chronographing old .357 ammo

rockquarry · Jan 6, 2023

I just chronographed some .357 ammo that's around 50 years old, maybe a little older. I used a 4" Highway Patrolman.

Super Vel 110 gr. JHP - 1449 actual, published = 1690
Super Vel 137 gr. (I think) JHP - 1179 actual, published = 1620
Winchester 158 gr. Metal Piercing FMJ cone nose - 1222 actual, published =1410
Remington 158 gr. JSP - 1253 actual, published =1450

Add about 80 fps to my chronographed figures for 6" barrel muzzle velocity.

I didn't make any notes on this, but some of these cartridges produced considerable muzzle flash and this was during daylight hours on a sunny day; a good reason to use #2400 powder instead of 296/H110 in .357 handloads.

Nevada Ed · Jan 6, 2023

Thanks for those figures.

Back in the old days many would say the the ammo company people would

"Speak with forked toung".

Maybe they were right?

biku324 · Jan 6, 2023

The Federal 357B 125 grain JHP from the late '80s chronographed at 1381 fps from 4" Security Six back in September. I think it was advertised at 1450 fps. It still blasts, bites, and flashes.

s&wchad · Jan 6, 2023

I believe some ammo manufacturers published data achieved using fixed breech test barrels. I'm sure you'd get higher velocities out of an 8" or 10" TC Contender.

ruger 22 · Jan 6, 2023

Close enough for me!!

DWalt · Jan 6, 2023

Two revolvers of the exact same model and barrel length can give different MVs, up to several hundred FPS MV apart. This is because of small dimensional differences, especially the barrel-cylinder gap. One of the older Speer reloading manuals contains a fairly thorough article on exactly that subject. And you will have no idea what MV measurement equipment and barrel configuration that ammunition factory used. The rule is to never believe anything printed about MVs from a revolver, even from an ammunition manufacturer. Or maybe especially from an ammunition manufacturer. If you want to know the MV of some loading fired from your revolver with any degree of precision, you should buy a chronograph. Otherwise you are fooling yourself.

Dave Lively · Jan 6, 2023

Thanks, something to keep in mind when you hear people talk about how modern ammo is watered down compared to the old stuff.

rockquarry · Jan 6, 2023

To carry the mention of the Speer report on velocity a little further - in several of their older manuals, they published manufacturers' claimed muzzle velocities on many popular handgun and rifle cartridges. Speer chronographed the same factory loads and published their findings alongside the factory numbers. Lots of discrepancies and very interesting reading. Few handloaders had chronographs at the time.

Sometimes figures will closely correspond, but about half the time they don't. Considering the numerous changeable factors involved, it's remarkable the velocity numbers correlate as often as they do. I don't believe there is any lying involved.

stansdds · Jan 7, 2023

Let's not forget that many decades ago, 357 Magnum ammo was chronographed using 8" or 8 3/8" barrels. Also, ammo chronographed from a test barrel will likely have a higher velocity than an equal length revolver barrel.

moosedog · Jan 7, 2023

Back then the industry standard was to test handgun ammunition out of a 10-inch barrel with a fixed breech as mentioned. Deduct about 50 fps for every inch shorter and you can see the difference.
Also, other variations are to be considered such as actual bore diameters.

Heinz · Jan 7, 2023

The industry uses test barrels because it does not make sense to wear an expensive revolver out with the frequent test firing they (should be) doing for quality control. And if the numbers look good, so much the better.

And as moose dog noted, my old data sheets ofter refer to a "10 inch barrel" when they mention barrel length. Don't really see many 10 inch K frames.

Pisgah · Jan 7, 2023

The phenomenon of dubious ammo velocity claims has not gone away. Take a look at ballistics charts for Hornady Leverevolution .30-30 ammo. Then, note that all of their ammo was tested in 24-inch barrels, while the velocities quoted from all the "other" companies were shot from 20" barrels. Correct for barrel length, and voila -- the Leverevolution ain't all that, much less the bag of chips it claims.

Yes, snake oil is still present in abundance...

BB57 · Jan 7, 2023

Nevada Ed said:
Thanks for those figures.

Back in the old days many would say the the ammo company people would

"Speak with forked toung".

Maybe they were right?

It’s not so much they lied then or lie now, it’s more in what they leave out.

If you take the OP’s 4” velocities and then add his suggested (and realistic) 80 fps correction for 6” barrel velocity, and then consider the ammo makers would shoot it in a solid test barrel and add in the resulting 100 fps otherwise lost through a cylinder gap, their numbers were probably “honest”, if you leave out the context.

Same with the 2390 fps advertised on .30-30 150 gr RN ammo by both Winchester and Remington. In my three pre 64 “ carbines average velocity is right around 2260 fps.

I get right around 2400 fps with those factory loads in both my 26” rifles, and in fact I can do a bit better with hand loads as both companies loaded their 150 gr offerings down slightly to better trajectory match with the 170 gr loads and make them interchangeable for all practical iron sighted purposes.

The fact that that most of the lever action production after WWII consisted of 20” carbines, and that Winchester discontinued their .30-30 lever action Model 64 rifle entirely in 1957 never seemed to be a reason to start publishing a realistic 2260 fps velocity on tue package.

It still isn’t…not that you can find .30-30 anymore as Winchester seems to have entirely supplanted it with the .350 Legend to force the 10 million or so .30-30 users out there to buy new rifles.

BB57 · Jan 7, 2023

Pisgah said:
The phenomenon of dubious ammo velocity claims has not gone away. Take a look at ballistics charts for Hornady Leverevolution .30-30 ammo. Then, note that all of their ammo was tested in 24-inch barrels, while the velocities quoted from all the "other" companies were shot from 20" barrels. Correct for barrel length, and voila -- the Leverevolution ain't all that, much less the bag of chips it claims.

Yes, snake oil is still present in abundance...

Agreed. Winchester and Remington used 26” barrel lengths for years for .30-30, even though most folks were using. 20” barrels. But now Hornady is using real world 20” numbers for the traditional rounds and comparing it to 24” test barrel data.

Typical marketing hype, relying on the customer not to pick up on it, and ensuring through advertising dollars that the gun rag writers don’t point it out.

seattle fish guy · Jan 7, 2023

Sorta like the "Big 3" horsepower ratings.

pharmer · Jan 8, 2023

Take a look at one of the old SW ammo pamphlets that came in the box with the guns. One load claimed “2001fps” with a cavity pic that looked like a torpedo hit. Joe

DWalt · Jan 8, 2023

Regarding things which have an effect upon muzzle velocity, Ballistics by the Inch has considerable information. See: BBTI - Ballistics by the Inch :: Calibers/Cartridges

kaaskop49 · Jan 13, 2023

Thank you, OP! I appreciate anybody kind enough to publish findings on factory MVs. If any member still has the Law Enforcement Handgun Digest of 1972, the one with the Det. Spec. on the cover, you may want to check out page 188. There are some MVs of different LE loads in actual service guns. Worth a look-see.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

rockquarry · Jan 13, 2023

kaaskop49 said:
Thank you, OP! I appreciate anybody kind enough to publish findings on factory MVs. If any member still has the Law Enforcement Handgun Digest of 1972, the one with the Det. Spec. on the cover, you may want to check out page 188. There are some MVs of different LE loads in actual service guns. Worth a look-see.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

I have that book as well as the revised edition published several years later. I think the article you're referring to is in both publications but I haven't read it in a long time. Dean Grennell and Mason Williams were involved in the editing of one or both books and I think they probably wrote many of the articles. Good gunwriters both and just about anything either of them wrote was worth reading.

WR Moore · Jan 14, 2023

Back when SAAMI was established, whoever developed a new cartridge established the dimensional specs and tolerances, pressures and the length of the velocity test barrels. Naturally, those were carefully crafted items, not production examples and didn't have barrel/cylinder gaps. IIRC-I've got it in writing somewhere-the official test barrel for the .38 Spl was 8 in, .357 got 10 inch test barrels. Since there were very, very few chronographs around outside of labs and ammo plants, advertised velocity was seen as gospel.

After chronographs became widely available and the wailing about the differences between published and actual was wide spread, SAAMI changed test barrel lengths to those in most handguns of that caliber. They also added vents to revolver test barrels to duplicate/simulate the barrel/cylinder gap.

chronographing old .357 ammo

Member

US Veteran

Member

Administrator

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

SWCA Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads