.357 Maximum

Does Anybody Still Make A Handgun Chambered In .357 Maximum? My Wife Thinks She Wants Another Wheel Gun, I Kind Of Miss My S&w 686, But I Think A Maximum Would Be A Hoot To Shoot.

Yuo don´t like T/C Contender? Used gun is the tiket. My language is barf:

Nobody makes a 357 max except a TC contender.
There are a few used ones around.

Dan Wesson made revolvers in 357 Max. The guys on the Dan Wesson list on yahoogroups seem to find mint 2ndhand ones quite regularly :-)

Got a H&R barrel chambered in 357 Max. Put many a round through it.

Good cartridge, but hard on revolvers. Eats topstraps while-u-wait. I always thought that a 7/8ths scale Sharps rifle chambered for the Maximum would have been neat.

american derringer makes them still but what a waist of a fine round.

Good cartridge, but hard on revolvers. Eats topstraps while-u-wait.

I was always curious about that. Will the maximum actually cut deep enough into the topstrap to cause a structural failure, or does it stop before that point?

I imagine it may be rather rough on forcing cones too.

The .357 max was a terrible idea. It's what happens when the boss takes an extended abscense and leaves management in the hands of morons.

When I first heard about the .357 max, the first thing I asked is, "How are they going to keep this thing from eating forcing cones?" And I was underplaying it! It ate forcing cones, it ate topstraps, it ate everything that got in the way. It was cancelled almost as quickly as it came. Ruger and others toyed with replacable barrels, but the pressures and the cutting were just too great.

Smith & Wesson has the right idea. Make it so big and so uncomfortable that people won't want to shoot it! Now that's brilliant!

I think it would be a great round for a lever-action rifle.

[/Qoute]
The .357 max was a terrible idea. It's what happens when the boss takes an extended abscense and leaves management in the hands of morons.

When I first heard about the .357 max, the first thing I asked is, "How are they going to keep this thing from eating forcing cones?" And I was underplaying it! It ate forcing cones, it ate topstraps, it ate everything that got in the way. It was cancelled almost as quickly as it came. Ruger and others toyed with replacable barrels, but the pressures and the cutting were just too great.

Smith & Wesson has the right idea. Make it so big and so uncomfortable that people won't want to shoot it! Now that's brilliant! [/Quote]


Did you ever own one? Mine don't seem to have a problem. All you need do is stay away from the original Remington factory load.And your S/W can't handle what the Ruger can.

Will the maximum actually cut deep enough into the topstrap to cause a structural failure, or does it stop before that point?

It will usually stop, but any thinning of the topstrap weakens it because it undergoes viloent tensile stress every time it's fired.

Bullet exerts forward drag on barrel...Equal/opposite forces driving the the recoil shield backward...Topstrap is the link between the two. Strrrreeeetch!

Now...In a lever-action rifle, the Maximum would be a player. Remember the .375 Winchester and the '94 Big Bore? Too bad that one faltered. The maximum could bring back the concept due to a better selection of component bullets...although the best bet would probably be with the heavier ones.

The .357 max was a terrible idea. It's what happens when the boss takes an extended abscense and leaves management in the hands of morons.

Eish, I have to take you up on this.

The 357 max was built for one specific purpose -- big bore silhouette shooting. (Elgin Gates called it the 357 SuperMag, and yes, I know the differences & history).

The correct load is 180 or 200 grain bullets. If you try to make 125 grain bullets come out the barrel at the speed of white light, you're going to lose your topstrap.

But the fellows shooting silhouettes do just fine, and we tend to shoot a lot.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/eickpm/357max_sbh.jpg

The Max in the Ruger format is a quandary. It is a great gun if you live in its limits. Yes it will cut top straps, especially if you shoot light bullets with ball powders. If you drive heavy bullets with stick powders the problem is much less of an issue. I did not say it was no issue, but less of one. The issue is the cylinder is a bit short for proper combustion of the powder prior to hitting the cylinder gap. DW's are longer hence it is much less of an issue. The Ruger's are just short.

Mine has been shot a fair amount now with at lightest, 158's. Even this will cause some flame cutting on the topstrap.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/eickpm/flame_cut1.jpg

This is no worse "in my opinion" then many S&W 357 magnum L & k frames that I have seen shot with a lot of 110 and 125 grn magnum loads.

So, are you willing to shoot your Max with heavy bullets, stick powders and recognize that it was not optimally designed to handle other combinations? If so join the club of Max shooters who have a grand time with the round. For just raw fun, it is my favorite blaster.

If not, please consider it a historical artifact and treat it nicely.

I shoot mine with everything from 110gr to 200gr usually loaded hot and haven't seen any topstrap cutting at all.

Course it is a Contender. May just be one of the best calibers for a break action platform.

There was no way Ruger could make it work. Insiders at Ruger say that the issuing of this revolver caused a great deal of consternation at the company. Whether heads rolled is another story. My understanding is that the .357 max was developed by a Ruger family member in conjunction with Remington. It was built on a Blackhawk frame. Stainless steel, which resists gas cutting to a greater degree than blue, didn't provide the necessary protection. The fact that it was soon dropped by every revolver manufacturer after problems began manifesting themselves is proof that those problems were pretty much insurmountable.

Now it's true that gas cutting would have gone only so far through the topstrap, then it would have stopped. But that was unacceptable to the manufacturers. True, heavier bullets could have been used, but then they would have no practical advantage over other, more popular calibers (including the .357 mag), and the manufacturers realized that. If there was any practical way they could have made the .357 max viable, they would have done so.

Like Peter M. said above, if you have one, enjoy it and shoot it within its limitations. If you want to stoke it up hot for those camping trips in the wild, I imagine it would pack a pretty respectable punch if you can handload it. I imagine it's difficult to find brass for it and ammunition must be through the roof. I haven't kept up with that.

I shoot mine with everything from 110gr to 200gr usually loaded hot and haven't seen any topstrap cutting at all.

That's probably 'cause Contenders don't have topstraps...

:D

Brass is the same price as 357 mag and is available from Midway.
Reasonably priced ammo:
http://shop.reedsammo.com/category.sc?categoryId=40

S&W is putting a steel insert in the topstrap of it's scandium guns, like the 340pd and 386. Topstraps can always be made thicker at the top to make up for lost strength where the insert is. Wonder how the forcing cones of 460 revolvers hold up compared to 357 Max ones. Point is, I think today it's doable. Wonder how an N frame 357 Max would sell now that so many people are hunting with pistols. Maybe a 5 shot L frame, thicker cylinder walls and offset notches like in the 7 shot models along with a barrel that can take the load. Not sure how the frame would hold up though, might be the limiting factor.

The 357 Max has an advantage in velocity, range, and trajectory over the 357 mag at all bullet weights and in a contender is incredibly versatile. There's something nice about carrying a 357 mag revolver hunting with a handful of of 357 max loads in the last few belt loops for the Contender.

This is no worse "in my opinion" then many S&W 357 magnum L & k frames that I have seen shot with a lot of 110 and 125 grn magnum loads.

My SRH .454 has a bigger gouge in the top strap than what you've photographed, and it's only seen a couple hundred rounds.

From all of my reading on the .357 max, the expert consensus is that the flame cutting is self-limiting and never really proved problematic. However, as Ruger has always been overly cautious with liability concerns, they got scared and stopped manufacturing.

I had a chance to buy a USA single action in .357 max and I should have. I really regret letting that one go now. I'm with others in hoping that someone will reintroduce it in a nice, heavy wheelgun. The cartridge has amazing potential as a medium game pistol hunting cartridge. The ballistics suggest that a heavy load with a 180 or 200 gr. pill could make it useable to 200 yards on antelope or smaller deer. Add the newer technology (namely Hornady's LEverEvolution bullets) and you'd have a real winner, IMO.

Now it's true that gas cutting would have gone only so far through the topstrap, then it would have stopped. But that was unacceptable to the manufacturers. True, heavier bullets could have been used, but then they would have no practical advantage over other, more popular calibers (including the .357 mag), and the manufacturers realized that. If there was any practical way they could have made the .357 max viable, they would have done so.


Seems like they could have milled a simicircular relief notch in the top strap right where the gas cutting would take place. Or inlet a little strip of tunsten or copper or stainless steel...

Seems like they could have milled a simicircular relief notch in the top strap right where the gas cutting would take place.

Which would accomplish nothing at all. Thinning of the topstrap still equates to a weakened topstrap.

Which would accomplish nothing at all. Thinning of the topstrap still equates to a weakened topstrap.

It would be a controlled thinning of the top strap, with no sharp edges that could propagate a crack.

Ruger bailed on the 357 Max revolvers because word was out about the topstrap cutting, and they knew that even if it was self-limiting, the damage was already done. Sales dropped to nothing, quickly, so Ruger canned the whole thing.

DW and a few others offered the guns for awhile, but they were never big sellers. I always wanted one in 414 or 445, the stetched 41 and 44 magnums, respectively. I still think a levergun in 414 would be cool. But I also don't remember hearing ANYTHING about flame cutting in the 414 and 445 guns.......maybe the people shooting them already knew to use non-ball powders, and heavy slugs. But it was never an issue, and I read everything I could get my hands on about guns and reloading back then.

I owned one of the H & R Topper rifles in 357 Max, and it was a hoot to shoot. Several of my kids cut their teeth on that gun, shooting 38's and 357's out of it. With full house loads in 357 Max it could smack you in the chops pretty good if you didn't hold it properly. But that short stiff barrel was accurate, and I did a lot of experimenting with it. I wish I'd had a chronograph back then, I worked up a WW-296 load with 88-grain Remington JHP bullets made for the .380 that was a real screamer, I bet I was getting 2300 fps from that 20-inch barrel, and what that load did to small game rivalled the hot 22's on impact. Messy, but impressive! :evil:

Papajohn

seems like if the top strap cutting was a self limiting thing they could just have made the top strap a little thicker and let it cut. eventually, it would have equalled the original thickness and that would be that. but i must say, that the idea of a peice of replaceable tungsten would have been a great idea simply make the top strap thicker, machine a slot in it for a dovetailed peice of tungsten and be done with it. now why did they give up on a great cartridge for such a simple soloution? now, the forcing cone, that's a whole differnt horse. maybe a freebore section like a weatherby rifle? i dont know, i dont pretend to be a gunsmith or metalurgist. but sometimes, i can come up with an idea that is at least an improvement.

I have yet to hear of one coming apart!

And this one has about 3K rounds.No ball powder.As for the top strap,you would be hard pressed to catch a fingernail in the mark that does exist.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a12/Bill413x2/MVC-411S-1.jpg

S&W is putting a steel insert in the topstrap of it's scandium guns, like the 340pd and 386

I used that very idea and commissioned my gunsmith add one in a couple of my revolvers that see a lot of heavy loads. Problem averted. Yes it really was that simple.

I don´t use 125gr bullets with 2375fps loads with my Dan Wesson Super Mag, but only with my T/C G2 .357 Rem Max.

How about dovetailing a piece of material such as tungsten into the topstrap so that it's replacable?

Youn see cutting? Punch it out and replace it.

How about dovetailing a piece of material such as tungsten into the topstrap

Still weakens the topstrap, and further adds to the weak area with sharp corners.

Remember that the topstrap is under high tensile stress every time the gun is fired. Streeeeeeeeeetchhhh....*pop*

yes, that's why when i was talking about the dovetailed replaceable pad it would have to be designed at the factory to do that, so the top strap would be thick enough to withstand the stress even without the dovetailed peice of tungsten in place. adding it afterwards would be a huge weakening of the frame. i suppose, if you didnt care about the looks of the gun, you could wrap a thin sheet around the top strap that would be replaceable, maybe stainless, but it would be so thin that you wouls probably have to replace it every time you reloaded. doesnt make any sense to do it that way, but It could be done. and it would make the gun UGLY! the only practicle way to revive the cartridge would be for a gunmaker to asses the shorcomings of the existing pistols, address them, re-design the problem area's out and then put the gun back on the market. since all of that would cost a lot of money, i do not forsee it happening. unless somebody takes over a gun company who is in love with that cartridge and goes for broke. i think it has merrit, but to be honest, i dont think even if you corrected all the problems, you are not going to set the world on fire with that round. its just to bad the gunmakers didn't do their homework correctly and get the job done right the first time. the gun would probably still be around if they had.

The 357 SuperMag preceded the 357 Maximum. The 357 Supermag never had any of these problems. Dan Wesson chambered their revolver for the 357 SuperMag, not withstanding that the barrel shroud is amrked 357 maximum. (Go figure.) Dan Wesson issued two barrels with the revolver. I have never touched my second barrel and I have never heard if any other DW shooter switching to the second barrel. Top strap erosion has been no more than on any other revolver.

Now we come to Ruger & Remington. As is all too often the case, when the big boys take a wildcat commercial, they have to fix what ain't broke. Ruger declined to make the frame window long enough to take the SuperMag despite Elgin Gates warning. The SuperMag was intended to launch a heavy for caliber bullet, Ruger & Remington cooked up a light for caliber bullet with a massive charge of very slow ball powder load for the Maximum, trying to get warp 8 speed. It was a recipe for erosion. The Ruger will not chamber a 357 SuperMag.

How ever, with a decent handload, the 357 Maximum will work just fine in the Ruger. It's only the factory load you have to avoid.

It's my only source for .351 brass.