Any suggestions as to recommended ccw load for a 2.5" model 19? I know many use 38+P for these, but any recommendation for 357 in a short barrel?

Any suggestions as to recommended ccw load for a 2.5" model 19? I know many use 38+P for these, but any recommendation for 357 in a short barrel?

Speer short barrel .357 Gold Dot.
If that's too much recoil for you try .38 +P Speer short barrel.

__________________
Science plus Art

Anyone try this Buffalo Bore stuff?

http://www.buffalobore.com/ammunitio...tm#tactical357

Try Winchester Silvertip, 145 gr. JHP. It's my favorite for all K frame magnums.

How does the Silvertip compare to the tactical Buffalo Bore?

If BB truly designed these for less felt recoil and muzzle flash in short barreled wheelguns, I'd love to hear from anyone who's shot this stuff and whether it's hype or a good alternative!

Golden Sabre 125 GR. .357 Good round and nice to shoot in smaller frames. JF

I agree with big al. Silvertip 357.

Another fan of the Win Silvertip .357. I shot a box of the Speer GD short bbl .357 and it was an easy shooting load. The Win silvertip is easier to find, a little cheaper, and still an easy shooting round, so I go with it for a defensive carry load.

Personally with so many variables I'm not sure anyone really knows for sure what the best load is.

Not saying I disagree with the 145 Silvertip suggestions, (it seems like a good choice) but just to play devils advocate here is an artcle fairly critical of that exact load in regard to a police shooting.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs3.htm

(Relevent part starts about 1/4 way down with "In November 1992, South Carolina Highway Patrolman Mark Coates ..."

Yet another factor is that since 1992, the Silvertip design may have been "tweaked" a bit one way or the other I've noticed same brand different year ammo have slight differences in the serations in the hollow-tips (longer or shorter) or even numnber (6 versus 8) with no mention of the changes in the gun media. To me anything 125-158 grain moving at 1,000 to 1,500 FPS is something I would try to stay out of the way of

110 grain .357 MAG JHP's for the reduced recoil were popular in the heyday of the snub nose revolver.

I would take the suggestions above, pick three or four that sound good, go to the range and see what you and your gun shoot best with as far as accuracy, power and follow up shots go. You may have to decide what you feel is more important, power or follow up shots, if choosing between a managed recoil and full power load that shot with equal accuracy. It will cost some money for a few different boxes of different ammo, but I never let that hang me up since I always save the ammo I choose not to adopt as carry ammo for future testing and reference.

By shooting 38's in my snub 19, I do very well on follow-up shots. The magnum will hit a lot harder, but you have to make the hit.

In general, are heavier bullets like 158 grain more effective defensively out of a short 2.5" snubbie than lighter 125 grain?

I carry Winchester 145gr Silvertip .357 Magnum ammo in my M640. The reason, POA=POI and in the end that's what counts.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

Well, I want to try some of the Buffalo Bore Tactical Low Flash, reduced recoil 357 and they offer 3 different choices:

A. 158gr. Speer Uni-core, (Gold Dot) hollow cavity, bullet @ 1,100fps from a 2.5 inch barrel. It is designed to mushroom, yet hold together and penetrate deeply—roughly 13 to 15 inches in human tissue.

B. 140gr. Sierra JHC bullet (jacketed hollow cavity) @ 1,150 fps from a 2.5 inch barreled S&W mod. 66. Designed to mushroom and penetrate deeply—roughly 12 to 14 inches in human tissue.

C. 125gr. Speer Uni-core (Gold Dot) bullet @ 1,225 fps from a 2.5 inch S&W mod. 66 barrel. Designed to mushroom violently, yet hold together and penetrate deeply—roughly 12 to 14 inches in human tissue.

I don't want to order all 3, so between these choices, which would you choose? Thanks.

I've always leaned towards heavier rather than lighter bullets for a given caliber. I have my .38 Special snubbies loaded with Buffalo Bore 158 gr. loads and would go with your load A. in your .357.

Regarding the 145 gr. Silvertips, you can't judge a cartridge by one incident as there are a myriad of variables involved in a shooting. Overall, the .357 Mag Silvertip load has a very good record in actual shootings and it's what my 4" Model 13 is loaded with.

__________________
Steve
NJ State Trooper (rtd)

I just shot some of the BB 158 grain JHC 357 ammo this past weekend. It clocked 1104 out of my 3" Ruger SP101. The recoil was stiff, but tolerable.

I've used WW 145 Silvertips in the past, and they are a reasonable load. I've shot them in a light weight 386SC 3" and found the recoil to be acceptable.

I'm also a fan of the Speer 357 Short Barrel 135's.

Here's what I carry: Speer 135 in my 640, BB 158 in my SP101, 386SC and 681 3".

SMore, was the BB stuff you shot the Tactical low recoil, low flash load or their standard load?

Of the choices you enumerated earlier, I would choose the 1st - it is the only one weighing 158grs. This is the minimum bullet size recommended in the K frame by S&W and many armorers. There are too many well-documented cases of cracked cones and cut frames from using the lighter bullets.

Double Tap offers a loading of that Gold Dot which they chrono as 1245fps out of a 1 7/8" j-frame. Alternatively, load it at home to the velocity you wish - speer publishes data specifically for 2 1/2 revolvers, or at least used to, in their manuals.

Thanks Kamerer, I'll try that one.

And, on another matter, I'm still watching the mail closely!

Hi. I'd like to know your source for this statement. I've owned and carried various K-frame revolvers for decades and I've never read or heard that Smith & Wesson recommends only 158 gr. loads from their K-frame .357 Magnum models. Frankly, I don't believe any such official statement exists.

It's true that cracked forcing cones and flame cutting have been a problem with the K-frame .357 models, but all the cases I'm aware of involved the use of "full house" 125 gr. loads (125 @ 1450) and similar full house loads using other light bullet weights.

You could shoot all the light 110 gr. loads (like Winchester's 110 @ 1295) and all the so-called mid-range 125 gr. loads (typified by the Remington 125 gr. Golden Saber @ 1220) you wanted, from now to doomsday, and never damage your K-frame 357. It's not the bullet weight alone that is the problem, but the light bullet/maximum charge combination that will cause problems. Stay away from them, especially the standard, full house 125 gr. loads, and your K-frame .357 Magnum revolver should last a good long time.

__________________
Steve
NJ State Trooper (rtd)

The best way to shoot a 125 grain bullet at 1400fps+ seems to be a .357 SIG.

I prefer the Colt Commander I converted to Winchester 9x23 (125 gr. @ 1450 fps). It's my normal, everyday carry pistol.

__________________
Steve
NJ State Trooper (rtd)

You and 38/44HD45 . . . You guys are going to drag me up on the bandwagon if you're not careful. That looks like a pretty neat round.

BTW, my ordinary 9x19 Sigma throws the 127-gr Talon bullet from a +P+ RA9TA at 1400 fps. Pretty good for what the thing cost me.

__________________
Now go make God proud...

That's some darn impressive ballistics from a 9x19, Erich! I'm, well, impressed!

__________________
Steve
NJ State Trooper (rtd)

Cor-Bon 125 DPX

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Corbon%20357%20Magnu...0gr%20DPX%20Ammo.htm

__________________
JOIN THE GOA and NRA TODAY!

I agree, Steve! And, I figure that if the (grossly overengineered - it is made for the .40) thing breaks after shooting a bunch of them, so what? They're so cheap that I can just buy another.

The operative limiting factor is the cost of the RA9TA - I don't feel comfortable handloading 9x19 at that level.

__________________
Now go make God proud...

If you call and discuss the subject, this is what they say. Others have reported exactly the same thing, both in this forum and elsewhere.

All I can say to that is a lot of things are "reported" on the Internet and then repeated by others to the point of legend. As far as some guy, S&W employee or not, giving their advice (personal opinion?) over the phone is concerned, this is a far cry from an official statement or recommendation.

Here's one actual and documented fact. In 1984, the US Border Patrol was looking for a replacement for the .38 Special 110 gr. +P+ load, their issued ammunition at the time. As they are often involved in more police shootings per year than any other LEO in the country, they understandably took this job very seriously. After extensive testing, they settled on the .357 Magnum 110 gr. JHP load and one of their given reasons for this choice was, and I quote, "We also knew that this (the .357 110 gr. load) was the round least likely to accelerate wear on our medium-framed Smith & Wesson and Ruger revolvers."
This understanding mirrors my own experiences with this load and I reiterate the fact that whenever I've personally seen a cracked forcing cone and/or flame-cutting it was the 125 gr. "full house" load that was involved.

__________________
Steve
NJ State Trooper (rtd)

Sorry to take so long to reply. I was shooting the Low Flash/"low recoil" BB 357. It is much more subdued than their full house round, and very appropriate for a smaller revolver. It's still too much for me to shoot successfully (recovery from first shot and accurate follow-up shots) from a 340M&P. It works great in my SP101 or K/L frame guns.

Hoser,

I carry Remington 125 gr. SJHP (R357M1) in 2" 640 and 3" 686. It's a potent round.

Mike

__________________
9x19, 9x29R, 9x33R, 10x22

Something said by an official S&W rep is, to me, not "legend." I didn't say "I read it on the internet." I said that I called and had a discussion. You quoted me, did you not really read it?

Magazines and armorers have documented this to death. In your quote, you stated the USBP stated the "knew that this was the round least likely to accelerate wear.."

Umm, that's not proof. That sounds like assumption. "knew" is not equal to "demonstrate" "test" or "proove." What was their proof? That would be a meaningful reference to use, instead of perpetuating, a, uh, "legend."

Actually, my friend, I did read your statement and you did not say that you yourself called anyone. You said "If you call and discuss the subject, this is what they say." No one can assume from that statement that you personally called S&W simply because you never said you did.

The bottom line is this. Even though your original post makes the inference, there is no official policy statement from Smith & Wesson stating you should not use loads with bullet weights of less than 158 grains in their K-frame .357 Magnum revolvers. It just doesn't exist. S&W has given written ammo recommendations (+P ammo, bullet weights, etc) many times over the years regarding numerous models. This isn't one of them. Why? Are we to believe this supposed 158 gr. recommendation is something Smith & Wesson keeps as a semi-secret, only divulged if you call and question them about it? If this were the case, then S&W has done a large number of police departments and individuals a great disservice. All the written ammo recommendations they've made in the past make the very idea ludicrous.

As I've already stated, it's NOT the bullet weight alone that is the problem, but the light bullet weight/heavy charge combo that is. I'll be the first to tell you that a heavy charge of the powders used with light bullet loads will cause problems. However, lighter charges of the same powders will not. This is why you'll never hear anyone telling you not to fire the exact same 110 gr. bullets from the exact same K-frame revolvers when its .38 Special ammo you're using. The only difference here is the powder charge. If you look at the Winchester 110 gr. .357 Magnum "Q" load I referenced earlier, you'll see its ballistics are the mildest of any factory .357 ammo available and is the one the US Border Patrol adopted. Are we to believe that Smith & Wesson would recommend against its use, not in writing of course, but whispered in our ears on the telephone? The idea is inconceivable.

So why didn't Smith & Wesson step up and inform those poor, dumb Border Patrolmen of their error back in 1984? Because no such official recommendation exists, then or now.

__________________
Steve
NJ State Trooper (rtd)

You mean slow burning powders? The most sizzling hot, high velocity .357 loads use slow burning powders. The peak pressure last longer with slow powders.

Yes, I meant to say slow-burning/fast velocity. Thanks for catching that. I corrected it above.

__________________
Steve
NJ State Trooper (rtd)

I belive the above quote to be accurate.

I have fired thousands of rounds of Remington 125gr "lites" through K frames with NEVER a forcing cone issue. Damn fine round in a K frame....in my humble opinion. I like the 145gr Silver Tips too.

If your going to shoot lots of "old school" 125gr. stuff through your revolver get a L/N Frame or....or a Ruger.

- regards

I carry Remington .357 mag 158 gr JHP's in both my 640-1, 2" bbl, and my Md 66 no dash 4" bb. This load is very accurate in both guns.
Chrono'd velocities, 10 ft from the muzzle for this load are:
640-1, 2" = 1141 fps
66, 4" = 1294 fps

speedingbullet wrote: Remington 125 grain Lite--the realistic .357MAG /125 grain round. The faster 125 grain loads require the gun to be built like a tank. Ergo, the Model 686. Just too much gun for that little bitty bullet, IMHO.

Don't look at the size of the bullet, look at the size of the muzzle energy. They work hand in hand.

Pretty good argument with respect to the .327 MAGNUM.

Bingo!!!! And I'm one of those who thinks the .327 is a great idea. There is a trinity of asskickage, weight, velocity and bullet design. They must work in harmony.

Yes. But, is that accomplished one gun for each of the three different rounds, or two of each round in the same cylinder? Sort of like trying to decide between the Dixie Chicks and SHeDAISY...

I totally disagree! The .327 magnum is a bad answer to a nonexistent problem.

Lots of .38 +p's give the FBI minimum penetration and then some. Virtually every .357 mag does (obviously). That includes even the weakest loaded .357 ammo like the Speer SB, Remington GS, and Corbon DPX.

All of them from .38 Speer SB on up through those rounds named do so with LESS recoil to the shooter than the .327 mag. stuff. They all reach the 12" minimum with a larger permenent wound chanel by far than the .32 caliber stuff by a wide margin (around .65" mushroom with good hollow points).

Super paper "energy" like touted for the .327 magnum does one of two things. It either causes overpenetration or it causes a larger TEMPORARY wound chanel. Neither of these contributes to the stopping power of the round. In the case of overpenetration, it's actually detramental.

12" ,+ a little more perhaps, of penetration with the largest permenent wound chanel possible is the name of the game. .38spl. and low power .357 magnums do that with less recoil and a lot less noise than the .327 magnum round - not to mention ammo costs.

It's a "no-brainer"!

Gunwriters who tout the new .327 magnum do so by comparing it's paper energy with low power .357 diameter ammo and it's recoil with heavy .357 magnum ammo. Most dishonest IMHO!

I'll politely disagree with your very good argument, Marvin. I believe that energy plays a role in stopping power. The .327 mimics the old, and very successful, 9mm 115 gr. +P+ ballisticaly, but with a little more penetration, which I think is good. Whether the extra asswhippage, plus one shot, warrants a new cartridge is IMO a tennable argument. I think a .327, with good 125 gr. .357 style secondary fragmentation, would be the baddest little dude on the block.