S&W M28-2, 357 Magnum, High Pressure, Locked Action,

joneb said:
I tried 13.4gr along the way, which is where things began to improve.
https://ramshot.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/WesternPowdersHandloadingGuide8.0_WEB.pdf
Click to expand...

As the OP is already having problems at 12.4 grains, I certainly wouldn’t suggest going up another 1.0 gn in charge weight. My comment was aimed at the increments I normally take working up.

Think of a ladder and knocking steps out of the middle to there is a larger gap than normal between the remaining steps. I have worked up some loads over max (according to some books) but it was in very small increments, like a tenth or two, as I reached the top.
 
joneb said:
I tried 12.2 and 12.4gr of Accurate #9 with a 158gr Hornady XTP in a Ruger Security six, the primers were flat and shell casings were stuck in the cylinder. With all being the same I tried 13.6gr of Accurate #9 and that worked very well. The cases fell out of the cylinder and the spent primers were rounded and normal.
This my most accurate load for this 2 3/4" gun, go figger.
Click to expand...
Never mind. I'm wrong.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2022-5-12_10-12-52.png
    upload_2022-5-12_10-12-52.png
    33 KB · Views: 33
Last edited:
jmorris said:
As the OP is already having problems at 12.4 grains, I certainly wouldn’t suggest going up another 1.0 gn in charge weight. My comment was aimed at the increments I normally take working up.

Think of a ladder and knocking steps out of the middle to there is a larger gap than normal between the remaining steps. I have worked up some loads over max (according to some books) but it was in very small increments, like a tenth or two, as I reached the top.
Click to expand...
He's comparing an XTP to a cast lead SWC. NOT a good comparison.
 
Last edited:
AJC1 said:
This is the next heavier bullet and where I stopped my test View attachment 1078072
Click to expand...
Linotype. BHN around 22. Brittle stuff but it will take some pressure. Okay, if it's that recent and tested, I take it back. Use cast and jacketed interchangeably where you've got tested data. I guess that goes for Brian Pearce's handloading articles, too - though, he doesn't pressure test his loads, he uses the old-school, "Didn't blow up the gun so it must be safe," method used by Ideal/Lyman for decades.
 
GeoDudeFlorida said:
Linotype. BHN around 22. Brittle stuff but it will take some pressure. Okay, if it's that recent and tested, I take it back. Use cast and jacketed interchangeably where you've got tested data. I guess that goes for Brian Pearce's handloading articles, too - though, he doesn't pressure test his loads, he uses the old-school, "Didn't blow up the gun so it must be safe," method used by Ideal/Lyman for decades.
Click to expand...
I'm still hung up on this still being cup data after they shifted technologies starting in the 45th edition. That is why when that discussion was being had about the 51st I brought it up. It's not like 38 or 357 are exactly abstract loadings...
 
I have noticed AA9 gets more unpredictable as the case fill gets closer to 100%.
I ended up making some overly hot 30carbines rounds with AA9 I jumped up nearly a full grain, but was still below the max load and had cases getting stuck in the chamber. Turned out where I was at, before I jumped up nearly a full grain should have been about the max.
 
Look at the many different photos of No 9 & No 5 powder. Very different in size. Not same manufacture. Plus 2 different load datas from same company, that i posted.

Walkalong posted about No 5, years ago, very difference in appearance.

https://www.ilrc.ucf.edu/powders/sample_detail.php?powder_id=821

I do not trust Accurate powders. As soon as i get some 2400, bye to Accurate.

20220513_114548.jpg 20220513_114618.jpg
 
AJC1 said:
I'm still hung up on this still being cup data after they shifted technologies starting in the 45th edition. That is why when that discussion was being had about the 51st I brought it up. It's not like 38 or 357 are exactly abstract loadings...
Click to expand...
CUP is still good data for pressure. The fact is, brass casings are made from copper and zinc, so crushing copper pellets into disks using a piston and gas-bleed is still a good way to determine if a load will expand the casing and steel chamber to a stress point. It isn't pico-second/Nm data, which is why some folks discount it as "inaccurate" but, it is still predictive of a physical cause-effect. It can be argued that strain-gauge testing is LESS accurate because strain-gauges can be influenced more easily by environment and age. Also, an improperly calibrated strain-gauge will still give recognizable data in psi but it may not reflect actual pressures. It's almost impossible to know in one measuring session when a strain-gauge is miscalibrated but it's really not easy to miscalibrate a pellet, piston and gas tube. I don't get hung up on scale or method, as long as it's consistent and I NEVER try to mix-n-match or perform direct comparisons of information gathered using different standards.
Stoichiometry is real. :)
 
AJC1 said:
that really cuts down your options
Click to expand...
Agreed.
AJC1 said:
and reduces performance
Click to expand...
Well, I guess that depends on how you define "performance" - and if you don't include the double-base powders which do play nicely when downloaded - and the ones that are consistent in a wide variety of temperatures and conditions. Which is more important? Consistent velocity - which implies consistent drop, which further implies consistent shot placement - within a very broad range of conditions, or a fireball and maybe, sometimes, an extra 70fps but much less flexibility? Is "performance" just about wrist-snapping recoil and fireballs? Not to me.

Some double base powders are real consistent - 2400, Red Dot, 4100 and Bullseye, as examples - while others tend more towards being contrary- which I won't name because I don't want to get flamed six ways from Sunday. In my experience, 2400 and IMR 4227 in magnum handguns are far more consistent and reliable than most (other, since 2400 is a double-base powder) double-base powders with higher nitroglycerine contents. There are inhibitors in those powders that make them play nicely, as well, that aren't in all double-base powders.

For what it's worth, I've never had a complaint about low performance by a pig, deer, or other critter. :)
 
AJC1 said:
I'm a big fan of single base but that really cuts down your options and reduces performance
Click to expand...

Let me make a comment about the lifetime of double based and single based powders. Both types are primarily nitrocellulose based. Nitrocellulose is a high energy compound deteriorating to a low energy compound the day if leaves the factory. The lifetime of the nitrocellulose molecule is based on the stability of its double bonded NO molecules. Anything ionic will break those bonds. And, as it turns out, the nitroglycerine in double based powders, attacks the nitrocellulose molecule. So the lifetime of double based powders are less than half that (all things considered) to single based. If everything is perfect, little to no acid left in the nitrocellulose, single base powders "should" last 45 years, and double based "20" years. This is sort of like predicting the lifetime of humans, lots of humans don't make it past childhood, but we all forgot those and only remember those who made it to 100.

Now something else about double based powders, the nitroglycerine is wicked to the surface by humidity. Water molecules are polar covalent, and that oxygen end pulls on nitroglycerine as water molecules land and take off from the powder grain. In time, the surface becomes nitroglycerine rich, and that changes the slope of the pressure curve, all to the bad.

Due to the better lifetime of single base, I have tried to avoid double base. But, I purchased kegs of Unique and Bullseye powder, before I knew this. So I am shooting the stuff up and watching for any funnies.
 
Slamfire said:
Let me make a comment about the lifetime of double based and single based powders. Both types are primarily nitrocellulose based. Nitrocellulose is a high energy compound deteriorating to a low energy compound the day if leaves the factory. The lifetime of the nitrocellulose molecule is based on the stability of its double bonded NO molecules. Anything ionic will break those bonds. And, as it turns out, the nitroglycerine in double based powders, attacks the nitrocellulose molecule. So the lifetime of double based powders are less than half that (all things considered) to single based. If everything is perfect, little to no acid left in the nitrocellulose, single base powders "should" last 45 years, and double based "20" years. This is sort of like predicting the lifetime of humans, lots of humans don't make it past childhood, but we all forgot those and only remember those who made it to 100.

Now something else about double based powders, the nitroglycerine is wicked to the surface by humidity. Water molecules are polar covalent, and that oxygen end pulls on nitroglycerine as water molecules land and take off from the powder grain. In time, the surface becomes nitroglycerine rich, and that changes the slope of the pressure curve, all to the bad.

Due to the better lifetime of single base, I have tried to avoid double base. But, I purchased kegs of Unique and Bullseye powder, before I knew this. So I am shooting the stuff up and watching for any funnies.
Click to expand...
Very interesting timelines you present... interestingly my eyes were opend to my current preference and I might guess it was you but I'm not positive. It's one of the reasons I got universal and why I'm keen on a lot of the imr line. I'm wetting my toe in vhit powders and solo is long gone.
 
Rule3 said:
If you used a 165 grain (164.5) LSWS bullet why did you use data for a 170 gr FMJ????
Click to expand...
The powder charges are the same for both bullets 158lswc & 170 fmj on Hodgdon.

Maybe i am missing something here??
Screenshot_20220515-125103_Chrome.jpg

Not sure i want to try No. 9 in my 44Magnum.

I am thinking this powder lot has a faster burn rate then others?
 
Last edited:
243winxb said:
The powder charges are the same for both bullets 158lswc & 170 fmj on Hodgdon.

Maybe i am missing something here??
View attachment 1078695

Not sure i want to try No. 9 in my 44Magnum.

I am thinking this powder lot has a faster burn rate then others?
Click to expand...


Your original post said you used a 164.5 grain LSWC (not 158gr) ?Lets call it 165 grain. Hodgdon doen't list #9 for a 165 bullet

"Tried No 9 powder today in my S&W M28-2 357 mag. 164.5 gr lswc, WSPM, Staarline brass".

For a 170 gr FMJ the data is 11.2 to 12.4

https://shop.hodgdon.com/reloading-data-center
 
243winxb said:
The powder charges are the same for both bullets 158lswc & 170 fmj on Hodgdon.

Maybe i am missing something here??
View attachment 1078695

Not sure i want to try No. 9 in my 44Magnum.

I am thinking this powder lot has a faster burn rate then others?
Click to expand...
AA # 9 works very well in .44 Mag, I use it or N-110 to push a 240 Gr jacketed bullet to 1350ish from a 5.5” Redhawk. Both shoot better than I can.

My full power” .357 Mag loads are with coated bullets, I really need to try them in .44 Mag. I have some 240 Gr coated bullets IIRC, so no excuse other than I don’t shoot much .44 Mag these days.
 
Walkalong said:
AA # 9 works very well in .44 Mag, .....
Click to expand...

I concur, I initially bought AA#9 for my 500S&W, and then loaded 460, 454 and 44 Mag with it - it works well for me.

IMR4227 works well in the cartridges I mentioned too - but that is not what the OP asked about.
I recently bought some AA#7 and AA#5 for testing in a 10mm. I like their powders.
 
jmorris said:
7.8% is a big jump between steps when going to max, for me. I suppose the term is always “work up” (or “work down” for subs) but no one quantifies the increments…[/QUOTI did work up this load up from 12.4- 13.8gr in .04 gr increments.
Click to expand...
 
I did work up this load up from 12.4- 13.8gr in .04 gr increments.
Click to expand...

I don’t go that small but you should have been pretty safe. Jumping from 12.40 to 12.44 is closer to 0.3% increase.

The OP used a 0.9 grain increment, going from 11.5 to 12.4, that’s a little over 7.8%.
 
Happened again today.

At the starting load of 11.2 gr, No. 9. Fired 18 rounds. The 16th round locked the action. Primer flowed into firing pin hole (hammer nose). Rounds 17 & 18 blanked the primers. Bottom left 3.

Same components used.

Brass seem to show a mark from the recoil shield . All brass extracted normal.

Needs a complete investigation, clean and fire with 13.0grs 2400, for starters. 20220517_141230.jpg 20220517_154411.jpg
 
Last edited:
jmorris said:
I don’t go that small but you should have been pretty safe. Jumping from 12.40 to 12.44 is closer to 0.3% increase.

The OP used a 0.9 grain increment, going from 11.5 to 12.4, that’s a little over 7.8%.
Click to expand...
My system is to use .2 grain increments for testing pistol. I do the same in 223 and I use .3 grain most time in 308. To be fair I don't start at the lowest start which is normally Hornaday. I start where two or more resources agree, normally Lyman and a powder manufacturer because I shoot a lot of cast. If I was shooting an off the shelf bullet I would check that and the powder company....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

243winxb
Win 244 powder ,357 mag., with 164gr cast (158 mold)
Replies
12
Views
1K
243winxb
243winxb
M
  • Locked
Convert a S&W M28 to .44 Special?
Replies
18
Views
1K
tipoc
tipoc
Palladan44
  • Locked
Ultimate 357 Magnum hoedown!!!
Replies
15
Views
1K
RealGun
RealGun
kcofohio
  • Locked
Remington 1 1/2 Primers & 40 S&W Loads?
Replies
17
Views
3K
LiveLife
LiveLife
S
  • Locked
Hodgdons Universal in .40 S&W and .357 Magnum
Replies
19
Views
4K
Ala Dan
A
Back
Top