2400 with 158gr boolits

[ghh3rd]

I had fun putting 100 rounds through the new S&W 686. I used 158gr Lee SWC boolits over 14.5gr of 2400. I decided on that after looking at my reloading books, 'word of mouth' through the forums, etc. Am I right in thinking that this load is about middle of the road?

I know there are various factors that make each individual's loads different from another's such as seating depth, primer used, etc., but wonder what you use for a full magnum load using 158 gr boolits with 2400? On the flip side, what about your favorite "non wimpy" 2400 loads for relaxing target shooting?

I'm going to experiment with W296 as well, and thinking of starting with 14.5gr, but was told by someone that was "pedestrian" :-).

Randy

[Tracy]

14.5 grains of 2400 under a 158 SWC is pretty warm. I've always considered 15.0 to be maximum.

[Bazoo]

Old books say 16 grains is max of 2400/158 grain lead. I've loaded 15 grains with a 358156 seated in the front crimp groove, and it was real stout. It didnt show any signs of over pressure in my guns.

13 or 13.5 grains is a pretty nice middle load that has some authority.

[winelover]

That is the very load I use with the 158 RCBS SWC GC in my Python. Not a wimpy load, IMO. Thousands haven't loosened it up, yet.

Winelover

[Ed_Shot]

+1 for 13.5 gr. of 2400 under a 158 gr. boolit.

[Dan Cash]

Pretty warm. Better results and longer revolver life with 13 grains.

[Char-Gar]

14.5 to 15.0 is top end loads. Like others 13.5 grains of 2400 is what I load most.

[ghh3rd]

Had my fun trying 14.5 - I will try 13.5 of 2400 next... thanks!

[luvtn]

Ditto the 13.5 gr 2400 under 158 gr LSWC. Accurate, and snappy from my SP-101 with a 3 inch barrel.
luvtn

[Tom W.]

As much fun as word of mouth here on the forum, please still refer to the load manuals and powder manufacturer's websites before making your decisions. Kabooms don't look fun.

[Larry Gibson]

Both Hercules and Alliant 2400 in 357 magnum, WW cases, WSP primers. 358156 at 158 gr fully dressed seated to and crimped in front crimp groove. PSI as measured via Oehler M43 using a Contender test barrel;

13.5 gr: 28 - 30k psi

14.5 gr; 33 - 35K psi

SAAMI MAP for the 357 Magnum; 35K psi.

[Char-Gar]

As much fun as word of mouth here on the forum, please still refer to the load manuals and powder manufacturer's websites before making your decisions. Kabooms don't look fun.

The counsel here is well within loading manuals data. There are no Kabooms when load pressure is BELOW loading manual max data. 13.5/2400 is no where near top end pressures.

[Jkrem]

With the 13.5/2400 load, do you guys recommend just a standard LP primer, or a magnum primer? I have 4 pounds of 2400 sitting around and lots of 358156s, and looking for something not to stiff to feed my Blackhawk. Been shooting only 38sp in it.

[sniper]

With the 13.5/2400 load, do you guys recommend just a standard LP primer, or a magnum primer? I have 4 pounds of 2400 sitting around and lots of 358156s, and looking for something not to stiff to feed my Blackhawk. Been shooting only 38sp in it.

In my Speer #13, they say they have worked up 357 loads with the new 2400, and do not recommend magnum primers .

[Bazoo]

I always use mag primers with 2400. Im stubborn though.

[Jkrem]

Ok, I just found Lyman load data for tha 358156 ranging from 10-14gr of 2400 and CCI 550 primers. I think I will start at 10 and work up to 13.5. With 4 pounds of powder this should last me about 10 years. Thanks.

[Jkrem]

Sorry, 10.6 to 14 gr 2400 with the 358156. Lyman 3rd ed

[Larry Gibson]

Sorry, 10.6 to 14 gr 2400 with the 358156. Lyman 3rd ed

That keep it equivalent to most current 357 magnum factory loads. Still somewhat below the SAAMI MAP. I use CCI 550 or WSP primers.

[357Mag]

ghh3rd -

Howdy Randy !

IMHO - Nothin' pedestriam about 14.5gr WW296 and SP Mag primer under Lyman 158 - 172gr SWCs.

Been my go-to load for 40+yr.

Pic attached.


With regards,
357Mag

[curioushooter]

Larry...you are the cast boolit angel or something. Whenever I have a question just search it and you have the answer. I have been doing some testing with a 358-158 hollowpoint boolit with gas check. Lyman CB handbook maxed out 358156 seated 1.590 with 14 grains of 2400 at 40k+ CUP. I want to keep things gentler than that. Punched some stuff into excel scatter plot and did the conversion formula for PSI to CUP and came up with 13.5 grains for a max at 35k psi. This is with mag primers. I figured that things would be rollin' along at about the same pressure with a Fed100. And my slightly deeper seated HP at 1.575. The 13.5 load coming in a only 30k makes me feel even better. And lo and behold in the last pages of the 1961 ed. of Sixguns, the prophet Keith sayest: I recommend 13.5 grains of 2400 with 160 grain bullet for the lighter framed model S&W 19.

[LAGS]

I do get pressure signs with a 158 Hard Cast boolit over 14.5 of 2400 in my Ruger 6.5" SS Blackhawk.
But not in my 5" S&W 27 or Marlin 1894 Rifle.
I dropped back to 13.5 in the Ruger and it works great.

[Hi-Speed]

13.5 grs 2400 with 358156 GC or H&G 51.

[robg]

13.5 2400 works for me .it was also Mr Keith's load!

[Forrest r]

I was doing a little testing with 2400 and the mihec 359-640 hp bullet. The 359-640 mold casts a 158gr hp and a 170gr fn bullet. The bullets were cast from range scrap (8bhn/9bhn) and then pc'd and sized to .358".
https://i.imgur.com/3f3FUJ4.jpg?1

In the initial testing I only ran 10-shot strings over a chronograph using a 2 1/2", 4", 6", 8" & 10" bbl'd firearms. I seated the bullets in the bottom crimp groove and used 14.7gr of 2400 for the load.

2 1/2" bbl/1197fps
4" bbl/1257fps
6" bbl/1343fps
8" bbl/1406fps
10" bbl/1610fps

There was no signs of pressure in any of the 4 firearms used for the testing (3 revolvers and a tc contender). While 14.7gr of 2400 is a hot load it's comparable to the 14.5gr/358156 load. The mihec 359-640 bullet is .340" long to the lower crimp groove. The lyman 358156 is .375" to the top crimp groove.

[facetious]

14.0gr's 2400 and 358156 have been my standard load in my Ruger BH for years. I have gone up to 15gr's but after 14gr's I think all you are getting is more noise and recoil.

[curioushooter]

That's the same boolit I'm working with, Forrest. I've never gone past 14 grains with cast and mag primer...that load does 1200 from my 5" 686. For comparison 18 grains of 300 mp will push it to 1250.

[cowboy4evr]

I have shot literally thousands and thousands of 358156 cast bulets . I had Tom @ Accurate molds make 2 / 4 cavity molds for me w/o the gas check . One of my std loads is Skeeter Skeltons recommendation , 13.5grs of 2400 . Yrs ago when I didn't have hardly any 357 cases I did what skeeter told , used 38 special cases and crimped the bullet in the lower crimp groove . I feel that every powder has a sweet spot and I think 13.5grs of 2400 is a good sweet spot . Regards, Paul

[facetious]

Both Hercules and Alliant 2400 in 357 magnum, WW cases, WSP primers. 358156 at 158 gr fully dressed seated to and crimped in front crimp groove. PSI as measured via Oehler M43 using a Contender test barrel;

13.5 gr: 28 - 30k psi

14.5 gr; 33 - 35K psi

SAAMI MAP for the 357 Magnum; 35K psi.



Have you ever tested .357 2400 loads with both standard and mag primers? I used a mag primers for years but tryed standard primers after thy started listing them in the load manuals. I have shot mosty in warm weather and can't tell any difference. Would mag primers work better in colder weather or would it matter?

[Larry Gibson]

Have you ever tested .357 2400 loads with both standard and mag primers? I used a mag primers for years but tryed standard primers after thy started listing them in the load manuals. I have shot mosty in warm weather and can't tell any difference. Would mag primers work better in colder weather or would it matter?

Yes, I have tested both standard and magnum primers in the 357, 41 and 44 magnums with 2400 using top end loads under "standard" weight for cartridge cast bullets. I also could not find any meaningful difference in pressure, velocity or accuracy.

[Hi-Speed]

Thank you Larry, for years we were led to believe that magnum primers and 2400 were a “no no.” I was always skeptical since magnum pistol primers should only have harder primer cups compared to standard to avoid piercing primers at higher pressures?

[curioushooter]

Don't magnum primers generate more flame, too? It sure seems they do. I recently did a comparison of identical loads of 2400 in 357 using 158s and found that the powder burned more completely using magnum and about 25-50FPS increase in velocity was observed. Today I ran a batch of 2400 with the 358 hammer boolit hp from 12-13.5 grains in my model 19 4". Used Fed 100 primers. Observed 1250 at 13.5. Sunny day so I don't always get the best readings. Under a shade tree is best or overcast day. Great load except there is evident unburnt powder.

[jaydub in wi]

I was doing a little testing with 2400 and the mihec 359-640 hp bullet. The 359-640 mold casts a 158gr hp and a 170gr fn bullet. The bullets were cast from range scrap (8bhn/9bhn) and then pc'd and sized to .358".
https://i.imgur.com/3f3FUJ4.jpg?1

In the initial testing I only ran 10-shot strings over a chronograph using a 2 1/2", 4", 6", 8" & 10" bbl'd firearms. I seated the bullets in the bottom crimp groove and used 14.7gr of 2400 for the load.

2 1/2" bbl/1197fps
4" bbl/1257fps
6" bbl/1343fps
8" bbl/1406fps
10" bbl/1610fps

There was no signs of pressure in any of the 4 firearms used for the testing (3 revolvers and a tc contender). While 14.7gr of 2400 is a hot load it's comparable to the 14.5gr/358156 load. The mihec 359-640 bullet is .340" long to the lower crimp groove. The lyman 358156 is .375" to the top crimp groove.
Thanks for all the info in this post. I have this mold and was thinking of trying 2400. It might not be a bad deer load in the 357

[Hi-Speed]

I would not hesitate to use that 170 gr for Whitetail within 75 yds. You’ll be enjoying your venison during the cold months.

[curioushooter]

Just did some gel testing on this bullet. Mind your alloys. I was using 16:1 and observed considerable fragmentation with 13.5 grains of 2400 pushing the large HP version which weighs 158 checked and lubed. Around 1200 FPS from my 4" model 19. And about the most recoil that I really want to deal with. If I were to go more powerful I would want my heavier 686.
The bullet sailed right through 14" of block and definitely opened up. But since it went through I was unable to recover the expanded bullet. I am going to retest this with a softer alloy, perhaps a smaller hollowpoint. I read of strengthing the alloy with copper in the tin-lead alloy. Going to try that.
249530

[Jeff Michel]

I use the 359-640, 12 grains of 2400 getting just at 1500 out of a 77/357 and yes, it works very good on deer.

[Larry Gibson]

Don't magnum primers generate more flame, too? It sure seems they do. I recently did a comparison of identical loads of 2400 in 357 using 158s and found that the powder burned more completely using magnum and about 25-50FPS increase in velocity was observed. Today I ran a batch of 2400 with the 358 hammer boolit hp from 12-13.5 grains in my model 19 4". Used Fed 100 primers. Observed 1250 at 13.5. Sunny day so I don't always get the best readings. Under a shade tree is best or overcast day. Great load except there is evident unburnt powder.

Yes, magnum primers are supposed to have more flame, so to speak. In a revolver chamber with its long throat (essentially free-bore) and the barrel cylinder/gap the time/pressure curve will be a bit different from that of the same load fired in a closed breach barrel such as a single shot pistol or a rifle. In the revolver chamber the rise to peak pressure will be slower than in the closed breach system and a drop in pressure when the bullet passes the barrel/cylinder gap will occur that does not occur in the closed breach system. Bottom line the measured psi in a closed breach system will be slightly higher than the same load in a revolver.

In the revolver, because of the above, the longer flame of the magnum primer give better initial ignition and many times a seemingly cleaner burn. That can also give a slight increase in velocity due to the cleaner burn, especially when the bullet is past the barrel/cylinder gap, but doesn't necessarily mean the pressure is higher. It just means the time pressure curve is slightly different with the magnum vs the standard primer.

As I've noted in pressure testing the 357 and 44 magnums with the slower burning powders there most often isn't a demonstrable difference between the same load with standard vs magnum primers of the same make. You can usually find a wider discrepancy in pressure by using the standard primer of one make comparing it to a magnum primer of another make. Note also that Winchester LPs are made for standard and magnum loads. Compare them in a load of 2400 powder in either cartridge against CCI 350s and you won't see much difference.

[curioushooter]

13.5 grains of 2400 pushing 359 Hammer MP-Molds bullet with small hollowpoint cast of 91-6-3 pb-sn-sb (weight 162 grains checked and lubed). Tested in FBI spec bb calibrated gelatin with 4 layers of denim:
1250 FPS from 4" S&W M19: .635" expansion, 16" penetration, 99% weight retention
1600 FPS from Marlin 1894c: .45" expansion, 16-8" penetration, 55% weight retention (of the recovered fragments).
Lesson: more velocity can reduce performance. Secondary lesson: the teachers of old were right about a great many things.
250789

[Rex]

My S&W 686 seems to shoot the 357446 bullet better than all others and over 13.5 grains 2400 it is a dandy. However I'll be 77 in10 more days and have arthritis in my hands that hurt, the same bullet over 6 grains Unique is just a dandy and with careful shot placement will probably kill all that I need to kill.

[txbirdman]

Rex, I knew somebody had a revolver that liked that bullet. I had the mould a few years back and tried my best to get it to work in my Model’s 19; 686; and 27 without success.

[Rex]

txbirdman,
I have tried the 358429 and 358477 but neither shoot as well for me. My Smith has really tight throats and I have to size to .357 to fit the throats. My mould is an old Ideal 2 hole and is picky as the devil about temperature to get the shoulders all square.

[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/74325-357-magnum-old-school-loads.html#/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.