357 magnum LSWC

Status
Not open for further replies.
Crazy Horse

Crazy Horse

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
750
Location
San Antonio, TX
I was reloading 357 magnum bullets using Titegroup and LSWC bullets. The recipe (2019 Hogdon reloading pg 155) called for 4.5 grains of TG and seating the bullet to 1.610. When I seated and tested the bullet, it was slightly longer than the case gauge. to get the bullet flush in the case gauge I reduced the COL to 1.600. That a difference of .010. Based on being at the starting load, I don't think there should be a problem.

I'll be testing the load on my GP100, but that won't be for a couple of weeks. Has anyone deviated slightly when seating 357 magnum ammunition. I looked up the max length in SAAMI and it listed it at 1.590 which is .010 shorter than the 1.600 I seated the bullet, but still the seating COL I used is .010 shorter than the COL listed in the Hogdon reloading 2019 edition.

I placed one completed bullet at 1.600 on my Ruger Security six and it cycled just fine.

Because I used the starting load and only reduced the COL by .010 from the recommended COL (which BTW is .020 greater than the SAAMI load), I don't foresee an issue.

Has anyone had a similar experience? If so, what was the outcome.

TIA
 
If it fits and functions... it's fine. Your revolver is the case gauge.
and 10-thou diff is NBD.... as long as that keeps you in the bullet's crimp groove w/ solid roll crimp.

4.5gr/TiteGp is 158gr LSWC starting load (IIR Hodgdon Website correctly)
Shoot it.

.
 
Last edited:
If you were at max I would dial it back a few tenths and test. If your below I would not worry. I'm surprised that published load data is not in sami spec. I would reach out and point that out to them.
 
Good to see you are connecting all the dots. A couple things to consider:

If you're not using the same bullet hodgdon did then nothing is written in stone. 4 different 35cal swc's
9Wyshk2.jpg

Different weights, different oal's

A 357 case has a lot of volume in it compared to a 40s&w.
357 ='s 25.6gr h2-o
40s&w ='s 19.3gr h2-o

Ramshot put this graph in 1 of their reloading manuals to give reloaders an idea of how they're affecting the pressures of their loads by changing the oal's of the 9mm's & 40s&w's.
UlcjxB5.jpg

Reading an oal is 1 thing, how much of the bullet is in the case/how much case volume is left is what counts.

I've been reloading for awhile now, cast a bunch of different bullets for the 357's (30+ different molds) along with swaging my own lead & jacketed bullets. More often then not there's no data for the bullet I'm using so I always start low and work the loads up. Some people don't like chronographs or don't have a use for them. Myself I've owned them for decades and use them as part of the load development of any new bullet or powder.
 
Forrest r,

When you say you start off low, do you have a base starting point on COL? Or do you split the difference between min and Max oal (assuming the bullet still Chambers).

I've seen the calculations for establishing initial powder loads, but other than SAAMI min/max COL, I've never seen a calculation for coming up with an initial oal.
 
I start with starting loads with known data and my goto powders that I've used countless #'s of. COL's don't mean that much to me as long as they chamber.

Some bullets for the 357's, a couple of them have data the others use data from bullets that are similar.
0A0Ga7O.jpg

Weight isn't as important to me as the case capacity. If a bullet weights 163gr or 152gr I'll use the 158gr data. When I find data for a bullet I'll compare the part of that bullet that sits in the case to a bullet that has no data.

More bullets that can be used in a 357 that there's no data for.
xHUCNJn.jpg

I simply pick data that's close and start low working loads up.

A s&w 624 44spl pistol that I like to use on 25yd bullseye targets. I was testing 220gr hbwc's, there's no data for that bullet.
VorIu2C.jpg

The testing included:
Seating/crimping the bullet flush/top lube groove bottom lube groove
Lubed in bottom lube groove only, both lube grooves, tumble lubed (tl), bottom lube groove + tl, both lube grooves + tl
I used clays powder for the testing starting with 3.5gr and increasing the load in .2gr increments until I topped out at 4.5gr.

Targets were used/setup @ 25yds along with the use of a chronograph.

Anyway, glad to see you're looking at oal's, seating depths, case capacity & their effects.
 
QuickLoad says the difference in max pressure between 1.590 and 1.610 lengths is about 700 psi. At 1.590 the pressure achieved is 20k, well short of the 35k max SAAMI pressure allowed. Calculated velocity difference is 7 fps. This is using data for your Titegroup load, a Hornady 158 grain SWC bullet and COAL of 1.59 and 1.61. You could easily go down to the published max COAL without issues. The only question is what works best for your revolver. At your 1.60 length the pressure hits 19.7k psi and 901 fps.
 
TfflHndn said:
QuickLoad says the difference in max pressure between 1.590 and 1.610 lengths is about 700 psi. At 1.590 the pressure achieved is 20k, well short of the 35k max SAAMI pressure allowed. Calculated velocity difference is 7 fps. This is using data for your Titegroup load, a Hornady 158 grain SWC bullet and COAL of 1.59 and 1.61. You could easily go down to the published max COAL without issues. The only question is what works best for your revolver. At your 1.60 length the pressure hits 19.7k psi and 901 fps.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much. Quickload? Is there a charge for that application.
 
If you roll crimp into the crimp groove I would be very surprised if it didn't fit your cylinder. Ignore what OAL the data has and crimp into the groove. Only if that ends up a lot shorter do you need to worry.

This is a 125, but it illustrates the point.
index.php
 
Texas10mm said:
You could Google the answer. But yes, there is a charge. Almost $200 and it doesn't have many of the newer powders in it.
Click to expand...
I could, but that would not provide the opportunity to contribute to the discussion n this forum.

Like:
Forrest r,
200 dollars.....damn, that's a bit much. Thank you for providing me the the information, really appreciate it
 
Walkalong said:
f you roll crimp into the crimp groove I would be very surprised if it didn't fit your cylinder. Ignore what OAL the data has and crimp into the groove. Only if that ends up a lot shorter do you need to worry.
Click to expand...
I loaded my first rounds in 1969 and because it was way pre-web, I just followed the directions for my Lee Loader. I seated the bullets to the crimp groove and made good, safe reloads. Since then I have seated all my revolver bullets to the crimp groove or cannalure, disregarding book OAL (I believe the listed OAL for revolver bullets with a crimp groove or cannalure is just what the tech used and not absolute). I don't have any "short" cylinders or extra long nose bullets and have had zero problems just using the crimp grooves (I think mebbe the bullet designers knew where to put them)...
 
Walkalong said:
If you roll crimp into the crimp groove I would be very surprised if it didn't fit your cylinder. Ignore what OAL the data has and crimp into the groove. Only if that ends up a lot shorter do you need to worry.

This is a 125, but it illustrates the point.
index.php
Click to expand...
125 gr. That's my next load. I've been using Titegroup for 357 magnum, but for this particular load I'm looking at trying to find a recipe for CFE pistol.
 
mdi said:
I loaded my first rounds in 1969 and because it was way pre-web, I just followed the directions for my Lee Loader. I seated the bullets to the crimp groove and made good, safe reloads. Since then I have seated all my revolver bullets to the crimp groove or cannalure, disregarding book OAL (I believe the listed OAL for revolver bullets with a crimp groove or cannalure is just what the tech used and not absolute). I don't have any "short" cylinders or extra long nose bullets and have had zero problems just using the crimp grooves (I think mebbe the bullet designers knew where to put them)...
Click to expand...
Awhile back an experienced loader mentioned the same technique. It's reliable, but with the tighter limits (min to max loads) on magnum rounds, I try to adhere to recipes a bit closer.
Thx
 
ericuda said:
Crazy if you can find grab some 2400 for your 357. Will take more than titegroup but worth it imo.
Click to expand...
Definitely, I've been looking to try a different powder. But I'll have to wait until after the panic, when it isn't as difficult to find or as expensive.
 
I'm new and have started with 357 mag, sorry if I'm jumping topics. The titegroup powder weight of 4.5gr had me thinking. Does powder weight to case volume make a difference with OAL? Example I'm using 14.0gr-ish, if I used 4.5gr of titegroup and kept the same OAL wouldn't the primer fire overtop the powder (since it wouldn't fill the case very much)? OR does does load data assume your using spec 1.590 OAL for the specific bullet?

Is there a resource that explains this?

The graph forrest R posted is very interesting as well.
 
Keeebs said:
I'm new and have started with 357 mag, sorry if I'm jumping topics. The titegroup powder weight of 4.5gr had me thinking. Does powder weight to case volume make a difference with OAL? Example I'm using 14.0gr-ish, if I used 4.5gr of titegroup and kept the same OAL wouldn't the primer fire overtop the powder (since it wouldn't fill the case very much)? OR does does load data assume your using spec 1.590 OAL for the specific bullet?

Is there a resource that explains this?

The graph forrest R posted is very interesting as well.
Click to expand...
You're now talking about Case fill and in a lot of powders having 80% case fill end up giving you much better accuracy. Some powders are very position sensitive and give you very erratic results. You may see some people doing testing for powder Forward powder Mid and powder rear with all kinds of crazy deviations. Titegroup seems to be really good about being position insensitive.
 
Obturation said:
357 loves 2400.ive used just about everything else in the book but settled on the old classic 14 grains with a 158 swc and don't need anything else.
Click to expand...

Ericuda,

Wow, 2400 really gets that bullet going Of course the grains on starting loads are at 18. But initial speeds are ~1300 fps. Guess that's a true magnum. Seeing those figures, It seems like I'm playing with +p loads at best. I don't think my 357 will even wake up.

Everyone on the forum must be laughing at my post. 4.5 grains of Titegroup for a 357, how cute..... LoL

I just ordered 1 lb of 2400 for delivery. Yeah paying for hazard fee, but I'm not going to load my remaining 100 cases until it arrives.

Out of curiosity, I see loads for 44 magnum as well. Does the 44 magnum love 2400 as well? I have a couple of 44 magnums. I've shot a total of 4 rounds through it. Of course it was on an inside range. It surprised the hell out of me. I'm hoping a reload won't cause such a loud bang if I stay at starting loads.

Again thanks for the recommendation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

E
  • Locked
Bullet seats deeper after crimping
Replies
14
Views
1K
Hondo 60
Hondo 60
R
  • Locked
Help with COL for 200gr LSWC
Replies
10
Views
624
byf43
B
G
  • Locked
45colt reloading issues with cases
Replies
10
Views
778
Hondo 60
Hondo 60
R
  • Locked
Rookie reloader question
Replies
7
Views
511
RB98SS
R
D
  • Locked
.357 Magnum reloadiing
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
waho
W
Back
Top