Lyman 358156 &16 grains of 2400?

[7.62Man]

I was reading a article I found on the net about ruger blackhawks writen by John Taffin. I can across a load that he states is the original powder charge for the .357mag in 1935. It is the lyman #358156 with 16 grains of 2400. He states he has fired it from his own ruger blackhawk.

I was wondering if the ruger GP-100 is as strong as the ruger blackhawk, and if it would take a 16 grain powder charge of 2400?

Anyone ever load 16 grains of 2400 and fire it in a blackhawk?

thanks
Bill
:castmine:

[BruceB]

Never did own a .357 Blackhawk, except one which I bought and then quickly sold without firing it.

However, at the time Alliant took over from Hercules as manufacturers of 2400 in the 1990s, I was shooting an S&W Model 27 (.357, natch). With the Hercules 2400, 15 grains with 358156 was my favored load and it was fast and accurate.

When I ran out of the Hercules stuff, I tried the same charge with the Alliant powder and immediately found sticky extraction. Nothing drastic or alarming, just a bit of stickiness where there had been none. My present-day load with the same powder, bullet, AND revolver is 14.5 grains which gives no stickiness at all on extraction.

The .44 Magnum loads of Hercules 2400 that I was using worked equally well with Alliant. I suppose that this simply means that the .357 load was a bit closer to max than the .44 loads. Anyway, the ballistic performance was about identical from old powder to new.

I do believe that even with the older Hercules brand, 16 grains of 2400 is a very warm load with 358156. Guns are different , so careful load development is the order of the day. The load may well be safe in some guns, and too ambitious in others. Work it up slowly.

[9.3X62AL]

+1 to Bruce's text, esp. the part about each revolver being a law unto itself.

That said--I have run Lyman #358156 atop 16.0 grains (and more) of Alliant 2400, with boolit seated out to the lower crimp groove in my Bisley Blackhawk 357 x 7.5". Velocities ran over 1500 FPS with these loads.

I DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS PRACTICE--AT ALL. My revolver was purchased with maximizing the performance of the 357 Magnum in mind, using #358156--#359430--and now the GB 180 357 Max boolit. My goal for the 180 is 1400 FPS and accuracy in the BisHawk. The 357 Magnum loaded to "full potential" is a much different cartridge than the factory loads I carry in my M-686 for CCW. These W-W "store-boughts" run 158 grain JHPs at 1225-1250 FPS from the 686's 4" tube. My top load in the 686 with #358156 is 14.5 grains of 2400, getting about 1325 FPS.

The strength differential between the Blackhawk and the GP-100 is not known to me.

[Bass Ackward]

Seated to the deep crimp groove, 16 grains of 2400 is 58,800 psi for @ 1450 fps depending on barrel length at 1.592. Crimp less hard in the groove and go to an OAL of 1.605 and you drop that to 56,000.

At the same seating depth, 14.5 grains is 42,000 psi for 1300 fps seated at 1.592. Take less of a bite in the crimp groove out to 1.605, that's just .0013 longer and pressure drops below 41,000.

The 358156 has a long bearing area for it's weight so it shows how seating depth with this bullet can be critical at even that relatively slow powder speed. Even if the handgun will withstand these kind of pressures, and most will for varying lengths of time, the wear would be significantly more than one might expect shooting cast. While the GP100 will hold this pressure, I can't seat out to the far crimp groove without trimming and making special brass to do it. At that depth, these pressures look much more realistic. Just so you know.

[Bret4207]

I was reading a article I found on the net about ruger blackhawks writen by John Taffin. I can across a load that he states is the original powder charge for the .357mag in 1935. It is the lyman #358156 with 16 grains of 2400.
I:castmine:


If thats what Taffin wrote, then either he or his proof reader screwed up That load CAN NOT be the original load for the 357 mag because the 358156 came out long after the 357 was around. Plus it's a GC design and the original was swaged lead PB. As for the 16.0 2400 being used, I've seen the load in print too. Using it would depend on the particular gun as the others have said. I don't know if the original loads would have used 2400. I'd have to research Phil Sharpes books and Elmers books. I have a feeling something like #80 or Lightning or Hi Vel or something might have been used. Good luck locating a powder like that 50-75 years after it hit the selves....

[7.62Man]

Thank-you all,

Bret4207 you are right it was #80 and not 2400 in the original 357. I think Taffin ment it was equal to.

[MT Gianni]

I used a similar load in blackhawk a few times that said to make sure and use a rifle primer not a pistol as pressure issues may occur with the softer primers. I no longer shoot it and would not do so in my nephew's GP100. Gianni

[9.3X62AL]

Bass, thank you for sharing those calculated (?) results.

No mas, por favor. I knew the loads were rather warm, but DAMN. The 16.5 grain loads seated long and crimped moderately (CCI 550 primers) didn't flow primers, but their radius was squared out. Cases weren't welded to the chamber walls, either--just a light tap with the ejector rod, and they fell out with the muzzle pointed skyward.

So much for using "fired primer characteristics" and "case stickiness in chambers" as indicators of excessive pressures!