Why 357 ammo is "watered down"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ammo is still being made to SAAMI specs. The way ammo is tested has become much easier and more accurate. The need for ammo to always be at max pressure/velocity for calibers like .357 has changed because of the many, more powerful modern calibers.
 
Pudge said:
If you look at reloading manuals, the specs change. The Speer Reloading Manual No. 11 lists the max charge of 2400 for a 125gr .357 to be 19.5 grains, while Lyman's 49th Edition lists 17.7 grains to be the max charge. 1987-2008. Interestingly, other powders in 1987, like H110 and Unique have lower max charges in 1987 than in 2008. The point is that what is "within spec" changes over time, and if Buffalo Bore is within spec, then other commercial loads can legitimately be considered to be watered down. And the higher powered boutique offerings might be in response to decades of reduced power commercial offerings.

At the same time published velocities of 1555 (1987) and 1478 (2008) may look significant on paper, but there are so many variables, you can't always believe what you read. If it really matters to you, use a chronograph, do your research, and tread carefully.
Click to expand...

Changes in published reloading specs over time are a completely different discussion from factory ammo performance.
 
Pudge said:
If you look at reloading manuals, the specs change. The Speer Reloading Manual No. 11 lists the max charge of 2400 for a 125gr .357 to be 19.5 grains, while Lyman's 49th Edition lists 17.7 grains to be the max charge. 1987-2008. Interestingly, other powders in 1987, like H110 and Unique have lower max charges in 1987 than in 2008.
Click to expand...

Different lots of powder can vary 10% +/- in their performance, and could account for the differences.


Pudge said:
The point is that what is "within spec" changes over time, and if Buffalo Bore is within spec, then other commercial loads can legitimately be considered to be watered down. And the higher powered boutique offerings might be in response to decades of reduced power commercial offerings.
Click to expand...

In our current world, selecting a different gunpowder and/or other components can produce much higher velocity than what nominal ballistics are for a given caliber at the same chamber pressure. Example, the 38 Super's 'old' ballistics for a 130 grain bullet from a 5" barrel was 1300 fps. This has changed over the years to where the 'standard' speed is now 1215 fps from major manufacturers (for whatever reason). Places like Buffalo Bore have a 124 grain bullet up to 1350 fps, an apparent restoration of power. However, the handloader can get 124 grain bullets to 1450 fps with a couple of gunpowders and 130 grain bullets approaching 1400 fps and stay within SAAMI/CIP pressure limits (see link).
https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/super-powders-for-the-38-super/99160
 
I think the big ammo makers obviously load their ammo to best suit their profits, that means using as little powder as they can get by with while still maintaining both safe operation (they don't want to buy your exploded gun) and ballistics that are to be reasonably expected from that cartridge in any random gun. None of them load anything to the max, that's too big of a liability. This is where your boutique ammo makers come in (and subsequently how they became popular) because they can and will load cartridges to levels that previously only handloaders could achieve.

The projectiles are a factor too, and I'll use 10mm as an example because everyone complains about 10mm not being loaded to full potential. Well outside of not wanting the liability for it, often most .400" bullets are designed round typical .40 S&W velocity mainly because that's what sells the most. People want a 180gr HST loaded to 1300 fps but fail to realize that 1300 fps is too fast for that bullet design and it's probably not worth it to Federal to design a separate 180gr HST that would hold up to 1300 fps when in reality, 10mm is still quite uncommon overall. For the most part, when considering JHP bullets and that I too handload, I don't really see much point of the 10mm in general, as the .40 can fire most all JHP bullets to the point of fatigue and bullet separation.

I'm not speaking ill of the 10mm as I've owned many, but knowing what each is capable of, why would I go buy a 10mm when I can run a 180gr @ 1300 fps from my Glock 35? I've loaded a lot of 10mm btw, but my point is that if 1300 fps is already borderline too fast for even the tougher 180gr bullets, why drive it faster? It won't kill any better and may actually perform worse. Some will claim that faster is always better but that's too simple minded, faster can indeed be better if the bullet holds up and maintains good penetration, but when it starts breaking up and not going as deep, that's not ideal.
 
Last edited:
Used to be 32,000 CUP. CUP & PSI ain't the same.

The 30 Luger is still 28,000 CUP (Last time I looked.) so I mentioned the 9 mm CUP rating so as to compare to the 30 Luger.
 
9mm MAP is 33,000CUP, or 35,000PSI.

You are correct that the 30 Luger is 28,000CUP (28,000PSI).

My guess is that the much lower pressure rating for the .30 Luger has to do with SAAMI knowing about a fairly common vintage gun in the caliber that is a weak design.
 
unspellable said:
SAAMI, for some reason lists the max pressure for 9 mm at 32,000 and the 30 at 28,000. Why? Same gun. Design working pressure for the Luger action was 40,000, although the 40,000 load was for the carbine only. (32,000 limited impulse for pistol.) CIP lists both at 32,000 which makes more sense.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'd look at gun design as a measure of why peak chamber pressure is supposed to be the same for various calibers.

Example: the familiar 1911
45 ACP = 21,000 psi
38 Super = 36,500 psi
10mm = 37,500 psi
9X23 Winchester = 55,000 psi
 
Last edited:
fxvr5 said:
I'm not sure I'd look at gun design as a measure of why peak chamber pressure is supposed to be the same for various calibers.

Example: the familiar 1911
45 ACP = 21,000 psi
38 Super = 36,500 psi
10mm = 37,500 psi
9X23 Winchester = 55,000 psi
Click to expand...

In those examples, you also have to take into account case design. The 9x23 Winchester case is thicker than the 9MM Largo which has the same case length. And 38 Super is not much shorter that those. It is the case design that allows for higher pressures in the 9x23 Winchester. In fact you can use 9x19 or 38ACP reloading dies to reload 38ACP, 38 Super, 9mm Largo, and 9x23 Winchester. But sure wouldn't try shooting the 9x23 Winchester or even a hot 38 Super in a gun chambered for 9mm Largo or 38ACP.
 
12Bravo20 said:
In those examples, you also have to take into account case design. The 9x23 Winchester case is thicker than the 9MM Largo which has the same case length. And 38 Super is not much shorter that those. It is the case design that allows for higher pressures in the 9x23 Winchester. In fact you can use 9x19 or 38ACP reloading dies to reload 38ACP, 38 Super, 9mm Largo, and 9x23 Winchester. But sure wouldn't try shooting the 9x23 Winchester or even a hot 38 Super in a gun chambered for 9mm Largo or 38ACP.
Click to expand...

The 9x23 Winchester and 38 Super have the same case length; SAAMI max = 0.900". The 9mm Largo is slightly longer = 0.910". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9×23mm_Largo

You could use the same dies to load all those rounds, but they would not be ideal and one could run into fitting problems in chambers since the 38 ACP/Super Auto are straight-walled and the 9X23 Win. and 9mm Largo are tapered like the 9mm Luger. The proper dies would eliminate those issues.

But the case design is not relevant to the issue of using a gun design as a measure of why peak chamber pressure is supposed to be the same for various calibers. If one uses that argument, then a 1911 which was designed around the 45 Auto, should not be used for anything with a peak chamber pressure that exceeds 21,000 psi.
 
12Bravo20 said:
But sure wouldn't try shooting the 9x23 Winchester or even a hot 38 Super in a gun chambered for 9mm Largo or 38ACP.
Click to expand...

When Colt introduced the Super 38 Pistol in 1929 (just a 1911 chambered in a different caliber), it was chambered in the 38 Automatic. The 38 Super cartridge did not exist at that time. It came about around 1932/1933 when Remington loaded it hotter and designated two different rounds, the 38 Automatic and the 38 Super Automatic, which differed only in their pressure.

Sheldon, Douglas G. 1997. Colt's Super .38, The Production History From 1929 Through 1971. Quick Vend, Inc. Willernie, MN.
 
fxvr5 said:
The 9x23 Winchester and 38 Super have the same case length; SAAMI max = 0.900". The 9mm Largo is slightly longer = 0.910". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9×23mm_Largo

You could use the same dies to load all those rounds, but they would not be ideal and one could run into fitting problems in chambers since the 38 ACP/Super Auto are straight-walled and the 9X23 Win. and 9mm Largo are tapered like the 9mm Luger. The proper dies would eliminate those issues.

But the case design is not relevant to the issue of using a gun design as a measure of why peak chamber pressure is supposed to be the same for various calibers. If one uses that argument, then a 1911 which was designed around the 45 Auto, should not be used for anything with a peak chamber pressure that exceeds 21,000 psi.
Click to expand...

I won't argue with you on any of it. I do know that I use 38ACP dies for reloading 9mm Largo and my ammo is within specs. The only source for new 9mm Largo brass is from Starline Brass and it does indeed measure 0.900" in OAL. And there is a big difference in the case design between the 38ACP, 38 Super, and 9mm Largo when compared to the 9x23 Winchester. The 9x23 Winchester does have a thicker case to allow for higher pressures. The 9x23 Winchester is a bit like the 9x25 Dillion in case design, Not the exact same, but similar which does allow for higher pressures.
 
Last edited:
12Bravo20 said:
The 9x23 Winchester does have a thicker case to allow for higher pressures. The 9x23 Winchester is a bit like the 9x25 Dillion in case design, Not the exact same, but similar which does allow for higher pressures.
Click to expand...

The 9X23 Winchester does have thicker case walls, yes. But that's only to allow it to be fired in an unsupported chamber, like the typical non-ramped 1911 gun has. And it does a very good job of containing that pressure. But in a supported (i.e. ramped) chamber, the cases don't have to be that thick.
https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/cartridge-review-9x23-winchester/99601

Bonus fact: Handloaders can get 9X23 Winchester ballistics with a 38 Super using the right components and stay within 38 Super pressure limits. And do this in a Colt with a non-ramped barrel.
https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/super-powders-for-the-38-super/99160
 
The critical design feature of the 9×23mm Winchester is a much-strengthened case that does away with the semi-rimmed case design of the .38 Super which sometimes caused feeding problems. The strengthened case allows the 9×23mm Winchester to operate under a higher internal pressure, 55,000 psi (measured with a piezoelectric transducer), in comparison to the maximum pressure of 36,500 psi for the .38 Super (current SAAMI standards)
Click to expand...

Info found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9×23mm_Winchester

The critical design feature of the 9x23mm Winchester is a much strengthened case that does away with the semi-rimmed case design of the .38 Super which sometimes caused feeding problems. The strengthened case allows the 9x23mm Winchester to operate under a higher internal pressure, 40,000 CUP, in comparison to the maximum pressure of around 30,000 CUP for the .38 Super.
Click to expand...

https://military.wikia.org/wiki/9×23mm_Winchester

So yes there is a difference in the design of the 9x23 Winchester case compared to the 38 Super.

Now some newer pistols that are chambered in 38 Super head space off the end of the case while older guns headspace off the rim.

And yes again you can use the Lee 38 Auto dies to reload 38ACP, 38 Super, 9mm Largo, and 9x23. All new brass, especially from Starline is all 0.900" OAL.
 
12Bravo20 said:
Info found here:
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/9×23mm_Winchester

So yes there is a difference in the design of the 9x23 Winchester case compared to the 38 Super.
Click to expand...

If you're going to cite sources, pick some that are more accurate. The 38 Super has a max CUP pressure of 33,000 CUP. The 9X23 Win. does not have a CUP rating in the SAAMI manual.


12Bravo20 said:
Now some newer pistols that are chambered in 38 Super head space off the end of the case while older guns headspace off the rim.
Click to expand...

The 38 Super accuracy and headspace issue was described in detail by John Rollins and Richard Shockley in the June 1961 American Rifleman. Just an FYI for interested readers.


12Bravo20 said:
And yes again you can use the Lee 38 Auto dies to reload 38ACP, 38 Super, 9mm Largo, and 9x23. All new brass, especially from Starline is all 0.900" OAL.
Click to expand...

New brass is seldom trimmed to the max OAL. If you're going to use Starline's data, which one can easily look up, cite it correctly.

38 Super & 38 Super +P = 0.893-0.898"
9mm Largo = 0.896-0.904"
9X23 Comp (their version of Win. 9X23) = 0.894-0.899"

Let me guess, you've never shot or loaded 9X23 Winchester.


12Bravo20 said:
The 9x23 Winchester is a bit like the 9x25 Dillion in case design, Not the exact same, but similar which does allow for higher pressures.
Click to expand...

Does the 9X25 Dillon have thicker walls that you have seen? Were they especially beefed up just for the 9X25? How thick are they compared to Winchester's 9X23 Winchester brass. Are they thicker than it's parent cartridge, the 10mm Auto. The 9X25 Dillon does not run at especially high pressure, which is 37,500 psi according to the wikipedia page. This is the same max pressure as the 10mm, which isn't that high, since the 38 Super is 36,500 psi.

The 9X25 Dillon gets its high performance from a much greater case capacity being a bottle-neck cartridge, and doesn't need super-thick case walls.
 
Sorry for arguing with you since it is evident that I don't know what I am talking about at all. Here is just a sample of 3 brand new 9mm Largo cases that I measured with my Starret digital calipers. And the over all length of every batch of 9mm Largo brass that I have gotten from them is always 0.900" OAL + 0.001"

IMG_2121.jpeg IMG_2122.jpeg IMG_2123.jpeg

And I will stand by what I said about the 9x23 Winchester brass being thicker to hold the higher pressures.
 
The 9x23 case is 4mm longer, but more importantly the 9x23 operates at much higher pressure than the 9mm Luger. Winchester's 9x23 brass has an extra-thick case wall that allows this cartridge to run at high pressure without concern of a case blowout in the unsupported region of a conventional, non-ramped barrel.
Click to expand...

https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/cartridge-review-9x23-winchester/99601

Actually, it had another characteristic that was new to auto pistol design. In order to better handle the higher pressure that would make this so-called “long nine” perform, the case head was deliberately thickened. This gave the base of this cartridge greater mass and strength.
Click to expand...

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2013/10/31/9x23-mm-357-sig/

Other sources that state that the 9x23 case has been made thicker and stronger to handle the higher pressures.

To everyone else,

I do apologize to everyone for all of my posts. I did not mean to have a pissing contest with anyone. Mods if need be I will delete my posts in this thread.
 
12Bravo20 said:
https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/cartridge-review-9x23-winchester/99601
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2013/10/31/9x23-mm-357-sig/
Click to expand...

Right, the 9X23's case wall is thicker near the head, to handle the high pressure in an unsupported chamber (see your first ref).

It's not necessary to be that thick in a supported chamber. Folks were, and are, using 38 Super and Starline 9X23 Comp cases, which are not as thick near the head, in supported chambers and running very high excess pressures. A supported chamber is all that's necessary.

In the early days of IPSC when folks learned that you could make Major power with a 38 Super and have more ammo in the gun than a 45, people started using the 38 Super. However, the barrels were not ramped, and with the excess pressure required to get light bullets at the necessary speed (e.g. a 115 grain bullet to at least 1521 fps at the old 175 power factor), the 38 Super cases would sometimes blowout, resulting in the name 'superface' for folks that experienced the blast of hot, high pressure gas in the face after a case rupture. Someone got clever (possibly gunsmith Jim Clark) and started making ramped barrels (which also required machining the frame) that would give the cartridge more support. Problem solved. Ramped barrels have become more-or-less standard for race guns for that reason.

People are using regular 9mm Luger cases in supported chambers to make 9 Major, and those pressures are extremely high since they do it with excess powder charges of medium burn rate powders to make Major with a 9mm-length round. If you're doing it in a supported chamber, regular brass is fine. Here's an article describing 9 Major: https://americanhandgunner.com/discover/whats-9-major/

And here's one showing the powder charges required for 9 Major. With most powders, they are way above normal max loads. And those load were all with regular 9mm Luger cases. But the Lone Wolf barrel offered good case support, so regular 9mm brass is okay. https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2018/1/9/how-to-use-9-major-in-a-short-barrel/

I'm sorry you don't have the background or experience to know this, but this is a good time to learn.
 
A "supported chamber" and "integral ramp" are not necessarily the same thing.
I made a gauge and measured my 9mm barrels. A SA integral ramp once "polished" to feed hollowpoints is no more supported than a stock Colt.

A USPSA GM here preferred standard barrels for his .38 Super. The barrel ramp was narrow and shallow, he was limited in bullet and OAL for feeding but replacement barrels were easier to fit. Yes, he could wear out a barrel before the slide cracked... usually.

Major power factor was reduced to let 9mm P in without overloading too badly.
 
30 Luger and 9 mm Luger both use the same case. The only "weak" design that I know for the 30 Luger was the Italian Glisenti which was originally chambered for the 30 Luger, as far as I know the standard DWM 30 Luger load. Later it was chambered for the 9 mm, but didn't stand up to it which led to the 9 mm Glisenti, essentially a 9 mm Luger "lite". The Glisenti pistol is a rare bird these days.
The Luger differs only in barrel and recoil spring between the two calibers.
Bear in mind that pressure is far from the only consideration in design strength. Back thrust and impulse are just as important and usually overlooked in these discussions. Over loaded Lugers typically fail due to excessive impulse rather than pressure. That's why the carbine could use a working load hotter than the pistol load.
 
Maybe the same reason why whiskey gets "watered down".

Reduce the charge per round to decrease manufacturing costs, and increase profits.

Whenever I've run across weak ammo, it's always been cheap imports.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
10mm vs. .357 Mag
2 3 4
Replies
95
Views
10K
Deaf Smith
Deaf Smith
mnrivrat
  • Locked
What's the Logic behind + P ammo
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Drail
D
chopinbloc
  • Locked
Gel tests: Buffalo Bore .357 140 gr XPB, 10mm 175 gr Critical Duty and 200 gr Myhec
Replies
8
Views
1K
Tony_the_tiger
Tony_the_tiger
Palladan44
  • Locked
CMMG Banshee in 10mm- opinions?
Replies
21
Views
2K
Lennyjoe
Lennyjoe
GJgo
  • Locked
What does this handgun vs. phone book test tell me?
Replies
10
Views
2K
Trent
Trent
Back
Top