I have been working on trying to duplicate the .357 Magnum as it was originally loaded. Being my understanding that modern loads have been reduced since 1935.

357 Magnum Load Data - Handloads.Com

I've been using the first listing on this as a go by as it is published by Alliant and is roughly identical to the first guest you see second or third down. The powder is 2400 and the bullet is hardcast LSWC and the powder is Winchester small pistol primer.

My gun is an N-frame M-28 Highway Patrolman with a 6 inch barrel from around 1977. Can handle anything in .357 Magnum territory.

I started, as recommended, with 13.8 grains of 2400 and have gradually worked up, so far, to 14.5. Alliant and this guest are between 15.3 and 15.8.

Was wondering what success others have had in this area?

15.4 grns was my duplication load to the original 357 magnum with 158 grn lasercasts. They do 1515 give or take out of my 8 3/8" pre-27's. Great loads, accurate and reliable. Work up to them.

I have pushed on beyond 15.4 up to 16+ but I don't recommend it. 14.5 grns is my standard "plinker" load. I shoot tons of them. Just a good standard blaster load.

__________________
SWCA 1646

my understanding was that these loads leaded the barrel in just a few shots?

__________________
WILL WORK FOR AMMO!

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.

__________________
Vaya con Dios

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.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

....Peter Magnum Eick, I was all impressed with myself for getting up to 14.5. You make me feel like I'm shooting a girl's load LOL!!!



Anyway, the bullets I'm using are a hardcast that a local boy in town makes and sells. They are rock hard (in contrast to speer's soft lead) and look almost like they are made of nickle they are so bright. They have a sort of blue ring down towards the base...not sure what that's for.

Not if they're hard or lasercast I don't think

For whatever it's worth, the guest user in that handload link in my original post says "Large Frame Guns only" which I take to mean nothing below and N-Frame.

This is directed at the points in all preceeding posts, in no particular order.

Published velocity data can be equaled with a 158 gr LSWCGC with 15.3 gr. 2400. Out of two 8 3/8" Model 27s I had it chronographed between 1495 and 1535 fps depending on temperature. Remember that there are no guarantees that original factory loads actually produced this velocity!

Loads of up to 16.1 gr 2400 have been published in major manuals. There is no point to exceeding 15.3 gr. as velocity actually decreases above this level. I have chronograph data to prove it.

"For whatever it's worth, the guest user in that handload link in my original post says "Large Frame Guns only" which I take to mean nothing below and N-Frame."

That's just about what it is worth! Any commercially available revolver chambered for .357 Magnum can utilize SAAMI standard loads, which is what the "original load" is. Yes, they may have a reduced service life, but they will not fail catastrophically. Unless you are brain dead, have nerve damage, or are a masochist, you will not want to shoot many of these out of anything lighter than a steel N Frame or equivalent.

" They have a sort of blue ring down towards the base...not sure what that's for. "

It's called bullet lubricant. I don't want to sound critical, but if you have so little grasp of reloading basics that you didn't understand this you should spend a lot more time reading and studying about reloading before doing it! This is for your own safety.

"my understanding was that these loads leaded the barrel in just a few shots?"

Factory loads with soft swaged bullets leaded terribly, what is your point? Handloads with properly cast bullets of correct diameter and with an effective lubricant do not lead excessively. Leading has little to do with velocity, the soft swaged bullets from Speer and Hornady will lead like the devil even at .38 Spl. velocities, where a properly fitting and lubricated cast bullet will not give significant leading, even without a gas check, at 1500 fps from a .357 Magnum.

Many, if not most, commercial cast bullets will lead regardless of how hard they are. Often the reason is because they are too hard, coupled with lubricants designed to ship well and look pretty and generally being sized to a fits-all (read none!) diameter. Many cast bullets run 22 Brinell or sometimes higher. Revolver bullets do not have to be any harder then ca. 15 Brinell as long as they fit the gun and have a proper lubricant. Read Elmer Keith on the subject rather than take my word on it if you choose.

Hmm...I know this doesn't say much, but I just jacked it up to 15.0 grains on two rounds and slipped them in the cylinder along with a 14.5. Didn't notice any real difference in recoil kick, noise or muzzel flash. Just a lot of smoke in the night lights

Next weekend I'll probably set up my chonograph and clock it.

Wow unless you're trying to turn something into dust I think I would kinda go with this.

Loads of up to 16.1 gr 2400 have been published in major manuals. There is no point to exceeding 15.3 gr. as velocity actually decreases above this level. I have chronograph data to prove it.

I haven't reloaded thousands of .357 and I sure don't want to ruin my 1990 686 so I will stay with the Mini Mouse loads.

Dan

The commonly seen assertion, that modern 2400 has a faster burning rate than in days past, is urban myth based on false assumptions. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim!

Quite to the contrary, given the assumption that published velocity data going back to 1935 is accurate there is evidence that the burning rate of 2400 has not changed except within the normal bounds of lot-to-lot variation. Back "In the day" ammunition testing was typically done in actual production firearms, and the electronic "counter chronograph" was by then a reality, although much different from the ones available today, expensive, and terribly inconvenient to use. There is no logical reason to question the reported velocity as reported in the above post having Elmer Keith as the reporter of the data.

This said, my own tests, over several years and several chronograph sessions with two guns with 8 3/8" barrels, using the virtually identical load of 15.3 gr. 2400, 158 LSWCGC which approximates the original factory bullet, produced an average velocity of 1518 FPS, only 3 FPS different from Keith's reported result, and the factory published velocity! There simply is no room for there to be a measurable difference in burning rate, as, if there were, there would be a concommitant variation in ballistic performance, which there is not!

The fact that there has been a reduction in published loading data is true. It is not because of changes in the propellants, but rather a difference in the methods by which firearms pressures are measured. This is the change from copper and lead crusher testing, where maximum pressures were interpreted from the deformation of a "crusher" which was physically measured and the pressure them estimated based on several assumptions which were not absolutely correct. The change to measuring by piezo-electric and later strain gauge methods gives different figures, but the added benefit of being able to record the pressure curve as the projectile moves down the barrel. In most cases the pressure standards developed from crusher data, originally referred to as PSI, now called CUP or LUP to avoid confusion with the absolute pressures now possible to measure accurately and referred to as PSI, or, more correctly, PSIG.

In the situation noted above, for most cartridges, the new measurement methods give higher pressures that the older method. The SAAMI MAP standards generally were not changed, but factory loading standards were revised to produce ammunition to the same pressure standard, but measured by the new method.

Let's use .38 Special as an example. The old pressure standard was 15,000 PSI(Crusher), but the old loads gave 17,000 PSIG by the new measurement method. Loading standards were reduced to maintain the original MAP pressure, but measured by the new method. Result, reduced velocity at the same nominal pressure level. Now, by a review of loading manuals going back to the 1950s you will find various reported pressure standards for .38 Special, from 15,000 PSI to 17,000 PSI. So there are discrepancies in what to base estimates from. Let's use the more recent information, 17,000 PSIG for standard pressure and compare this to the generaally used +P standard of 18,700 PSIG. This is only 10% pressure, which translates to approximately 5% velocity increase. There may be a degree of truth in the assertion that current +P ammunition is no more powerful than older, (pre +P standard), ammunition, but it is s direct result of the change in method of measurement rather than "Dumbing down" standard loads directly. The true reason for +P to begin with may be to be able to continue to load standard ammunition to the existing SAAMI standards while creating a new standard, +P, that really does correspond to the original pressure levels as measured by crusher equipment.

The hard truth is that the majority of ammunition did not, and does not develope the velocities claimed by the factories, so how can a true comparison be done? Maybe one day when the shooting public has pressure testing capabilities equal to current velocity measurement abilities.

Doug remember the older data for 2400 in the 357 usually specified
magnum primers. I have a 6" M28 like yours but it has been awhile
since I loaded 357s quite as hot as what you are seeking and I can't
find my exact chronograph data. I have gone as high as 15.2 grs 2400
under a 158 gr cast SWC with a magnum primer. Velocity in the 6" 28
was over 1400 fps. N frame 357s have been shown to be extremely
tough revolvers and I like to look at this as a generous safety margin
with normal maximum loads rather than an excuse to test the limits.
Please publish your results here after your chronograph tests.

In addition to the points by Alk8944 about factory velocity figures, remember that ammunition factories use(d) universal receivers and test barrels for velocity testing. SAAMI allows whoever designs a cartridge to specify the test barrel length, which, is 10 inches for the .357 IIRC. This barrel would have been a solid, unvented barrel in days gone by.

Also, chronographs being rare and expensive, a certain amount of "rounding up" of velocity figures was not unknown. Who was gonna know?

More modern ammo is tested in vented test barrels (duplicates gas loss at the barrel/cylinder gap) of practical length. Most .357/.38 Spl data is now taken in 4 inch barrels. The reduction in barrel length combined with the gas losses due to venting are going to reduce velocities.

Reduced load data in manuals is more likely tied to the ability of piezo electric gauges to (as noted by Alk89445) display much more data than the old crusher system. Pressure spikes that the old system would 'average out' are now known conditions and data has to change to stay within specification. Such pressure spikes were an issue in development of the .40 S&W cartridge.

Sure will!! Didn't think magnumvprimers were needed. Published data on op didn't say so. Ill take my time and becareful. Sorry for choppy message. Replyig froa android

Doug,

Needed or not, the primer specified by Hercules and Alliant until very recently was the Federal 200 SPM. Original .357 Magnum ammunition was loaded with Large Pistol primers of obviously, the ammunition manufacturers make (maybe). Who knows what would be equivalent.

BTW, 1400 FPS average +/- is what can be expected from a 6" barrel with this cartridge and 158 SWC/15.3 2400. Substitute a 158 JHP and velocity drops to 1250 FPS +/- due to increased coefficient of friction of the jacket material compared to lead. This is why many believe the .357 is downloaded, because the JHP will only do 1250. It isn't downloaded, it is simply physics!

I have some CCI Magnum small pistol primers on hand. But I've been using Winchester Small Pistol Primers on everything from .38 Spl. to .357 Magnum.

A lot of people in here, some of them prominant members, believe the .38 Spl. and the .357 Mag have been reduced in their loadings over the years by ammo makers. Claiming, for example, that .38 Spl+P in 158 gr LRN or LSWC bullet is what standard .38 Spl. was 70 years ago.

Pressure limits for the 38 spl have gone up and down over the years. Once upon a time the standard limit was 17,000 PSI and the "+P" limit was 20,000 psi. Sometime in the 1970's, the +P standard was lowered to 18,500 PSI but I don't know exactly where or why that decision was made. (I have heard a far-fetched but interesting conspiracy theory) At 20,000 PSI the 38 can reliably produce 1000 fps from a 158 gr bullet in a 4" bbl. That puts the energy close to the 45 ACP of the time and, given the greater sectional density, would have had equal or better penetration. So, there is some truth to the claim that the 38 used to be hotter than it is today.

Elmer's favorite alloy was 1:16 or a BHN of about 11. He supposedly got no leading with that bullet in 357 or the 44 Magnum. Wonder what he'd think of us using BHN18-24 with 2400 today? I don't use that hard a bullet for any reason but some do. You won't get a bullet to obturate with that hardness.

Even though the Remington and Winchester websites say the 158 gr LSWCHP+P has a velocity of 890 ft per second, I've clocked around 950 ft per second, more or less out of my 4 inch Colt Official Police and S&W M-15 with factor Remington 158 gr LHP .38 Spl.+P. Duplicated this with 5.0 gr of Unique and 5.8 gr. of Power Pistol.

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.

__________________
Geoff. Since 1960.

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!

__________________
Geoff. Since 1960.

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

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

__________________
Geoff. Since 1960.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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

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.

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.

__________________
Front sight and squeeze

Well, today I loaded 15 grains of 2400 with a magnum pistol Winchester primer and stuck it in my Highway Patrolman cylinder along with 5 other rounds loaded with 14.5 grains of 2400 in standard pistol primers. I haven't had a chance to stand up my chronograph to clock it, I just stepped outside and tried to see how different the sound and recoil was...oddly the 15 grain with the magnum primer actually felt and sounded like a slightly weaker load. I also notice upon looking down the barrel after shooting all 6 that there seemed to be a bit of excess powder residue.

Any thoughts on this? (I do plan in the next day or so to see what happens on the chronograph and I'll let y'all know)

The powder residue is likely mostly from your 14.5 grs, std primer
loads. The subjective feeling that the 15 gr, mag primer load was
weaker was probably due to difference in muzzle blast; sharper crack
rather than boom and less smoke and blow back. Compare them over
a chrono and you'll see.

I was loading 2400 with 158gr. LSWC's and standard primers working up. With 12 grains or so of powder I was finding un-burnt flakes on the shooting table. It was suggested I firm up the crimp and that did help. I've got a nice plinking load now at 14.5 grains and with that firm crimp I have no un-burnt powder.
As far as leading goes I had no problem with a bullets I bought from Georgia arms. I bought some at a gun show locally cast and these will show some leading after 50+ rounds from my 686 but cleans easily. Most tell you leading is a bullet size problem. The Georgia arms bullets were .358 and the locals .3575. My 686 looks to prefer .358 bullets.

Speer Reloading Manual #14, Cartridge 357 Magnum, page 892,
"Do not use magnum primers with 2400 or VihtaVuori110 loads shown here or high pressures will result.

Great thread! Thanks to everyone who posted. Never too old to learn something new.

That is lube, isn't it?

Interesting, All the hours spent using that manual, I had never seen that before.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

No matter what my load with 2400, after shooting there is a fine,yellow-gold residue on me and my gun. Since it's a different color I'd think it was ash.

Wonder if it would be abusive to step down a gun size and use the "original" .357 Magnum load in a Python.

I know, all .357 mag guns are SAAMI rated, blah blah blah. Gun's not going to blow up. But would it be more wear and tear on the gun as opposed to the Highway Patrolman S&W

Well, it's known that a model 19 K frame will fire these loads but will shorten the life of the gun. This is to the point that full loads are not recommended except in necessary situations. (read police duty) Practice with lesser loads.