads. The cylinders were fine but both the Mod 19 and 66 were just too weak to withstand SAAMI rated magnum pressures. The barrels on all K-frames had a section of the barrel (under the forcing cone) cut away to allow the yoke to seat. Not a problem with 38 Specials but when 357 Mags were fired, many of the barrels split at the mouth. Additionally, the 19 & 66 top straps were notorious for stretching and the yoke tubes peened badly, which increased endshake to a point of being dangerous .... basically just a bad design all around for the high pressure 357 Mag loads.
After replacing countless Mod 19 & 66 barrels and frames, S&W decided in 1995 to petition SAAMI to lower chamber pressure to 35,000 psi ... a full 25% reduction. The lower pressure seemed to fix the problem, however it took several years for ammunition manufacturers to develop new loads with the lower 35k psi SAAMI standard so guns were still being subject to barrel and/or frame replacements. In 1999, S&W discontinued the Mod 19 and reduced production on Mod 66s until 2005 when they were also discontinued.
Today, SAAMI maintains two pressure standards for the 357 Magnum ... 43,500 psi (46,000 CUP) and 35,000 psi. Nearly all US ammo manufactures discontinued the higher pressure loads as did most reloading manuals. Only a few companies such as Corban and Buffalo Bore still make the higher SAAMI pressure loads. 43,500 psi is still the CIP (European version of SAAMI) standard so if you buy European ammo such as Seller & Beloit, you will get the "hot" 43.5k loads.
So what happens when you shoot 43,500 psi loads in your 357 Mag revolver? The gun doesn't blow up but it sure takes a toll on wear. It is estimated ... the 25% reduction in chamber pressure will extend the life of all 357 Mag revolvers by 10 fold .... and yes, that applies to strong Ruger Blackhawks too. The wear issues with Rugers are mostly increased endshake due to the frame and cylinder getting peened ... both in the front where the gas tube contacts the frame and the rear where the ratchet column contacts the recoil shield. Ruger DA revolvers suffer more from crane tube peening, which also increases endshake. Excessive endshake will result in misfires (light primer strikes), but much worse ... the cylinder may unlatch when fired, which could release the bullet when not aligned with the bore.
What do you lose with lower pressure loads? If you look at an old Speer #11 manual, a 357 Mag load with a 158gr bullet max loaded with 17.8gr of H-110 will produce a muzzle velocity of 1330 fps. In the new Speer #14 manual, the max load of H-110 is 15.5gr, which produces 1217 fps or about 113 fps lower. Most of the other listed loads also lose about 100 fps compared to the older load data ... not really a big deal, especially when it makes your gun last 10x longer.

------------------------------

From this Rugerforum thread:

https://rugerforum.net/reloading/743...#/topics/74325

[curioushooter]

13.5 grains of 2400 pushing a 160 grain castie is under 35kPSI methinks, and according to Larry Gibson it's between 30-35k. Lyman has the 358156 (155 grain) at 14.5 grains max (~40K CUP) and the 358429 (170 grain) at 13.5 (~40K CUP). Alliant has jacketed 158 grain GDs at 14.8 grains or something. 13.5 grains is nearly a starting load!

[curioushooter]

Experience on living critters by me and others much more experienced than I indicates a flat nose or swc is a better killer. Round nose just do not seem to deliver the shock on living things that the others do. I agree in a 357 mag that a good hollow point like a Hornady xtp is best.

I would say there is a slight advantage to a flat pointed bullet, but a difference that is not much, and furthmore, is not measurable on gel without a high speed camera. When it comes to the concept of a permanent wound channel a round nose and flat point which do not expand both result in a channel the same diameter as the caliber unless they tumble or fragment, and neither tend to do that. I personally prefer flat point bullets in revolvers for a number of reasons...they fit cylinders better, are easier to seat without messing up the boolit, and seem more accurate to me. The SWC or WFN/RNFP being my preference.

Hollowpoints cast or jacketed offer far better performance out of handguns on thin skinned medium sized animals.

[curioushooter]

After replacing countless Mod 19 & 66 barrels and frames, S&W decided in 1995 to petition SAAMI to lower chamber pressure to 35,000 psi ... a full 25% reduction.

I think it may have something to do with the introduction of J-frame magnums at the time, too.

There are other problems with the full power loads...they tend to get hot. They spit through the gap. They aren't very accurate.

The Prophet Keith never really advocated these super hot loads, even saying the latest edition of Sixguns that he recommended his 13.5 grain 2400 with 160 grain SWC 38 High-Speed load in the model 19. I'm not sure what bullet he was talking about because his design 358429 weighs closer to 170 grains.

I've also measured every dimension of the J, K, L, and N frame 357s magnums. The Js are dimensionally smaller in every critical area but one: the chamber wall thickness under the cylinders stop cut (being odd numbered chambers). Another interesting fact is that the L frame is hardly any larger than the K frame in the critical areas. It has a taller window and larger cylinder which alleviated the yoke relief cut issue as well as allowing for a 7-shot capacity (odd numbered like the J so cylinder stop cuts are made between chambers).

It's also worth noting that S&W reintroduced the K frame magnums and eliminated a few of the weak points (crane lock up improved and there is no cut in the barrel for the yoke). They have also introduced a L-frame 44 Magnum with a 5 shot cylinder.

The modern designed (after the SAMMI powder reduction) Kimber K6 is smaller than a K frame in all critical dimensions (except the cylinder stop cuts) and weigh about 10 ounces less with equivalent barrel length. They are closer to a J frame in size.

The 44 Magnum model 29 has some too-powerful-for-the-design problems, too. 44 mag was also reduced in power in the mid 90s even after the endurance package improvements were introduced (the 29-5s in 1990 had all these features).

Interestingly the 41 magnum remains at the same 40K+ power level it has always been at and that is why today the 41 magnum is nearly as potent at the SAMMI designated max loads as 44 in terms of muzzle energy. In fact, with the 210-220 grain bullets is nearly equivalent muzzle energy. The newly manufactured Model 57s however have the same kind of improvements of the endurance package model 29s.