357 Max 192gr RanchDog w/ AA1680 advice

[JDUBS]

Everyone was a great help with my last Post about this NOE TL359-192-RF-BG2 GC Ranch Dog mold. Now im onto working up a load. My local shops shelves were a bit bare, but I was able to grab some AA1680 and some CCI Small rifle Bench Rest Primers. I was hoping to find some other powders, and magnum primers, but this was what they had. I have read a lot of posts on here(Admittedly not all of them of course, but many!) and remember hearing a bit about AA1680 and the max so I dont think im bad off. Is there a load book anyone can recommend that will have some good data for this combo? Bellm notes to use magnum primers only, but I have read people using standard SRP with success. AA's online calculator seems to give some conservative min/max values of 20.9 and 23.2 for a 200gr bullet. But I have read some starting at max with these loads and working from there. This is for my Encore .357 Pistol with 14" 1:14 Twist heavy contour barrel. Any input is greatly appreciated! Thanks!

EDIT:. I just found an electronic reloading manual for western powders showing 1680 TC only loads starting at 27gr so I think I'm on the right track here. That's for a 12 1/2 inch barrel pushing 1670 fps. Givese about 3 grains to go up putting it into the 1800's which which is plenty if I really need to. Still open to others experiences with 1680.
307240
307238
307239

[P Flados]

AA 1680 is not known to be hard to ignite like 296/H110. SRP are fine, I have used lots of SRP for the Max with my Wc 680 (Milsurp Version of 1680).

Your maximum workable AOL will provide you with the most velocity potential. First step will be to figure out your max AOL.

Next step will be to figure out how much of your powder will give you 100% fill in your cases at the AOL you want to use. I would then drop down to 90% fill as a starting load.

With an Encore, you will be safe doing load workups and watching your primers and brass as you go up. AA 1680 is on the slow side for the Max, so I expect you will get to 100% fill with no signs of excess pressure.

Ball powders do not seem to like compression near as much as extruded powders. Personally I would just stop at 100% fill even if you think pressures are well below what you consider limiting.

[hc18flyer]

I am just starting to work up Accurate 1680 loads for my Henry rifle with a different 200 grain NOE mold. I loaded starting loads at 25 grains, lit by a standard rifle primer. Please post your progress, I will post mine. hc18flyer307276

[JDUBS]

AA 1680 is not known to be hard to ignite like 296/H110. SRP are fine, I have used lots of SRP for the Max with my Wc 680 (Milsurp Version of 1680).

Your maximum workable AOL will provide you with the most velocity potential. First step will be to figure out your max AOL.

Next step will be to figure out how much of your powder will give you 100% fill in your cases at the AOL you want to use. I would then drop down to 90% fill as a starting load.

With an Encore, you will be safe doing load workups and watching your primers and brass as you go up. AA 1680 is on the slow side for the Max, so I expect you will get to 100% fill with no signs of excess pressure.

Ball powders do not seem to like compression near as much as extruded powders. Personally I would just stop at 100% fill even if you think pressures are well below what you consider limiting.

Thank you so much for the advice! The mor I read its seems like many people have referenced accurate saying a long time ago you cant fill the 357 max case enough to create pressure problems in the TC. Im glad to know its relatively safe but will definitely take it slowly and carefully. I will share my results once I get out!

[P Flados]

Thank you so much for the advice! The mor I read its seems like many people have referenced accurate saying a long time ago you cant fill the 357 max case enough to create pressure problems in the TC. Im glad to know its relatively safe but will definitely take it slowly and carefully. I will share my results once I get out!

It is more about the combination of net case capacity, pressure limit and burn rate. If a specific powder produces less than rated pressure at max desired fill (I stop at real close to 100% for ball powder) for a given bullet weight, it is normally considered to be "slower than optimum". An advantage of using a "slower than optimum" powder is that you can usually adjust charge weights as needed to get your desired fill percentage as you substitute bullets or play around with different AOLs.

And just to be clear, you can get into pressure problems for the 357 Max in any gun. However, you expect to encounter primer and/or case problems before you approach any issue challenging gun strength for even a Contender. Note that if you are getting to the point of piercing primers, this can cause gas cutting of the breech face on the gun (unfortunately, I speak from experience). Damage to an Encore or Contender is worth avoiding. Parts, repairs and/or replacements are harder and more costly to obtain as compared to when TC was still making the guns.

[JDUBS]

It is more about the combination of net case capacity, pressure limit and burn rate. If a specific powder produces less than rated pressure at max desired fill (I stop at real close to 100% for ball powder) for a given bullet weight, it is normally considered to be "slower than optimum". An advantage of using a "slower than optimum" powder is that you can usually adjust charge weights as needed to get your desired fill percentage as you substitute bullets or play around with different AOLs.

And just to be clear, you can get into pressure problems for the 357 Max in any gun. However, you expect to encounter primer and/or case problems before you approach any issue challenging gun strength for even a Contender. Note that if you are getting to the point of piercing primers, this can cause gas cutting of the breech face on the gun (unfortunately, I speak from experience). Damage to an Encore or Contender is worth avoiding. Parts, repairs and/or replacements are harder and more costly to obtain as compared to when TC was still making the guns.

So I went ahead and slugged my board just to kind of see what bullet size are I need and my bullets are pouring at 359 and once I powder coat they're about 361 to 362. I used a non-coated powder coat bullet and slugged my boar my groove is coming in at 358. If I were to shoot without powder coat I probably wouldn't need the size but because I do powder coat I'm thinking I still need to get the 359 sizing die.

I went ahead and took that slugged round which went to the barrel relatively easy it just took a very minimal amount of tapping to get it through, placed it in an empty casing and carefully close the action multiple times to see what my chamber OAL measured out as, and it came out to 2.100. so I would fill the case up to the point before it starts getting compressed, weigh that powder charge, correct?

[JDUBS]

It is more about the combination of net case capacity, pressure limit and burn rate. If a specific powder produces less than rated pressure at max desired fill (I stop at real close to 100% for ball powder) for a given bullet weight, it is normally considered to be "slower than optimum". An advantage of using a "slower than optimum" powder is that you can usually adjust charge weights as needed to get your desired fill percentage as you substitute bullets or play around with different AOLs.

And just to be clear, you can get into pressure problems for the 357 Max in any gun. However, you expect to encounter primer and/or case problems before you approach any issue challenging gun strength for even a Contender. Note that if you are getting to the point of piercing primers, this can cause gas cutting of the breech face on the gun (unfortunately, I speak from experience). Damage to an Encore or Contender is worth avoiding. Parts, repairs and/or replacements are harder and more costly to obtain as compared to when TC was still making the guns.

So I went ahead and slugged my barrel just to kind of see what bullet sizer I need and my bullets are pouring at 359 and once I powder coat they're about 361 to 362. I used a non-powder coated bullet and slugged my bore and my groove is coming in at 358. If I were to shoot without powder coat I probably wouldn't need the sizer but because I do powder coat I'm thinking I still need to get the 359 sizing die.

I went ahead and took that slugged round which went to the barrel relatively easy it just took a very minimal amount of tapping to get it through, placed it in an empty casing and carefully close the action multiple times to see what my chamber OAL measured out as,(I dont have the Hornady tool) and it came out to 2.100. so I should fill the case up to the point before it starts getting compressed, weigh that powder charge, and subtract 10% to get my starting load correct?
307300

[JDUBS]

I am just starting to work up Accurate 1680 loads for my Henry rifle with a different 200 grain NOE mold. I loaded starting loads at 25 grains, lit by a standard rifle primer. Please post your progress, I will post mine. hc18flyer307276

Nice mold! Definitely interested in how it performs! I love all my NOE molds. Im just now getting back into casting and reloading and I remember loving all my NOE molds when I was doing it years ago!

[P Flados]

Note: Adjust the numbers as needed for actual dimensions.

Looking at that bullet in the case, you might want to push it in just a little more if you are shooting without a gas check.

Ok, so lets say you go for a 2.08" for your AOL.

Lets say your case length is 1.600"

So this works out to 2.08 - 1.600 = 0.420" exposed bullet.

The drawing of your bullet says 0.773" for length (it will be different with / without check).

So this works out to a seating depth of 0.773 - 0.420 = 0.293"

At an AOL of 0.208", 100% fill is when powder fills up the case to 0.293" below the mouth.

And 90% of the above is a good starting load.

For my 200 gr loads, my notes say I stopped at 22.1 gr of WC 680. I was seating deeper than the above.

I ran Quickload based on the estimated numbers above. Note that some of the calculated pressures go well above the SAAMI 40,000 psi limit. This is ok for your gun, but would not be recommended for all guns.



Cartridge : .357 Maximum (SAAMI)
Bullet : .358, 195 gr x 0.773”
Seating depth : .293 inch
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 2.080 inch = 52.83 mm
Barrel Length : 14.0 inch = 355.6 mm
Powder : Accurate 1680

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 0.8% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step Fill. Charge Vel. Energy Pmax Pmuz Prop.Burnt B_Time
% % Grains fps ft.lbs psi psi % ms
-08.2 89 22.40 1622 1139 29546 4536 81.3 1.097
-07.4 90 22.60 1638 1162 30387 4593 81.9 1.084
-06.6 91 22.80 1654 1184 31253 4649 82.4 1.071
-05.7 91 23.00 1669 1207 32144 4705 82.9 1.058
-04.9 92 23.20 1685 1229 33059 4761 83.4 1.045
-04.1 93 23.40 1701 1252 34005 4817 83.9 1.032
-03.3 94 23.60 1717 1276 34971 4872 84.4 1.020
-02.5 94 23.80 1732 1299 35979 4926 84.9 1.007
-01.6 95 24.00 1748 1323 37010 4980 85.4 0.995
-00.8 96 24.20 1764 1348 38072 5033 85.8 0.983
+00.0 97 24.40 1780 1372 39165 5087 86.3 0.971
+00.8 98 24.60 1796 1397 40295 5139 86.8 0.960
+01.6 98 24.80 1812 1422 41458 5191 87.2 0.948
+02.5 99 25.00 1828 1447 42655 5242 87.7 0.937
+03.3 100 25.20 1844 1472 43895 5292 88.1 0.926
+04.1 101 25.40 1860 1498 45171 5342 88.5 0.915

[JDUBS]

Note: Adjust the numbers as needed for actual dimensions.

Looking at that bullet in the case, you might want to push it in just a little more if you are shooting without a gas check.

Ok, so lets say you go for a 2.08" for your AOL.

Lets say your case length is 1.600"

So this works out to 2.08 - 1.600 = 0.420" exposed bullet.

The drawing of your bullet says 0.773" for length (it will be different with / without check).

So this works out to a seating depth of 0.773 - 0.420 = 0.293"

At an AOL of 0.208", 100% fill is when powder fills up the case to 0.293" below the mouth.

And 90% of the above is a good starting load.

For my 200 gr loads, my notes say I stopped at 22.1 gr of WC 680. I was seating deeper than the above.

I ran Quickload based on the estimated numbers above. Note that some of the calculated pressures go well above the SAAMI 40,000 psi limit. This is ok for your gun, but would not be recommended for all guns.



Cartridge : .357 Maximum (SAAMI)
Bullet : .358, 195 gr x 0.773”
Seating depth : .293 inch
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 2.080 inch = 52.83 mm
Barrel Length : 14.0 inch = 355.6 mm
Powder : Accurate 1680

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 0.8% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step Fill. Charge Vel. Energy Pmax Pmuz Prop.Burnt B_Time
% % Grains fps ft.lbs psi psi % ms
-08.2 89 22.40 1622 1139 29546 4536 81.3 1.097
-07.4 90 22.60 1638 1162 30387 4593 81.9 1.084
-06.6 91 22.80 1654 1184 31253 4649 82.4 1.071
-05.7 91 23.00 1669 1207 32144 4705 82.9 1.058
-04.9 92 23.20 1685 1229 33059 4761 83.4 1.045
-04.1 93 23.40 1701 1252 34005 4817 83.9 1.032
-03.3 94 23.60 1717 1276 34971 4872 84.4 1.020
-02.5 94 23.80 1732 1299 35979 4926 84.9 1.007
-01.6 95 24.00 1748 1323 37010 4980 85.4 0.995
-00.8 96 24.20 1764 1348 38072 5033 85.8 0.983
+00.0 97 24.40 1780 1372 39165 5087 86.3 0.971
+00.8 98 24.60 1796 1397 40295 5139 86.8 0.960
+01.6 98 24.80 1812 1422 41458 5191 87.2 0.948
+02.5 99 25.00 1828 1447 42655 5242 87.7 0.937
+03.3 100 25.20 1844 1472 43895 5292 88.1 0.926
+04.1 101 25.40 1860 1498 45171 5342 88.5 0.915


Wow thank you so much, that is very helpful. Tell me if I'm reading this right, if I go for 2.08 AOL and my case is 1.600, quickloads is saying that 90% starting point is 22.60 grains, and 100% fill is 25.20 grains? Just trying to interpret the data.

[P Flados]

The example I used will probably be close.

Your bullet length, powder density, case length and case capacity may all be slightly different than used in the example.

Measure your bullet length. Measure you case length. Try seating a bullet to 2.08" and see if it looks good (for long seated tumble lube bullets, I like the case mouth to be centered on or just covering a band). Do the math to determine your seating depth. Then see how much powder it takes to fill the case up to the seating depth. When starting out, anything close to 90% should be fine. However, as you approach 100% fill it is helpful to know where you are more accurately.

[JDUBS]

The example I used will probably be close.

Your bullet length, powder density, case length and case capacity may all be slightly different than used in the example.

Measure your bullet length. Measure you case length. Try seating a bullet to 2.08" and see if it looks good (for long seated tumble lube bullets, I like the case mouth to be centered on or just covering a band). Do the math to determine your seating depth. Then see how much powder it takes to fill the case up to the seating depth. When starting out, anything close to 90% should be fine. However, as you approach 100% fill it is helpful to know where you are more accurately.
So in the past I have always seated my bullets to take up the chamber space to avoid bullet jump to the rifling. Is the downsize to 2.08 to keep the pressure down, and is not going to affect accuracy? It's been so long, I feel like years ago some said bullet jump was bad and others said a little is good. Just getting back into all this so Im relearning a lot of this again.

[P Flados]

My suggestion was more based on looking at the bullet sticking out of the case and then looking at the photo of your bullets with no gas checks. I would want at least three of those narrow little bands in the case just to keep it secure and straight. If you do install gas checks, the 0.210" AOL is less of an issue, but the bullet will be a little longer due to the thickness of the check.

[10sandxs]

My only comment is that 1680 is very temperature sensitive. It's a great powder for my 357 herrett, but hunting in North Dakota just doesn't work for temp sensitive powders...

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[JDUBS]

My suggestion was more based on looking at the bullet sticking out of the case and then looking at the photo of your bullets with no gas checks. I would want at least three of those narrow little bands in the case just to keep it secure and straight. If you do install gas checks, the 0.210" AOL is less of an issue, but the bullet will be a little longer due to the thickness of the check.

Oh I see, actually the 2.100 is with 4 bands in the brass. The photos are not great, here is some crops of the bullet. Hopefully uploading more clear. Perhaps the 2.100 might be ok after all? Would that change much in quickloads? I was actually just looking into that program, I wish it was downloadable, my laptop does not have a CD drive!

307314
307315

[P Flados]

My only comment is that 1680 is very temperature sensitive. It's a great powder for my 357 herrett, but hunting in North Dakota just doesn't work for temp sensitive powders...

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Really. I had not heard "very temperature sensitive" for this powder before.

I expect "typical" sensitivity for pretty much all powders still based on any formulation more than say 20 years old.

Before switching to Wc 680 I was using H110. I was having some issues with poor ignition. It seemed that the problem was significantly worse on some below 40 °F shooting trips. This include a few "failure to ignite" events with bullets stuck in the barrel and lots of loose powder spilled everywhere as the rounds were removed. I was working on loads for a number of guns including two 357 Max revolvers, a couple of 357 Max Contender barrels (10" and 14") and a 357 AR Max in an AR-15 type gun.

Between using H110 and getting some Wc 680, I had also tried I4227. Some loads I worked up early in the year "surprised me" by showing pressure signs at an IHMSA match on a hot day.

For my 357 Max loadings with WC 680, I am more confident that pressures are ok. I have had no problems with pierced primers / stretched primer pockets even when shooting in the heat. However, I have not run chrono tests at the opposite extremes for expected temperatures.