Original .357 Magnum Load for Reg. Magnums?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AJ
  • Start date Start date
W. H. B. Smith's "The Handbook of Pistols and Revolvers" lists the 158 grain bullet at 1430 fps and the barrel length in which tested, 8 3/8". The first edition was published in 1946, but the info may have been tabulated earlier. Just another data point!
 
When Sharpe shows velocity from an 8 3/4" barrel, is it from a solid test barrel or a real revolver? Since pressure is also given, it is either a test barrel or the load was shot twice.
 
Darkenfast said:
W. H. B. Smith's "The Handbook of Pistols and Revolvers" lists the 158 grain bullet at 1430 fps and the barrel length in which tested, 8 3/8". The first edition was published in 1946, but the info may have been tabulated earlier. Just another data point!
Click to expand...

I have that book also, will have to read it again.
 
158 grain Keith SWC over 15.00 gr. 2400 is a great load. Comparable to the original loading. I substitute a tumble in Alox to mitigate leading. Mr. Sharpe advocated applying Colloidal Graphite to his bullets to reduce leading. How true. Alox is easy and available. It seems to work pretty well with this loading for me. Velocities are in the 1,500 Ft/s range +/- 30 ft/s per inch of barrel length.
 
I've been shooting factory and my own loads in S&W .357M revolvers since the early 70's. They were very good loads then although somewhat milder than the original. My own loads have mellowed out over the years because the cartridge is just as effective at lower velocities for most of my applications. Also it's easier on the equipment including wrists and ears. But in the day when law enforcement needed a cartridge that would stop a speeding car or take out a front seat full of villians, the original loadings did the job. Those were the days!!!
 
I just happened to have a copy of Elmer Keith's book "Sixgun Cartridges & Loads on the desk , publish date 1936 , so I thought I would see what Elmer wrote about the 357 magnum at that time .

" Using the Lyman #358429 (170 gr. solid point) or Lyman #358431
(160 gr. hollow point) Maximum Load 15.0 grains Hercules 2400.
Recommended Load 14.5 grains . Bullet diameter .358 . "

This data is from 1936 , I'm sure 2400 has changed since that time , consult some newer data .

Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook #4 shows a max. load of 13.5 grains of 2400 with #358429 . Powders do change in 83 years so be careful .

Kind of interesting to note that what Elmer Keith suggested in 1936 is still very close to what the data is in 2019 .
I always did lean towards his advice on things like arms , ammo and reloading .

Gary
 
Last edited:
Well Gary , do you have proof that powders have changed in 83 yrs ? I contacted Alliant and asked about 2400 , if it was hotter than before . they said it wasn't . That they couldn't call it 2400 anymore , 2300 or 2500 maybe but not 2400 . The method of testing pressures has changed over the years , not the powders---- according to the powder co. Regards, Paul
 
Other than slight variations from lot to lot, powders change remarkably little. If the formulation changed to the point that pressures and burning characteristics changed in a significant fashion, a huge liability risk would be taken by the powder manufacturer. Unless a manufacturer states that a formula change has significantly altered the characteristics of a powder, it is safe to assume that the characteristics have not changed.

What has changed over the past 8 decades is how pressures and velocities are measured and this can result in newer reloading data being revised downward in order to keep pressure levels in line with modern SAAMI standards.
 
Last edited:
AJ said:
I may have had the answer in my reloading library all along. I have my Father's copy of Phillip Sharpe's "COMPLETE GUIDE TO HANDLOADING". In the book he writes about his help in developing the .357 Magnum with Col. D.B.Wesson. He states that "Developing the full power load is a major problem. Essentially the factories use a special non-canister grade of Hercules #2400, not available to handloaders. The obvious step is Standard #2400."
I look at his reloading table and it only gives one bullet weight for the #2400 powder and that is a 146 grain. The charge can be from 12 to 16 grains, which gives from 1340 fps to 1655 fps. The chamber pressures are from 21,000 to 35,000.
I guess having, keeping and looking at old reference books can come in handy.
Thanks to all who responded to the thread.

AJ
Click to expand...

AJ, Phillip Sharpe was the Guru of loading and instrumental in development of the .357 Magnum.

IIRC the "original" .357 cartridge had a larger primer pocket (and larger primer, naturally).

Let's research this a bit deeper.

Good post. Sal Raimondi
 
It is possible that the original 357 Magnum cartridge required a large primer in order to uniformly ignite that tall column of slow burning 2400 powder. Anyone know exactly when small pistol magnum primers were introduced?
 
AJ said:
How many of us have Sharpe's "Complete Guide to Handloading" and use it for reference?
Click to expand...

One or more of each version / revision and 1 of 2 of the original (in magazine style before book was printed) from the Library of Congress.

Most of the nicer copies of the hard cover books are signed by Phil Sharpe.
 
stansdds said:
It is possible that the original 357 Magnum cartridge required a large primer in order to uniformly ignite that tall column of slow burning 2400 powder. Anyone know exactly when small pistol magnum primers were introduced?
Click to expand...

I don't know the date, but the early Winchester 357 loads used large pistol primers. I had a bunch of the cases in the 1970's and had to ream out a shell holder so I could reload them.
 
AJ said:
I may have had the answer in my reloading library all along. I have my Father's copy of Phillip Sharpe's "COMPLETE GUIDE TO HANDLOADING". In the book he writes about his help in developing the .357 Magnum with Col. D.B.Wesson. He states that "Developing the full power load is a major problem. Essentially the factories use a special non-canister grade of Hercules #2400, not available to handloaders. The obvious step is Standard #2400."
I look at his reloading table and it only gives one bullet weight for the #2400 powder and that is a 146 grain. The charge can be from 12 to 16 grains, which gives from 1340 fps to 1655 fps. The chamber pressures are from 21,000 to 35,000.
I guess having, keeping and looking at old reference books can come in handy.
Thanks to all who responded to the thread.

AJ
Click to expand...

FYI - Over on Milsurps they have a link to a pdf version as the copyright has apparently expired Milsurps Knowledge Library - 1937 Complete Guide to Handloading (by Philip B. Sharpe))
 
Was building nuclear-powered .38 S&W hand loads a few years back and was consulting older manuals for 200 grain bullet data when I took this photograph of the reloading bench.



In my view the burning rate of 2400 is still spot on, well as spot on as any powder will be from lot to lot. It's not now "2401."

I shoot up to 15.25 grains of 2400 behind a 158 grain bullet in the N-Frame Smith & Wessons here. K-Frames get 14.0 grains. The 15.25 grain charge weight averages a little less than 1500 fps, though individual shots measured within a 10-shot string will register in the very low 1500s over the chronograph screen in a 6-inch Model 27.
 
There is no need to overload cartridges according to the older manuals. Those loads were developed without the technical means to reliably evaluate pressure, and are usually a lot higher pressure than what was believed. The possibility of blowing up a gun is very low, but these loads will definitely put more stress, wear and tear on guns.

If you want more power, get a bigger (larger caliber) gun. They are easy to find these days, and most of them have been fired very little.;) If buying a used one, there will be no need to check the bore; it will be like new. :) :) :)
 
Last edited:
Do I disremember or wasn't the original load 15.3gr 2400 under a Sharpe type 158gr swc, like the H&G #51. I usually load 14gr 2400 under a 160gr swcbb machine cast commercial bullet. Good stuff in a M-28 or a 3 screw Ruger. Of course I'm not EMK or P. Sharpe and I have larger magnums if needed.........
 
Premise #1 - The * Canister * grade powders that were around back in the day, that are still with us , are Reasonably Close to their properties back then .( Insert a cpl off the top of my head w/ small variations over the years, and undoubtedly others .)

Premise # 1.5 - If an Historic Powder was a good choice for a particular load catagory in Historic Cartridge back in the day , it's probably just as good today .

Premise #2 - If we're speaking of Factory Loads , the abovementioned doesn't mean much . Major Ammo Mfg have always had access to , and probably primarily used NON-Canister powders, either straight from Powder Mfg , or custom blended by Ammo Mfg . That's why Ammo Mfgs employ Chemists , and Chemical Engineers . Various Factory loads in different eras were/ are impossible to duplicate with Canister Powders .

Premise #3 - There are Whole Buncha powders available in the Modern Era that can do wonderful things , beyond the comparitive hand full of powders available in pre WW II era . Either match classic load at lower pressure/ more consistent/ cleaner , or safely achieve higher safe velocities than were possible back in the day . Off the top of my head ; in various combos load catagories that were once the domain of 2400 and 4227 , now also have Lil Gun, AA9 , 296/H110 , H108, N110, and more, and their closely related non- cannister variants . Heavy loads of Unique are be duplicated with higher Vels And lower Pressures by Power Pistol .

Premise # 3.5 - Some of the Classic Factory, and Iconic Handloads , may well have been at the optimum velocity levels of effectiveness vs control , but cleaner, or consistent, and/ or lower pressure are good things .
 
Art Doc said:
Unless you have a box 1930s ammo and a chronograph you'll never know for certain. I suspect that the load did not change from the 30s to the 60s and I recall as a Youth factory 357 consisted of a 158 grain lead semi-wadcutter (or Kieth type as inspired by Sharpe) at a claimed 1510 fps. May have been an 8" pressure barrel, may have been a long barrel revolver. May have been an estimate. No idea if accurate because I don't have a box of old ammo to test.
Click to expand...
From Elmer Keith - Sixguns, "The first factory cartridges were loaded with 15.3 grains 2400 and a modification of my bullet design to weight 158 grains from the 8 3/8 inch barrel, with a velocity of 1,510 feet".
 
>>>Insert all hand loading caveats RIGHT HERE<<<

Load development for MY 4" bbl SW686 showed that the most accurate load at 10 and 25 yards with 2400, 158gr LSWC, Winchester brass, SP was 15.2 grains of 2400. Chronographed velocity average of a smidge over 1400fps, depending on the weather.

Notes I took reported that the load was clean, no/little unburned powder or residue.

None of the lesser charges were as accurate.
 
alwslate said:
I think the high velocities quoted for the early .357 mag loads were what
could be expected from revolvers with 8 3/8" barrels. I think "back in the
day" the .357 mag was promoted as a hunting round for big game. Today
it's supposed to be more of a SD round out of J frame revolvers. Quite a
difference.
Click to expand...
;

Apparently since the 1930's men and animals both have gotten MUCH harder to put down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Registered Magnum - REG 100 Assembly Number Question
Replies
4
Views
496
Stokes
S
L
32 H&R Magnum Reloads
Replies
7
Views
473
Zoner
Z
S
Power Pistol in .38 +P loads...357 Magnum brass, 357 Magnum pistol?
Replies
13
Views
807
amir_fabrizzio
A
C
Question
Replies
20
Views
1K
mtgianni
M
P
Overpressure signs in a Model 66-3 with starting load data
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
HKSmith
H

Latest posts

Back
Top