Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > >


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-12-2018, 09:03 PM
Spawndn72 Spawndn72 is offline
Member
AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads  
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Liked 16 Times in 6 Posts
Default AA#7 357 loads

I am confused.

For a 158 grain lead SWC Accurate shows a starting load of 9.1g and a max of 10.1 as follows
"158 (L) LC SWC 9.1 1,041 / 10.1 1,183 33,228 1.580"

Lyman 49th edition shows doesn't have a 158 grain, but it goes have a 155 grain which I would think would at least be close, but it shows:

"155 (L) SWC 10.8 893 28,300 / 12.0 1146 41,300"

How in the world can the be that far apart?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-12-2018, 09:32 PM
rockquarry rockquarry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,380
Likes: 2
Liked 975 Times in 560 Posts
Default

Different pressure guns, perhaps different dimensions, different operators, different bullets with different bearing lengths, different powder lots, different primers, different seating depths, different brass, maybe some other factors... I don't think this is all that unusual. A good reason to have a variety of load manuals for comparison.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-12-2018, 10:18 PM
Nevada Ed's Avatar
Nevada Ed Nevada Ed is offline
Member
AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads  
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Reno Nv
Posts: 6,602
Likes: 210
Liked 3,660 Times in 1,925 Posts
Default

A actual weapon or a Universal Receiver can make all the difference in the world.
Plus the type of bullets make up, OAL and chamber fit will toss in a monkey wrench.

When in doubt.........
I go with the powder companies data, and build from there.

Stay safe.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #4  
Old 05-12-2018, 10:37 PM
rwsmith's Avatar
rwsmith rwsmith is offline
Member
AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: (outside) Charleston, SC
Posts: 24,411
Likes: 29,097
Liked 20,845 Times in 10,166 Posts
Default I'm an old reloader.....

... and have learned that their are substantial differences between load data from different sources.

HOWEVER, sometimes I see something that is mind boggling and that is one of them.

Another thing that bugs me is that my longest pistol barrel is 6" long and my shortest rifle is 16" long, while the universal receive is 10". It looks like one those thing that doesn't correlate with anything in the real world in order to keep people from making assumptions.
__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Last edited by rwsmith; 05-12-2018 at 10:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-13-2018, 07:44 AM
stansdds stansdds is offline
Member
AA#7 357 loads  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 409
Likes: 44
Liked 344 Times in 201 Posts
Default

Different manuals can give wildly different load data. I tend to look at all of my manuals and consult any information available from the powder manufacturer. I tend to look at all my data sources and try to find some common ground.

There will be tons of variances depending upon weapon, brass, primer, bullet, and seating depth of that bullet, and even case mouth crimp. This is why it is best to start with the starting load and work up. Never start at or very near the top.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #6  
Old 05-13-2018, 08:36 AM
gwpercle's Avatar
gwpercle gwpercle is offline
Member
AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads  
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Baton Rouge, La.
Posts: 3,358
Likes: 1,778
Liked 2,605 Times in 1,387 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spawndn72 View Post
I am confused.

For a 158 grain lead SWC Accurate shows a starting load of 9.1g and a max of 10.1 as follows
"158 (L) LC SWC 9.1 1,041 / 10.1 1,183 33,228 1.580"

Lyman 49th edition shows doesn't have a 158 grain, but it goes have a 155 grain which I would think would at least be close, but it shows:

"155 (L) SWC 10.8 893 28,300 / 12.0 1146 41,300"

How in the world can the be that far apart?
I have noticed the discrepancies since 1967....and after 50 years there are still discrepancies but there are just so many variables..
One of the reasons Lyman's might be different is the bullet they used. the 155 gr. SWC #358156 is cast of hard Linotype (BH hardness 22 to 24)and fitted with a Gas Check . The accurate bullet is a Laser Cast lead , bevel based (no gas check) bullet , according to their site BH hardness is 24.
So although the bullets are quite similar...that little copper cup on the base of the Lyman allows it to be loaded to a bit higher velocity. The plain bevel base of the laser cast is a minor difference but could explain the discrepancies....

Then again...I could be totally wrong...maybe the guys at Lyman are just more "adventurous" in their testing ????

I cast and load the #358156 in 357 magnum with accurate #5 and have not found Lyman's data to be excessive with this bullet, hard cast and gas checked.
I would use Accurate data with softer cast plain or bevel based bullets.
About all we can do is pay attention to the variables , use the data that fits the components we are using and use some good old fashioned common sense.
The little details can and do matter...sometimes a lot so pay attention to the details.
Gary

Last edited by gwpercle; 05-13-2018 at 08:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #7  
Old 05-13-2018, 09:45 AM
Mark in GA Mark in GA is offline
Member
AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads  
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Coastal Georgia
Posts: 217
Likes: 6
Liked 112 Times in 54 Posts
Default

The most obvious answer here is one I have run into more than a few times with 357 Mag. We all know there are two pressure measuring systems, PSI and the older Copper Units (CUP) system. With these two systems applied to 357 there is quite a difference in the two limits. 35,000 PSI on the newer true PSI system and 45,000 CUP on the old. You can’t always make this statement because the systems vary from cartridge to cartridge and there is no real mathematical formula to convert from one system to the other. But in 357 Mag one thing that can be said for sure is when the CUP pressure system and limits are used in the testing, the result is much stronger/hotter/powerful loads. You can even see it across the load data that Accurate themselves have published over the years as they started with 357 in PSI, then for a few years used the CUP limit since other powder manufacturers powders/loads showed greater performance (using the CUP system) they switch their 357 loads to CUP testing. Now they are back to PSI and the lower load limits.

Mark in GA

Last edited by Mark in GA; 05-13-2018 at 09:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #8  
Old 05-13-2018, 10:22 AM
Spawndn72 Spawndn72 is offline
Member
AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads  
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Liked 16 Times in 6 Posts
Default

Thanks for the explanations everyone. I am using xtreme bullets 158 grain SWC with a Brinell of 18 with 9.4 grains of AA#7. They are pretty light but shoot great. This is my first time reloading 357.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #9  
Old 05-13-2018, 03:29 PM
mtgianni mtgianni is offline
Member
AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads  
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SW MT
Posts: 3,260
Likes: 1,577
Liked 1,680 Times in 937 Posts
Default

A few decades ago Accurate told everyone to please junk their loading manual #1 and not to use the data. No matter the source make sure it is current or safe with your lot of powder.
__________________
Front sight and squeeze
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-13-2018, 04:13 PM
S&WIowegan S&WIowegan is offline
US Veteran
AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads  
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Iowa
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 7,486
Liked 2,103 Times in 1,090 Posts
Wink

Old data is NOT necessarily appropriate for modern powder, primers and guns. One reason is powder mills sometimes blow-up and never get rebuilt. When I first started using AA#7 in the early 90s, the powder was made in Israel. Then Kaboom and the powder was next made in Czech Republic. I don't now where it's made today. This one reason older data is suspect. Another reason is better technology today gives more reliable data.
__________________
Bob.
SWCA 1821
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-13-2018, 05:23 PM
JagmanFL JagmanFL is offline
Member
AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads  
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I've learned the hard way to not stick with one publication, or even two. I too use Accurate Powders. I load for my .357 J-frame. I wanted to try some #9 powder for the first time. Western Powders says the start load for 158 Hornady XTP at 1200 fps is 12.4grs. Lyman Load Data starts at 13.4 grs for the same load. I loaded 20 rounds as an experiment at 12.4 grs. Thinking it was the safer load. I went to the range, and KABOOM. Damn near blew the gun out of my hand with a huge explosion. I have a bag with the remaining rounds to this day, dated April 2016. I have since got the Hornady 10th edition reloading book. It says to start their 158 XTP rounds at 9.7 grs, at 1000 fps. Their top load is 11.5 grs at 1200 fps. I'm now loading them at 9.7 grs of #9 and they shoot much easier. Over the years, I've learned to use many different manuals. Then again, after so many years, I've created my own set of notes on which powders to use on which rounds. As you move forward in this hobby. Take good notes on everything. Powder, load, bullet. You'll soon have your own set of notes to rely on.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-13-2018, 07:10 PM
rockquarry rockquarry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,380
Likes: 2
Liked 975 Times in 560 Posts
Default

I have about fifty load manuals going back to the '50s. Much of the old data is comparable to current data, some of it isn't. I use current data, but the old books are invaluable as reference sources.

A lot of the old loads were never pressure tested. Empty cases were eyeballed for high pressure signs. I have the original Accurate Arms book as well. It does have a hot load or two, but probably not as many as some think.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #13  
Old 05-13-2018, 07:48 PM
shocker's Avatar
shocker shocker is offline
Member
AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 581
Likes: 173
Liked 368 Times in 199 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JagmanFL View Post
I've learned the hard way to not stick with one publication, or even two. I too use Accurate Powders. I load for my .357 J-frame. I wanted to try some #9 powder for the first time. Western Powders says the start load for 158 Hornady XTP at 1200 fps is 12.4grs. Lyman Load Data starts at 13.4 grs for the same load. I loaded 20 rounds as an experiment at 12.4 grs. Thinking it was the safer load. I went to the range, and KABOOM. Damn near blew the gun out of my hand with a huge explosion.
Are you saying the loads aren't SAAMI compliant or that shooting 357 MAGNUM from a pocket pistol is a bad idea?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-13-2018, 08:16 PM
JagmanFL JagmanFL is offline
Member
AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads  
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I'm just stating facts from personal experience. Using the publications that I had access to. Loading for my personal firearm. I'm certainly not accusing any publication of being wrong. I'm sure someone loaded those loads with their particular firearm and gathered the data. I was just saying to use a multiple of different publications, and from those you will dial in what is right for you and the particular firearm being used.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-13-2018, 08:28 PM
rwsmith's Avatar
rwsmith rwsmith is offline
Member
AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: (outside) Charleston, SC
Posts: 24,411
Likes: 29,097
Liked 20,845 Times in 10,166 Posts
Default I'm not even sure that the copper pellet...

I'm not even sure that the copper pellet measured peak pressure but more of a total load, which without a clocked curve is pretty useless. One thing I can say is that even with old data I've never damaged anything and I don't know anybody that did that couldn't be pinned most likely on error. I think that the phrase 'strong modern gun' counts for something.
__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Last edited by rwsmith; 05-13-2018 at 08:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-13-2018, 09:02 PM
S&WIowegan S&WIowegan is offline
US Veteran
AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads  
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Iowa
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 7,486
Liked 2,103 Times in 1,090 Posts
Wink

Using the word "KABOOM" usually means to experienced shooters that the gun was destroyed. As best I can tell from your post that's not what happened. Do you mean the load was producing heavy recoil? You might be surprised that some people are less recoil sensitive than others. Also shooters can learn to handle recoil better. The first time I fired a 44 Magnum I used factory ammo in a Ruger Super Blackhawk and I was stunned! I eventually got used to the recoil and also got better at managing it.

I had a similar experience when I first shot my S&W 500 magnum. I'm not sure I'm used to it yet.
__________________
Bob.
SWCA 1821
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-14-2018, 01:20 AM
Old 44 Guy Old 44 Guy is offline
Member
AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads  
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Liked 344 Times in 153 Posts
Default

It was much easier in the old days when all we had was Bullseye & 2400. Now with new powders, etc. I mainly stick to the old loads my Lyman # 39 book says. My old .44 loads, not Elmer's assure me of sure accuracy.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-14-2018, 02:32 AM
JagmanFL JagmanFL is offline
Member
AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads  
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Okay, Kaboom was a bit extreme. No, the gun was not destroyed. But, being a J-frame. What some would call a pocket pistol. I was very uncomfortable with that particular load in that gun. The recoil was very excessive. I could have adapted to it, but I was more concerned for the gun itself. I just felt that load was too hot for that gun.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-14-2018, 07:39 AM
Green Frog Green Frog is offline
Member
AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Central VA
Posts: 4,110
Likes: 448
Liked 2,351 Times in 1,246 Posts
Default

My basic rule of thumb is that if I find one source with a load suggestion significantly higher than others, I. Am very skeptical and hesitant to use it... if on the other hand one source is lower than all its neighbors, I’m not as worried about going high with the majority. Theexceptiontothis rule is if I see a downward trend in newer sources, I watch them and act accordingly.

Froggie
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #20  
Old 05-14-2018, 10:26 AM
stansdds stansdds is offline
Member
AA#7 357 loads  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 409
Likes: 44
Liked 344 Times in 201 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Frog View Post
My basic rule of thumb is that if I find one source with a load suggestion significantly higher than others, I. Am very skeptical and hesitant to use it... if on the other hand one source is lower than all its neighbors, Iím not as worried about going high with the majority. Theexceptiontothis rule is if I see a downward trend in newer sources, I watch them and act accordingly.

Froggie
And a good rule of thumb I believe that to be.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-14-2018, 05:33 PM
BigBill's Avatar
BigBill BigBill is offline
Member
AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads  
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: north america
Posts: 10,990
Likes: 1,392
Liked 9,620 Times in 4,019 Posts
Default

Each manual can be different load wise. I look at what gun they tested this load in. I learned to start out low on the amount of powder with a new different load. Only load a few rounds to test. I learned to go slow working up a new load.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-16-2018, 09:44 PM
Groo01's Avatar
Groo01 Groo01 is offline
Member
AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ohio
Posts: 948
Likes: 422
Liked 415 Times in 259 Posts
Default

Groo here
When loading a bullet with a crimp groove,,
Pay attention to the crimp groove to BASE length.
How deep a bullet goes into a case has a great effect
on the load.
The deeper the bullet the LESS the powder you can use.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-16-2018, 11:27 PM
iouri iouri is offline
Member
AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads  
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 814
Likes: 241
Liked 379 Times in 202 Posts
Default

Not sure if it'd make such drastic difference but Accurate manual shows 1.580" OAL while Lyman shows 1.590" for both 155 and 160 gr bullets (same charge also). I've seen opposite and more drastic change with 500 S&W max charge for Enforcer: it was shown 34.0 in Lyman and 45.5 in Accurate manual (350 gr bullet) ! I went to 44.5 and no sticky extraction, primers looked good and no excessive force on resizing afterwards. So in _my_ case looks like Accurate manual was OK.

Last edited by iouri; 05-16-2018 at 11:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-17-2018, 12:39 PM
DWalt's Avatar
DWalt DWalt is offline
Member
AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads AA#7 357 loads  
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: South Texas
Posts: 22,013
Likes: 2
Liked 12,727 Times in 7,162 Posts
Default

As is well known, MV measurements of the same ammunition fired from different revolvers, even of the same barrel length, make, and model, are nowhere near consistent. Even slight differences in the barrel-cylinder gap will make a significant difference in the MV. If reloading data was developed using a revolver, then the MV data given cannot be expected to be the MV from your revolver. And it could be much different either direction.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are todays .38 +P loads closer to .357 loads? Photoman44 Ammo 34 07-05-2016 11:07 PM
Recommendations? Easy 44 Special loads and Quality 22 LR loads dacoontz Ammo 19 05-30-2015 07:13 PM
65-3 and .357 Loads Pants S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 13 05-12-2014 11:44 PM
m19 158 gr loads jimaw2 Reloading 10 02-23-2010 12:14 AM
460 loads...440-460gr loads marine247 Reloading 1 01-15-2009 10:27 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:11 AM.


© S-W Forum, LLC 2000-2018
Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)