357 mag neutered

[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-informat...ami-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!
Attachment 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-informat...ami-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.