Why did the 357 Maximum flop in a revolver?

[MT Gianni]

Paco Kelly cited problems converting a 92 and a 94 with the cartrige being either too long or too short for the carrier.

[45r]

The 357 max is said to be finicky compared to the 357 mag.Long straight walled cartridges don't burn quite as well as a bottlenecked one.The max is great in the contender when a load it likes is found.I might have my new 12 inch 357 mag barrel rechambered later but it shoots well with Vitt N-110 but for some reason it hasn't been consistant with 296 and that powder usually is the most accurate powder in my S&W.The long forcing cone in the contender barrels don't help.I think I might need to up the charge a little to get the 296 to burn better.If that don't work Lil-gun and IMR 4227 might do as well as the Vitt powder.I had a chance to buy a new Ruger 357 max at an estate auction once and have regretted it ever since.I've always preferred the 45 colt but have been playing with the 357 mag lately in the contender.Like the low recoil and 1 inch groups at 50 yards are easy with the Vitt load.I wonder if the reason is that the 357 mag is so good that the max had a tuff act to follow.

[cbrick]

The Maxi got a bad rap from a lack of understanding proper loading. If it was Milek or not I don't know. The original intent of the maxi was to drive heavy for caliber bullets as fast as standard weight bullets in the mag. It was not to drive light weight bullets ultra fast and this is where part of the problem was.

Here is a good article by Glen fryxell on the Maxi:

The 357 Maxi

Rick

[dale2242]

A good friend shot IHMSA with a DWA 357 Max. and cast boolits. If memory serves he shot Lyman 358315 with 4227. Rams fell easily even with a marginal hits. Heavier bullets is the answer in the 357 Max. 180gr. minimum IMHO.----dale

[Coogs]

Not to beat a dead horse here because this thread is only 6 1/2 years old. but being a new member I felt compelled to post. The biggest problem with the Max was the erosion of the forcing cone. This was primarily caused with light bullets on top of fast burning powders driven at mach speeds. The original forcing cone was 5 degrees and at some point Ruger changed it to 11 degrees which helped. The top strop cutting is a non issue. Totally abates after a 1000 rds or so. I personally stick with 180, 200 and I think I even have a 210 cast w/check that I put on top of 4227. Ruger produced 16,314 completed guns and/or serialized frames. They DID "scrap" over 5000 of these. The Ruger Max is a hoot to shoot! And if you stay with the big and slow formula, it will give you a lifetime of pleasure. JMHO, Coogs.

[dtknowles]

I love mine, Dan Wesson. Not a flop, just not a big commercial success. The gun and cartridge is excellent.

Tim

[str8wal]

Because uber-conservative Ruger over-reacted and pulled it.

[Outpost75]

A lever rifle chambered in 357 Maximum would be kinda cool, too.

If Ruger (or anyone else) confiscated my revolver, a lively and spirited exchange would ensue forthwith. You gotta be kidding--a move like that would be ludicrous--not to mention, ILLEGAL.

Of course, anytime you let lawyers set policy--public or private--you're asking for trouble. One need look no further than State and Federal legislatures for confirmation of that belief.

Ruger felt that the revolvers were prone to failure if shot alot and they deemed them unrepairable. And because they were no longer in production they could not be replaced. They DID replace the Maximum with any other new gun you wanted from the catalog. I swapped mine on a new stainless .44 Magnum Redhawk, which I still have.

[reed1911]

With all the DW SM's (except for the .414) That I have I have never had any issues with gas cutting. I only run heavy bullets since that is my prerogative.

[dtknowles]

With all the DW SM's (except for the .414) That I have I have never had any issues with gas cutting. I only run heavy bullets since that is my prerogative.

Mine, I got second hand has some gas cutting on the top strap. My Ruger .22 mag Single Six has some gas cutting too. I don't see erosion on the forcing cone, how can I tell? I think I could take a little off the barrel and recut the forcing cone, I imagine it would only take setting the barrel back maybe 10 thou to clean up the forcing cone. Would you lap the cone first and then turn off the face of the barrel or vice a versa.

Tim

[Coogs]

Erosion of the forcing cone, for lack of a better explanation, looks like all kinda little "pits" in the barrel around the face of the barrel and on the leading edge, or forcing cone" of the bore. No gunsmith here, so can't really help you on a proper procedure. I'm sure someone will come along more knowledgeable than I. Outpost, sent you a PM, Coogs.

[gwpercle]

It flopped because not enough people were buying them. I didn't sell any of my 357 magnums to go out and buy 357 max.. No demand = no sales = drop from production.

[Coogs]

Sales were actually quite good up until the time Ruger starting getting complaints. The top strap cutting was the most evident, but is a non issue after about 1000rds. or so. I had a Smith 19 that showed more top strap cutting than any of my Maxi's. There was another issue that is very rarely discussed, shaving lead. Cylinder/bore alignment on the Max CAN BE very poor on some, and when it's bad, it's bad. Talked to John Linebaugh a couple times and he said it wasn't one of Rugers Best. The bashing the gun writers gave it contributed to it's demise, but there were many, many other factors involved. I'll eventually get into some more. Coogs.

[saleen322]

Not to beat a dead horse here because this thread is only 6 1/2 years old. but being a new member I felt compelled to post. The biggest problem with the Max was the erosion of the forcing cone. This was primarily caused with light bullets on top of fast burning powders driven at mach speeds. ....

Coogs is exactly right. I have a DW 357 SM and a DW 375 that I recently purchased. I competed with my 357 Super Mag in silhouette back in the 80s and I never even used the extra barrel. It is still new in the box. My go to load was/is a 200 grain RCBS gas check. With the alloy I have now, it comes out at 208 grains ready to load. I can not tell you how many rounds have been shot but the old girl is still a shooter after all these years. I cannot remember even once it 'rang' a ram without taking it down. I know I will never sell mine. I would buy a Ruger Max if I see one too!

[Moonie]

In the 90's I had a DW 7445 8" 445 SM and a 10" 'tender barrel in 357 Max. Both great calibers.

[curioushooter]

I think 357 Maximum flopped in revolvers basically because it exceeds what is workable in a revolver. It's too long for caliber. The pressure is too high and too much velocity is lost to the gap. It basically needs a gas check at the very least or straight up jacketed bullets. All for what? For something that underperforms the popular and proven 44 Magnum. It's a great cartridge in a Contender or in a rifle. In those platforms with sealed and long barrels all the power can be extracted and the longishness of the cartridge is not a detriment. I find it amusing all these folks these days going on about the 300 Blackout. 357 Max in a carbine seriously outperforms it and is more practical in every way, even if one want to do subsonics. Why Marlin or Henry or someone hasn't picked up the 357 Max chambering in a carbine I do not understand. It would be backwards compatible with the Mag and Spl, too; though accuracy may suffer.

[contender1]

A very old thread. But it flopped because Bill Ruger got pizzed at flame cutting complaints. Reloaders were loading light bullets, with a hot, fast powder, (in search of more & more velocity) and then they complained when they found a bit of top strap flame cutting.
NOT because of it being too long for caliber, or high pressure, or whatever. As for under performing the 44 mag,, I can say this; Go ask David Bradshaw (a former national handgun silhouette champion,) if it's an "under performer."
And as for manufacturers not building guns for the Maxi,, it's about economics,, and expenses.

The Maxi has a following,, and it is highly regarded by many. Sadly, it was shooters themselves that cost us a great gun & caliber.

[Mr_Sheesh]

Hmm mutate a Nagant into something that'd seal up, stopping flame cutting? But it'd have to be NEW manufacture, not just a modded Nagant of course, and seal using steel on steel instead of the case mouth. Potentially doable but I doubt it'll ever be done.

[curioushooter]

Regarding the Nagant, which is a revolver I've reloaded and manufactured brass extensively for. That concept WOULD solve the problem of the max in revolvers. The problem is that the Nagant design is very weak. The way it works is that a big thumb backs up against the firing chamber and it pushes the cylinder forward through the gap into the barrel. The way the thumb locks up is not very robust, and I think the only way Nagants last is because 7.62x38R is an absolutely anemic cartridge basically equivalent to 32 S&W--it really isn't even a 32 H&R. It can load longer bullets with decent SD though, and I was able to get the Lee 115 grainer going to 1000 FPS without ill effects--with truly gas-sealing cases made out of 223 cases--which is how it works best. Accuracy (if one fired in SINGLE ACTION MODE and was still able to overcome the 14 # trigger) was nothing short of incredible. Despite the wretched sights and horrid trigger off a bag I could basically make dime sized groups with the thing at 25 yards. There is no doubt in my mind that the Nagants reworked by the USSR for Olympic competition (marketed as Nagant Sports here) were competitive if not surpassing anything the West had. To me the Nagant proved that basically most accuracy problems with revolvers have to do with the gap and cylinder-barrel alignment issues. I suspect this is why Dan Wesson and Freedom Arms revolvers have such a good reputation--they are both designed to minimize those problems. But the NAGANT solves it...it doesn't just minimize it. It's just stupidly weak and only useful for punching holes in paper or perhaps squirrels. Supposedly the Russian Empire tested the Nagant revolver on old horses about to be "retired" to establish its power...I suspect that the horses died more from their underlying health problems than the actual wounding effects.

In regards to "performance" the 357 Max simply cannot match 44 IN A REVOLVER if one is sticking to 40K PSI max. It's just physics. I've loaded both and pushed both the the limit. The Max simply doesn't have enough caliber or case volume. I can stuff 26 grains of Win296 and a 265 grainer into a 44 case and shoot it out of my 7.5" Blackhawk and it go 1400 FPS (1153 FT-LBS), in my Marlin 1894 this load went 1650 FPS (1602 FT-LBS). The 357 Max can't even get that much powder in the case with 180 grainer in front of it in a REVOLVER cylinder limitation length. In a 10" Contender one CAN reach 44 Mag revolver performance with the Max, at least in terms of energy, and with less powder, lead, and recoil. I can push 180s to 1800 FPS using Lil'Gun which is actually more muzzle energy (1295 FT-LBS)...for what that's worth. I am confident the 44 Mag will blow the 357 Max away in 10" Contender.

In terms of real-world performance on deer I think that Max out of a Contender (or rifle) can match 44 with careful bullet selection (basically the 180 grain XTP) whereas the 44 will work with pretty much anything over 200 grains including cast flat-points. In fact, my friend swears by a 215 soft cast RNFP going about 1200 FPS on deer, and he's bagged way more than I have.

I restate my answer for the question posed in this thread: the reason why the Max flopped is that it exceeds the practical performance limitations imposed by its intended platform--revolvers. The cartridge is brilliant in Contenders or rifles, and I suspect that many if not most of the Max "following" are using these platforms. Those that are using revolvers are worrying about cutting their topstraps and eroding their forcing cones and probably running the cartridge at something that basically achieves performance of OLD 357 Mag "hot loads." If they protest otherwise they need to plopped in front of a Chrono--that little box of truth.

[Mr_Sheesh]

curioushooter - Agreed, I guess I could have said new DESIGN too, anyone who's seen a Nagant should know better than to try 44k PSI+ in that old beast!