Quote:
Originally posted by XTrooper:
Quote:
Originally posted by Texas Star:
You may wish to get the Oct. 15 issue of, "Gun Week", where there is a two-page article discussing the .357 ammo issue, and how to select the best .357 gun for your own needs.
It is not in the Online edition, but I'll link that here, as it probably has contact info.
www.gunweek.com
The writer has studied the matter for some 30 years, and talked with S&W officials and engineers at the major ammo makers. Also a number of gunsmiths.
|
For those of us that don't have access to the article, would you mind filling us in on the gist of it? Thanks! 
|
The short version is that, YES, light bullet loads were found to have caused forcing cone damage. It is most likely when hot 125 grain loads are used in K-frame Magnums that may also have lead deposits in the barrel throat. That increases pressures, and the ejecta (all the stuff that comes from the ctg. case in addition to the bullet) is highly erosive.
Burning rates of some powders have been changed since the 1970's and velocities and pressures of the hot 125 gr. loads have been dropped.
That said, 140-158 grain bullets are the best balanced in the cartridge. The Remington hunting load with 165 grain JHP is too close to matter.
(Some 140 grain rounds seem pretty hot, and I prefer to use them in L-frame or larger S&W's, or in Ruger GP-100.)
Heavier bullets were not discussed. They have been offered in factory ammo only in fairly recent times, and the author hasn't conferred with anyone about them.
For what it's worth, if one thinks he might benefit from a 180 grain or heavier bullet in a .357, I suspect that a larger caliber might be a better answer. But the article didn't cover that.
T-Star