357 mag neutered

[dogdoc]

I was looking through some of my old Speer manuals especially number 11 from 1987. When this one was printed they were still using 46000 cup as max pressure for the round. In the early 1990s Saami set about
35000 psi limit for 357 which I know is not convertible to cup. Anyway I was comparing load data to a current manual and noticed a significant decrease in many loads. I am sure many of the old loads at 46000 cup that I and many others used then without problems would be over the 35000 psi limit if measured now . No wonder I can now have a Smith J frame 357 mag! No doubt the 357 mag was down graded , all you have to do is look at older data. I guess it’s better for my Smith k frame magnums as well but not too worried about my n frames with older data.

Dogdoc

[Soundguy]

lots of data dropped when cup went to transducer data/psi instead.

[zarrinvz24]

38 Special is much the same, and no longer commands any of the respect it once did. I’ve noticed the Magtech 158gr factory loadings that are commonly available are only running about 1280fps from a 6” 27-2. That’s only slightly above a hot .38 reload. That’s why I have become more and more commited to casting and reloading, the ability to create .357 ammunition as Mr. Keith and Mr. Sharpe intended.

[tazman]

Being able to load hot ammunition is all well and good but, and it is a big but, the people making modern firearms are making them to current SAAMI standards. Not the standards from back in the day.
Use modern data for modern firearms. When you run hot loads you risk a lot.
If you need a more powerful cartridge, get a bigger gun.
There are lots of powerful cartridges available now that were not available to Keith and other pioneers.

[Tokarev]

All while steel quality has increased and the barrel thickness has as well, from my humble observation.

[tazman]

All while steel quality has increased and the barrel thickness has as well, from my humble observation.

Yes they have.
Still, why push the limits?
Just buy a more powerful gun.

[badguybuster]

Its not about "pushing limits". The cartridge was designed with specific potential in mind, fear of liability has caused the reduction in power.

[Char-Gar]

lots of data dropped when cup went to transducer data/psi instead.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This

[derek45]

my first reloading book was the SPEER 10

it has some stout 357mag data

….which then and now work fine my my 686’s

I don’t shoot max loads all the time, but I’m pretty sure the L-frame was designed for early 1980’s era loads


https://i.imgur.com/3O1yF38.jpg

[Tokarev]

Just buy a more powerful gun.

Each gun has its purpose. I am a 44 Mag kind of person but it does not mean that I would not use 357, and if I do, I want it to deliver what it can.

[MT Gianni]

With the 357 ammo produced today has to be safe in everything from a Winchester 92 to a Ruger LCP.

[Daekar]

This is why I am a fan of "357 Mag +P" loads in strong action firearms. The brass, primers, and boolits are very capable, it's only the pressure limits of modern firearms that hold you back. I load my 357mag Encore to modern rifle pressures on occasion and don't worry because the gun is designed for it. Of course, I make darn sure those loads are unusable in my other guns by exceeding the OAL the others will accept.

[Silvercreek Farmer]

No need to exceed current published data, book loads of Alliant 300-MP will get you to original velocities or mighty close. Accurate, too.

[downzero]

38 Special is much the same, and no longer commands any of the respect it once did. I’ve noticed the Magtech 158gr factory loadings that are commonly available are only running about 1280fps from a 6” 27-2. That’s only slightly above a hot .38 reload. That’s why I have become more and more commited to casting and reloading, the ability to create .357 ammunition as Mr. Keith and Mr. Sharpe intended.

1280 fps with that kind of payload is not even close to a 38 load. Which is understandable because even 35k psi is still ~double the pressure of a hot 38 load.


Its not about "pushing limits". The cartridge was designed with specific potential in mind, fear of liability has caused the reduction in power.

Actually, the cartridge was designed with a specific pressure in mind, based on the engineering of the gun (there was only one then). What we've learned since then with better equipment is that some of those older loads were way beyond what was anticipated for the cartridge. I suspect that's more of why the loads have pulled back, not any fear of liability, as any gun is proofed for way higher pressures than the "limit" of its cartridge.

I have reloading manuals from the 70s and 80s, and the same is true with other cartridges, even with rifles. The powders are no different; the velocities are still similar with the same load. It's the modern equipment realizing just how high those pressures are that have changed.

I don't anticipate there's much of any load that'd tear up an N frame or a Redhawk/GP 100, but there's no reason to push it--357 Magnum still has tons of power, even 80+ years after its release.

[zarrinvz24]

1280 fps with that kind of payload is not even close to a 38 load. Which is understandable because even 35k psi is still ~double the pressure of a hot 38 load.


It’s possible to approach 1100fps from a 6” Barrel using the 38+P, 20K loads. That’s not enough of a difference from the 1280 Magtech loading to really make a difference. IIRC, I believe 20K was the original pressure limit and 22.5k the original +P for .38Spl - which puts them on even more equal footing. I don’t disagree that .357 has significantly more power, I was just trying to say that in the current anemic factory loadings, it’s not loaded anywhere close to even current SAAMI spec. For most of us, and nearly any practical application - a decent .38Spl will do all we ask and then some. It is as you said, if you need more, you need to step up to a larger caliber or preferably a rifle.

[Rodfac]

Being able to load hot ammunition is all well and good but, and it is a big but, the people making modern firearms are making them to current SAAMI standards. Not the standards from back in the day.
Use modern data for modern firearms. When you run hot loads you risk a lot.
If you need a more powerful cartridge, get a bigger gun.
There are lots of powerful cartridges available now that were not available to Keith and other pioneers. Very well said...Rod

BTW, while I rarely have need for full house modern .357 loads, let alone the old barn burner offerings, I do have .357's in J, K, L, & N frame Smiths as well as a trio of Rugers. With that in mind, especially the J frame M-60 that's one of my favorite carry around the farm guns, I never load above modern data levels...there's just no need...as an example, we've put down horses with the .357, safely and with great sadness & without resorting to the much higher pressure levels of old data. Do as you wish, they're your hands and eyes...but I'm no ballistician and will happily conform to the lower limits. R

[gwpercle]

I bought my brand new 357 Magnum Ruger Blackhawk in 1970 along with a brand new up to date 1970 Speer Manual for Reloading Ammunition , Number 8 and a set of RCBS Reloading Dies and a Lyman #358156 single cavity HP !
Still have the Blackhawk , Reloading Dies , mould and Speer#8 Manual ... I have always loaded for accuracy and never got into Maximum Loads ...( except once and we stopped that foolishness ... when a load has expanded the primer pockets so much the primers keep falling out ... it's time to drop that load .)
Too old to change now ... I'll just keep on keeping on with my pet loads .

I have bought a couple newer Speer Manuals... it was here I was informed (warned) about Speer #8 ... Hey ...No One told me Speer didn't know what they were doing ... reloading testing like Elmer Keith ... the top strap blew !!!
Gary

[Jtarm]

Its not about "pushing limits". The cartridge was designed with specific potential in mind, fear of liability has caused the reduction in power.

It wasn’t fear of liability that lead to the reduction, it was the reality of guns (especially Smith K frames) being very short-lived when fed a steady diet of 46,000 CUP ammo.

Ask Outpost75 for the Border Patrol test from the 1980s.

I can’t confirm, but I’ve read that 46,000 CUP is equivalent to 43,500 PSI. So that’s a roughly 20% reduction.

[Tracy]

I have no qualms about firing original spec .357s in my GP-100. It was designed for it. The fact that there are guns that were not designed for it is of no consequence, as far as the GP is concerned.

[dogdoc]

Yea I don’t think the older loads in Speer 10 and 11 were blowing up guns. What it does for me is I don’t worry too much as I still use some old data

[dogdoc]

It wasn’t fear of liability that lead to the reduction, it was the reality of guns (especially Smith K frames) being very short-lived when fed a steady diet of 46,000 CUP ammo.

Ask Outpost75 for the Border Patrol test from the 1980s.



I can’t confirm, but I’ve read that 46,000 CUP is equivalent to 43,500 PSI. So that’s a roughly 20% reduction.

Agree, the N frames take it with no problems

[JohnH]

A discussion of the differences in copper crusher tech and piezoelectric tech is applicable here I think, with the significant difference being a measurement over time. A copper crusher sees a highest/maximum pressure (but not always), where the piezoelectric sees that pressure over time and time is what does the damage.

I find it interesting that both Smith and Wesson and Ruger introduced heavier frames and cylinders for their 357 Magnum double action platforms. The Smith 19 is no doubt a good and strong revolver. But a steady diet of full house 357 Magnum will most assuredly result in cylinder end shake, peening of the indexing pawl and bolt/bolt cut. Run long enough it will result in detectable frame stretching and there were also reports of cracked forcing cones. I don't know the failure modes of the Security Six, but it's not a great leap to understand that there was more to the shift to the GP 100 than keeping up with the Smiths, a lighter gun that was a strong would certainly have a strong selling point against the L frame.

Let us also consider that the 357 Magnum was originally offered only in the 44 or now commonly known N Frame Smith and Wesson and ol' Elmer himself said the cartridge which gave it life, the 38-44 was only intended to be used in that gun although a short time after it's introduction Colt said the SAA and the Officers Model was safe to use with those loads (Sixgun Cartridges and Loads) although I'm sure the lighter Officers Model would suffer the same failures over time Smith's K frame would.

I doubt seriously any 357 Magnum made after 1935 is going to burst with any load listed in any reloading manual regardless of pressure testing method. The question is going to be one of service life. The reductions in velocities and pressures as a result of piezoelectric pressure testing has occurred across the board, you can find examples of it in many cartridges. Alliant dropped Blue Dot from a couple of loadings in both 357 Magnum and 41 Magnum after reports of damaged guns. The data had been originally tested with copper crushers but after complaints the loads were tested with piezoelectric and they showed erratic pressures and pressure excursions. Don't just take my word for it, call 'em and ask 'em. Piezoelectric gives us a more complete picture of internal ballistics and the engineers have changed loads accordingly. If you think it's all BS, fine. Run whatever loads you like, no one is stopping you. But do understand that there are valid reasons for those changes regardless of what your biases and prejudices might be. Also understand they don't care about you or anyone else suing them because you blew up your gun with their loads. Load pressure testing is an exact science, so is metallurgy and it's a helluva a lot easier for them to prove how much pressure their loads make and how much pressure your gun will take than it is for you to prove their product is in some way defective.

[dogdoc]

A discussion of the differences in copper crusher tech and piezoelectric tech is applicable here I think, with the significant difference being a measurement over time. A copper crusher sees a highest/maximum pressure (but not always), where the piezoelectric sees that pressure over time and time is what does the damage.

I find it interesting that both Smith and Wesson and Ruger introduced heavier frames and cylinders for their 357 Magnum double action platforms. The Smith 19 is no doubt a good and strong revolver. But a steady diet of full house 357 Magnum will most assuredly result in cylinder end shake, peening of the indexing pawl and bolt/bolt cut. Run long enough it will result in detectable frame stretching and there were also reports of cracked forcing cones. I don't know the failure modes of the Security Six, but it's not a great leap to understand that there was more to the shift to the GP 100 than keeping up with the Smiths, a lighter gun that was a strong would certainly have a strong selling point against the L frame.

Let us also consider that the 357 Magnum was originally offered only in the 44 or now commonly known N Frame Smith and Wesson and ol' Elmer himself said the cartridge which gave it life, the 38-44 was only intended to be used in that gun although a short time after it's introduction Colt said the SAA and the Officers Model was safe to use with those loads (Sixgun Cartridges and Loads) although I'm sure the lighter Officers Model would suffer the same failures over time Smith's K frame would.

I doubt seriously any 357 Magnum made after 1935 is going to burst with any load listed in any reloading manual regardless of pressure testing method. The question is going to be one of service life. The reductions in velocities and pressures as a result of piezoelectric pressure testing has occurred across the board, you can find examples of it in many cartridges. Alliant dropped Blue Dot from a couple of loadings in both 357 Magnum and 41 Magnum after reports of damaged guns. The data had been originally tested with copper crushers but after complaints the loads were tested with piezoelectric and they showed erratic pressures and pressure excursions. Don't just take my word for it, call 'em and ask 'em. Piezoelectric gives us a more complete picture of internal ballistics and the engineers have changed loads accordingly. If you think it's all BS, fine. Run whatever loads you like, no one is stopping you. But do understand that there are valid reasons for those changes regardless of what your biases and prejudices might be. Also understand they don't care about you or anyone else suing them because you blew up your gun with their loads. Load pressure testing is an exact science, so is metallurgy and it's a helluva a lot easier for them to prove how much pressure their loads make and how much pressure your gun will take than it is for you to prove their product is in some way defective.

No doubt piezo is a better method of measurement but my point is that the 46000 cup loads, when tested on piezo equipment, are likely greater than 35000 psi( the new standard ). Those older loads (likely higher psi than 35000) did not blow up 357 mag guns now or then. I do believe that is why Smith 19s had some problems and most likely so would smith j frame magnums today. Regardless the old original 357 mag loads were hotter than what is recommended today. I think it was lowered to be easier on guns

[35remington]

If you look at the 38 Special data in the Speer #8 you’ll realize that yes, the Speer technicians really didn’t know what they were doing.

[BunkTheory]

The gun companies started making snub nosed 357 magnums, and using light weight material like scandium alloys, etc, that created the real problems..

1. making guns that cannot survive regular usage of regular magnum ammunition. Saw on the smith forum that the 357 magnum jframe was only rated for 3,000 of "factory magnum ammunition" before the frame would need replacement. Also that 5,000 38+p before it needed a new frame.

2. load data has been reduced. even 38 special.. Consider the alliant load data, It has the older school alliant data for 357 magnum, it lists charges slightly higher then some current manuals... but the alliant customer support still say its safe to use.



Consider this, CIP uses the ORIGINAL chamber pressure from the day the 357 magnum was adopted. As a result its about 10,000 units of pressure higher then SAAMI.. yet all handguns made say to use SAAMI OR CIP factory ammunition.

[gunther]

There have been threads on this site dealing with GP100 problems, but I can't remember seeing a thread on Security Six problems.
And, if you lay the Speer #8 manual out next to Dean Grennell's first "Pistol & Revolver Digest", you will notice that Bill Caldwell, a Speer engineer, was probably using a piezo equipped M27 to develop the 357 data.

[Daekar]

1. making guns that cannot survive regular usage of regular magnum ammunition. Saw on the smith forum that the 357 magnum jframe was only rated for 3,000 of "factory magnum ammunition" before the frame would need replacement. Also that 5,000 38+p before it needed a new frame.

Is that figure for the aluminum frame guns? Because if those numbers are for my steel frame Mod. 60 I am going to be a bit pissed. 3000 rounds is nothing, a disposable toy...

[tazman]

Is that figure for the aluminum frame guns? Because if those numbers are for my steel frame Mod. 60 I am going to be a bit pissed. 3000 rounds is nothing, a disposable toy...

That is one of the reasons my Model 60 only sees 38 Special ammunition. I also don't shoot it nearly as much as my other revolvers.
I will put over 3000 rounds of 38 Special ammo through some of my revolvers over just the winter months.
J frame Smiths simply do not have the quantity of metal in them the larger framed revolvers do. They cannot be as durable. Even K frame Smiths wear out eventually with light loads.
For durability and comfort when shooting large quantities of ammunition, it is hard to beat the L frames.

[megasupermagnum]

It's amusing to me that there is always someone who is huge on hot rodding 44 special, and especially 45 colt, often doubling, sometimes tripling the pressure those cartridges and guns were originally meant for. Yet when someone mentions loading a 357 magnum to levels it was originally meant for, and all but a couple of guns were designed for, you are suddenly taking a huge risk.

Any 357 magnum sold today in Europe is held to the CIP standards. Their standard is 3000 BAR, A.K.A. 43,511 PSI. That's on par with what the magnum handgun cartridges always have been. 41 and 44 magnums slightly less, 327 federal slightly more.

If 357 magnum data and ammo was loaded right up to todays SAMMI voluntary standard of 35,000 psi, then it might not be that bad, but most data and ammo is shy of even that. Some of it as mentioned is downright pathetic. Some is very fast even at 35,000 psi, like Buffalo Bore ammo.

I try to load my ammo for best accuracy, and a lot of the time that comes above the SAMMI standard, although not always.

[charlie b]

Load what you want. It's your gun.

I rarely load to max these days. As stated above, if I want more energy on target I'll get a different gun. And a .357 loaded a bit below max is more than enough for anything I do. Historically I have used Sierra and the powder mfgs load data.

[charlie b]

PS gun strength. When I bought a Taurus 805 years ago the barrel was labeled 125gn max. Even at that a couple of screws would 'shoot loose' with near max loads.

About the same time a gunsmith friend had a customer bring in a Dan Wesson and said it didn't shoot straight anymore. He also brought in a box of ammo he reloaded. Gunsmith took the gun out to test fire. Dropped in a cartridge and it 'rattled' back and forth. Unloaded the gun and measured significant enlarging of the cylinders. Pulled apart one of the reloads. It was packed full with powder. When asked the customer said it was Bullseye!!!! Customer had shot several boxes of those reloads through the pistol. Gunsmith advised him to send it back to the mfg and he did. DW sent him a nice letter that said the gun could not be repaired and they gave him a partial refund on the pistol. They also said in nice words that they were not returning the pistol and didn't want him to buy another of their products :)

So, yeah, a lot of difference in strength of pistols made for the .357Mag.

[BunkTheory]

It's amusing to me that there is always someone who is huge on hot rodding 44 special, and especially 45 colt, often doubling, sometimes tripling the pressure those cartridges and guns were originally meant for. Yet when someone mentions loading a 357 magnum to levels it was originally meant for, and all but a couple of guns were designed for, you are suddenly taking a huge risk.

Any 357 magnum sold today in Europe is held to the CIP standards. Their standard is 3000 BAR, A.K.A. 43,511 PSI. That's on par with what the magnum handgun cartridges always have been. 41 and 44 magnums slightly less, 327 federal slightly more.

If 357 magnum data and ammo was loaded right up to todays SAMMI voluntary standard of 35,000 psi, then it might not be that bad, but most data and ammo is shy of even that. Some of it as mentioned is downright pathetic. Some is very fast even at 35,000 psi, like Buffalo Bore ammo.

I try to load my ammo for best accuracy, and a lot of the time that comes above the SAMMI standard, although not always.

Yeah i know what your trying to say... its completely FINE to get a ruger redhawk or super black hawk, and load that 45 long colt up to starting level 454 CASULL all day long,,,

But to load up a 357 magnum to original pressure is like soooo freaking wrong its not funny. Seriously, if its labelled as a 357 magnum,, its supposed to handle the chamber pressure.

SAAMI still insists on a a gun being able to survive a 125 to 150% overage in daily use. IE 125% of the max average pressure. thus for a 10,000 cup or psi cartridge the gun NEEDS to survive at least 12,500 cup or psi all day long.

[BunkTheory]

the taurus ammo designations are not about chamber pressure but are about bullet weight and VELOCITY

i believe the standard bullet restriction for taurus is 125 grain 357 magnum at 1250 fps... though in some situations you CAN get 38 special cases hitting that velocity threshold... Super Vel...

[tazman]

I remember the old 357 mag Super Vel loads. I had them blow the side out of a forcing cone for me in a 357 mag revolver I had back in the early to middle 70s.
Fortunately, the manufacturer of the revolver replaced the gun.

[charlie b]

....
SAAMI still insists on a a gun being able to survive a 125 to 150% overage in daily use. IE 125% of the max average pressure. thus for a 10,000 cup or psi cartridge the gun NEEDS to survive at least 12,500 cup or psi all day long.

I am trying to find where this is in the SAAMI specs. SAAMI lists pressures for the different cartridges and then shows how to calculate proof loads, but, no where do I find a spec for how many proof rounds a gun must endure before failing. For that matter I do not see anything about firearm life cycles.

https://saami.org/technical-information/ansi-saami-standards/

If I am wrong please show me the SAAMI documents describing this or any reference of that nature.

[Bigslug]

The thing currently vexing ME on this topic is that you have to to search for the government warehouse storing the Ark of the Covenant to find the "in between" loading data for the .38/44 HD loads that ultimately gave birth to the longer .357 case.

My personal situation is that my NOE/Ranch Dog 175grain tumble lube bullet of choice will chamber fine when loaded in a .357 case in a S&W, but it snugs up against the throats in DA Rugers. Since I'm not wanting full-tilt .357's anyway, the "hot Special" .38 HD route is valid, HOWEVER. . .

We can find manuals publishing three different loading levels for the .45-70 - with appropriate warnings - based on the different guns you can shoot it through, and the .45 Colt is rather similar. Why then do we have to go on an archaeological dig to fill in the cavernous gap between where the vintage M&P .38 loads quit and the .357's start?

[Tokarev]

IMO it is really about the gun and primer rather than brass, when it comes to maximum pressures. A primer would give up, first. A gun would give up, second. Brass would give up, last.
Count the bullets!
292176

[roverboy]

There have been threads on this site dealing with GP100 problems, but I can't remember seeing a thread on Security Six problems.
And, if you lay the Speer #8 manual out next to Dean Grennell's first "ABC's of Handloading", you will notice that Bill Cauldwell, a Speer engineer, was probably using a piezo equipped M27 to develop the 357 data.

I've got a Security Six and have put a few "HOT" handloads through it, and no problems so far. never went over what the manuals say. I've loaded 16.0 gr. H110 with CCI 550 and 158 gr. Rem. JHP and Cast 158 gr. FP with no problems. No extraction problems or flattened primers. 2400 is another powder that as long as you use your brain, won't get you into trouble.

[BunkTheory]

I am trying to find where this is in the SAAMI specs. SAAMI lists pressures for the different cartridges and then shows how to calculate proof loads, but, no where do I find a spec for how many proof rounds a gun must endure before failing. For that matter I do not see anything about firearm life cycles.

https://saami.org/technical-information/ansi-saami-standards/

If I am wrong please show me the SAAMI documents describing this or any reference of that nature.

Every CHAMBER of a fire arm... ie if a double barrel shotgun, both barrels get a proof load, If your using a single shot you get 1 round loaded in.. A revolver gets one in every chamber.

Have seen in the CIP data at least, that the european proof testing using a standard " magazine" of proof ammunition now adays.

As far as SAAMI goes, the rule that the Gun companies are required to follow is that the fire arms MUST be able to survive ROUTINE usage of ammunition that hits 125 to 150% of MAXIMUM AVERAGE PRESSURE for the cartridge.

Thus if the SAAMI 357 magnum

http://www.lasc.us/SAAMIMaxPressure.htm

357 Magnum - 35,000
357 Remington Max - 40,000

is taken into account and put into that industry agreement,, the 357 magnum revolver needs to survive routine usage of loads hitting 43,750 to 52,500 PSI. If you notice thats well in the 41 magnum and 357 Rem Max..

That is for CHAMBERS/CYLINDERS and NOT the frame

[BunkTheory]

The thing currently vexing ME on this topic is that you have to to search for the government warehouse storing the Ark of the Covenant to find the "in between" loading data for the .38/44 HD loads that ultimately gave birth to the longer .357 case.

My personal situation is that my NOE/Ranch Dog 175grain tumble lube bullet of choice will chamber fine when loaded in a .357 case in a S&W, but it snugs up against the throats in DA Rugers. Since I'm not wanting full-tilt .357's anyway, the "hot Special" .38 HD route is valid, HOWEVER. . .

We can find manuals publishing three different loading levels for the .45-70 - with appropriate warnings - based on the different guns you can shoot it through, and the .45 Colt is rather similar. Why then do we have to go on an archaeological dig to fill in the cavernous gap between where the vintage M&P .38 loads quit and the .357's start?

If you look really carefully at loading data for 357 and 38 +p and for the 38/44,,

You can safely load 38/44 using the Lyman cast bullet books, just compare with their 38+p data.

But overall, alot of 38/44 data is being sold on teh commercial market as law enforcemetn only and "+p+" boutique ammunition.

[Ithaca Gunner]

Some things to consider, some people won't read warning labels. Make them as big and colorful as you like, but still, some will ignore them. Another thing is with handgun reloading in particular is when most of the ''old'' data was figured we/they were using lead bullets to reload our handgun ammo exclusively. Another thing is, some cartridges which we view as ''modern'' really aren't, many preceding the First World War, (none of our magnums certainly) when steel and design weren't up to modern post WWII standards.

With a handgun I have two things I look for above all when loading, accuracy and bullet performance. In my old S&W M&P .38spl. a load of 4gr. Bullseye under a 158gr. bullet is as wild as it gets and rightfully so. It's reasonably accurate and bullet performance is about as good as it gets in the old gal, so be it.
I don't currently own a .357 Magnum, but my last one was a S&W 4'' M-28 and the load I liked was a 125gr, JHP at around 1,450fps. Easy to get in a longer barrels with slow burning powders, not so easy without going into the red zone with faster powders in a short barrel. In my .44 Magnum, S&W 4'' 629-3 the revolver I carry most, I don't feel a need to ''go over'' published data with an RCBS 250gr. Kieth bullet, 1,150fps is fine. My .45 Colts are ancient and I load accordingly, a 1898 Bisley and a 1904 New Service.

Where I get some fingers shaken at me is with my .38 Super loads in my custom built Colt Gov't Model. It's a Colt in slide only, (new SS series 80 slide) the frame is SS also and of the Para ramp type. The mainspring is several pounds heavier which retards the slide slightly and is fitted with a ''Fire Dragon'' recoil management system and a 20lb. recoil spring. The loading is what I expect from a 4'' .357 Magnum, a 124gr. Hornady Xtp at just over 1,450fps. RED ZONE? Nope! It's a standard load using VV N105 powder. Point is, most of the old loadings can be safely reached with newer powders we have today. The old 130gr. FMJ load for the super at 1,310fps now dumbed down to around 1,200fps from the factorys? Yes, with several modern powders the old 130gr. automobile perferator not only reaches the old 1,300fps line, but goes all but 1,400fps! (1,388fps-VV N105 1,385-IMR Blue-published) You have to dig a little for the new powders, but pre-dummed down velocities can be reached or extended safely in published loads.

Where I might really get scolded is in my 7mm Mauser rifle loads. I ignore ''modern'' data developed for the old 1893 Spanish Mausers in mind. I don't own an 1893 Spanish Mauser. Mine are modern Interarms Mark X and Winchester M-70 rifles. Why would I restrict myself to load data for old soft steel rifles? I use data from my Ideal/Lyman manual number 39, (1953) which used a Winchester M-54 and clearly warns the loads are NOT safe in a Spanish Mauser. There we are, those people who ignore warnings, or don't read them. I get 200-250fps faster than any modern published manual provides for the 7mm Mauser.

The purpose of this rant is, you can get your old ballistics and then some with some of the newer powders, use the old data, which seemed to work fine in the day, or venture out on your own and take your chances. Experimenting is fine, long as you know the gun's limitations and load accordingly, I'm not going to risk a fine antique Colt Bisley with any smokeless load no matter how mild. I'll push my .38 Super and 10mm to near max with the new powders though, as well as my 7mm Mausers with the older powders knowing the ballistics in the new strong actions will hold as well as a .280 Remington.

[charlie b]

.....As far as SAAMI goes, the rule that the Gun companies are required to follow is that the fire arms MUST be able to survive ROUTINE usage of ammunition that hits 125 to 150% of MAXIMUM AVERAGE PRESSURE for the cartridge. ....

I still cannot find any information that relates to firearms design. I can only find specifications on the cartridges and proof loads.

Could you point me to it somewhere?

This is where I am looking. Am I missing something?

https://saami.org/

[9.3X62AL]

90% of my magnum revolver loading these days consists of loads well under SAAMI recommendations. A standard-weight-for-caliber cast plain-based SWC at 900-1000 FPS is a right useful loading, and these do not beat your hands or drill your eardrums during firing. My more intrepid loadings go into the big Rugers, Redhawks and Blackhawks.

[Walks]

I've loaded using data from the old Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook and Magnum primers. Even in a NM Blackhawk w/ 6 1/2" bbl, those loads will wake you up. And I've shot many thousands of the Max 2400, W630 & W296 using both cast and jacketed 158gr bullets in a #151 series Ruger Security-Six with 6"bbl. The Revolver is as tight as the day I bought it in 1976, no end-shake either.
I used to load the Saeco #354 180gr FPGC over a Max charge of either Blue Dot or W296 W/ Magnum primer.
As much as I like the .44Mag & .454Casull, I guess My 1st love will always be the .357Mag; loaded HOT in a M27 or NM Blackhawk.
If I'm going to download the .357Mag, I'm going to go all the way down to .38Spl in a .38 case. For me it's full power or not at all.

[BunkTheory]

start reading

https://saami.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ANSI-SAAMI-Z299.3-CFP-and-R-Approved-2015-12-14-Posting-Copy.pdf

page 190

Youll notice in the charts that 9mm luger no longer exits, its all to 115 grain 9mm +p proof standard.

38 special proof loads are all done to 38 special +p proof loads

[gwpercle]

If you look at the 38 Special data in the Speer #8 you’ll realize that yes, the Speer technicians really didn’t know what they were doing.

LIKE !
I'm hitting our like button ...

I didn't know that they didn't know ... Luckily I never played the maximum overdrive game ...
There's a lot to be said for starting low and working up slow !

Gary ...

[robertbank]

90% of my magnum revolver loading these days consists of loads well under SAAMI recommendations. A standard-weight-for-caliber cast plain-based SWC at 900-1000 FPS is a right useful loading, and these do not beat your hands or drill your eardrums during firing. My more intrepid loadings go into the big Rugers, Redhawks and Blackhawks.

Not sure the ageing process always adds wisdom but sore wrists speaks to reality. Nothing I shoot at or might shoot at will do much walking about when 150,-180gr of lead passes through them at between 900 - 1,000 fps. Much more than that and the wrists remind me how old I am but nothing about how smart I might be.

Take Care

Bob

[JohnH]

start reading

https://saami.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ANSI-SAAMI-Z299.3-CFP-and-R-Approved-2015-12-14-Posting-Copy.pdf

page 190

Youll notice in the charts that 9mm luger no longer exits, its all to 115 grain 9mm +p proof standard.

38 special proof loads are all done to 38 special +p proof loads

Well and good. But where do you find any language that says a firearm must stand a steady diet of proof loads? The whole concept of proof loads is to overload the chamber one time with the knowledge that it will not see those pressures again, the idea being that if it will stand the proof load it will surely stand a diet of the normal load. From page 198 of your referenced link,

HIGH PRESSURE PROOF LOADS
For Gun Manufacturers' Proof Test Use Only: Fire only from fixed rest with operator properly
protected from injury should the firearm be damaged. Purchaser should restrict proof loads to
manufacturing premises. To dispose of proof loads, contact producer for instructions.

I do not for a moment think the standard is that a gun withstand a steady diet of proof loads. Far from it, it is obvious from just these few sentences that SAAMI considers proof loads to be in excess of the design parameters of normal use. So just where do you find the statement from SAAMI that a gun be manufactured to withstand a steady diet of proof loads?

[Outpost75]

Is that figure for the aluminum frame guns? Because if those numbers are for my steel frame Mod. 60 I am going to be a bit pissed. 3000 rounds is nothing, a disposable toy...

The USBP tests of S&W 65 back in the 1980s produced the same results

[Outpost75]

I am trying to find where this is in the SAAMI specs. SAAMI lists pressures for the different cartridges and then shows how to calculate proof loads, but, no where do I find a spec for how many proof rounds a gun must endure before failing. For that matter I do not see anything about firearm life cycles.

https://saami.org/technical-information/ansi-saami-standards/

If I am wrong please show me the SAAMI documents describing this or any reference of that nature.

There is nothing in SAAMI about the number of proof loads a gun should endure before failure, but as a cost saving measure, when I was at Ruger I got the government's contracting representative to sign off on firing an " accelerated endurance test" of 366 proof loads instead of daily selecting a gun and running 5000 full charge 158-grain .357 service loads through it. The gun had to gage up and pass ultrasonic and x-ray inspection afterwards, as well as Magnaflux using the wet method with continuous circular magnetization.

The Service Six was and is a stout gun.

[charlie b]

That's a pretty nice savings.

Did you do any figuring on the chambers still being in the elastic regime with the proof loads before offering this?

The life cycle testing is a long standing 'feature' of govt contracts. Sometimes I wonder how they come up with the 2000, 5000, or 10,000 cycle numbers. Having written a few RFP's the specs can be just a 'sounds good' number, and, as long as the contractors don't object, it stays in there. Did have one where the contractors said, 'no way', so we revised the RFP. Then I was on the 'other side' and raised the same kind of concern on a couple of RFPs that were later revised.

[smkummer]

90% of my magnum revolver loading these days consists of loads well under SAAMI recommendations. A standard-weight-for-caliber cast plain-based SWC at 900-1000 FPS is a right useful loading, and these do not beat your hands or drill your eardrums during firing. My more intrepid loadings go into the big Rugers, Redhawks and Blackhawks.

There was a time many years ago that 1000fps, 1500fps, 2000fps and 3000fps and so on were goals of mine. I used to look at several reloading manuals for the hottest load with a certain powder/bullet combinations. That was then.

A 357 158 SP or HP @ 1260 FPS is still a powerful round for what it was intended. My bulk range ammo for 357 is a cast lead 158 SWC going out at 1100-1150 in my 6” guns. My Marlin 1894 micro groove loves it as well. This cleanly punches through a VW Jetta front hood with a 4” handgun. Very user friendly. Currently my only use for a 357 125 JHP is to blow up 2 liter soda bottles.

[tazman]

There was a time many years ago that 1000fps, 1500fps, 2000fps and 3000fps and so on were goals of mine. I used to look at several reloading manuals for the hottest load with a certain powder/bullet combinations. That was then.

A 357 158 SP or HP @ 1260 FPS is still a powerful round for what it was intended. My bulk range ammo for 357 is a cast lead 158 SWC going out at 1100-1150 in my 6” guns. My Marlin 1894 micro groove loves it as well. This cleanly punches through a VW Jetta front hood with a 4” handgun. Very user friendly. Currently my only use for a 357 125 JHP is to blow up 2 liter soda bottles.

I understand completely.
I live in Illinois. I don't hunt with a handgun. The most dangerous thing I am likely to run across is either a feral dog, the possible cougar, or a dangerous human.
What will a high speed handgun bullet accomplish against any of these that a bullet/boolit moving at 1100-1200 fps will not?
Other than punching a hole in something on the other side of what I am aiming at.

If you have a need for that power where you live and hunt, great. I still think you would be better served by a larger caliber handgun.

[Rodfac]

What will a high speed handgun bullet accomplish against any of these that a bullet/boolit moving at 1100-1200 fps will not? Other than punching a hole in something on the other side of what I am aiming at. If you have a need for that power where you live and hunt, great. I still think you would be better served by a larger caliber handgun. Well said Taz....my thoughts exactly. Rod

[BunkTheory]

no one gets offended by whats his name hunting with a hopped up 327 federal magnum. ballistically the 327 is dragging behind the now lowly 357 magnum

[BunkTheory]

most would admit the 44 caliber percussion revolver is not the hot shot it used to be, ballistically it IS considered to be a "standard 38 special wadcutter" on ballistics tables.

NO ONE cares about those guys on here who go hunting with one, nor do they point out they arent using the best option. After all its that magical .4 bullet diameter and there are internet genuius who are claiming 9-1100 fps with a 180 grain conical in a colt 1860. and 700 foot pounds of muzzle energy.

[megasupermagnum]

I'm not saying you can't, but I don't see that kind of speed from my Ruger old army. Using a round ball, I've seen 850 fps with Goex. You could do a little better with certain powders, but 1000 fps with a conical seems optimistic. Legally, they are not allowed in muzzleloading seasons anywhere I've hunted, and even the firearms seasons, they are gray area at best, so it is not likely I'm ever going to try one out. A regular cap and ball revolver is definitely on the weak end of things, but a round ball is a surprisingly good bullet, possibly the best hunting bullet you can use, so I'd never bet against it being effective.

[charlie b]

You could probably use the ROA here in NM. Muzzleloaders have to be .45 cal or larger for any big game. Might have to get a gunsmith to remark the barrel for you.

[BunkTheory]

michigan allows it solely for fact bullet size is over 38 special.

[Outpost75]

Every CHAMBER of a fire arm... ie if a double barrel shotgun, both barrels get a proof load, If your using a single shot you get 1 round loaded in.. A revolver gets one in every chamber...



Unless you were S&W "cheating" on the proof testing of Customs and Border Patrol contract revolvers in the 1980s and you got caught at it. They had to resubmit the entire lot of revolvers for reproofing in the presence of the Government's contract representative. The number of failures on reproof was appalling...

I cannot confirm, but expect it was common practice to use one proof load and five regular service loads to save a buck or two on their normal commercial production during that period, judging from the number of failed S&W cylinders observed from that era. This was no secret and well documented.

[M-Tecs]

Every CHAMBER of a fire arm... ie if a double barrel shotgun, both barrels get a proof load, If your using a single shot you get 1 round loaded in.. A revolver gets one in every chamber.

Have seen in the CIP data at least, that the european proof testing using a standard " magazine" of proof ammunition now adays.



SAAMI nor the US manufactures have any such requirements. Several European Countries require 100% proof testing by independent proof houses and they are stamped accordingly. In the US proof testing is normally done inhouse and is 100% voluntary.

What each manufacture does varies greatly. Some function test each firearm with SAAMI spec ammo, some test with proof loads in random samples/or all and some don't function test or proof test with live ammo in the majority of firearms they ship. That is for civilian sales. Government Contracts may have additional requirements.




As far as SAAMI goes, the rule that the Gun companies are required to follow is that the fire arms MUST be able to survive ROUTINE usage of ammunition that hits 125 to 150% of MAXIMUM AVERAGE PRESSURE for the cartridge.

Thus if the SAAMI 357 magnum

http://www.lasc.us/SAAMIMaxPressure.htm

357 Magnum - 35,000
357 Remington Max - 40,000

is taken into account and put into that industry agreement,, the 357 magnum revolver needs to survive routine usage of loads hitting 43,750 to 52,500 PSI. If you notice thats well in the 41 magnum and 357 Rem Max..

That is for CHAMBERS/CYLINDERS and NOT the frame

Please site your sources?????????????

[Outpost75]

That's a pretty nice savings.

Did you do any figuring on the chambers still being in the elastic regime with the proof loads before offering this?

The life cycle testing is a long standing 'feature' of govt contracts. Sometimes I wonder how they come up with the 2000, 5000, or 10,000 cycle numbers. Having written a few RFP's the specs can be just a 'sounds good' number, and, as long as the contractors don't object, it stays in there. Did have one where the contractors said, 'no way', so we revised the RFP. Then I was on the 'other side' and raised the same kind of concern on a couple of RFPs that were later revised.

Company at the time was sponsoring two engineering graduate students at MIT who did the finite element analysis and comparisons of two revolvers having been through the standard proof and 5000 round endurance vs. the proposed accelerated endurance test. Their results were reviewed by Picatinny Arsenal and Rock Island before the change was approved.

[downzero]

It’s possible to approach 1100fps from a 6” Barrel using the 38+P, 20K loads. That’s not enough of a difference from the 1280 Magtech loading to really make a difference. IIRC, I believe 20K was the original pressure limit and 22.5k the original +P for .38Spl - which puts them on even more equal footing. I don’t disagree that .357 has significantly more power, I was just trying to say that in the current anemic factory loadings, it’s not loaded anywhere close to even current SAAMI spec. For most of us, and nearly any practical application - a decent .38Spl will do all we ask and then some. It is as you said, if you need more, you need to step up to a larger caliber or preferably a rifle.

I don't have a 6" 38 Special, but I have doubts that can be done within 38 Special +P pressure limits. Either way 357 Magnum is way more powerful even out of a 4" barrel with the same payload.

[BunkTheory]

I don't have a 6" 38 Special, but I have doubts that can be done within 38 Special +P pressure limits. Either way 357 Magnum is way more powerful even out of a 4" barrel with the same payload.

Well in the world of fun stuff, it can be done.

COnsider how in the smith and wesson forums they like to discuss barrels that are somehow FASTER then others, and some barrels that are slower then others.

Consider how that the ruger black hawks chambered in 45 ACP actually experience an average increase of 100FPS over the same load fired in a standard size 1911 due to the chamber design in the cylinder..

MOST factory ammunition is tested at 4" for 38 special.. so if the box says 920fps in a 4 inch barrel, should my 6 inch barrel not at least break 1000?

[tazman]

MOST factory ammunition is tested at 4" for 38 special.. so if the box says 920fps in a 4 inch barrel, should my 6 inch barrel not at least break 1000?

You would think so but that often is not the case.
I had a S&W 686 with the 8 3/8" barrel that consistently shot slower than any other shorter barreled revolver I owned using identical loads. Sometimes by as much as 150 fps. Notice the operative word "had".
It should not happen that way, but it sometimes does. Handguns make their own rules.

[charlie b]

Company at the time was sponsoring two engineering graduate students at MIT who did the finite element analysis and comparisons of two revolvers having been through the standard proof and 5000 round endurance vs. the proposed accelerated endurance test. Their results were reviewed by Picatinny Arsenal and Rock Island before the change was approved.

Kinda figured that would be the case :) Didn't think the company would risk that much without analysis.

[M-Tecs]

Well in the world of fun stuff, it can be done.

COnsider how in the smith and wesson forums they like to discuss barrels that are somehow FASTER then others, and some barrels that are slower then others.

Consider how that the ruger black hawks chambered in 45 ACP actually experience an average increase of 100FPS over the same load fired in a standard size 1911 due to the chamber design in the cylinder..

MOST factory ammunition is tested at 4" for 38 special.. so if the box says 920fps in a 4 inch barrel, should my 6 inch barrel not at least break 1000?

Most factory 45 ACP revolvers and pistols have SAAMI spec chambers. They do have different throats.

I do personally own two USFA 45 Colt/45 ACP and a total of 6 Ruger's with the 45 ACP cylinders. All in 5 1/2. None of them exhibit you claimed "average increase of 100FPS over the same load fired in a standard size 1911 due to the chamber design in the cylinder" per my chronograph. Infact they show the normal expected cylinder gap velocity variations. I do have 1911 45 ACPs in both 5" and 6" for comparison. I also have Contender barrels 45 ACP but they are longer so can't do a direct comparison.

I do have Dan Wessons that I have checked cylinder gap velocity differences that I have compared to Contenders of the same length but not in 45 ACP. Never seen a cylinder gap gun including Ruger's that showed anything like a 100 FPS increase. They all showed the normal and predictable loss. What are you basing your claim on???

Some actual test results here that mirror my testing http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/gaptests.html

[zarrinvz24]

You would think so but that often is not the case.
I had a S&W 686 with the 8 3/8" barrel that consistently shot slower than any other shorter barreled revolver I owned using identical loads. Sometimes by as much as 150 fps. Notice the operative word "had".
It should not happen that way, but it sometimes does. Handguns make their own rules.

I would imagine that the powder you were utilizing is a big part of that. Some of the faster powders are expended before the bullet departs the barrel, this is why 22LR rifles can demonstrate slower velocity with some of the longer rifles like Match rifles. The extended distance between the front and rear sight are worth the drop in velocity in that case.

If you are using fast powders like Bullseye and W231, I could see instances like this happening - or in factory loadings. Did you ever try handloads with full charge of H110/W296 or 2400?

[Outpost75]

MOST factory ammunition is tested at 4" for 38 special.. so if the box says 920fps in a 4 inch barrel, should my 6 inch barrel not at least break 1000?

The 4-inch vented test barrel was generally used only when required under terms of a government contract. Most ordinary commercial .38 Special ammo these days is qualified in a 6-inch solid industrial test barrel. Some ammo still get tested in the 4-inch vented test barrel, but you can confirm that going to the law enforcement data sites for the various manufacturers.

[Walks]

If all revolvers are fully pressure tested ?
Then why in the 1990's did I see so many Smith & Wesson stainless steel revolvers with only 2 chambers of their cylinders darkened with powder residue ?

[tazman]

I would imagine that the powder you were utilizing is a big part of that. Some of the faster powders are expended before the bullet departs the barrel, this is why 22LR rifles can demonstrate slower velocity with some of the longer rifles like Match rifles. The extended distance between the front and rear sight are worth the drop in velocity in that case.

If you are using fast powders like Bullseye and W231, I could see instances like this happening - or in factory loadings. Did you ever try handloads with full charge of H110/W296 or 2400?

The loads tested were factory magnum 158 grain bullet loads. I also tested some of my 296 and 4227 loads. Same result.
They were all tested the same day over the same chronograph using revolvers with different barrel lengths using the same boxes of ammunition.
I was expecting the long barrel to give higher velocities but it didn't happen.
The other revolvers were S&W 686 with a 6 inch barrel and a model 19 with a 4 inch barrel. Both were faster than the long barrel.
The long barreled 686 had less than 100 rounds through it. The others had much higher round counts.

[Outpost75]

if all revolvers are fully pressure tested ?
Then why in the 1990's did i see so many smith & wesson stainless steel revolvers with only 2 chambers of their cylinders darkened with powder residue ?

bingo! Give that man a cigar!!!!

[Outpost75]

You cannot make a valid comparison of velocity vs. barrel length without knowing the barrel-cylinder gap. I have measured new S&Ws in gun shops with BCG of 0.010", which today is factory spec. 20 years ago that would have been rejected for an "open front gage" condition. A gap of 0.010" in .357 will result in a velocity loss of 60-80 fps, depending upon amunition type, compared to a gun at Mean Assembly Tolerance pass .005/hold .006".

[tazman]

You cannot make a valid comparison of velocity vs. barrel length without knowing the barrel-cylinder gap. I have measured new S&Ws in gun shops with BCG of 0.010", which today is factory spec. 20 years ago that would have been rejected for an "open front gage" condition. A gap of 0.010" in .357 will result in a velocity loss of 60-80 fps, depending upon amunition type, compared to a gun at Mean Assembly Tolerance pass .005/hold .006".

I suspect that was the issue. This particular revolver was a 686-3. Old enough it should have been manufactured to good tolerances. I didn't have a bore scope at the time so I don't know the condition of the inside of the barrel. I also never measured the gap.
It was accurate enough but not sufficient to overcome the expectations of velocity. I was planning to use it deer hunting and the velocity drop was a deal breaker for me. My 6" 686+ was easier to carry and just as accurate.
Since I didn't want to spend money correcting any issues it had, it went down the road.

[Harter66]

There are like 6 cartridges that have a direct conversion from CUP (copper units of pressure) measured with a case vent against a copper pellet then measured on a scale like a BHP hardness tester only for expansion/compression and direct port or piezoelectric PSI (Pounds per Square Inch) .

Lead units of pressure in 12,16,& 20 ga are close to psi up to about 12,000 psi .
Rem Nitro Steel is rated at 1050 BAR right on the cases that converts to 15,000 psi . That ain't the old 13,000 LUP number ......

For what it's worth the data in my 69 ,72 ,74 and 86 Hornady manual remained in changed .

[robertbank]

Not sure if this adds to the conversation but here are two result comparisons:

14.5 gr of 4227 20" Rossi 1606fps 170gr 358429
14.5 gr of 4227 4.4" GP-100 1044fps 170gr 358429

14 gr of 2400 20" Rossi 1764fps 155gr 358156GC
14 gr of 2400 4.2" GP-100 1346fps 155gr 358156GC

Take Care

Bob

PS: Rossi is now down the road. Now have a Remlin 1894CS

[blue32]

I've seen the data discrepancies but I also suspect powder like 2400 is a bit faster burning than that of old. Once I took my 686 to the top I got a bigger gun - a 480. 1,045 loads later and I doubt I will ever need to test the limits.

[curioushooter]

I am glad you discovered this.

And yes, the lower powered magnum rounds are much easier on said firearms.

It wasn't just 357. 44 and 41 Mag also had power reductions.

IMO they were loaded too hot to begin with at the factories. Elmer Keith nailed it with his loads for the heavy 38 & 44 special. And his 44 Mag had reduced power from the factory loadings.

I've only tested one or two shots of a full Keith load of 17 grains of 2400 behind a 255-260 grain SWC in 44 special. 16.5 grains propels it over 1200 FPS in both my 5.5" Blackhawk and 6.5" 624. That's plenty.

I will tell you that I like this brilliant load a whole lot more than the 26 grains of 296 I used to put behind 265 grain RNFP in my SuperBlackhawk. That was a brutal and un-fun load. Not very accurate either, from what I could tell. It basically retarded my development in shooting by about 5 years. And does it have greater killing effect? Doubtful. All the gel I've shot and every deer body I've processed has led me to the conclusion that little is gained here. The bullet is the same size. Both of these loads will perforate a deer at basically any angle at ranges revolvers like this can be effectively used. The wound and related blood loss will be very similar, perhaps indistinguishable. Frankly, the very mild skeeter load (7.5 grains of Unique with a ~255 grain SWC), will probable do the same.

And just consider efficiency. My memory may be a little poor here, and since my shooting jorunal was lost in 2014, I have to work from memeory. But here you go:

26 grains of 296 with a 265 Grain cast RNFP went about 1300 FPS in my 7.5" barreled New Model Bisley SuperBlackhawk 44 Magnum. (I sold this long ago swearing off 44 mag in the process only to come back to that caliber years later).

16.5 grains of 2400 goes about 1200 FPS in my 5.5" barreled "flattop" New Model Bisley Blackhawk. Same loads clips 1250 FPS in my 6.5" S&W 624. Both in 44 Special.

7.5 grains of Unique with a 260 grain cast MP molds H&G 503 SWC goes about 900-950 FPS (the so called "skeeter" load). 8.5 grains of Unique will clock about 1025-1050--nearly the same performance level (100-200 FPS slower) as what 2400 can deliver at twice the approximate charge weight. And the "skeeter" load is so mild in a heavy barreled revolver like a Flatop Blackhawk that it feels like a so-called "target" load. You can shoot all day long with it. No problem. You can really develop tremendous confidence with such a load, which is what really matters if you want to hunt. It is also wonderfully accurate. 8 grains of PowerPisol or 7.5 grains of Unique deliver really good accuracy in my Blackhawk.

13.5 grains of 2400 behind a 158 or 172 grain SWC is plenty for medium sized revolvers. If you use a 357 case it is even less pressure than the heavy Keith load. This is a potent load, with excellent range and accuracy, without overwhelming the shooter. Really powerful 357 loads aren't very fun in the medium frames (K, Security-Six), and are downright awful in the small frames (J frames, SP101). Sure with the heavier framed GP and L or N frames goes ahead, but might as well as go with a big bores if you've got big chores.

[Jtarm]

Not sure the ageing process always adds wisdom but sore wrists speaks to reality. Nothing I shoot at or might shoot at will do much walking about when 150,-180gr of lead passes through them at between 900 - 1,000 fps. Much more than that and the wrists remind me how old I am but nothing about how smart I might be.

Take Care

Bob

Quote of the day.

Your revolver and your joints will last much longer.

[BunkTheory]

I am glad you discovered this.

And yes, the lower powered magnum rounds are much easier on said firearms.

It wasn't just 357. 44 and 41 Mag also had power reductions.

IMO they were loaded too hot to begin with at the factories. Elmer Keith nailed it with his loads for the heavy 38 & 44 special. And his 44 Mag had reduced power from the factory loadings.

I've only tested one or two shots of a full Keith load of 17 grains of 2400 behind a 255-260 grain SWC in 44 special. 16.5 grains propels it over 1200 FPS in both my 5.5" Blackhawk and 6.5" 624. That's plenty.

I will tell you that I like this brilliant load a whole lot more than the 26 grains of 296 I used to put behind 265 grain RNFP in my SuperBlackhawk. That was a brutal and un-fun load. Not very accurate either, from what I could tell. It basically retarded my development in shooting by about 5 years. And does it have greater killing effect? Doubtful. All the gel I've shot and every deer body I've processed has led me to the conclusion that little is gained here. The bullet is the same size. Both of these loads will perforate a deer at basically any angle at ranges revolvers like this can be effectively used. The wound and related blood loss will be very similar, perhaps indistinguishable. Frankly, the very mild skeeter load (7.5 grains of Unique with a ~255 grain SWC), will probable do the same.

And just consider efficiency. My memory may be a little poor here, and since my shooting jorunal was lost in 2014, I have to work from memeory. But here you go:

26 grains of 296 with a 265 Grain cast RNFP went about 1300 FPS in my 7.5" barreled New Model Bisley SuperBlackhawk 44 Magnum. (I sold this long ago swearing off 44 mag in the process only to come back to that caliber years later).

16.5 grains of 2400 goes about 1200 FPS in my 5.5" barreled "flattop" New Model Bisley Blackhawk. Same loads clips 1250 FPS in my 6.5" S&W 624. Both in 44 Special.

7.5 grains of Unique with a 260 grain cast MP molds H&G 503 SWC goes about 900-950 FPS (the so called "skeeter" load). 8.5 grains of Unique will clock about 1025-1050--nearly the same performance level (100-200 FPS slower) as what 2400 can deliver at twice the approximate charge weight. And the "skeeter" load is so mild in a heavy barreled revolver like a Flatop Blackhawk that it feels like a so-called "target" load. You can shoot all day long with it. No problem. You can really develop tremendous confidence with such a load, which is what really matters if you want to hunt. It is also wonderfully accurate. 8 grains of PowerPisol or 7.5 grains of Unique deliver really good accuracy in my Blackhawk.

13.5 grains of 2400 behind a 158 or 172 grain SWC is plenty for medium sized revolvers. If you use a 357 case it is even less pressure than the heavy Keith load. This is a potent load, with excellent range and accuracy, without overwhelming the shooter. Really powerful 357 loads aren't very fun in the medium frames (K, Security-Six), and are downright awful in the small frames (J frames, SP101). Sure with the heavier framed GP and L or N frames goes ahead, but might as well as go with a big bores if you've got big chores.

In the olden days they did not mind slight slower velocities with BIG for caliber bullets. Look at them 180-230 grain slugs for the 38 family. Slow yes, heavy penetration yes, hard on the gun maybe if you sit down and shoot a 5 gallon bucket every year of them.

But on the contrary aspect, Id like a 44 and have enough in the upper range to handle anything. Problem is the only 44 magnum revolvers i can seem to find in stock online, or advertised online, are those L frame magnums that im not willing to take wtih "serious loads" or cost 1500$.

If im going to deal with recoil, ill rather take a full size 357, load up 158 grain slugs with 13 grains 2400 and use the WHOLE cylinder on mr bear, and not be scared of popping off a single round with that light weight 44 magnum built on the same L frame..

[Tokarev]

Look no further
293065

[Tim357]

The original barn-burner .357 loads were developed for the N frame, New Service sized arms. I disremember when the loads were watered down, but I have to think the K frame sized arms were a contributing factor. There's no doubt in my mind but the N frames could digest a lifetime of the originals, albeit with suitable bullets. The swaged factory numbers weren't up to the task

[curioushooter]

The loads were watered down in the mid 90s, per SAMMI reducing the max pressure from 45K CUP to 35K PSI (which is actually much less). This was LONG after the K-frame magnums introduction in the mid 1950s, basically 4 decades. K-Frame magnums were proofed and worked fairly well with the full powered medium-heavy weight 357s loads that were used in the N-frame. The original heavy 38 special loads that Keith/Wesson developed were NOT velocity focused. They were heavy for caliber bullets going a full or or somewhat greater than full speed, but not intending to be as fast as possible. The 110 grain Q loads of the CHP were 38 +P+ but accelerated wear on their model 68s (like a model 66, a stainless K frame, but chambered in 38 special, not 357). IMO the L frame exists is because the late 60's and 1970s "barn burner" loads were very velocity focused. This was very hard on the K-frame and they were falling apart.

The idea was not: "hey let's return to sanity and load our 357 revolvers with heavy for caliber bullets going a normal speed," it was: "let's build a bigger stronger revolver that is not as big as the N frame but can handle this super velocity stuff." You know, throw money at the solution. The American way. That bigger stronger revolver was the L-frame and the GP100 (which is larger and sturdier than the Security-Six). The dumb thing about all this was that the 686/GP came out in the mid-80s and it was just 10 years before revolvers and the full powered magnums bid their farewell. It is my contention that if the super velocity craze of the 1960s/70s never occurred, that the K-frames (19s, 66s) would have been fine and marshaled on until the Glock replaced the revolver.

N-Frames (which are sized for six 44 caliber chambers and can take 45 caliber) are oversized for 357 IMO. I really liked my Highway Patrolman, and my father in law still has it, but it is about 10oz heavier than my M19. They shoot the same loads and have the same accuracy. Who wants to carry that extra weight? And I like how the M19 balances better. Instead of carrying its weight in the cylinder, it carries it on the barrel. Some people prefer the opposite, like my father in law.