357magnum hunting/hot load

[44MAG#1]

Winchester says not to reduce 296 same powder as h110 it’s in the 1 book 1 caliber .I can’t post pictures but is sure is in there

This is like the Stopping Power threads. Go look at Hodgdons site to see H110 and W296 load data. Does not hurt to use loads reduced from full power for starting loads at all. Just dont go crazy on the reduction.

[shooter bob]

I get that it was said that the do not reduce warning was not in any manual.Take a look at hornady some of there h110 and 296 loads are way below the 3% warning .But the do not reduce warning is in print . Everyone has to do what they believe is correct

[megasupermagnum]

I get that it was said that the do not reduce warning was not in any manual.Take a look at hornady some of there h110 and 296 loads are way below the 3% warning .But the do not reduce warning is in print . Everyone has to do what they believe is correct

Do not reduce, and do not load below 3% of max are two COMPLETELY different things. Hornady especially is probably the worst. I don't know if I gave away or threw away their manual. Hornady max loads are not that far off from everyone else's starting loads.

[shooter bob]

Yes it is very confusing isn’t it.I honestly can’t remember if I have seen the 3 % warnings but do not reduce is even more restricted than 3% so it can get confusing. Any yes hornady has some very low start loads for 110/ 296

[357Mag]

All -

FWIW:

The 14.5gr WW296 and 158gr SWC w/ SP Magnum primer was the minimum charge of 296 that "Olin" used to publish in their free reloading flyer; some decades ago. It is a bona fide " Magnum " load, and that charge wt has always shot very well, for me in my guns.


With regards,
357Mag

[44MAG#1]

Do not reduce, and do not load below 3% of max are two COMPLETELY different things. Hornady especially is probably the worst. I don't know if I gave away or threw away their manual. Hornady max loads are not that far off from everyone else's starting loads.

Naturally I had to check. Taking into account the differences in "lots" of the powders Hornady and Speer used is not too much different than Hodgdons data. Keeping in mind the "lot" differences. Primer "lot" differences too enter in.

[johnsonian09]

I think were getting off course. I dont think anyone has downloaded h110. I started at minimum and made 20 rounds each of 14.3-15.5 in .2 increments. And tested each group for consistency. If experience says I can use the 358311/160 lyman data instead of the 358429/170 I'm happy too.

I was instructed 2 things about the cartridge.

1 load it like a rifle round to the end of the chamber, which I've been doing. And 2, keep going until you see either accuracy drop off/see pressure signs with your individual gun/ hit load data max for that combination of components.

I just wanted a second opinion on the headstamps as I thought flattened primers would be a pressure sign. I'm using cci 400 sr primers so I figured they wouldn't be this flat with this load unless I was doing something wrong. Which apparently is not the case.

Accuracy wise they got better between 14.5-14.8 but then I stopped as explained.
If I can go higher safely and the accuracy improves further, I will go with that loading. I'm using the cup point to strike a balance between penetration, and expansion. But I think the 160grn hollowpoint variation would be too much expansion at higher energy levels as it is pretty much a flying ash tray.

This is a the large hp at 38special levels.

And why I'm using the heavier smaller hp for the 357magnum

Sent from my SM-J337VPP using Tapatalk

[contender1]

"I’ve shot over fifty deer with the .357mag revolver and none of them required going over book loads to kill them. Not a one. I’ve never lost one I shot either. Muzzle energy isn’t what kills them, it’s putting the bullet on the spot you’re aiming at. Focus on accuracy and forget about max speed, etc. I don’t shoot light loads, but bumping anything up never made a difference. The only deer I lost with a handgun was lost while shooting a full power 44mag. A bad hit is a bad hit and it can happen with any cartridge."

An excellent post.

Accuracy is paramount over velocity. Bullet placement,, with an accurate load will easily do the trick.

[megasupermagnum]

Naturally I had to check. Taking into account the differences in "lots" of the powders Hornady and Speer used is not too much different than Hodgdons data. Keeping in mind the "lot" differences. Primer "lot" differences too enter in.

As I said, I don't have the book anymore, but check some other calibers. The Hornady book was ok sometimes, like 309 JDJ. The vast majority makes you look at it and go... really? I think what it is, is they chose to stop at certain velocities. If they got 1300 fps with X grains of powder, they stopped there, regardless of the pressure.

[44MAG#1]

As I said, I don't have the book anymore, but check some other calibers. The Hornady book was ok sometimes, like 309 JDJ. The vast majority makes you look at it and go... really? I think what it is, is they chose to stop at certain velocities. If they got 1300 fps with X grains of powder, they stopped there, regardless of the pressure.

Different labs may do different things. That is the reason nothing is written in stone.
Since Hodgdons markets BOTH H110 and W296 I will defer to them.
Although I have many loading books.

[Larry Gibson]

I also have killed quite a few deer and other critters with the 357 Magnum, mostly in 6" barreled revolvers. I've never found any bullet more effective than the 358136 properly HP'd cast of 20-1 alloy. When pushed to 1350 - 1450 fps it is a very deadly bullets with excellent expansion and penetration, at least all that is needed for deer.

[6thtexas]

I shoot heavy loads in my Ruger Bisley. It has a long enough cylinder to seat Noe's version of the 358429 out and crimp in the crimp groove. 15.0 grains of H110 with the 358429 did not shoot as well as 15.5 grains. I get no pressure signs and the cases generally drop out of the revolver. No leading with reasonably soft lead, either. I do keep these loads marked as I do not want any run through the Model 19 I have had since the '70s.

[1006]

I got this from another site:

It should be helpful (the Hodgdon response in Yellow) to those using 296/110:

https://ammoguide.com/cgi-bin/news.cgi?em=agnews1802

[Bigslug]

Johnsonian09,

I think your approach with cup points is a valid one.

Primer deformation is a bit of a variable indicator as construction of the primer cups can, well, be variable. That said, I would feel comfortable with that until I started seeing two things - 1. the flattening of the cup starting to make it all the way out to the edges of the pocket, and 2. cratering or flowing of the primer cup material creating a raised ring molded around the tip of the firing pin. If you're seeing those, you're definitely off the map where the dragons are said to be.

Soot on the outside of the cases is a sign you're not hot enough, as you haven't pressurized the brass sufficiently to seal against the chamber walls and send the crud downrange instead. If your brass is sticking, and maybe pairing with the aforementioned primer signatures, again, time to back off the throttle.

With deer and a 160 grain bullet, the quest for speed is going to be more relevant for trajectory than for humanely killing a deer. If you've got good accuracy combined with a reasonable point-blank range that doesn't require much in the way of holdover, you may be able to "git 'er dun" with significantly less flash, blast, and recoil, and a faster powder more thoroughly consumed while in the gun may be a better choice. Such is the direction my .38/.357 work is heading anyway. YMMV.

EDIT TO ADD: If you have access to a chronograph, shoot six to twelve rounds of each step in your load development and compare the results. Your ideal load will be one which both delivers consistent speeds, and delivers them as speeds not massively lower or higher than the ones above and below it. In short, this puts you on the plateaus of your pressure curve, where the tiny variations of brass thickness and a charge weight being a tenth grain off matter less.

[johnsonian09]

Bigslug - thankyou for that bit about soot on the outside of cases. Not everyone but the majority of my cases do show that.

And this confirms - I think*

megasupermagnums math as to only being 22.6k psi with my current load which use. Because I increased the OAL so much
Vs the starting load book pressure at a normal length is 33.5k psi.

I think i definitely have room to move up now.





Sent from my SM-J337VPP using Tapatalk

[str8wal]

Do not reduce, and do not load below 3% of max are two COMPLETELY different things. Hornady especially is probably the worst. I don't know if I gave away or threw away their manual. Hornady max loads are not that far off from everyone else's starting loads.

Hornady is absolutely the worst. I quit referencing their manuals and if using their bullets I look for something close and work up.

[outdoorfan]

In the gp100, I think just about any load is safe... But I digress.

16-17 grains H110 should be 100% safe and reliable for a lifetime of use, if you are up to it, imo

[Walks]

johnsonian09 -

Howdy !

I'd say you are pretty close on the load, if the power is enough for your needs.

I have long used 14.5gr WW296 ( H110 same stuff ) and SP Magnum primers under Lyman SWCs of 156 - 172gr.
Shot the load in both 4, 5 and 6" "N" frames; and in a M1894SC .357Mag.

Make sure you use enough crimp, so that bullets don't migrate fwd w/ recoil; and hang-up the gun.


With regards,
357Mag

Yep,
I've loaded the same thing for many years. Got some sitting on a shelf right now, with #358156GC. My 45yr old NM Blackhawk loves the load. Don't usually use the #358429 cause it's O.A.L. is too long for the N frames.
I reserve that bullet for .38-44 loads.

[charlie b]

I got this from another site:

It should be helpful (the Hodgdon response in Yellow) to those using 296/110:

https://ammoguide.com/cgi-bin/news.cgi?em=agnews1802

Thanks for that. Much different result than we have been led to believe over the years. I wonder if that is true for many of the ball powders.

[44MAG#1]

Occam's razor principle. That is a good thing to use most of the time. All one had to do was look at Hodgdons data and the answer would have been obvious.
Or to me it would have been.