.357 magnums shooting .357 magnums

[oddshooter]

It's my belief that the lighter bullets don't actually cause the problems; it's the extra powder required to get light bullets up to speed that causes problems.

You can just look at load data tables and easily see the different, larger amounts of powder required to get a light bullet to the same speed as a heavy bullet.

Extra powder means extra heat/pressure. Difference in heat from different weight bullets is minimal, all else being equal. So once again, it's not the lighter bullet. It's more powder.

Prescut
O my gawd, I just responded to a 4 year old thread.

 

[AZretired]

Your model 65 was design to shoot 158gr ammo at about 1100 FPS. I have a model 66 and I shoot ammo that is higher than 140gr and between 1100 FPS and 1250 FPS. This is with a 4 inch barrel like yours. You can probably get away shooting 110gr stuff but I would shoot about 20 rounds and that's it for a range session. You can shoot 357 ammo in a K frame magnum like yours but watch the ammo. Stay with the above recommendation and keep the forcing cone clean as well as the top strap area.
Good luck,
roaddog28

Having been an LEO during late 70's until 2006 I lived through all this and feel I need to correct a few things. The velocities you list are modern less powerful ammo than was issued back in the 70's to 80's.
158 JHP ammo was loaded to about 1250 fps out of a 4" barrel, not 1100 and was safe to shoot in K frames due, in part, to the longer bullet. The most common duty load back in the day was the 125 JHP at 1450 fps out of a 4" barrel. This is the round that caused all the hub-bub about damage (flame cutting, forcing cone erosion, forcing cone cracking) more powder, more damage caused by hot burning powder. Most 110 grain jhp were not loaded as hot as the 125 and did not cause near the damage. The 110 gr. WWB load is not a hot load when compared to the 125. I put over a thousand rounds of WWB 110 gr, through my 65-2 as well as at least 1500-2000 rounds of 158 jhp, plus an unknown amount of reloads since I first bought it with no damage or noticeable forcing cone wear.

Modern 357 is generally down loaded to avoid these problems. The Remington Golden Sabre for example is loaded to 1250 fps and is safe to shoot in K frames.

 

[medic15al]

I put several thousand thru model 65s and 13s over the years and the 145 Win. Silvertip and FED/REM 158 SJHPs Not only not caused any problems but had very close POA/POI to the sights.

 

[Sgt911]

Does the grain weight apply to .38 in a 357 K frame? For some reason I had a box 130g Aguila. I shot about 40 rounds though a 2.5 66-2. That was some dirty stuff. All the other ammo I have is heaver grain.

 

[CLASSIC12]

I bought a brand new 66-3 in 1989, 6 inch. It was only my second gun and first revolver, loved that thing. LGS gave it a trigger job, SA pull is 1.5 pounds, DA 7 3/4 pounds.

and that's what it says on the barrel

so I went and shot a steady dose of .357 Mag, 125 and 158 grains commercial, all jacketed, as well as handloads, 125, 140 and 158 grains, Speer and Sierra jacketed on 2400 powder, within the Speer reloading tables, always staying below max.

Abt. 2000 rounds later the forcing cone cracked badly, locking the cylinder. LGS got me and installed a new one. I started mixing .38 spl (which I had never shot before) and .357, while paying close attention to the forcing cone. It cracked again after abt 1500 rounds, but a much smaller crack, which does not impede the function of the gun. Since that day I only use it with .38 spl, did not feel like buying a third barrel. Probably shot another 2000 rounds with it. Crack did not move or worsen.

Still love that gun, been with me for 25 years and with it's amazing trigger it's one of the most accurate gun I own.

But I now use my 586 for .357.

Took these pictures recently

Also some flame cutting but I am not concerned by that.

The flat and thinner portion of the barrel compared to a 586 can be cause for problems in my opinion.

 

[Bumpus13]

Hey folks,
I am a bit confused over all the talk about the different 357 mag. loads that should or could be shot through my model 65-4 4". Through this forum I have determined it to be a 1990 model. When I bought the gun, the only 357 ammo they had were UMC 125 gr. jacketed soft pts. Those rounds really roared and had significant recoil as well. Then I bought some WWB 110 gr. jacketed hollow pts. marked personal protection and they seemed very light weight by comparison to the UMC's. I have read in several articles that these WWB 110's can damage the forcing cone at the 6 o'clock position. Is this really the case? I keep my guns spotless. I clean and inspect them after every shooting event, which would probably not exceed 20 rnds. I currently have 2 new boxes of these WWB's and hate to toss them if they are not a threat to the well being of my pistol. What .357 mag. round wold be considered to be "safely" shot in my Smith? Seems to me that a S&W handgun should be able to shoot the rounds it was designed to shoot, and do so without failure.

Thank you
Gordon.

I don’t shoot any .357’s under 158gr. in my K-frames

I’m probably being a bit over cautious, but in your shoes ... 2 boxes of ammo don’t compare to the cost of a potential replacement revolver.

If you’re really concerned about not wasting those rounds, it sounds to me like an excellent excuse to add a L-frame or N-frame to your collection.

 

[hkcavalier]

Firearms are mechanical devices that will wear out over time with use. Some parts are replaceable, some are not. I don't shoot near as much as some on here, and I've replaced a worn cylinder stop and shimmed a cylinder to reduce end shake. It's part of the cost of ownership. In 250 years, people just might complain that they have to replace the dilithium crystals in their Q-36 Space Modulator.

Everything is a tradeoff. Smaller size means easier to carry and better ergonomics for some. The downsides have been well elucidated in this thread and others. I don't chase magnum K-frames too hard because I want heirloom shooters. IMO they were terrific duty weapons that were never intended to be shot a lot for decades. But there are a lot of fine firearms like that.

 

[Rock185]

G.T., What the heck, I'll add my 2¢ worth. I've had K-Frame model 19s and 66s. I consider SAAMI spec .357, of whatever weight, to be safe in these guns. That being said, I did see a K-Frame or two and a Python back in the day with damaged forcing cones. Caused by the ammo we used? I don't know.

We were issued 125 grain .357 for years, and I used mostly .357 recreationally in my model 66. My 66 never cracked the forcing cone, but developed excess end shake, timing issues, jacket/lead spitting, etc. I had S&W completely overhaul the old gun years ago. Were I wanting to shoot factory .357 that might be easier on the gun now days, I'd probably look into the 110 grain. It's my impression that major US manufacturers have loaded the 110 grain down to what might be considered a mid-range .357 load, around 1300 FPS. While I consider the K-frames safe, were I going to be shooting .357 extensively again, I would prefer an L-Frame, N-Frame, Ruger GP100 or similar...

 

[shocker]

I choose a new K-frame as a shooter. There are a number of changes on the new guns but 2 externally visible features would be hard to dispute as being improvements: symmetric forcing cone and ball and detent lockup.
Smith says new K frames are as strong as the L and N frame 357s.

 

[Groo01]

Groo here
As said earlier , the big problem was the 125 gr sjhp 357 mag at 1450fps.
You will note I was very specific with the load.
This is a full pressure , full power load AND was usually loaded [Win]
with ball powder or other powder in the class of WW296/H110,
Noted for flame cutting and forcing cone wear...
The 110gr loading is lower pressure due to bullet pull/weight / and volume [as was told to me by a WW rep.]
With the powders of the day, the 125 was the lightest weight bullet
that full pressure could be gotten and all specs met.
The original 158 gr 1450 fps was obtained with longer barrels
AND lead bullets.[in high end loads lead will give 100fps more speed
then jackets due to bore friction,,, per JD Jones]
Modern loads for SD or "short barrel" guns are loaded at a reduced
pressure.

 

[colt_saa]

O my gawd, I just responded to a 4 year old thread.

The thread actually was started a decade ago in 2010

I picked up more than a dozen new LIKES from folks that did not see it the first time

It just goes to show . . . . . "What's Old is NEW Again"

This is a viable topic until we start carrying Phasers in-place of Smith & Wessons

 

[Big Cholla]

Flame Cut?

I bought a brand new 66-3 in 1989, 6 inch. It was only my second gun and first revolver, loved that thing. LGS gave it a trigger job, SA pull is 1.5 pounds, DA 7 3/4 pounds.

and that's what it says on the barrel

so I went and shot a steady dose of .357 Mag, 125 and 158 grains commercial, all jacketed, as well as handloads, 125, 140 and 158 grains, Speer and Sierra jacketed on 2400 powder, within the Speer reloading tables, always staying below max.

Abt. 2000 rounds later the forcing cone cracked badly, locking the cylinder. LGS got me and installed a new one. I started mixing .38 spl (which I had never shot before) and .357, while paying close attention to the forcing cone. It cracked again after abt 1500 rounds, but a much smaller crack, which does not impede the function of the gun. Since that day I only use it with .38 spl, did not feel like buying a third barrel. Probably shot another 2000 rounds with it. Crack did not move or worsen.

Still love that gun, been with me for 25 years and with it's amazing trigger it's one of the most accurate gun I own.

But I now use my 586 for .357.

Took these pictures recently

Also some flame cutting but I am not concerned by that.

The flat and thinner portion of the barrel compared to a 586 can be cause for problems in my opinion.

Good pictures and I don't see a 'crack'. I see a flame cut. There is additional proof just to the left of the flame cut where the lip of the barrel forcing cone shows another form of flame cutting. I think that your barrel/cylinder gap is/was bordering on 'too much'. In any batch of metal parts of any firearm, there will be one or some that have an anomaly in the grain structure of the metal's meld someplace. IMHO, That barrel happen to have one right at the location of the exhibited flame cut.

 

[CLASSIC12]

Good pictures and I don't see a 'crack'. I see a flame cut. There is additional proof just to the left of the flame cut where the lip of the barrel forcing cone shows another form of flame cutting. I think that your barrel/cylinder gap is/was bordering on 'too much'. In any batch of metal parts of any firearm, there will be one or some that have an anomaly in the grain structure of the metal's meld someplace. IMHO, That barrel happen to have one right at the location of the exhibited flame cut.

Lemme try again

 

[Big Cholla]

Thank you 'Classic12': But, I still see only flame cutting. BTW. IMHO, that barrel could be set back say...0.100", re-threaded, new forcing cone and leade cut and cut to a proper gap with little or no probability of future failure. I hate wasting good parts.

 

[CLASSIC12]

Thank you 'Classic12': But, I still see only flame cutting. BTW. IMHO, that barrel could be set back say...0.100", re-threaded, new forcing cone and leade cut and cut to a proper gap with little or no probability of future failure. I hate wasting good parts.

Well you are judging from a photograph and it’s a difficult spot to photograph with a phone, whereas I have that gun in hand, owning it since new. The crack was diagnosed and confirmed by the LGS who installed that barrel after the original cracked, literally split open at the same spot and locked the barrel shut tight.

Since this crack (the second one) is minor, he suggested I shoot .38 spl and see if the damage worsened. It didn’t so I let it be, but never shot another magnum round in it.

Thanks for the repair tip, however I am not sure I can find a competent gunsmith here (Switzerland) to do the job, several retired or passed away lately.

 

[M29since14]

If that was my gun, I’d have that barrel set back a thread or two, but Classic12 may be able to see something that is not apparent in the pictures we're looking at.