Which powder do you prefer for a good 357 Mag 158 gr lead load either HP38(231) or Unique? How many grains powder? Velocity?

I lean towards Unique and 6.0 grs and old chrono data indicated I got approx 975 fps from 4 inch S&W Mod 28. Unique tends to fill the case better, and accuracy is pretty good.

...but I like HP38(231) better for 38 Spl standard and +P applications.

For .357 Magnum loads, I don't like either of those powders. If I am loading Magnums, I want Magnum velocity and usually use either -2400 or W-296.

Both 231 and Unique are good powders for 38 Special, Unique probably being better than 231 for loads towards the heavier end of .38 Special, and 231 better for light loads. Unique burns better and seems more accurate loaded towards the upper end of it's range.

Some folks like to load .357 casings to .38 Special velocities to keep their chambers from crudding up. Unique is good for that. I'd just rather clean my chambers out.

You need to find some reloading manuals.

I prefer 231 simply because it meters better in my equipment. Both 231 and unique work well in subsonic 158's loaded in .357 brass.

If all you're doing is punching holes in paper give 4.0gr of Clays a try. It'll be a little slower, but the accuracy is impressive.

BUFF...I have reloading manuals, just was curious what others are using. Thank you

In my large frames .357,I'll use full charge of H110(or 296 whatever is available).But in my K frames,I tend to go with 6.9 Unique under a cast 154gr SWC Keith type
(of course,safe in my guns but work up to it for your guns).
Less kick and blast than my full loads but still a load that speaks with authority(probably around 1100FPS in my 4'' K frames).

Thank you QC

If I want to load 357 at a little lower power level than what I can do with H-110 or Accurate #9, I've been using Longshot lately. It reminds me a bit of Blue Dot in intensity but meters much better and burns cleaner also. I had bought the Longshot back when pistol powder of any kind was hard to find a few years ago and I'm really liking it's versatility. I can load it in 38 Special +P, 357 Mag, 44 Mag and 9 MM and make good loads with it and economical too for the Mag rounds compared to H-110 and A #9.

Ramshot True Blue has been a great midrange .357 powder for me.

I've heard the True Blue was good, Voodoo, but it wasn't in stock until recently and I'm sitting pretty good right now on midrange powders. I still have several pounds of Longshot and most of a jug of CFE Pistol left, besides a few lbs of HP-38 and a lb of Unique.

I wound up with with 6 pounds of Power Pistol during the powder shortage, and really like it for 170 gr cast SWC bullets. I load 7.9 gr for around 1250 fps out of my 6" barrel GP-100. Still like W-296 for jacketed bullets.

One of my favorite range loads in .357 magnum is 6 grains of HP-38 under a Berry's plated 158 grain bullet. My chrono puts it at just over 1000 fps out of a 4" 581. It's got some authority but is easy on the gun and brass.

I use HS-6 for midrange .357 Magnum loads. If choosing between HP-38 or Unique I would go with HP-38.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

I'm starting to feel the love for Universal under an Xtreme 158 gr hollow point. I'm shooting it out of a Henry rifle. Getting accuracy nearly as good as the same bullet with IMR4227. It has more recoil than HP38, and much better accuracy with similar economy. 4227 uses a ton more powder.

I use 231/HP38 mostly because I have used it for years, have it on hand in quantity and am very familiar with it. Are there newer better powders? Surely there are but I have not tried them and if it ain't broke I don't fix it.

I load a lot of 357 for paper punching. I am using 158 coated bullets.
That being said, I also have a 8lb jug of 231 and 8lb jug of Unique that I am trying to empty as they are both from 1999.
Here is what I load for mid-range 357mag.
5grs 231 and 6.5 Unique, both 158 coated , CCI-500 primers, fun to shoot and accurate out of a 4" 686.
I prefer the Unique as it fills the case better.

If you're shooting a revolver with a barrel 4" or less, you'll be seriously disappointed with the relative performance of colloidal ball powders like Win 296/H-110 or flattened spherical powders like 2400 compared to Unique.

For example, in a 3" SP 101 I get the following 10 shot average velocities and SD:

125 gr XTP, 20.0 gr Win 296 (max load): velocity = 1148 fps, SD = 35.49 fps.
125 gr XTP 9.0 gr Unique (still .4 under max): velocity = 1,296 fps, SD = 17.69 fps.

The velocity differences are comparable in my 3" Model 60 and my 3" Model 13.

In comparison, in a 24" Model 92 rifle, I get these numbers:

125 gr XTP, 20.0 gr Win 296 (max load): velocity = 2,172 fps, SD = 17.54 fps.
125 gr XTP 9.0 gr Unique (still .4 under max): velocity = 1,583 spa, SD = 24.93 fps.

Obviously, the slower burning powders are able to work to full effect in the much longer barrel and beats the Unique numbers by nearly 600 fps.

-----

In short, there's a widespread myth that the slow burning powders produce maximum velocity in the .357 magnum, regardless of barrel length, when years of chronographing loads in. 357 magnum has clearly demonstrated to me that this isn't the case.

Why do people think the Win 296 loads are faster? Three reasons:

1. The read it on the internet or in gun mag so it must be true;

2. They (or the author of the blog or article didn't use a chronograph to compare Win 296 performance with powders like Unique in short barrels; and

3. The recoil of that load with 20 grs of Win 296 develops as much or more recoil despite the lower bullet velocity. That's because that extra 11 grains of powder represents mass that leaves the barrel at 2-3 times the muzzle velocity of the bullet, so it contributes a significant amount of recoil.

-----

It's difficult to tell definitively where the inflection point occurs in the graph at what barrel length Win 296 becomes superior in a revolver due to differences in cylinder gaps and forcing cones in addition to barrel length, but I've never found it to be worthwhile at anything less than 6".

In addition, there's another myth that even with slow burning powders, the powder is entirely consumed in the case before the bullet even leaves the chamber. That's a much less common myth because most people using Win 296 loads in a .357 have been pelted with particles of partially burnt or unburnt powder.

Taking that one step farther, with 296 you're also putting that abrasive powder and hot gas through your cylinder gap and forcing cone with each shot, and with the high temps associated with hot loads in a .357 Magnum, you're doing a lot more forcing cone erosion with 296 than you are with Unique.

So in short, with 296 you're getting more recoil, more muzzle blast, more erosion, and powder in your face - but less velocity in a short barrel.

Great info BB57

I'm gradually replacing 2400 with Unique for my 357 needs since I now prefer to load mid range + 357 loads in my 4 inch S&W Mod 28 with 158 gr LSWC.

I'm developing a load with 6.5 grs Unique and will get it over a chronograph soon. I'm expecting about 1,075 fps + with this load in 4 inch and 1,100 fps + in 6 inch. Just about the upper edge of mid range power but a little below entry level magnum loads.

I've found 6.0 grs Unique with same bullet very accurate as well, but want a little more power for fun!

Well there probably is no point in bringing this up again, but the above statements are only partially correct.

It is not internet myth. Reloading manuals have better data than posts on the web.

You can not argue with physics.
The powder that produces the most velocity in a long barrel will also produce the most in a short barrel.

You can debate or disagree with Speer Short Barrel data page 896 of Speer #14. Out of a M 19, 2.5" barrel

135 grain SB GDHP (the physics holds for other weight projectiles)

AA9, H110, 2400, Power Pistol 296, Unique VV 3n37 produced the highest velocity in that order! AA #9 almost 200 fps MORE than Unique.

AA9=1258 fps

Unique=1109

That said, yes, you will get more blast and flash (recoil) and the decision is if that extra velocity is worth all that pain and flash? I do not think so myself, but the facts are facts and velocity is greater with the slower powders.

Believe and use what you wish.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

BB57, your data for that 125gr XTP bullet incorrect. Hodgdon listsa starting charge if 21.0gr and a max charge of 22.0gr W296 under a 125gr XTP bullet with a magnum primer on their site.

Your velocities with W296 are awfully low in your revolver. I got higher velocities with W296 in my 4" M686.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

It's also amazing that the "original;" 357 Mag loads where developed around 2400 powder of all things. Guess they didn't have the internet then to advise them of better powders!

I believe it holds across the board of cartridges that slower powders produce more velocity regardless of the platform or barrel length, Maybe that is why magnums all use the SLOW powders. Rifles even slower.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

2400 is my only way to go for magnum loads. That and Winchester primers. Never had a need for magnum primers.

Makes some great rounds!

Must have misunderstood.
Thought this thread was about midrange 357 loads.

__________________
-jwk-
US Army '72-'95

It is/was but took a usual side track

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

Look for latest ' Handloader' mag, june 2016. Good stuff for file.

Over (200) .357 Mag loadings; target, mid-velocity, magnum & classic gun loads.

.

__________________
Waiting for the break of day

My 686 6" with a 158 swc at 1.58" OAL and Unique powder did a lot better than my loads with w231 powder in medium loads.

My 38 special cases liked 4.7grs of w231 at 890fps with a f100 primer, over Unique for medium loads.

CFE Pistol powder was best over all, for me with medium loads.

I wouldn't go as far as saying''the only way to go with'' am a H110/W296 guy)but I must admit a darn good one.
Agree with you with the regular primers with 2400.
Qc Pistolero

My old Speer 9 recommends magnum primers with 2400 but Speer 14 doesn't. I like 2400 just fine with regular primers.

That's just one of the things that changed in the lull when I wasn't reloading.

PS Thanks, Rule3. We did just discuss the fast/slow vs long/short barrel thing recently.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

What we have here is a fundamental philosophical difference in how people choose to come to "know" something.

You've provided an excellent example of the "authoritarian" method of learning or knowing something. You read it or hear it from a source you regard as an authority.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that - provided you back it up with some of the other methods of learning or knowing something.

I've present another method of knowing something - actual observation and the scientific method.

What? You think I didn't read the re-loading manuals myself before I started. I have volumes of them, both old and new editions and I am familiar with what they say.

Still, long experience and personal observation (I've been re-loading since I was 12 and I'm 51 now) led me to buy my first chronograph about 25 years ago and I've used it as a key component in the land development process ever since.

I've learned that some of the basic assumptions people make after reading reloading manuals as well as a few assumptions actually presented in some reloading manuals are in fact not always applicable.

Thus I started with the authoritarian method, and then tempered it with my own observations and used consistent data collection to confirm actual results via the scientific method.

When the contradiction between "authority" and "observation" was supported by actual experimental data, I looked to yet another method top help explain the contradiction - logic. In this case, I looked at what are the underlying assumptions and what causes people to believe them, or alternatively what causes people to "observe" them to be accurate, in the absence of actual data?

I also looked as the test conditions used in the manuals to arrive at certain data and results, as well as the variables that arise between individual firearms - especially in revolvers where cylinder gap can play a huge role in velocity, and can have a differential effect with different powders and pressure curves.

Re-read my proper post and consider it in light of the moocher robust methods used to "know" what I'm talking about. I didn't pull it out of thin air, - it's based on 20 years of chronographing loads in a wide range of firearms and loads.

I'm trying to teach you something you may find of value, and yes, it may challenge some of your traditional beliefs. Better yet I'm willing to do it for free.

I'm not asking you to accept it as an "authoritarian" statement, but I am asking you to think critically about it rather than fall back on "authority" as your sole means of knowing anything. You might also want to spring for $150 for a chronograph and see for yourself.

The lack of critical thinking, and the overall devaluation of critical thinking in general, is one of the major problems we have in the US today.

I can show you a number of max loads in the Hornady manual - just ask me which edition you want. They've changed from edition to edition, and I've tried to stay apples to apples with editions showing both powders, since the base conditions are the same in each manual.

----

Velocities will vary lot from revolver to revolver, based on the chamber dimensions (a new reamer results in larger chambers, while a near end of life reamer results in smaller chambers), throat dimensions, cylinder gap as a function of both gap and end play, and of course bore dimensions - and this is all in the same model and barrel length of revolver.

Comparing velocity from one revolver to another is not usually a an accurate way to compare the velocity of one load to another.

In this case, you're also comparing 3" .357 Mag velocity to 4" .357 Mag velocity and that additional inch makes a big difference in a .357 Mag with a maximum or near maximum load. 3" is the minimum length I regard as effective in the .357 Mag, but that's not saying that 3" is nearly as efficient as 4" any more than it's saying that 4" is nearly as efficient as 6".

I must agree;I've owned a 4'' model 66(foolishly traded it away!!!)that would flatten primers and have difficult extraction while we could reload the very same components with 10% more powder(of course,in safe steps)and nothing special would happen in all the other .357(was conducting the tests with a friend so that together we'd have many .357 to compare with).
I also own a Combat Commander (4 1/4''bbl)in .45ACP that will beat the Govt and Gold Cups with 5'' bbl with 3/10 gr less powder.The chrono was giving me aprox 50FPS more than the average of the 5''bbl guys.And no,this one is not for sale!
No two guns are alike I guess!
Qc

A question----do you not think authoritarian reloading manuals are the result of observation and scientific testing by ballisticians with proper test equipment?

I think Hornady, Speer, Lyman, all have more years of doing this than 39!

Of course there are variances gun to gun and component combinations. I don't believe this is a either/or choice, it's a matter of order. We start with the data from Hornady, Speer, Sierra, etc and we all refine with our own testing.

If you were to publish your findings, we would still have to start with your data and refine from there.

__________________
I'd like to agree with you BUT

No, he believes he is now the "authority" because his information is better and based on true scientific methods consisting of 10 rounds of anecdotal "proof",

The rest of the whole post is verbiage and says nothing,where as all the manuals and ballistic testing are incorrect.

A simple search or perhaps if that is not good enough, call any powder company, better yet call Sierra bullets or Hornady. Sierra actually has:
Ballistic Technicians!

Contrary to other statements I have owned a very good chronograph for many years and tested many, many loads of many different calibers.

The Truth is out there, believe what you want!

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind