What has happened to the .357 Magnum?

[cp1969]

No, I pointed out that a hot .357 has more kinetic energy than a .45 Colt yet the .45 Colt is a better field cartridge. That blows the 'kinetic energy is what makes any caliber good and/or effective' theory to pieces.

I will also state that nothing you shoot can tell the difference between a 1250 fps .357 load and one traveling 1500 fps. There--I kept it to one caliber, if the comparison was so offensive to you.

 

[XTrooper]

I will also state that nothing you shoot can tell the difference between a 1250 fps .357 load and one traveling 1500 fps.

This is pure conjecture based on nothing except your preconceived notions which is exactly the point I was trying to make in the first place. Beyond this, we know that humans act very differently when shot than animals do so when we're talking about self-defense loads, hunting experiences are irrelevant.

Because YOU don't notice your target acting differently doesn't mean THEY aren't experiencing a difference.

One thing we know for certain, that 250 fps additional velocity and the additional energy generated "may" not have any additional effect on your target, but it damn sure isn't going to make them feel any better!

And now that I've already wasted more time on this topic than I should have, I'll leave you to it.

 

[cp1969]

Name something that a 1500 fps .357 load will handle that a 1250 fps load didn't. If you can't, then it's conjecture on your part.

Speaking of 'pre-conceived notions'....one can't maintain 'pre-conceived notions' for over 40 years if they are wrong. You seem to have a pretty good supply of your own pre-conceived notions. You may not be alone, but I don't know many people who will say "hunting experiences are irrelevant" when it comes to assessing cartridge effectiveness. One would be hard-pressed to find a better example of a pre-conceived notion than that.

 

[stevebarracuda]

If i were facing an armed bad guy or a mean critter and had the choice of the two loads , common sense would dictate using the faster more powerful load . However the lesser load would be better than nothing .

 

[stiab]

.38 Special isn't what it used to be either......I bought a box of old Remington Lubaloy .38's from the 60's at a gun show, and they were hotter than the new Magtech crap I have. Some of the new .38's almost feel like gallery loads. Ammo makers are afraid someone will put a hot .38 in some zinc pot metal Saturday night special and blow it up, so they download them.

This is why .38 +P is the "new" .38 Special for anything serious, and "standard" .38 Special is now seen as a "plinker" or range round.

Actually, if you will go back to page one and read the post by Alk8944, and the quote below from rburg, the real answers will be revealed. Rburg: "Then there's the issue of optimistic numbers published in advertising manuals. Often achieved by the use of solid breach pressure barrels 10" long or so."

 

[Smithy-wesson oil]

I have been doing some research on the .357 for another project of mine, and it seems to me that the .357 Magnum, much like other rounds, is not what it used to be. I was going through my old loading manuals, and to look at what those old loadings used to be, the stuff being churned out now is darned anemic.

IMHO it's more about shooting now, rather than energy "HP" or velocity. I get more range time with better economy, efficiency and accuracy with a load that is more tactile.

Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, speed will come with time. As well as consistent head shots.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

If you want hot data for the 357 magnum, you have to go to the period correct manuals.

First off, the original velocity with the 357 magnum was measured with an 8 3/4" barrel and a Registered Magnum. Sharpe covers that in his 1937 edition of Complete Reloading Guide.

In the '53 edition he lists 15.4 grns of 2400 with a 158 SWC.

My modern Laser-cast manual list 15.3 grns of 2400 with a 158 and Lyman 4th goes 13.5 grns of 2400 with a 158 and 15.5 grns with a 150 grn rnd nose.

I routinely shoot 14.5 grns of 2400 as my blaster load for 158's and have gone up to the original 1935 velocities out of my 8 3/8" pre-27's. I can tell you it takes a hair more powder then modern loads recommend but not much.

If you want the power, it is there in modern manuals, just not that often.

 

[Bdouthet]

some time round the 1990's SAAMI changed the standard on the 357mag loads from 45,000 cups to 35,000psi, the reason why is unclear.

 

[stantheman86]

It's because lawyers run ammo companies now........

They don't want you to stick a hot factory .357 in some Spanish knock-off made in the .40's and blow the gun up.....some of these guns are supposed to be .38 Special but they're straight chambered, and some will chamber a .357.

Just like a Colt Lightning or New Army will chamber .38 Special, even though it's a .38 Long Colt. I'm sure many an uninformed shoooter has stuck some +P's in an old Colt and damaged the gun.

If you've ever fired any of the Remington Cor-Lokt 8mm Mauser, it's a prime example of this. They load this stuff like a gallery round, so no one "blows up an old rifle".

 

[Frank46]

I seem to remember that 357 mag had a max pressure of about 45.000psi. Roughtly the same for the 44 magnum. Over the years there has been a steady decling or lowering of these maximum pressures. I can remember looking in a 1960's load book and see the 357 magnum 158 grain bullet clocked at 1400fps. Now today we see the same bullet doing 1200 fps or less. I'm not an expert and don't even pretend to be one. But load data over the years it seems to be coming down. Wether its from improved powders, primers or bullets. I fired a buddy's combat masterpiece in 357 mag and while this was in an indoor range it had a good solid kick to it. Not much difference shooting 357 mag out of my colt trooper III. In Fact compared to the 38 special it seem to me that there really isn't that much difference. Guess we are being protected for our own good. This is just my two cents worth. Frank

 

[stantheman86]

I guess the real answer is, if you want it as hot as the "old" .357, you gotta make your own.

 

[Bdouthet]

To get the hotter loads you have to do it your self.

I was looking thur some of my notes and I have down The change was made becuase the light bullets like 125gr hot loads are to much for a lot of the med Fame revolvers.

 

[thndrchiken]

I also think that it's the ammo manufacturers lawyering up. As well as the firearm manufacturers having the disclaimers in the warranty with language such as being intended for use with standard pressure loads only, etc.

 

[stiab]

I guess the real answer is, if you want it as hot as the "old" .357, you gotta make your own.

You guys must not of read some of the previous posts? It's all about the earlier numbers being measured out of long, unvented test barrels. I'll say it again, when the new testing requirements went into place about 1978, and S&W ammo (for example) started being measured out of real guns, their published velocities dropped 20%. Unless you are shooting your .357's out of a 10" unvented barrel, don't expect to get the old published results.

 

[stantheman86]

I'm no expert but I bought a box of Lubaloy Super-X .357 at gun show, probably from the 60's, and that stuff was pretty hot........

 

[OFT II]

I'm no expert but I bought a box of Lubaloy Super-X .357 at gun show, probably from the 60's, and that stuff was pretty hot........

Yep, those old Lubaloys were pretty hot. I have a couple of boxes and occasionally burn a few. They do tend to lead the barrel more than any other factory load that I know of.

 

[nawilson]

It is probably a little bit of all of the factors listed above. I bet the change of test procedures is the largest factor, especially the test barrel.

It doesn't hurt to put things in historical context. In the 19th century with black powder , if you wanted more power, you went bigger (think 50 caliber and some of the British nitro express cartridges). With the advent of smokeless powder, higher velocities became possible. Ammunition companies marketed their cartidges by velocity and marketed velocity as a panacea. Plus, not too many people had chronos in the 1930s, so it would have been difficult to dispute.

 

[stiab]

I'm no expert but I bought a box of Lubaloy Super-X .357 at gun show, probably from the 60's, and that stuff was pretty hot........

How fast were they? I tested 3 (granted a small sample) 158 grain Lubaloy from a Yellow box of Western Super X product code 3571P, and they averaged only 1093 fps from a 4" Model 28. This was from a pre-zip code box, so it was mid-60's era or before. I did not consider that to be hot.

 

[Tunachaser]

The .357 Magnum is alive and well, both the revolvers and the factory ammunition, if you do your job and make the right choices.

There are still outstanding quality revolvers available and factory "full house" loads just as hot as they've always been, more so if you opt for loads from outfits like Buffalo Bore and Double Tap.

I carry a Performance Center 627 8-shot .357 Magnum and it is, by far, the finest revolver I've ever owned or carried (which covers a lot of ground). My carry ammo is Federal's 130gr Hydra-Shok load. It launches its 130gr bullet at an honest 1400+ fps and is the very definition of "stout."

Very Very Sweet.

 

[Tunachaser]

No, I pointed out that a hot .357 has more kinetic energy than a .45 Colt yet the .45 Colt is a better field cartridge. That blows the 'kinetic energy is what makes any caliber good and/or effective' theory to pieces.

I will also state that nothing you shoot can tell the difference between a 1250 fps .357 load and one traveling 1500 fps. There--I kept it to one caliber, if the comparison was so offensive to you.

what field are you talking about? I hope it isn't a bean field. I hunt deer with a 357, wouldn't think about it with a 45, to fat and slow, has a trajectory like a rainbow. good SD round, but that's it. so the above statement is not entirely accurate.