Recommended 357 load for 2.5" 19 snubbie?

[hoser]

Thanks Kamerer, I'll try that one.

And, on another matter, I'm still watching the mail closely!

 

[XTrooper]

Originally posted by Kamerer:
Of the choices you enumerated earlier, I would choose the 1st - it is the only one weighing 158grs. This is the minimum bullet size recommended in the K frame by S&W and many armorers. There are too many well-documented cases of cracked cones and cut frames from using the lighter bullets.

Hi. I'd like to know your source for this statement. I've owned and carried various K-frame revolvers for decades and I've never read or heard that Smith & Wesson recommends only 158 gr. loads from their K-frame .357 Magnum models. Frankly, I don't believe any such official statement exists.

It's true that cracked forcing cones and flame cutting have been a problem with the K-frame .357 models, but all the cases I'm aware of involved the use of "full house" 125 gr. loads (125 @ 1450) and similar full house loads using other light bullet weights.

You could shoot all the light 110 gr. loads (like Winchester's 110 @ 1295) and all the so-called mid-range 125 gr. loads (typified by the Remington 125 gr. Golden Saber @ 1220) you wanted, from now to doomsday, and never damage your K-frame 357. It's not the bullet weight alone that is the problem, but the light bullet/maximum charge combination that will cause problems. Stay away from them, especially the standard, full house 125 gr. loads, and your K-frame .357 Magnum revolver should last a good long time.

 

[casingpoint]

The best way to shoot a 125 grain bullet at 1400fps+ seems to be a .357 SIG.

 

[XTrooper]

Originally posted by casingpoint:
The best way to shoot a 125 grain bullet at 1400fps+ seems to be a .357 SIG.

I prefer the Colt Commander I converted to Winchester 9x23 (125 gr. @ 1450 fps). It's my normal, everyday carry pistol.

 

[Erich]

prefer the . . . Winchester 9x23

You and 38/44HD45 . . .

You guys are going to drag me up on the bandwagon if you're not careful. That looks like a pretty neat round.

BTW, my ordinary 9x19 Sigma throws the 127-gr Talon bullet from a +P+ RA9TA at 1400 fps.

Pretty good for what the thing cost me.

 

[XTrooper]

Originally posted by Erich:

prefer the . . . Winchester 9x23

You and 38/44HD45 . . .

You guys are going to drag me up on the bandwagon if you're not careful. That looks like a pretty neat round.

BTW, my ordinary 9x19 Sigma throws the 127-gr Talon bullet from a +P+ RA9TA at 1400 fps.

Pretty good for what the thing cost me.

That's some darn impressive ballistics from a 9x19, Erich! I'm, well, impressed!

 

[SlappyTomato]

Cor-Bon 125 DPX

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Corbon%20357%20Magnu...0gr%20DPX%20Ammo.htm

 

[Erich]

darn impressive ballistics from a 9x19

I agree, Steve!

And, I figure that if the (grossly overengineered - it is made for the .40) thing breaks after shooting a bunch of them, so what? They're so cheap that I can just buy another.

The operative limiting factor is the cost of the RA9TA - I don't feel comfortable handloading 9x19 at that level.

 

[Kamerer]

Originally posted by XTrooper:

Hi. I'd like to know your source for this statement. I've owned and carried various K-frame revolvers for decades and I've never read or heard that Smith & Wesson recommends only 158 gr.

If you call and discuss the subject, this is what they say. Others have reported exactly the same thing, both in this forum and elsewhere.

 

[XTrooper]

Originally posted by Kamerer:

Originally posted by XTrooper:

Hi. I'd like to know your source for this statement. I've owned and carried various K-frame revolvers for decades and I've never read or heard that Smith & Wesson recommends only 158 gr.

If you call and discuss the subject, this is what they say. Others have reported exactly the same thing, both in this forum and elsewhere.

All I can say to that is a lot of things are "reported" on the Internet and then repeated by others to the point of legend. As far as some guy, S&W employee or not, giving their advice (personal opinion?) over the phone is concerned, this is a far cry from an official statement or recommendation.

Here's one actual and documented fact. In 1984, the US Border Patrol was looking for a replacement for the .38 Special 110 gr. +P+ load, their issued ammunition at the time. As they are often involved in more police shootings per year than any other LEO in the country, they understandably took this job very seriously. After extensive testing, they settled on the .357 Magnum 110 gr. JHP load and one of their given reasons for this choice was, and I quote, "We also knew that this (the .357 110 gr. load) was the round least likely to accelerate wear on our medium-framed Smith & Wesson and Ruger revolvers."
This understanding mirrors my own experiences with this load and I reiterate the fact that whenever I've personally seen a cracked forcing cone and/or flame-cutting it was the 125 gr. "full house" load that was involved.

 

[SMore]

Originally posted by hoser:
SMore, was the BB stuff you shot the Tactical low recoil, low flash load or their standard load?

Sorry to take so long to reply. I was shooting the Low Flash/"low recoil"

BB 357. It is much more subdued than their full house round, and very appropriate for a smaller revolver. It's still too much for me to shoot successfully (recovery from first shot and accurate follow-up shots) from a 340M&P. It works great in my SP101 or K/L frame guns.

 

[rozenbem]

Hoser,

I carry Remington 125 gr. SJHP (R357M1) in 2" 640 and 3" 686. It's a potent round.

Mike

 

[Kamerer]

Originally posted by XTrooper:

All I can say to that is a lot of things are "reported" on the Internet and then repeated by others to the point of legend.

Something said by an official S&W rep is, to me, not "legend." I didn't say "I read it on the internet." I said that I called and had a discussion. You quoted me, did you not really read it?

Magazines and armorers have documented this to death. In your quote, you stated the USBP stated the "knew that this was the round least likely to accelerate wear.."

Umm, that's not proof. That sounds like assumption. "knew" is not equal to "demonstrate" "test" or "proove." What was their proof? That would be a meaningful reference to use, instead of perpetuating, a, uh, "legend."

 

[XTrooper]

Originally posted by Kamerer:
I said that I called and had a discussion. You quoted me, did you not really read it?

Actually, my friend, I did read your statement and you did not say that you yourself called anyone. You said "If you call and discuss the subject, this is what they say." No one can assume from that statement that you personally called S&W simply because you never said you did.

The bottom line is this. Even though your original post makes the inference, there is no official policy statement from Smith & Wesson stating you should not use loads with bullet weights of less than 158 grains in their K-frame .357 Magnum revolvers. It just doesn't exist. S&W has given written ammo recommendations (+P ammo, bullet weights, etc) many times over the years regarding numerous models. This isn't one of them. Why? Are we to believe this supposed 158 gr. recommendation is something Smith & Wesson keeps as a semi-secret, only divulged if you call and question them about it? If this were the case, then S&W has done a large number of police departments and individuals a great disservice. All the written ammo recommendations they've made in the past make the very idea ludicrous.

As I've already stated, it's NOT the bullet weight alone that is the problem, but the light bullet weight/heavy charge combo that is. I'll be the first to tell you that a heavy charge of the powders used with light bullet loads will cause problems. However, lighter charges of the same powders will not. This is why you'll never hear anyone telling you not to fire the exact same 110 gr. bullets from the exact same K-frame revolvers when its .38 Special ammo you're using. The only difference here is the powder charge. If you look at the Winchester 110 gr. .357 Magnum "Q" load I referenced earlier, you'll see its ballistics are the mildest of any factory .357 ammo available and is the one the US Border Patrol adopted. Are we to believe that Smith & Wesson would recommend against its use, not in writing of course, but whispered in our ears on the telephone? The idea is inconceivable.

So why didn't Smith & Wesson step up and inform those poor, dumb Border Patrolmen of their error back in 1984? Because no such official recommendation exists, then or now.

 

[flop-shank]

Originally posted by XTrooper:
I'll be the first to tell you that a heavy charge of the fast-burning powders used with light bullet loads will cause problems, however, lighter charges of the same powders will not.

You mean slow burning powders? The most sizzling hot, high velocity .357 loads use slow burning powders. The peak pressure last longer with slow powders.

 

[XTrooper]

Originally posted by flop-shank:

Originally posted by XTrooper:
I'll be the first to tell you that a heavy charge of the fast-burning powders used with light bullet loads will cause problems, however, lighter charges of the same powders will not.

You mean slow burning powders? The most sizzling hot, high velocity .357 loads use slow burning powders. The peak pressure last longer with slow powders.

Yes, I meant to say slow-burning/fast velocity. Thanks for catching that. I corrected it above.

 

[speedingbullet]

As I've already stated, it's NOT the bullet weight alone that is the problem, but the light bullet weight/heavy charge combo that is. I'll be the first to tell you that a heavy charge of the powders used with light bullet loads will cause problems. However, lighter charges of the same powders will not. This is why you'll never hear anyone telling you not to fire the exact same 110 gr. bullets from the exact same K-frame revolvers when its .38 Special ammo you're using. The only difference here is the powder charge. If you look at the Winchester 110 gr. .357 Magnum "Q" load I referenced earlier, you'll see its ballistics are the mildest of any factory .357 ammo available and is the one the US Border Patrol adopted. Are we to believe that Smith & Wesson would recommend against its use, not in writing of course, but whispered in our ears on the telephone? The idea is inconceivable.

I belive the above quote to be accurate.

I have fired thousands of rounds of Remington 125gr "lites" through K frames with NEVER a forcing cone issue. Damn fine round in a K frame....in my humble opinion. I like the 145gr Silver Tips too.

If your going to shoot lots of "old school" 125gr. stuff through your revolver get a L/N Frame or....or a Ruger.

- regards

 

[jsd30]

I carry Remington .357 mag 158 gr JHP's in both my 640-1, 2" bbl, and my Md 66 no dash 4" bb. This load is very accurate in both guns.
Chrono'd velocities, 10 ft from the muzzle for this load are:
640-1, 2" = 1141 fps
66, 4" = 1294 fps

 

[casingpoint]

speedingbullet wrote:

I have fired thousands of rounds of Remington 125gr "lites" through K frames with NEVER a forcing cone issue. Damn fine round in a K frame....in my humble opinion

Remington 125 grain Lite--the realistic .357MAG /125 grain round. The faster 125 grain loads require the gun to be built like a tank. Ergo, the Model 686. Just too much gun for that little bitty bullet, IMHO.

 

[flop-shank]

Don't look at the size of the bullet, look at the size of the muzzle energy. They work hand in hand.