.357 Mag SAAMI pressure levels

[Stacts]

Long story short, I was in the gun store the other day talking to an older gentlemen who said that SAAMI lowered the MAP for .357 magnum several decades ago in response to the ultra-lightweight revolvers coming out not being sufficiently sturdy to survive the ammunition.

Is there any truth to this? What year did this change occur? What was the original pressure specification?

[44MAG#1]

SAAMI Specs on pressure is 45,000 CUP or 35,000 PSI . It has been that for years. NOW, what the factories voluntarily load to as long as it is safe is up to them.
They may load to lower pressures if they desire.
Who knows?

[megasupermagnum]

It was the change from CUP to PSI. While there is no 1:1 formula to convert the two, the old 45,000 CUP standard was a significantly higher pressure than today's 35000 PSI. I've heard rumors same as anyone on why the change, but never heard it from the horses mouth. 44 mag is another one that was nerfed, and I don't think too many were wanting that in lightweight guns. As 44mag#1 points out, 45000 CUP is still a recognized standard, it's just that nobody uses a crusher system anymore. Europes CIP standards are very close to the USA CUP standards. They allow 44,000 PSI in 357 mag.

[44MAG#1]

It was the change from CUP to PSI. While there is no 1:1 formula to convert the two, the old 45,000 CUP standard was a significantly higher pressure than today's 35000 PSI. I've heard rumors same as anyone on why the change, but never heard it from the horses mouth. 44 mag is another one that was nerfed, and I don't think too many were wanting that in lightweight guns. As 44mag#1 points out, 45000 CUP is still a recognized standard, it's just that nobody uses a crusher system anymore. Europes CIP standards are very close to the USA CUP standards. They allow 44,000 PSI in 357 mag.

Correct if I am wrong as I am most of the time but doesn't both modes of pressure testing use the same reference ammo?

[Stacts]

It was the change from CUP to PSI. While there is no 1:1 formula to convert the two, the old 45,000 CUP standard was a significantly higher pressure than today's 35000 PSI. I've heard rumors same as anyone on why the change, but never heard it from the horses mouth. 44 mag is another one that was nerfed, and I don't think too many were wanting that in lightweight guns. As 44mag#1 points out, 45000 CUP is still a recognized standard, it's just that nobody uses a crusher system anymore. Europes CIP standards are very close to the USA CUP standards. They allow 44,000 PSI in 357 mag.

Thank you much!

[megasupermagnum]

Correct if I am wrong as I am most of the time but doesn't both modes of pressure testing use the same reference ammo?

I don't know, but I don't see why they couldn't.

[racepres]

It was the change from CUP to PSI. While there is no 1:1 formula to convert the two, the old 45,000 CUP standard was a significantly higher pressure than today's 35000 PSI. I've heard rumors same as anyone on why the change, but never heard it from the horses mouth. 44 mag is another one that was nerfed, and I don't think too many were wanting that in lightweight guns. As 44mag#1 points out, 45000 CUP is still a recognized standard, it's just that nobody uses a crusher system anymore. Europes CIP standards are very close to the USA CUP standards. They allow 44,000 PSI in 357 mag.

I am Confused now... If we were to Measure 45,000 CUP ammo with a PSI transducer... What would the PSI Reading Be???
To me... that would be Apples to Apples....Curiosity gots me Now...

[44MAG#1]

I am Confused now... If we were to Measure 45,000 CUP ammo with a PSI transducer... What would the PSI Reading Be???
To me... that would be Apples to Apples....Curiosity gots me Now...

I am all ears on this upcoming answer.
Hodgdon list CUP and PSI on their 357 Mag data.

[Outpost75]

There is no direct correlation of one reading vs. the other. The current reference ammo is calibrated for psi using the conformal transducer. The only users of radial copper pressure test barrels today may be some powder manufacturers and they would either use older reference ammo calibrated for radial copper or fire a fresh assessment with radial copper using the current reference ammo to determine the correction factor for that one particular lot.

[44MAG#1]

There is no direct correlation of one reading vs. the other. The current reference ammo is calibrated for psi using the conformal transducer. The only users of radial copper pressure test barrels today may be some powder manufacturers and they would either use older reference ammo calibrated for radial copper or fire a fresh assessment with radial copper using the current reference ammo to determine the correction factor for that one particular lot.

So would it be a fair assessment to say that the CUP testing method is still used and that would presumptuous to say no one uses the CUP method anymore? Maybe not much use but it still gets used.
And, if the CUP method is referenced along with a PSI method they may be referenced with the same reference ammo that is a given pressure that is within proper tolerances?

[Outpost75]

So would it be a fair assessment to say that the CUP testing method is still used and that would presumptuous to say no one uses the CUP method anymore? Maybe not much use but it still gets used.
And, if the CUP method is referenced along with a PSI method they may be referenced with the same reference ammo that is a given pressure that is within proper tolerances?

Essentially yes. The radial copper test barrel remain in use mostly in the smaller labs and in calibers which don't see a lot of volume. Radial copper test barrels tend to go out of calibration when there is erosion in the piston hole. In lower pressure rounds such as .45 ACP or .38 Special they last a long time. In 9mm or .357 Mag less so. When I was at Ruger in the 1980s during the transition conversion period a radial copper test barrel which no longer shot to reference calibration would sometimes be salvaged by plugging the worn piston hole with a "long" piston, then re-fitting a transducer to the barrel and conducting test firings to see if it produced acceptable results. About half the time you could salvage the barrel for limited experimental work, although it would not hold up to frequent daily use as required for ammunition production. The cost of a new replacement pressure test barrel in the 1980s was about $2000. Probably twice that today, so for limited use the expedient was worthwhile.

[megasupermagnum]

I am Confused now... If we were to Measure 45,000 CUP ammo with a PSI transducer... What would the PSI Reading Be???
To me... that would be Apples to Apples....Curiosity gots me Now...

I'm sure someone can explain the scientific reasoning why it can't be done exactly. A study was done on a number of cartridges as you suggest, and they did come up with a formula, but be aware it is neither widely accepted or proven to be true. You can read to your hearts content. https://www.shootingsoftware.com/ftp/psicuparticle2.pdf. Just note that European CIP standards are very close to SAMMI CUP standards. We are talking about only the peak pressures, and both CUP and Piezo methods measure peak pressure or max average pressure for our reloading purposes. It's rare though that the PSI versions went lower than the CUP. Most full power bottleneck rifle cartridges like 30-06 and 308 were in that 50,000-52,000 CUP range, and went up to 60,000-65,000 PSI, yet ammo is reasonably comparable from old to new. I mean, why wouldn't they be? SAMMI didn't just pick the new PSI numbers out of thin air.

[44MAG#1]

I'm sure someone can explain the scientific reasoning why it can't be done exactly. A study was done on a number of cartridges as you suggest, and they did come up with a formula, but be aware it is neither widely accepted or proven to be true. You can read to your hearts content. https://www.shootingsoftware.com/ftp/psicuparticle2.pdf. Just note that European CIP standards are very close to SAMMI CUP standards. We are talking about only the peak pressures, and both CUP and Piezo methods measure peak pressure for our reloading purposes. It's rare though that the PSI versions went lower than the CUP. Most full power bottleneck rifle cartridges like 30-06 and 308 were in that 50,000-52,000 CUP range, and went up to 60,000-65,000 PSI, yet ammo is reasonably comparable from old to new. I mean, why wouldn't they be? SAMMI didn't just pick the new PSI numbers out of thin air.
Isn't SAAMI 28,000 CUP AND 28,000 PSI.for the 45/70?
How did that happen?

[M-Tecs]

Isn't SAAMI 28,000 CUP AND 28,000 PSI.for the 45/70?
How did that happen?

That is the one time they are the same. I don't know it this is correct but I have read that when using the CUP method the copper crusher cylinder compression is not linear so that is why there is no direct correlation.

PTG still sell the copper crusher cylinders so some are still using them.

https://pacifictoolandgauge.com/677-copper-crusher-cylinders

[megasupermagnum]

Isn't SAAMI 28,000 CUP AND 28,000 PSI.for the 45/70?
How did that happen?

Pressures for 45/70 is a rabbit hole I want nothing to do with.

[44MAG#1]

Pressures for 45/70 is a rabbit hole I want nothing to do with.

That is what makes it interesting.
Lots of data out there.

[megasupermagnum]

That is what makes it interesting.
Lots of data out there.

It's not the data. 45/70 may as well not even have a standard. There's some 45/70's that can't handle 28,000 PSI. Lots of factory ammo is over 28,000 PSI. 45/70 can be 18,000 PSI to 45,000 PSI, there's no real standard.

[44MAG#1]

It's not the data. 45/70 may as well not even have a standard. There's some 45/70's that can't handle 28,000 PSI. Lots of factory ammo is over 28,000 PSI. 45/70 can be 18,000 PSI to 45,000 PSI, there's no real standard.

Didn't say anything about a standard. Just that it is interesting and has plenty of data.
Which it what makes it interesting to me.

[M-Tecs]

It's not the data. 45/70 may as well not even have a standard. There's some 45/70's that can't handle 28,000 PSI. Lots of factory ammo is over 28,000 PSI. 45/70 can be 18,000 PSI to 45,000 PSI, there's no real standard.

The SAAMI standard is 28,000 CUP/PSI. That is considered safe for all 45/70 chambering. Lyman opted to use 18,000 as a recommendation. SAAMI sets the standard for the weakest firearm in normal usage. Lots of firearms are chambered is older lower pressure cartridges that people go well been SAAMI recommendations. The 45 Colt it one example.

https://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/ammunition-pressure-testing/458750

https://www.shootingsoftware.com/ftp/psicuparticle2.pdf

[Larry Gibson]

SAAMI did not pick the new numbers out of thin air. The "new" pressure measuring systems became industry standards which is what SAAMI is all about; industry standards.

Outpost75, as usual, gives an excellent explanation as does megasupermagnum. There is no correlation between CUPs and psi's regardless of the attempts to come up with one. We can't say specifically that 50,000 CUP equals 60,000 psi either because the difference will depend on the cartridge used and the load characteristics.

At lower pressures the CUP is many times higher than psi. However, as the MAP pressure measured gets higher they overlap in the 28,000 +/- range [the 45-70 MAP sits almost squarely at that point]. I have measured the psi of many older loads that were said to be in the 40 - 45,000 CUP range. They were in the 30 - 36,000 psi range. I also have measured the psi of numerous old rounds of factory 357 that were loaded in the late '60s and early '70s. None of them gave a MAP over 30,000. Did the factories dumb down the 357? Your guess is as good as mine.

But keep in mind factories do not load ammo to SAAMI MAP. They load their factory ammo to velocity specifications which a very large +/- factor and to a certain accuracy spec all while keeping the MAP, and in particular, the MPSM under the SAAMI specification for the cartridge. When shooting US made factory ammunition you can expect the psi to be under the SAAMI MAP, sometimes, well under the MAP.

[Outpost75]

That is the one time they are the same. I don't know it this is correct but I have read that when using the CUP method the copper crusher cylinder compression is not linear so that is why there is no direct correlation.

PTG still sell the copper crusher cylinders so some are still using them.

https://pacifictoolandgauge.com/677-copper-crusher-cylinders

Gunsmiths use the coppers in the gov' t holders to measure striker indent on LE guns. Min is 0.010" in .38 Special, 0.012 for .357 and 9mm, 0.018" for 5.56mm, 0.020" for 7.62 and cal. .30

[M-Tecs]

Gunsmiths use the coppers in the gov' t holders to measure striker indent on LE guns. Min is 0.010" in .38 Special, 0.012 for .357 and 9mm, 0.018" for 5.56mm, 0.020" for 7.62 and cal. .30

PTG sells them also https://pacifictoolandgauge.com/copper-crusher-cylinders/11310-firing-pin-copper-crusher-indent-cylinders-package-of-5.html

[megasupermagnum]

SAAMI did not pick the new numbers out of thin air. The "new" pressure measuring systems became industry standards which is what SAAMI is all about; industry standards.

Outpost75, as usual, gives an excellent explanation as does megasupermagnum. There is no correlation between CUPs and psi's regardless of the attempts to come up with one. We can't say specifically that 50,000 CUP equals 60,000 psi either because the difference will depend on the cartridge used and the load characteristics.

At lower pressures the CUP is many times higher than psi. However, as the MAP pressure measured gets higher they overlap in the 28,000 +/- range [the 45-70 MAP sits almost squarely at that point]. I have measured the psi of many older loads that were said to be in the 40 - 45,000 CUP range. They were in the 30 - 36,000 psi range. I also have measured the psi of numerous old rounds of factory 357 that were loaded in the late '60s and early '70s. None of them gave a MAP over 30,000. Did the factories dumb down the 357? Your guess is as good as mine.

But keep in mind factories do not load ammo to SAAMI MAP. They load their factory ammo to velocity specifications which a very large +/- factor and to a certain accuracy spec all while keeping the MAP, and in particular, the MPSM under the SAAMI specification for the cartridge. When shooting US made factory ammunition you can expect the psi to be under the SAAMI MAP, sometimes, well under the MAP.

That's a very interesting point, and specifically to the old 357 mag loads, one thing I've noticed is it is tough to find data that went all the way to 45,000 CUP. Most stopped somewhere around 40,000 CUP for whatever reason. Despite that, the loads listed in manuals went down in max powder charges when they went to PSI. Not all of them of course, but a lot, especially for the more midrange powders like 2400, bluedot, and Herco. The point I'm trying to make is that 45,000 CUP was a lot, and most 357 magnums can handle it. Maybe the 45/70 example isn't a bad one. Too bad we can't get a two tier system for load data for the magnums.

[Outpost75]

You need to remember that MAP is NOT a loading limit, but represents the statistical maximum individual observed pressure, under CIP the Pmax being the sample X-bar +3 Sigma limit, so any test sample average should be substantially less than the MAP.

[justindad]

I’ve read that the copper test method does not have the same response time as the piezoelectric pressure transducer. So the old cup system could not detect large pressure spikes that occur in a short period of time, but the new psi system can. This will make it impossible to correlate psi & cup, and would also be a good reason to change the standard from cup to psi. If you cannot determine the stress the gun experiences (because you can’t measure the peak stress), then your only option is to over design the gun and hope it’s enough.
*
Some folks will cite older and newer Speer manuals to show loads were reduced with a certain powder after the change from cup to psi as evidence that the pressures were reduced. However, I don’t know if other powers had max charges remain unchanged (slow peak pressure shouldn’t necessitate a change in max load).

[Harter66]

I didn't read every post so forgive me .

1 45kcup 35klsi .
CUP & LUP only show max pressure at the chamber .
When the piezoelectric tools became available the ability to see the whole pressure event and some loads were dropped and reduced not because of the maximum pressure always but because of duration and /or when/where it was happening.

2 . CUP/LUP don't convert directly to psi , bar ,or kpa except in very rare examples like the 45-70 and even there not across the board .

3 . Does anyone look at say 1970 and earlier load data against 1995 and later data book to book before they start the "the 357 was neutered when they changed to psi" excrement?

My 1st edition Hornady , #12 Speer , 43&50th Lyman list essentially the same data for 357 per bullet weight . The Blue Dot data was dropped particularly for the 125s after the Speer #12 but data is listed as 35klsi for it . It was revised and the 1st edition with all psi data in 1995 and that which wasn't is very clear about it .

[Stacts]

3 . Does anyone look at say 1970 and earlier load data against 1995 and later data book to book before they start the "the 357 was neutered when they changed to psi" excrement?

Sure didn't. I don't own any of those manuals which is why I asked here. I assumed someone here would have access to those older sources.

[racepres]

3 . Does anyone look at say 1970 and earlier load data against 1995 and later data book to book before they start the "the 357 was neutered when they changed to psi" excrement?


1.5 + grains of 296/H110 for the 140 gr
2+ gr 296/H110/2400... for the 158
Blue Dot... in some cases, about, disappeared...
But.. Those early loads were a bear... if you put those in yer Model 19, religiously, ...it would be a Loose/Rattling wreck today!!!
In the Contender??? Pfttt

[Larry Gibson]

If we bother to read the fine print in the older loading manuals on how the maximum load was obtained, we find different methods other than measurement with CUP fixture. Many used case head expansion, appearance of primers, bolt lift, etc. while developing the loads in actual firearms not test barrels in a universal fixture.

The lowering of maximum load data occurred after transducer/strain gauge measurement of psi equipment became readily available. The use of transducer and/or strain gauge equipment allowed not only a much better picture of the pressure curve but was much quicker and simpler to use. Also, it became a legal reality to adhere to some sort of "standard" and SAAMI filled that role. Thus, in newer manuals many maximum loads were lowered because the previous listed maximum loads exceeded SAAMI standards.

There are a few exceptions in modern manuals with a few cartridges where SAAMI standards are exceeded but there is usually a notation that those loads are to be used only in modern firearms which can handle the pressures.

[lar45]

I have read a couple of times that the original 357 Mag loads were much hotter than what we have today.
CRS happens, I can't remember what magazines or authors... So I don't know if it is just some stories being repeated, or what.
Anyways, it's early and I haven't had my coffee yet.

[44MAG#1]

Why isn't different lots of the same power ever mentioned. It must be something the powder companies and the forum experts want to be classified as verboten so as not to upset the reloaders.
I have a Chrono session with two different lots of 2400 with the H&G 503 older design with Federal 150 primers that had quite a bit of difference in the averages. Shot from a 44 Mag 4 inch M629 Smith back to back on the same morning.
EVERYTHING was the SAME except the lots of powder.
Could it be that the ballistic labs when doing data for their manuals that they could have a fast lot of power or a slow lot?
What about primers and their lots? I guess they never vary.

[Jtarm]

It was the change from CUP to PSI. While there is no 1:1 formula to convert the two, the old 45,000 CUP standard was a significantly higher pressure than today's 35000 PSI. I've heard rumors same as anyone on why the change, but never heard it from the horses mouth. 44 mag is another one that was nerfed, and I don't think too many were wanting that in lightweight guns. As 44mag#1 points out, 45000 CUP is still a recognized standard, it's just that nobody uses a crusher system anymore. Europes CIP standards are very close to the USA CUP standards. They allow 44,000 PSI in 357 mag.

This.

My understanding was the previous MAP was 46,000 CUP.

I’ve read that unofficially, it was 43,500 PSI.

That’s a 20% decrease.

Going from CUP to PSI probably helped mask the nerf.

[44MAG#1]

From a practical standpoint I look at it this way.
Let's say I am using X ammo with 158 gr HP bullets loaded to 35,000 CUP would the same bullet loaded in X ammo to 45,000 CUP would the higher pressure load turn the 357 Magnum from a Whitetail gun into a Grizzly Bear gun? Would it turn a mediocre shot into a good shot and a good shot into an excellent shot?
Are we worrying too much about so called pressure changes?

[M-Tecs]

Why isn't different lots of the same power ever mentioned. It must be something the powder companies and the forum experts want to be classified as verboten so as not to upset the reloaders.
I have a Chrono session with two different lots of 2400 with the H&G 503 older design with Federal 150 primers that had quite a bit of difference in the averages. Shot from a 44 Mag 4 inch M629 Smith back to back on the same morning.
EVERYTHING was the SAME except the lots of powder.
Could it be that the ballistic labs when doing data for their manuals that they could have a fast lot of power or a slow lot?
What about primers and their lots? I guess they never vary.

I don't see that discuss much with handguns. It is discuss a lot in with competitive rifle shooters. Canister powder is much more consistent than bulk powder manufactures use. The manufactures load to specific velocities and pressures. They adjust accordingly. When manufactures purchase they may purchased 50,000 pounds of one lot at a time.

Outpost75 will have more insight as to how the manufactures deal with lot to lot variations.

[44MAG#1]

I don't see that discuss much with handguns. It is discuss a lot in with competitive rifle shooters. Canister powder is much more consistent than bulk powder manufactures use. The manufactures load to specific velocities and pressures. They adjust accordingly. When manufactures purchase they may purchased 50,000 pounds of one lot at a time.

How much is much more consistent?

[justindad]

This.

My understanding was the previous MAP was 46,000 CUP.

I’ve read that unofficially, it was 43,500 PSI.

That’s a 20% decrease.

Going from CUP to PSI probably helped mask the nerf.

Depends on the powder, charge, bullet, sizing, etc. If the pressure spike is large and of short duration, 45,000 cup may be 50,000 psi. If the pressure spike is small and of a long duration, 45,000 cup may be 40,000 psi.
*
That’s what you get when your sampling rate is slow relative to the event you are trying to measure. That being said, I’ve never measured pressure of a cartridge.
*
Did gun manufacturers ask for pressures to be reduced because they made weak low cost guns, or did they make weak guns because they did not yet know that the slow response time of their pressure measurements caused them to unknowingly test against weaker ammo? Could be both.

[M-Tecs]

How much is much more consistent?

I can't really answer that except for what I have read. That is canister powder is consistent enough to safely use listed weights to safely load to that data. With rifles powder I stopped purchasing anything less than 8 pounders if available, so I don't have to deal with this issue.

From a ballistician acquaintance working for Federal Cartridge the bulk powders they use have wider weight variations to get the same velocities. Beyond that I am not qualified to comment more.

[dtknowles]

I expect that much of the history is lost or only known to a few. Very few of us were alive in 1934 when the cartridge was introduced. I can't say if factory ammo was downloaded sometime between 1935 and today but Buffalo Bore still loads some pretty hot ammo. If you are shooting one of the stronger guns chamber for 357 mag. you can probably safely exceed published data since that data is safe in much weaker guns. If a gun that can take 44 mag is chambered in .357 mag. what do you think??? If you have one of the smaller framed .357 mags, loads that match max published data are not going to be nice to that gun. As far as I know nobody bothered to publish data 357 mag. like I see for 32-20 and 45-70 that matched loads to guns based on gun strength but that would be helpful to people wanting to get the most performance from their guns.
Tim

[MarkP]

If you do not know the brass lot number or have calibration info (slope and offset) ammo will be shot using CUP... this would be if ammo was sent to be pressure tested. Ammo mfg would calibrate each lot of brass. Ammunition lot numbers would determine or should determine lot numbers of components used.

[racepres]

I expect that much of the history is lost or only known to a few. Very few of us were alive in 1934 when the cartridge was introduced. I can't say if factory ammo was downloaded sometime between 1935 and today but Buffalo Bore still loads some pretty hot ammo. If you are shooting one of the stronger guns chamber for 357 mag. you can probably safely exceed published data since that data is safe in much weaker guns. If a gun that can take 44 mag is chambered in .357 mag. what do you think??? If you have one of the smaller framed .357 mags, loads that match max published data are not going to be nice to that gun. As far as I know nobody bothered to publish data 357 mag. like I see for 32-20 and 45-70 that matched loads to guns based on gun strength but that would be helpful to people wanting to get the most performance from their guns.
Tim

Yes...Agreed...Seems a No Brainer... but.. no one wants their Product on the "weak list"

[44MAG#1]

Let me restate my previous statement and see if anyone can add their ideas on it.
"From a practical standpoint I look at it this way.
Let's say I am using X ammo with 158 gr HP bullets loaded to 35,000 CUP would the same bullet loaded in X ammo to 45,000 CUP would the higher pressure load turn the 357 Magnum from a Whitetail gun into a Grizzly Bear gun? Would it turn a mediocre shot into a good shot and a good shot into an excellent shot?
Are we worrying too much about so called pressure changes?"

[Larry Gibson]

Well, my 357 hunting loads [16-1 cast 358156 over 14.5 gr 2400/1350 fps out of my 6" Ruger] run close to 35,000 psi (measured via Oehler M43 PBL] which seems to be close to 45,000 CUP. And since my "grizzly" gun would be my 375 H&H rifle and I'd be carrying in a belt holster my 4" Colt Anaconda 44 Magnum your question is rather moot to me.

In deference to hunting the lowly white tail with the 357 Magnum, I would use the same load with the exception the 358156s would be HP'd. Having killed black tail and mule deer with the 38 SPL standard and +P I prefer full house 357 loads.

[44MAG#1]

Well, my 357 hunting loads [16-1 cast 358156 over 14.5 gr 2400/1350 fps out of my 6" Ruger] run close to 35,000 psi (measured via Oehler M43 PBL] which seems to be close to 45,000 CUP. And since my "grizzly" gun would be my 375 H&H rifle and I'd be carrying in a belt holster my 4" Colt Anaconda 44 Magnum your question is rather moot to me.

In deference to hunting the lowly white tail with the 357 Magnum, I would use the same load with the exception the 358156s would be HP'd. Having killed black tail and mule deer with the 38 SPL standard and +P I prefer full house 357 loads.

My question may have little or no practical relevance, typically because the subject is too uncertain to allow a decision, I think some think that going up on pressure will turn a some normal thing into a super dooper thing. You actually know what I am getting at.
Just like the accuracy thing I brought up a long time back and people tried to make a fool out of me.

[racepres]

None of which negates the Fact that some Handgun ammo has been "Throttled Back"
we Know why 32S&W Long was reduced, Some of the Guns, chambered for it... best possibility that some "Magnums" got the same treatment, for the same reason.. Nothing to do with effectiveness/hunting/control/accuracy... Just the way of it.
I haven't purchased a New Magnum since the "change". all the ones I own, get whatever loading they got wayyyy back when.. some full throttle from the Old Days, some lighter... if they weren't accurate or if they were Not Fun to shoot...the loading got changed...
I don't handgun Deer any more... My lowly 308 Slays them... course I don't Hunt anything... the critters pretty much come to the Yard!!!!

[Larry Gibson]

My question may have little or no practical relevance, typically because the subject is too uncertain to allow a decision, I think some think that going up on pressure will turn a some normal thing into a super dooper thing. You actually know what I am getting at.
Just like the accuracy thing I brought up a long time back and people tried to make a fool out of me.

Yup, sure do know. Unfortunately, many don't. For example; taking a 6" barreled 357 with a 158 gr cast bullet. If we develop two loads, one with Bullseye and one with 2400, which develop 35,000 psi even though the psi is the same the 2400 load will give a higher velocity.

[44MAG#1]

Yup, sure do know. Unfortunately, many don't. For example; taking a 6" barreled 357 with a 158 gr cast bullet. If we develop two loads, one with Bullseye and one with 2400, which develop 35,000 psi even though the psi is the same the 2400 load will give a higher velocity.

So you are saying if one runs a 28000 PSI load with bullseye and one with a 35000 psi load with Bullseye the 35000 psi load will turn the 28000 load into a sledgehammer compared to the 28000 load?
Same question on the 2400 load. You know what I am getting at

[Stacts]

Yup, sure do know. Unfortunately, many don't. For example; taking a 6" barreled 357 with a 158 gr cast bullet. If we develop two loads, one with Bullseye and one with 2400, which develop 35,000 psi even though the psi is the same the 2400 load will give a higher velocity.

Here's a question. Is there ever a barrel length (<2"?) where a faster-burning powder (loaded to the same pressure) will give a higher velocity than a slower powder?

I'm genuinely curious.

[dtknowles]

Let me restate my previous statement and see if anyone can add their ideas on it.
"From a practical standpoint I look at it this way.
Let's say I am using X ammo with 158 gr HP bullets loaded to 35,000 CUP would the same bullet loaded in X ammo to 45,000 CUP would the higher pressure load turn the 357 Magnum from a Whitetail gun into a Grizzly Bear gun? Would it turn a mediocre shot into a good shot and a good shot into an excellent shot?
Are we worrying too much about so called pressure changes?"

I don't know how much we are worrying but I think going from 35k cup to 45k cup makes what might be a marginal shot to a more sure thing assuming you can make a hit in the kill zone. A 357 mag in a revolver is marginal choice for medium to large deer in my mind at anything more than 25 yards. Hotter loads could stretch that to 50 yards and a .357 Max maybe 75 or 100 yards. There is no precise cut off, it is all about upping the odds of a clean kill. Jeff Cooper wrote this formula for handguns for deer, 40 caliber or more, 200 grain bullet or more and 1000 fps or more. He in the same article said that the .357 mag. might be an exception to that rule. A hot 357 mag. only delivers at 100 yards what a 38 spl +P puts out at the muzzle. The .357 Max delivers more at 100 yards than the .357 Mag puts out at the muzzle. I think 100 fps difference matters regarding deer hunting with a .357 mag. I do think it matters how big is the deer, not all deer are created equal. You can take Key Deer or small Whitetails with much less gun. Big Whitetails and Mule Deer are a different story. Mule deer can go 300 pounds and up.
Tim

[megasupermagnum]

Here's a question. Is there ever a barrel length (<2"?) where a faster-burning powder (loaded to the same pressure) will give a higher velocity than a slower powder?

I'm genuinely curious.

Mostly no. There are some extreme examples I've seen, but that was with 300MP and H110 for example. Comparing something like bullseye to 2400, no.

[megasupermagnum]

So you are saying if one runs a 28000 PSI load with bullseye and one with a 35000 psi load with Bullseye the 35000 psi load will turn the 28000 load into a sledgehammer compared to the 28000 load?
Same question on the 2400 load. You know what I am getting at

The biggest problem I have with the 35,000 PSI limit is that so many people are scared of it. For most cartridges it is set at a point that it makes perfect sense, and exceeding that limit is likely dangerous territory. That's not the case in 357 magnum, at at least for the most part. I have no way of knowing what a J frame or LCR has for a safety margin. Anyway, you see these people loading up 357 magnum in something like a GP100 or L frame, or whatever hunting handgun, and staying low "just to be safe". That's perfectly fine, and a 158gr bullet at 1150 fps is still a perfectly adequate deer round. I'm not saying bumping way up to that 45,000 CUP limit is going to turn a 357 magnum into a 44 magnum, but those older loads pushing over 1400 fps are significantly more powerful than what many shoot today. That speed does make a noticeable difference, and as Larry points out, most of those weren't even at 45,000 CUP, more like 40,000 CUP.

So to more directly answer your question, I wouldn't use bullseye. A 28,000 PSI 2400 load compared to a 44,000 PSI 2400 load, we are probably talking about 1100 fps compared to over 1450 fps. That's a bigger step than 357 magnum compared to 357 maximum in most cases, and yes, I consider that turning it into a sledgehammer.

[44MAG#1]

Here is some Hodgdons data going from 28600 CUP to 40700 CUP.
The difference in velocity is staggering for H110

Manufacturer Hodgdon
Powder H110
Buy now
Bullet Diam. 0.357"
C.O.L 1.5800
Starting Load
Grs. 15.0
Vel. (ft/s) 1,418
Pressure 28,600 CUP
Maximum Load
Grs. 16.7
Vel. (ft/s) 1,591
Pressure 40,700 CUP

[M-Tecs]

Provided you have the barrel length the slower the powder the greater % of velocity increase you see as pressure goes up.

[44MAG#1]

Provided you have the barrel length the slower the powder the greater % of velocity increase you see as pressure goes up.

Hodgdons test barrel was 8 inches.

[justindad]

Let me restate my previous statement and see if anyone can add their ideas on it.
"From a practical standpoint I look at it this way.
Let's say I am using X ammo with 158 gr HP bullets loaded to 35,000 CUP would the same bullet loaded in X ammo to 45,000 CUP would the higher pressure load turn the 357 Magnum from a Whitetail gun into a Grizzly Bear gun? Would it turn a mediocre shot into a good shot and a good shot into an excellent shot?
Are we worrying too much about so called pressure changes?"

That is practically the difference between .357Sig and 9mm.

[44MAG#1]

That is practically the difference between .357Sig and 9mm.

That never actually answered my question. Would the power difference be enough to change things to a great deal better.
Let me state it like this. If I needed a hundred dollars real bad and if someone gave five dollars that would be am improvement on my situation but I would still be in am ugly situation. Now I'd someone gave me twenty five dollars the would be even better but still not out of the hole.
So is the increase of a hundred fps or so really turn a clawhammer into a sledgehammer?

[Stacts]

That never actually answered my question. Would the power difference be enough to change things to a great deal better.
Let me state it like this. If I needed a hundred dollars real bad and if someone gave five dollars that would be am improvement on my situation but I would still be I am ugly situation. Now I'd someone gave me twenty five dollars the would be even better but still not out of the hole.
So is the increase of a hundred fps or so really turn a clawhammer into a sledgehammer?

Depends on projectile weight and starting velocity. 100gr bullet at 500 FPS = 56 ftlbs. 100gr bullet at 600 FPS = 80 ftlbs. That's nearly a 50% increase in energy. 200gr bullet at 500 FPS = 111 ftlbs. 200gr bullet at 600 FPS = 160 ftlbs.

Let's try some practical numbers. 230gr bullet at 800 FPS (easily in the range of .45 ACP) gives 327 ftlbs of energy. Raise the velocity to 900 and it jumps to 414. The percentage of increase is less (closer to 1/3), but that is still a large increase in power.

If we look at .38 special, we could consider a 125gr bullet at 800 FPS (again, easily within the capability of that cartridge) giving 178 ftlbs. Raise the velocity to 900 and the energy ftlbs jumps to 225. An equally large percentage increase, but a smaller absolute increase (47 compared to 87).

At what point should we start caring about the energy? Don't know. My personal belief (and I have no data to justify it) is that 500 energy ftlbs is where the total energy starts to matter (as opposed to looking solely at penetration*bullet diameter).

Does a 230gr bullet at 1000 FPS cross that (500 ftlbs) barrier? Yes. Just barely.

(the above assumes my calculations were correct...)

[44MAG#1]

Depends on projectile weight and starting velocity. 100gr bullet at 500 FPS = 56 ftlbs. 100gr bullet at 600 FPS = 80 ftlbs. That's nearly a 50% increase in energy. 200gr bullet at 500 FPS = 111 ftlbs. 200gr bullet at 600 FPS = 160 ftlbs.

Let's try some practical numbers. 230gr bullet at 800 FPS (easily in the range of .45 ACP) gives 327 ftlbs of energy. Raise the velocity to 900 and it jumps to 414. The percentage of increase is less (closer to 1/3), but that is still a large increase in power.

If we look at .38 special, we could consider a 125gr bullet at 800 FPS (again, easily within the capability of that cartridge) giving 178 ftlbs. Raise the velocity to 900 and the energy ftlbs jumps to 225. An equally large percentage increase, but a smaller absolute increase (47 compared to 87).

At what point should we start caring about the energy? Don't know. My personal belief (and I have no data to justify it) is that 500 energy ftlbs is where the total energy starts to matter (as opposed to looking solely at penetration*bullet diameter).

Does a 230gr bullet at 1000 FPS cross that (500 ftlbs) barrier? Yes. Just barely.

(the above assumes my calculations were correct...)

Do you really think in practical application that those figures you gave me are actually going to turn into a powerhouse?
If you need an INCREASE get oneself an INCREASE if they can handle that INCREASE.
If I need an INCREASE over my 357 with 158 or 170 grain bullets at a decent velocity I break out a 44 Mag.
I sure don't try to get an INCREASE by jacking my 357 Mag a few fps and try to convince myself that it is an INCREASE.

[Stacts]

Do you really think in practical application that those figures you gave me are actually going to turn into a powerhouse?
If you need an INCREASE get oneself an INCREASE if they can handle that INCREASE.
If I need an INCREASE over my 357 with 158 or 170 grain bullets at a decent velocity I break out a 44 Mag.
I sure don't try to get an INCREASE by jacking my 357 Mag a few fps and try to convince myself that it is an INCREASE.

I'm sorry, I guess I took your question a little too literally.


So is the increase of a hundred fps or so really [going to] turn a clawhammer into a sledgehammer?

Is it possible? Yes. Is it practical? Not really. Within the constrains of .357 Mag? Again, not really. Which basically mirrors your sentiment.

[44MAG#1]

I'm sorry, I guess I took your question a little too literally.



Is it possible? Yes. Is it practical? Not really. Within the constrains of .357 Mag? Again, not really. Which basically mirrors your sentiment.

There we go.

[justindad]

That never actually answered my question. Would the power difference be enough to change things to a great deal better.
Let me state it like this. If I needed a hundred dollars real bad and if someone gave five dollars that would be am improvement on my situation but I would still be in am ugly situation. Now I'd someone gave me twenty five dollars the would be even better but still not out of the hole.
So is the increase of a hundred fps or so really turn a clawhammer into a sledgehammer?

It answers the question for me, because I feel fine carrying a .357Sig for SD, but not so much the 9mm.
*
I have a 3” .357 Mag and a 3.9” .357Sig. The recoil of the Sig is substantially more manageable, the longer barrel is very helpful, and I’m getting more power out of my hand loads in the Sig. My revolver is not a Ruger, so I’m definitely staying under the 35ksi SAAMI limit. The manufacturer of my revolver told me that 158g bullets is the heaviest they tested. I have a few more powder and bullet combinations to test, but I’m starting to think the Mag is not a meaningful step up from the Sig… if I convince myself of that I’ll have to sell this revolver and get something stronger with a longer barrel. The biggest gain from the Mag over the Sig is concealabilty, when it should be power.
*
If I could use 180 grain bullets at 45,000 cup, I would not be wondering if I ought to sell this particular revolver. I probably ought to get a 6” GP100 and sell my current revolver.
*
As far as going to .44 Mag goes - I tend to run, climb boulders, carry kids in my shoulders, and take dogs through the woods. Confidence in a 45,000 cup revolver for a black bear surprise would be much more helpful than a large .44. The .44’s I have my eyes on come with barrels in the 8” range.

[44MAG#1]

It answers the question for me, because I feel fine carrying a .357Sig for SD, but not so much the 9mm.
*
I have a 3” .357 Mag and a 3.9” .357Sig. The recoil of the Sig is substantially more manageable, the longer barrel is very helpful, and I’m getting more power out of my hand loads in the Sig. My revolver is not a Ruger, so I’m definitely staying under the 35ksi SAAMI limit. The manufacturer of my revolver told me that 158g bullets is the heaviest they tested. I have a few more powder and bullet combinations to test, but I’m starting to think the Mag is not a meaningful step up from the Sig… if I convince myself of that I’ll have to sell this revolver and get something stronger with a longer barrel. The biggest gain from the Mag over the Sig is concealabilty, when it should be power.
*
If I could use 180 grain bullets at 45,000 cup, I would not be wondering if I ought to sell this particular revolver. I probably ought to get a 6” GP100 and sell my current revolver.
*
As far as going to .44 Mag goes - I tend to run, climb boulders, carry kids in my shoulders, and take dogs through the woods. Confidence in a 45,000 cup revolver for a black bear surprise would be much more helpful than a large .44. The .44’s I have my eyes on come with barrels in the 8” range.

A nice S&W M629 4 inch 44 Mag is nice. Real nice. It is a step up.

[dvnv]

Let me restate my previous statement and see if anyone can add their ideas on it.
"From a practical standpoint I look at it this way.
Let's say I am using X ammo with 158 gr HP bullets loaded to 35,000 CUP would the same bullet loaded in X ammo to 45,000 CUP would the higher pressure load turn the 357 Magnum from a Whitetail gun into a Grizzly Bear gun? Would it turn a mediocre shot into a good shot and a good shot into an excellent shot?
Are we worrying too much about so called pressure changes?"

Velocity has its advantages. If not there would not have been a 357 mag in the first place. How much each increment up matters is arguable, but the fact that a 357 is more than a 38 isn't.
Put the 357 in a rifle and there is another large step up. Up to the re-loader to decide on his own tradeoffs between pressure, bullet, velocity, recoil, etc...Arguing minutia is, well, arguing minutia.

[44MAG#1]

Velocity has its advantages. If not there would not have been a 357 mag in the first place. How much each increment up matters is arguable, but the fact that a 357 is more than a 38 isn't.
Put the 357 in a rifle and there is another large step up. Up to the re-loader to decide on his own tradeoffs between pressure, bullet, velocity, recoil, etc...Arguing minutia is, well, arguing minutia.

Worrying over minutia is, well, worrying over minutia.

[376Steyr]

Worrying over minutia is, well, worrying over minutia.

Worrying over minutia is what keeps these threads going! :mrgreen:

[44MAG#1]

Worrying over minutia is what keeps these threads going! :mrgreen:

Minutia is, well, minutia and we all have be minutiated at times.
Where would we be without minutia?

[justindad]

Minutia is, well, minutia and we all have be minutiated at times.
Where would we be without minutia?
I’d be doing the dishes. I like this better. Oh no… am I turning into a cell phone zombie?

[Larry Gibson]

Let me put it this way.

I've already addressed the "grizz" situation so I'll speak of lessor game such as deer whereby I might hunt them with a 357 Magnum. With any cartridge I may hunt game animals with I do not "load down". I will be able to shoot accurately and comfortably with full power loads to hunt with. If I cannot shoot them accurately I will use another cartridge/firearm that I can shoot accurately and comfortably with. If using a 300 Win Mag I expect 300 Win Mag performance, not 30-06 performance. If I wanted a 30-06 performance, I would use a 30-06 and not "dumb down" the 300 Win Mag. Same with a 357 Magnum handgun when hunting game. I expect 357 Magnum performance, not 38 SPL +P or even 38-44 performance.

I agree, within normal handgun ranges for me [less than 100 yards, preferably less than 50 yards] the extra 150 - 200 fps (1350 fps) a 35,000 psi load gives may not kill a white tail deer any deader than a 25-28,000 psi (1100 - 1200 fps) load. However, it may kill the deer quicker which for me is important.

Again, if I'm hunting game such as deer with a 357 Magnum revolver such as my 6" Ruger Security Six then I expect it to perform at full bore 357 Magnum level. That means an appropriate load the develops 35,000 psi. Where I would hunt deer with the 357 Magnum revolver the most dangerous animal I'd likely run into would be a miscreant. A 358156 cast of 16-1 and HP'd at 1350 fps will handle one of those or more with aplomb. I f hunting with a revolver in BB country I would opt for my 41 or 44 Magnum. And with either of those the loads would be top end 35-36,000 psi loads for expected maximum .

[44MAG#1]

I never heard dumbing down the 357 Mag to 38 Special levels in the thread.
Maybe a few thousand CUP or PSI. Whichever is ones cup of tea.

[dvnv]

"Worrying over minutia is, well, worrying over minutia."

My point exactly.

[gwpercle]

Worrying over minutia is what keeps these threads going! :mrgreen:

Are we "Picking Nits " again ? [smilie=s:
Gary

[Stacts]

Are we "Picking Nits " again ? [smilie=s:
Gary

Speak for yourself. I keep nicking pits... :kidding:

[44MAG#1]

Speak for yourself. I keep nicking pits... :kidding:

Nits get picked on many threads and most forums. That is what keeps most forums and threads going.

[racepres]

Lets do this...just for fun...
My 357 Blue dot under a 140 Speer JHP, came from the hot end of an old "Ruger or Contender Only" Page...
My records show that the Next Accuracy Node was very mild indeed...low 38/44 territory.. Should I decide to slay some more woodchucks/possums/skunks... I prefer they Die On the Spot... Someone once said...Use enough Gun...
So...if I neuter my 357, I should Use my 308 on virtually everything????
Nah...I'm sticking with the loads I been using for 30-40 years...Thanks...The New, SAAMI, don't affect Me.
I still say it is MFG's looking after the Weakest Component/Product!!!

BTW lest we be quick to Condemn...I also shoot some very mild loads indeed in my 44Mag Contender... I don't like to be beat up either!!!
Same critters go Tits Up with authority with that ole ...Mild, 44 Mag also...

[Larry Gibson]

I never heard dumbing down the 357 Mag to 38 Special levels in the thread.
Maybe a few thousand CUP or PSI. Whichever is ones cup of tea.

Thought you were talking about reducing 45,000 CUP down to 28,000 CUP in the 357 Magnum cartridge? If so, that is a 38% drop in pressure as measured via CUP. That, to me anyway, is "dumbing down". You may call your cup of tea something else but that much pressure drop in the 357 magnum case will put it down in the 38 SPL 38-44 level which then is dumbing down the 357 magnum.

Why don't you just come out and say what your point is instead of asking for input then criticizing the input?

[44MAG#1]

Thought you were talking about reducing 45,000 CUP down to 28,000 CUP in the 357 Magnum cartridge? If so, that is a 38% drop in pressure as measured via CUP. That, to me anyway, is "dumbing down". You may call your cup of tea something else but that much pressure drop in the 357 magnum case will put it down in the 38 SPL 38-44 level which then is dumbing down the 357 magnum.

Why don't you just come out and say what your point is instead of asking for input then criticizing the input?

You know what I am getting at.
I posted the load data as an example.
Is the 38-44 REALLY a 38 Special simply because it is in a 38 Special case?
So me loading 38 Special cases with 13.5 grains of 2400 and a 173 "Keith" is it REALLY a 38 Special used in my GP100?

[racepres]

^^ Is it Potato, or Potato??? Arguing for the sake of Argument is just....Arguing
or...Maybe I don't get it????
BTW 38/44 is Not 38 SPL nor is it 357 Magnum, it was created WHEN the Gun was Introduced!! The Gun itself...once again...is Key!!... Like the Original Magnum Handgun... something noticeably (measurably) More Powerful!!
Now Lessened, by???? Lesser Guns???

[RyanJames170]

From my understanding in some reading I did a few years ago that the pressure was lowered on 357 mag due to issues with K frame revolvers, I don’t remember where I read it other then it was by a guy who was involved in the decrease in pressure, iirc it was about the time the L 686 revolvers same time Smith and Wesson came up with the 586 and 686. I will try and find the article and post a link

[racepres]

From my understanding in some reading I did a few years ago that the pressure was lowered on 357 mag due to issues with K frame revolvers, I don’t remember where I read it other then it was by a guy who was involved in the decrease in pressure, iirc it was about the time the L 686 revolvers same time Smith and Wesson came up with the 586 and 686. I will try and find the article and post a link

Be very careful
If you dare knock the Vaunted S&W Empire... you will be Haunted relentlessly...
tho to be sure, S&W was absolutely Not, the only Weaker design..Why oh why would anyone desert, circumvent, ... the N model S&W????
Yup
$$$$$

[dogdoc]

I think the original poster was referring to the possibility that some of the old 357 mag loads that measured 45000 cup on the old copper crusher method (which would have been fine back in the day)may measure greater than 35000 psi if measured on newer psi equipment. Hence some of those older loads would not be used today since most ammo makers or reloading manuals use psi today in their measurements and not cup. I believe this to be the case.
Dogdoc

[racepres]

I think the original poster was referring to the possibility that some of the old 357 mag loads that measured 45000 cup on the old copper crusher method (which would have been fine back in the day)may measure greater than 35000 psi if measured on newer psi equipment. Hence some of those older loads would not be used today since most ammo makers or reloading manuals use psi today in their measurements and not cup. I believe this to be the case.
Dogdoc


Long story short, I was in the gun store the other day talking to an older gentlemen who said that SAAMI lowered the MAP for .357 magnum several decades ago in response to the ultra-lightweight revolvers coming out not being sufficiently sturdy to survive the ammunition.

Is there any truth to this? What year did this change occur? What was the original pressure specification?


The OP specifically stated that a Shop Owner told him that the SAMMI changed due to Changing (perhaps weaker) firearms.
Question was 3 fold..True info from shop owner?? Hotly debated!! When??? awhile Back... What was the spec??? Noted what was...and what Is..

[dogdoc]

When I look at my old Speer number 10 manual I notice in the 357 magnum section that they list powder charges a good bit higher than todays manuals. They say the top loads are just under 46000 cup. I never blew up any of my Smiths or Rugers up back in the day and. I used a lot of different loads from that manual. I bet some of those top loads will be greater than 35000 psi of measured on modern piezo equipment hence they are toned down today.

[44MAG#1]

I have a number 9 manual and a number 14 manual.
158 grain and 2400 6 inch barrel
#9 14.7 grain. 1304 fps
#14 14.8 grain. 1265 fps

H110
#9. 17.5. 1272 fps
#14. 15.5 1217 fps

Different lots of primers, powder, different designs of bullets and a Security Six for #9 and a S&W M19 for #14.

[44MAG#1]

I also have a 45th edition of Lyman (1970) and a 50th edition (2016).
158 grain jacketed with 2400.

45th. 15.0 grains
50th. 14.9 grains.
Different primers, cases and bullets used between the two.

[Larry Gibson]

When I look at my old Speer number 10 manual I notice in the 357 magnum section that they list powder charges a good bit higher than todays manuals. They say the top loads are just under 46000 cup. I never blew up any of my Smiths or Rugers up back in the day and. I used a lot of different loads from that manual. I bet some of those top loads will be greater than 35000 psi of measured on modern piezo equipment hence they are toned down today.

You would be correct. Speer #14 states; "The industry Maximum average pressure for the 357 Magnum is 35,000 psi. These loads do not exceed that level." Note that say they do not "exceed", does not say they are at that level.

In #14 with the 158 SP and #9 powder 13.7 gr is the max listed load. With 2400 powder #14 lists 14.8 gr as a max load. With a 358156 cast bullet I've measured the psi with 14.5 gr Alliant 2400 at 34,200 psi.

You say "toned down", I say dumbed down.

[44MAG#1]

With a 358156 cast bullet I've measured the psi with 14.5 gr Alliant 2400 at 34,200 psi.

You say "toned down", I say dumbed down.

That is only half a grain more than Lyman #50. Could be different primers or different lot of primers and different lot of powder, cases could be different.

[Larry Gibson]

Those are the variables.....

[dtknowles]

I have a number 9 manual and a number 14 manual.
158 grain and 2400 6 inch barrel
#9 14.7 grain. 1304 fps
#14 14.8 grain. 1265 fps

H110
#9. 17.5. 1272 fps
#14. 15.5 1217 fps

Different lots of primers, powder, different designs of bullets and a Security Six for #9 and a S&W M19 for #14.

Ammo for sale today:
Federal American Eagle Ammunition 357 Magnum 158 Grain Jacketed Soft Point 1240 fps.

Remington High Terminal Performance (HTP) Ammunition 357 Magnum 158 Grain Semi-Jacketed Hollow Point Velocity 1235 FPS, seems to me to be pretty weak (High Terminal Performance, bah!) compared too:

Listed in Appendix 5 of Firearms Encyclopedia by Nonte copyright 1973, 357 Magnum 158 Grain Jacketed Soft Point Velocity 1450 FPS.

or

Hodgdon's 2016 annual manual, 357 Magnum 158 gr. HDY XTP 16.7 gr H110 velocity 1591 fps 40,700 CUP 10 inch barrel.

Lyman cast bullet handbook lists 1460 fps from a 4 inch vented barrel with 18.3 gr. of H110 and a 158 gr. cast bullet 40,100 CUP.

I already said I think an extra 100 fps in a .357 is a meaningful difference and here we are talking about twice that.

We ain't talking hammers.

Oh, not all sledgehammers are the same weight.

For hunting or self-defense, if you are using a .357 mag. why would you use ammo that is underperforming by 200 fps. Why are manufacturers selling you weak ammo?

How come Buffalo Bore is this much hotter than Remington and Federal.

Heavy 357 Magnum Ammo 158 gr. J.H.C. @ 1,475 fps / M.E. 763 ft lbs

Tim

[Larry Gibson]

Loads of Blue Dot mentioned here are for information only. I am not recommending them.

About 30 years ago when I picked up my Ruger Security Six 357 Magnum revolver with 6" barrel I was wanting to duplicate the Winchester 125 gr JHP factory load which ran 1490 fps out of the Ruger. I had 500 of the Winchester 125 JHP bullets. In an older manual a max load of 16.4 gr of Blue Dot was given. I started at 14 gr and worked up to 16.4 gr. At 16.4 gr there was no sign of excessive pressure as extraction was normal. Accuracy was excellent and the velocity was 1700 fps....and they were death and destruction on rock chucks, jack rabbits and coyote. However, on deer they were a bit destructive. After shooting all 500 of the Winchester bullets up I switched Hornady 125 XTPs (the FP not the HPs). They ran at the same velocity, accuracy was excellent, they performed well on varmints and weren't nearly as destructive on deer. I went along fat dumb and happy with that load ....then I got the Oeler M43 PBL and was able to measure the pressure......

The Winchester factory 125 JHP load ran 1800 fps at 28,000+ psi out of my Contender test barrel (7.94"). The 16.4 gr load of Blue Dot under the 125 XTP ran 1950 fps out of the Contender test barrel at 42,200 psi.....!!!! SAAMI's proof MAP for the 357 Magnum is 47,000 psi (60,500 CUP). Note; In my pressure testing of Blue Dot under the 125 gr jacketed bullets I got no indication of pressure spiking.

I have "dumbed down" that load of Blue Dot under the 125 gr XTP bullet but it still exceeds the SAAMI MAP but My Ruger Security Six is alive and well with it. Just wish I could get more of the old Winchester 125 JHPs, especially for what I got them for back then.....:cry:

My current 2400 and Blue Dot loads with the 358156 cast bullet are just under the SAAMI MAP. The SAAMI MAP wasn't really my selection criteria, accuracy and a comfortable magnum level load for use in the Security Six was. It's not "dumbed down" as they exceed all factory 158 loads in velocity by 150- 200 fps. The old 15.5+ gr load of 2400 under the 358156 waltzes right up there in pressure above the SAAMI MAP but does push 1450 fps +/- out of the 6" Ruger. That's just like the old original 357 Magnum was supposed to do.......:drinks:

[44MAG#1]

Ammo for sale today:
Federal American Eagle Ammunition 357 Magnum 158 Grain Jacketed Soft Point 1240 fps.

Remington High Terminal Performance (HTP) Ammunition 357 Magnum 158 Grain Semi-Jacketed Hollow Point Velocity 1235 FPS, seems to me to be pretty weak (High Terminal Performance, bah!) compared too:

Listed in Appendix 5 of Firearms Encyclopedia by Nonte copyright 1973, 357 Magnum 158 Grain Jacketed Soft Point Velocity 1450 FPS.

or

Hodgdon's 2016 annual manual, 357 Magnum 158 gr. HDY XTP 16.7 gr H110 velocity 1591 fps 40,700 CUP 10 inch barrel.

Lyman cast bullet handbook lists 1460 fps from a 4 inch vented barrel with 18.3 gr. of H110 and a 158 gr. cast bullet 40,100 CUP.

I already said I think an extra 100 fps in a .357 is a meaningful difference and here we are talking about twice that.

We ain't talking hammers.

Oh, not all sledgehammers are the same weight.

For hunting or self-defense, if you are using a .357 mag. why would you use ammo that is underperforming by 200 fps. Why are manufacturers selling you weak ammo?

How come Buffalo Bore is this much hotter than Remington and Federal.

Heavy 357 Magnum Ammo 158 gr. J.H.C. @ 1,475 fps / M.E. 763 ft lbs

Tim

Don't forget that Lyman in their 1970 #45th manual tested Remington 158 gr. Lead FL at 1388 fps from a 5 inch M27 Smith.
That will help your case too.

[charlie b]

Larry,

Just curious. What does the pressure curve look like for Blue Dot compared to something like 2400?

I still like BD for heavy .357 and even .45ACP loads.

[ss30378]

I read a handloader article from Brian Pearce and he lab tested some factory 1935ish era spec loads and they were in the 47k psi range. Those being used in the big n-frame had a lot of steel surrounding the chambers. I probably wouldn't feel comfortable shooting those in a pocket rocket revolver.

One of the most interesting articles I read with regards to high pressure 357s was John Taffin's 353 casull setup. The ballistics he was getting compelled me enough to have an oversized cylinder added to my blackhawk to see what i could get out of it. With the new cylinder I'm gained extra speed from 3 things, tighter tolerances in the revolver, being able to load past 1.8" OAL and extra pressure if desired. Loading long allows 180g bullets to be seated to the point they take up less space in the case than a 125g bullet at saami spec length. I won't put out specific load data but I got sticky extraction with 180s in the 1800fps (1300lbs of energy at that level) range from a 6.5" barrel which is well beyond anything I need to with a 357. Most likely in the 60-70k psi range too at that level.

Keeping 180s in the 16-1700fps range I get quite a few loads out of the cases and they fall right out of the chambers. Accuracy is much better to boot vs the max sticky level loads too.

[AlaskaMike]

After needing some work done on my model 28-2, I have backed down my loads a bit. Call me a pansy or a snowflake, I'm fine with that.

Despite all that's been written here, chamber pressure isn't everything. Recoil forces probably wear more on the revolver. 500 rounds of 125 grain bullet ammo at 35kpsi is not at all equal to 500 rounds of 158 grain ammo at 35kpsi, let alone 180 grain ammo at the same pressure. Anyone who has fired these different types of ammo knows there's a huge difference in recoil. The gun feels that recoil too.

The folks who are knowledgeable enough to work on vintage S&W revolvers is shrinking quickly. And yes, at this point I definitely call my 28-2 "vintage".

In the 1980s when parts and expertise was widely available, it was no big deal to recondition a revolver for end shake or out of time. These days not so much.

[M-Tecs]

The fastest and most concerning damage I've seen in 357 Mag revolvers is flame cutting. The 110 grain and 125 grain jacketed bullets coupled with slow powders are by far the worst offenders.

Lil' Gun burns very hot and it appears to be the worst offender. It erodes top straps and forcing cones very quickly.

The early silhouette shooter learned a steady diet of heavy 44 Mag loads was not good for the N frame model 29's. The 29's would not stand up to several years' worth of silhouette matches without loosening up. Needing end shake and time adjustments around 3,000 heavy loads was common.

[44MAG#1]

No doubt recoil is a big factor in loosening a revolver.

[racepres]

That's just like the old original 357 Magnum was supposed to do.......:drinks:

Yup Yup... Previous to being Protected from Ourselves!!!!
BTW, I also Never share my BlueDot load that I use for the Contender!!!

[44MAG#1]

Yup Yup... Previous to being Protected from Ourselves!!!!
BTW, I also Never share my BlueDot load that I use for the Contender!!!

After being an observer of people for many years I have learned that many need protecting from themselves.
No doubt in my mind at all.