Dan Wesson 357 Supermag

[The Maxo]

The difference between the 357 Maximum and the 357 SuperMag is more than just the case length. The max OAL for the SuperMag is 0.125 inch greater, allowing the use of heavy bullets properly seated. It was meant to take heavy bullets. With the Maximum a heavy bullet must be seated overly deep, eating into powder room. The factory load with the light bullet at hyper velocity was a fiasco.

Not withstanding that it is marked 357 Maximum, the DW is actually chambered for the SuperMag, and will accomodate the 357 maximum in the same manner as a 38 Special in a 357 Magnum.

A proper 357 SuperMag round will NOT chamber in a Ruger 357 Maximum.

 

[Mr. Tree]

The Maxo: I agree with your measuremts and remind you that Seville 357 Maximums had a slightly longer cylinder than the DWs. That is why the cast bullet I use in both my Rugers and DWs, the excellent Lyman #358627 (215 grain SWC with gas check) has 2 crimp grooves - the top for Ruger and the bottom for the other revolvers. And, when loading for a TC, Handi Rifle, Savage 24, or any other single shot you can use 35 cal spire point rifle bullets that won't fit in any of the revolvers. Still, everything is a 357 Maximum. According to IHMSA there has never been any commercially produced brass with a head stamp "357 SuperMag" even though DW calls their guns that. All brass has been called Maximum which leads me to believe that the correct name of the round regardless of minor differences in brass length and bullet lenght and design is 357 Maximum.

 

[VonFatman]

Mr. Tree,
Very good. I appreciate the information.

Bob

 

[jbbaldwin]

You might also want to visit the http://www.danwessonforum.com Dan Wesson Forum for more info on these guns. Lots of good info on that site.

Very nice looking DWs!

 

[Mr. Tree]

To add a little to my response above concerning brass length, I've been shooting my Maximums since around 1985 using only reloads and Remington brass. Bought 500 pieces of brass back then just in case the rumors were true about the brass wearing out quickly and/or stretching thus needing to be trimmed. Most of my brass lasts well past 20 reloads and I have never had to trim the first piece. In fact, compared with new brass the fired brass usually SHORTENS just a little. I've not read about brass growing shorter with use, but my 357 Max sure does. Go figure! Why might this be happening?

 

[The Maxo]

I have to regard the SuperMag and the Maximum as two separate cartridges for several reasons. For starters, Elgin Gates, originator of the 357 SuperMag, regarded them as two distinct cartridges. (If they were to be considered the same, then the obvious correct name would be SuperMag since it was the original and inspired the Maximum.) Elgin advised Ruger and Remington against the 357 Maximum idea, but Ruger did not want to make the frame window long enough for the SuperMag. I have loading data for the two distinct cartridges. It's not possible to get the original performance from the Maximum. The 0.125 inch OAL difference is larger than that between the 38 Special and 357 Magnum. A correctly loaded SuperMag will not chamber in the Ruger. I have some 357 SuperMag brass. Not only that, but I bought it through the IHMSA. It's also headstamped with Gate's name. It was made by PMC. It's a bad batch of brass since it will give very difficult extraction no matter how light the load. (Dan Wesson told me they had the same problem with the same brass and I should switch to Starline.)

The 357 Maximum is a classic example of the big manufacturer's taking a wildcat commercial and being unable to resist fixing what ain't broke. Ala, the 224 Harvey K Chuck to 22 Jet fiasco. That one sullied the reputation of all bottle necked revolver chamberings even though the rest of them (And there were many.) didn't deserve it.

The question gets a bit fuzzy in the case of a single shot since there are no cylinder length constraints.

I had wondered for a long time how long the Seville cylinder was. I've never actually seen one in the flesh and wondered what became of them.