357 mag neutered

[Ithaca Gunner]

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

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

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

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

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

[charlie b]

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

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

Could you point me to it somewhere?

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

https://saami.org/

[9.3X62AL]

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

[Walks]

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

[BunkTheory]

start reading

https://saami.org/wp-content/uploads...sting-Copy.pdf

page 190

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

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

[gwpercle]

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

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

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

Gary ...

[robertbank]

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

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

Take Care

Bob

[JohnH]

start reading

https://saami.org/wp-content/uploads...sting-Copy.pdf

page 190

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

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

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

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

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

[Outpost75]

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

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

[Outpost75]

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

https://saami.org/technical-informat...ami-standards/

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

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

The Service Six was and is a stout gun.

[charlie b]

That's a pretty nice savings.

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

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

[smkummer]

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

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

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

[tazman]

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

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

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

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

[Rodfac]

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

Well said Taz....my thoughts exactly. Rod

[BunkTheory]

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

[BunkTheory]

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

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

[megasupermagnum]

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

[charlie b]

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

[BunkTheory]

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

[Outpost75]

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

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

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