No, it was not the frame that cracked, it was the forcing cone, along the bottom edge where it is thin to allow clearance for the cylinder gas ring. I agree, 158 grain full power loads are far less harsh on the forcing cone.
125 grain 357 magnum ammo recommendation
- Thread starter agent00
- Start date
No, it was not the frame that cracked, it was the forcing cone, along the bottom edge where it is thin to allow clearance for the cylinder gas ring. I agree, 158 grain full power loads are far less harsh on the forcing cone.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2021
- Messages
- 262
- Reaction score
- 865
This is sage advice, do yourself a huge favor and stay away from the 125g .357 rounds. I have thousands of rounds through my Model19-3 but not a single 125g .357 and only very occasional 158g .357.
.455_Hunter
Member
The 125 gr Federal loading in now available in 50 round boxes in their "Train & Protect" line. It appears to be the 357B without the nickel case.
Last edited:
If you want less bang;
you might try a box of the "Watered down" 110 JHP bullets,
that are made now, that are from 400 to 600 fps slower than the original ammo.
Most 357 "Magnum" ammo is not watered down.
That is why the make 38 special, if you might want a lighter load, to shoot.
you might try a box of the "Watered down" 110 JHP bullets,
that are made now, that are from 400 to 600 fps slower than the original ammo.
Most 357 "Magnum" ammo is not watered down.
That is why the make 38 special, if you might want a lighter load, to shoot.
Rpg
Member
I may be wrong, but my memory is that the 357 magnum reputation as a fearsome cartridge arose from the prewar 357magnum 158 gr loads cooking along at 1,400 fps + or -.
These were used in the pre war N frame registered (and non registered) magnums. This is the stuff folks shot polar bears and the occasional African big game with and was widely reported in the gun rags.
The post war introduction of smaller guns (eg K frames and more recently J frames) chambered in 357 magnum led to lighter weight projectiles (125 & 110 gr) chasing the 158 gr. 1,400 fps. loads. Those light weight projectiles are pretty hard on guns due to short dimensions of the projectile itself.
you can come pretty close to the original 357 magnum loads with hand loads using 158 gr projectiles with maximum loads of 2400 or 296 ball powder. These are pretty stout loads not available commercially except in boutique loads.
These were used in the pre war N frame registered (and non registered) magnums. This is the stuff folks shot polar bears and the occasional African big game with and was widely reported in the gun rags.
The post war introduction of smaller guns (eg K frames and more recently J frames) chambered in 357 magnum led to lighter weight projectiles (125 & 110 gr) chasing the 158 gr. 1,400 fps. loads. Those light weight projectiles are pretty hard on guns due to short dimensions of the projectile itself.
you can come pretty close to the original 357 magnum loads with hand loads using 158 gr projectiles with maximum loads of 2400 or 296 ball powder. These are pretty stout loads not available commercially except in boutique loads.
Last edited:
cd228
Member
Remington is claiming 1450 fps on their website for their 125gr, Part # 22227. They don't specify a test barrel length or type.
Remington claims 1250 for their 158gr, part # 22233. No barrel length or test fixture type.
They claim similar numbers for their UMC.
Federal is claiming 1250 for their 158 gr AE357A, with a 4 inch, vented test fixture
Federal claims 1440 for their 125 gr Train and Protect load TP357VHP1, also with a 4inch vented fixture.
I'd recomend that you check it with your own gun and chrony.
Remington claims 1250 for their 158gr, part # 22233. No barrel length or test fixture type.
They claim similar numbers for their UMC.
Federal is claiming 1250 for their 158 gr AE357A, with a 4 inch, vented test fixture
Federal claims 1440 for their 125 gr Train and Protect load TP357VHP1, also with a 4inch vented fixture.
I'd recomend that you check it with your own gun and chrony.
In my 50 years of shooting, I've seen two Smiths with cracked forcing cones. Both were in gunsmiths' shops at the time, waiting on new barrels, and both were k-frames. Rare, but can happen in some older Smiths. My only 357 now is a GP-100, built like a tank, and I do occasionally shoot 125gr jhp's in it. Even in it, it's a handful of fireball and recoil. 158 magnums actually feel like softer shooting.
The barrel cut at the 6 o'clock position on the 19 was the primary reason they developed the L frame, thus allowing the barrel/forcing cone to maintain a full barrel design. That cut was necessary due to relocating the gas ring.
The barrel cut on the 19 most certainly was the cause of cracked forcing cones when using 125grn 357s, a lot more than S&W cared to talk about.
I have seen 2 19's with cracked forcing cones and I wasn't really searching so I have to assume it was more common than not. I recall Super Vel being in the equation but not certain.
The release of the L frame in 357 only would give rise to the cracked barrel issue was and IS more than folklore.
My thoughts are if the 125grn is preferred, go with a N frame.
The barrel cut on the 19 most certainly was the cause of cracked forcing cones when using 125grn 357s, a lot more than S&W cared to talk about.
I have seen 2 19's with cracked forcing cones and I wasn't really searching so I have to assume it was more common than not. I recall Super Vel being in the equation but not certain.
The release of the L frame in 357 only would give rise to the cracked barrel issue was and IS more than folklore.
My thoughts are if the 125grn is preferred, go with a N frame.
Thanks a lot for the detailed information and the warning about the 158 grain load.
So you would suggest more lighter bullets as featured in the loads you have mentioned above for home defense?
@all the others Thank you guys for the info, ammo recommendations and also for the warnings about using such loads in model 19.
I have to admit that I would be rather reluctant to use such loads in my little m19 then. I really like the gun and got in a very good condition. So I do not want to wear it to much.
Maybe I will postpone the use of the heavy 125 grain rounds until next year. at some point in 2025 I am planing to get another more heavy 357 mag sixshooter anyway.
If I am lucky I would get a smith and wesson model 27 original model or sixgun from the competion of S&W. I am also tempted to get Python at some point in the future.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 19,489
- Reaction score
- 30,705
@chief38 Well such mistakes can happen when posting that early in the mearning.
In general it es very good to know about the potential problems such ammo could cause when using in my m19.
Like mentioned above I will postpone using such ammo until I can get a really heavy revolver in 357 mag.
In general it es very good to know about the potential problems such ammo could cause when using in my m19.
Like mentioned above I will postpone using such ammo until I can get a really heavy revolver in 357 mag.
To answer the OPs original question I think the Remington 125 grain JHP would be historically correct.
On the Police Department we were issued model 65s with the Remington 125 gr. Load. We had the revolvers for a little over 5 years I recall before the 9mm high cap craze swept by and we were issued Sig P226. I bought my issued 65 for $100 when we transitioned.
The Remington load had a very high rating for one shot stops. They were a very potent load.
When we qualified with the 65s - 2 or 3 times a year - we would shoot off our duty load out (18 rounds) first and then switch to .38 to finish the course. I do not recall hearing about any cracked forcing cones or flame erosion from our department and would not expect it with that use. I don’t recall many guys shooting full power loads during off duty practice.
I have seen a cracked forcing cone on other 65s issued by the Armored Car company I worked for in retirement. Many of those had been bought used from police turn ins and the round counts were probably high.
On the Police Department we were issued model 65s with the Remington 125 gr. Load. We had the revolvers for a little over 5 years I recall before the 9mm high cap craze swept by and we were issued Sig P226. I bought my issued 65 for $100 when we transitioned.
The Remington load had a very high rating for one shot stops. They were a very potent load.
When we qualified with the 65s - 2 or 3 times a year - we would shoot off our duty load out (18 rounds) first and then switch to .38 to finish the course. I do not recall hearing about any cracked forcing cones or flame erosion from our department and would not expect it with that use. I don’t recall many guys shooting full power loads during off duty practice.
I have seen a cracked forcing cone on other 65s issued by the Armored Car company I worked for in retirement. Many of those had been bought used from police turn ins and the round counts were probably high.
Last edited:
SuperMan
Member
00...I don't think you are going to ruin your 19 with the few rounds of 125s you plan on putting throgh the gun...
My first centerfire handgun was a 19-3 purchased brand new in 1970 for $89.00. After 10k rounds it was returned to the factory in about 1974 for a complete rebuild and was also nickel plated. The front sight blade was left blue and the ramp insert changed to yellow. Another 10k went trough the gun before selling it in 1980...all but 6 rounds were .357s...99% handloaded 158gr. LSWs at 1200 fps.
The 125s are THE round to carry for self-defense. Had several friends who shot people with them and none required a second shot...
Bob
My first centerfire handgun was a 19-3 purchased brand new in 1970 for $89.00. After 10k rounds it was returned to the factory in about 1974 for a complete rebuild and was also nickel plated. The front sight blade was left blue and the ramp insert changed to yellow. Another 10k went trough the gun before selling it in 1980...all but 6 rounds were .357s...99% handloaded 158gr. LSWs at 1200 fps.
The 125s are THE round to carry for self-defense. Had several friends who shot people with them and none required a second shot...
Bob
max503
Member
If the OP wasn't from Austria I would think this was a troll thread.
Darkenfast
Member
For the best account (IMO), of the real story behind the .357 Magnum and the K-frame issues, and the development of the L-frame, see this article in RevolverGuy. This has information from an S&W engineer (Dick Baker), who led the L-frame creation. Some of this has been mentioned above, already.
Personally I wouldn't shoot a whole lot of 357 125s in the 19. I have 3 19s and a 66-1. I have shot a few Rem 125s through them all but the majority in factory ammo have been Rem 38s with the 125 gr+P HPs. Most of the 357s were fired from one of my N frames. 2 pre 27s 3 1/2 and 5 inch and one of the 3 27-2s 2- 5 inch one 3 1/2. I bought 2500 rounds of Rem 38 125 +P and 357s each some years ago. . Still have a few of each left. No problems with any guns. I also have a pre 15 Combat masterpiece that has had approx 2000 rounds of 38 125+P...no problems with it either. I like the Rem 125 HP bullets as they shoot well in my revolvers. I bought a 1000 to load my own
