Original .357 Magnum load (1935)

Last night I went searching for load data I have from the late 1960's. As it happens, the earliest load data I could find was from 1980. Comparing the .357 load data from then to a load data from 2000 was interesting.

The 1980 Alliant data showed a great many loads in the 38-39K range with one load at 40K. All pressure units were CUP. The 2000 Alliant data shows that the data was pressure tested using piezo systems and no pressures above 35K PSI were shown. Looking at certain specific loads, data didn't change, measured pressure did. In other cases, loads were reduced.

.38 Special data showed no loads over 16K in either set. It was interesting to note that with 2400, 8 something grains and a 158 grain lead bullet gave pressures of 12,700 CUP and a 160 gr SP generated ~15,700 CUP.

Somewhere on this site is a link to Speer information regarding both the MAP of their .38 +P ammo and the CUP/PSI pressure measurements. I can't find the info on the Speer website at this time. IIRC, Speer noted that their .38+P was loaded at about 20K. They also noted that the piezo pressure measuring system was calibrated using ammo of known pressure under the CUP system. They further cautioned that at pistol pressures, there were no conversion factors between the two systems.

What I take from this is that that currently published pressures for ammo originally standardized with the CUP are that same ammo measured with piezo systems. In the case of the .357 Magnum, 40+K CUP appears to work out to about 35K PSI(G).

I was hoping to find older data to see if there's any evidence that .38 Spl pressures changed and if it did, if conversion to pieze pressure sensors might have been the cause.

Added edit: I found Olin 1991 data showing .38 Spl loads above 16K PSI. The data labeled +P showed pressures above 17K PSI. It appears that 17K (17,000) PSI is the max pressure for .38 Spl.

About pressures changing around 1972....this was when the .38 Spl was THE police cartridge and work had been ongoing with +P and +P+ loads. The cartridge would have been a prime cantidate for conversion to the new pressure measurement system for liability reasons. As we've noted with .357 Magnum data, this would cause published pressures to go down because of the new measuring tool.

If it matters, I think you'll find that the original load for the 357 used a Hensley & Gibbs #51, a SWC which they alloyed/molded at 160 grains. Later it became the 158 grain we know today.
The #51 was result of the first modifications done of the actual Keith bullet, where they reduced the length (primarily, but other mods too) so as to fit in the short N frame cylinder. The molds for these bullets were made both with and without gas check bases. I am not 100% positive, but I think they also had an HP pin available for the 2 bullet molds they made back then.
These SWCs are really excellent shooting bullets, if you can find some that is. I have loaded and shot these bullets over the last 7 years or so, and I like them better than other 158 grain SWCs. And yes, I think there is a difference in performance in the various 158 grain SWC bullets out there, even if often slight.

intresting info if you ask me.

Just another guy's $.02 worth; I cast Lyman 358156 from straight wheelweights, apply Hornady gaschecks and homemade beeswax/paraffin/molybdenum disulfide lube. Put 'em into W-W brass over 15.0gr. Hercules 2400 with a CCI Small Rifle std. primer. Never had a chance to chrono these, but were quite accurate to 100 yds out of my Rossi Puma carbine, and to 75 yds & beyond in my 6 1/2" NMBH. Tried a few in my M13-2, but that was a little scary - very heavy recoil.

Larry

I'd listen to Elmer. I load 13.5 gr 2400 with his 173 gr 358429 swc. I have used both old 2400 and the new AA 2400 with the same load no problems. I shoot them from a 19-4 and a colt new frontier.

173 Grain Keith bullet on left, H&G #51 on right. This close up shows the slight nose modification nicely, along with the narrowing of the bore contact bands-both errors in Elmer's opinion.

I've never loaded the #51 at anything more than 5.0 grains of Unique, so I can't offer any opinions on this bullet at magnum velocity, but at 38 Special velocity, and at 50 yards or less, I really like it, as much as the Keith bullet. The Keith I have shot plenty with 12 to 14 grains of 2400, if you reload the 357 and have never tried this bullet/load combo, all I can say is that you should!

In the .357, #51 plain base, ww alloy, sized .358 or .359, 12 grains #2400, standard primer = 1,100 from 6" barrel.

rockquarry said:

In the .357, #51 plain base, ww alloy, sized .358 or .359, 12 grains #2400, standard primer = 1,100 from 6" barrel.

Click to expand...

Did these loads lead up the barrel? I bet accuracy wasn't an issue.

geoff40: The load may lead some bores. Alloy mixture and sizing diameter may require some experimentation. I've also used 14 grains 296 with this bullet. Slightly higher muzzle velocity (a bit over 1,100 fps) but muzzle flash and noise, even from a 6" barrel, is noticeably greater than with the #2400 load. Accuracy, however, is just as good.

Good read, interesting info here.

alwslate said:

Doug remember the older data for 2400 in the 357 usually specified
magnum primers.

Click to expand...

Most modern reloading manuals now list a standard small pistol primer in their recipes when using 2400. A recent Handloader Magazine article actually recommended against the use of magnum primers with 2400, claiming better consistency and accuracy using standard primers.

David LaPell said:

I dug out the old November, 1935 American Rifleman when Elmer Keith tested out a Smith .357 with an 8 3/4 inch barrel. Elmer stated that the 158 grain bullet and that the powder charge was approximately 15.4 grains of 2400 with a muzzle velocity of 1,518 fps. However he stated he got better performance from his 160 grain hollowpoints and 13.5 grains of 2400. One thing to point out is that 2400 from 1935 will not have the same burn rates as 2012 era 2400. I would very carefully work up to that 1,500 fps mark and use bullets of a decent enough BHN to avoid the leading problem.

Click to expand...

I didn't think they had hollowpoints in 1935.

I revisited my above said load at 14.2 and 14.5 grains of 2400 tonight. Whew, that makes a hand cannon out of my 6 inch Highway Patrolman and gives it quite a kick. Quite the fighting load compared to other fighting guns

I have gotten over.....

Rule3 said:

Due you think the newer stainless guns such as a 686 or 627 PC can handle those loads? They certainly do not have the weight of a HP model.

Click to expand...

I have gotten over 15.1 gr 2400 in my L frame and the recoil started to smart a little. I'm sure the gun can take it, it's mostly how your grips are set up for recoil. I'd like to take the load higher but would rather do it in an N frame.

Doug.38PR said:

I didn't think they had hollowpoints in 1935. I revisited my above said load at 14.2 and 14.5 grains of 2400 tonight. Whew, that makes a hand cannon out of my 6 inch Highway Patrolman and gives it quite a kick. Quite the fighting load compared to other fighting guns

Click to expand...

They did indeed have cast hollowpoints as far back as the mid-1800s.

Doug.38PR said:

I didn't think they had hollowpoints in 1935.

Click to expand...

As 358156HP said! When Elmer said "His bullet in hollow-point" he was referring to the HP version of Lyman 358429 designed by Keith sometime in the 1920s. The HP mould was number 358431, Keith designed 3 versions of this basic bullet, a flat-base solid, a hollow-point and a hollow-base. These were the 358429, 358431 and 358439, in that order.

Hollow-point bullets go back almost as far as elongated bullets fired from rifled barrels, at least mid 1800s as stated.

Since were on the subject, hollowpoints were first intended simply to lighten the bullets, allowing higher velocities. Nobody realized that the hollowpoint bullets could expand in flesh until there were failures in africa to stop certain heavy game. Since these bullets traveled faster than the standard loadings of the day, they picked up the title of "express train" loadings, or simple express. Later, the term "express" was used to identify a high velocity load, hollowpoint or not. The world hasn't been the same since...

I've loaded the 358429 for a 6" M28-2 with 15.0 gr of 2400 and had the top of the front driving band level with the case mouth. I clocked them at 1420 fps using CCI SR primers.

The original load was using non-canister 2400 according to Phil Sharpe. BBHFarm Gallery :: Complete Guide to Handloading Philip B. Sharpe 1937 :: aab

Due to regulative silliness, my friends and I are not allowed to play with the .357. However, we can play with the .38 special all we want and Elmer's original loading of the 358429 bullet loaded over 13.5 grains of 2400 and the W-W SP primer is our standard "hot" loading.

From an 8 inch Python, it does around 1,420 fps and from an 8 3/8 inch Model 27 that has become a 23 it does around 1,400. Testing in a second 8 3/8 "Mexican 23" turned in velocities of 1,385 plus-or-minus but this one had a slightly larger cylinder/barrel gap.

Although it's not "real science", if you use the IPSC impact factor and multiply the original .357 loading of a 158 x 1515 = 239,370. If you take our Elmer Keith loading, that's 171 (actual weight) x 1400 = 239,400. The steel plate or bowling pin we shoot with it doesn't know the difference from the original load.

Footage from our pin match a couple weeks back. Gotta love the weather.
VID 20131104 WA0003 - YouTube

357 magnum loads

I have a 6" M-28 that I have been shooting since the early 70's.....my everyday load is a cast 160 SWC ( straight wheel weight) over 13.5 of 2400.....my hunting load is a 158 gr. JHP over 15. of 2400.....my M-28 has logged 30,000 of these two loads since I started shooting it......both loads are very accurate. I have taken several large bodied white tail with the 158gr/15. @ 2400 loads. I have shot a lot of varmints over the years with the 13.5 / 160gr SWC load.....never been disappointed in either.

Alk8944 said:

As 358156HP said! When Elmer said "His bullet in hollow-point" he was referring to the HP version of Lyman 358429 designed by Keith sometime in the 1920s. The HP mould was number 358431, Keith designed 3 versions of this basic bullet, a flat-base solid, a hollow-point and a hollow-base. These were the 358429, 358431 and 358439, in that order.

Hollow-point bullets go back almost as far as elongated bullets fired from rifled barrels, at least mid 1800s as stated.

Click to expand...

The 358439 is Elmers HP bullet that weighed close to 160 gr, there has also been a 358429 HP cataloged by Lyman with a shallower depth pin. The 358431 is the hollow-base mold.