.357 mag delivers a powerful demonstration

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry. No, they don't. I have some of that old ammunition...158-grain LSWC...and the chronograph tells the tale when fired back to back with the last of the .357 LSWC ammo that was available...the Federal 158-grain
Nyclad HP. Fired in a 4-inch 681 Smith...the old loading clocked in the high 1300 fps range. The Nyclad did about 1190-1200.
Click to expand...

1. What was the standard deviation and extreme spread with the old stuff? How has it been stored for the last 50 odd years?

and

2. Your test is 100% meaningless. You're comparing brand x to brand y, and assuming Federal loads for maximum velocity. I have never seen anyone brag on NyClad for speed...

I had some 20+ year old 125 and 158 grain remington SJHP ammo. I should have run it over my chrono instead of just shooting it, but I can't tell any difference from the fresh case of 125 grain SJHP I bought a couple of years ago. Either way, I know Winchester hasn't downloaded their ammo---but they have changed their test barrel--and advertised velocities went down when they did.

3. You also ignored what I stated about some of the old loads being unsafe. Some weren't unsafe, but even the N frame wouldn't hold up to steady use with them. Better/more consistent pressure testing methods eliminated those.

I've nearly duplicated the original loading with an old Lyman manual recommended charge of 2400 and cast lead 155-160 grain bullets. It's plenty hot, and should be approached with care...and it's hard on the guns...but it's doable. This is the one that was responsible for shooting the early Model 19 Smiths apart, so proceed with caution.

The same applies to the .44 Magnum. The old gas-checked LSWC was rambunctious, and outclasses anything commercially available today. It can also be closely duplicated with Elmer Keith's recipe and 240-250 grain cast bullets. I won't print it here, but it can be researched.
Click to expand...

2400 burns slightly faster now than it used to. The old loads need to be dropped a grain(roughly) for the same velocity/pressure Elmer got. I use his .44 Special load.....

The vent in the vented test barrel is supposed to provide the gas and velocity loss of the barrel-cylinder gap...but I've found that the gap means almost nothing. Velocity loss between two identical guns seems to be more closely related to the depth and angle that the forcing cone is reamed. The shorter and/or sharper the cone, the higher the velocity, all else being equal. A .003 inch barrel to cylinder gap variation is nearly meaningless. You might see 15 fps difference. How do I know? I just replaced the cylinder in a Model 19 that wound up with .004 inch less barrel to cylinder gap than it had with the old cylinder. Test-firing it across a chronograph with identical ammunition resulted in a whopping 12 fps gain for a 10-shot average.
Click to expand...

How much, if any, difference was there in the diameter of the chamber throats?
 
Still do ... see Buffalo Bore data.

Comparing the 180 grain JHP rounds, the .357 magnum has 55 ft-lbs more energy to start with.
 
I push 180gr 10mm to 1400fps. 55 fpe isn't much to shake a stick at. I have serious doubts to whether 55 fpe is an advantage at all.
 
1. What was the standard deviation and extreme spread with the old stuff? How has it been stored for the last 50 odd years?
Click to expand...

Don't remember. The test was run about 15 years ago...but it wasn't much. The ammunition has been stored in a sealed ammo can inside a cool basement.

You're comparing brand x to brand y, and assuming Federal loads for maximum velocity. I have never seen anyone brag on NyClad for speed...
Click to expand...

Federal 158 Nyclad is advertised at 1235 fps...the same as about every other manufacturer's published velocities for that bullet weight. Winchester...Remington...Federal...They all list the round at 1235 fps.

The old stuff was hotter. You can feel it in the recoil and you can hear it in the report. I first noticed a difference in .357 ammunition in the early 70s. A lot of the older guys who remember the old loadings noticed it too. I think their descriptions were along the lines of:

"They've sure pulled the .357's teeth."

And:

"Feels more like a 38/44 than a .357 Magnum"

And:

"When did they sissify the .357 Magnum???"

Remember that these wre people who were around when the .357 Magnum was introduced. One was my own father. The ammunition that I tested was some of his...bought in the 50s.

Your test is 100% meaningless.
Click to expand...

Well...It was all I had at the time...and a chronograph result at least beats an opinion. :)
 
Last edited:
The .357 Magnum cartridge was intended to be fired in large-framed revolvers. We came to know them as N-Frames. When the lighter revolvers came along that were chambered for the round...the trouble started.

First was the Model 19s that were being stretched into uselessness. The slightly heavier Colt Python helped a lot...but the original loadings for the cartridge was still a handful, even for the Python. The rallying cry became:

".38s for practice and .357s for business!"

But...the shooters didn't listen.

So, the ammo manufacturers responded by attenuating the loadings so that they wouldn't destroy the revolvers that were never intended to be fired with a steady diet of the stuff.

So, machinisttx...you may believe what you wish...but the original ballistics for the .357 Magnum cartridge made it a completely different animal than it is today. I won't throw it out here on a public forum...but if you'd like, I'll PM the data so that you can duplicate it.

Be warned that it's well above any modern manual's maximum loading...and it's rough on small-framed .357 revolvers. I recommend a minimum of a Smith L-Frame...and only a limited amount in it.

I also have duplicate data for the .44 magnum, if you dare.
 
My recent forefathers who were Law Enforcment back in the day (on one side- moonshiners on the other) tell me the same things tuner says.

I thought they were just being old men. But, apparently not. However, I've never had the occasion to fire any of the old stock ammo. So, I don't really know it's true in a primary source kind of way.
 
1911Tuner you said:
So, machinisttx...you may believe what you wish...but the original ballistics for the .357 Magnum cartridge made it a completely different animal than it is today. I won't throw it out here on a public forum...but if you'd like, I'll PM the data so that you can duplicate it.

Be warned that it's well above any modern manual's maximum loading...and it's rough on small-framed .357 revolvers. I recommend a minimum of a Smith L-Frame...and only a limited amount in it.
Click to expand...

This must be reeeeaally hot.

1. Will a GP100 and New Blackhawk take it on a daily basis?
2. How does this compare to a proof load?
 
This must be reeeeaally hot.
Click to expand...

It is. By the loading manuals, it's close to 25% % hotter than anything they recommend as a maximum...which would qualify as a modern proof load.

Will a GP100 and New Blackhawk take it on a daily basis?
Click to expand...

I dunno. I'd limit it, though...and work up to it very carefully. I've shot it and a near duplicate loading in
N-Frame Smiths without problems, other than a slightly sticky case once in a while in certain guns...but still approach it with all due caution.

The pressures required to drive a 160-grain bullet to 1500+ fps in 8 inches of barrel are more than sufficient to blow your eyes through the back of your head.
 
Shooting a Ruger SP101 with a .357 round is a blast...:D
that's why I call it a little tank.
 
LightningMan...Wikipedia has been wrong on a few occasions. This is one of them...kinda.

The old 38/44 was the equal of today's .357 ammunition...but not of the original .357 loadings. It was loaded to nearly double the standard .38 Special...which would put it in the 32,000 psi range. The industry standard for the .357 is well above that, and I'm fairly sure that the original ammunition exceeded even that by a considerable amount...possibly close to modern .357 proof-level.

I know that it would loosen a Model 19 up in quick time.
 
I have 23 rds left of "the old stuff" and it is hotter than most. It is the ammo I would go to first for HD.
 
Well, there is no doubt that .357 is powerful. But the penetration does not always make it ideal for... altercations. For instance, in my home, if I touched off a round and missed, or even if I hit, it would go through the metal door, walls and kill my neighbor.

The 185 gr. .45 ACP, I feel better, but even that might be a bit much.
 
I would be interested to know if DoubleTap and Buffalo Bore equal or exceed the original loads in performance (not pressure).
 
I have some fairly old reloading manuals, and when I started reloading using the older data, my 357's were HOT. At one point I read that the 357 was rated at 46,000 CUP (copper units of pressure), the 41 and 44 were at 42,500 or thereabouts, IIRC. I managed to blow a then-new Smith 686 out of time pretty quickly, (more than once) with loads that often had to be driven from the cylinder with wooden dowels.

Back then I thought it was pretty cool. I call that my Idiot Phase. :eek:

Papajohn
 
Just a few days ago a drunk that lives down the street from us tried to knock our door down thinking it was his place. Even tho he took off it is reassuring to have my dad's service revolver in the house. Its a 65-3 and that weight is comforting
 
The same applies to the .44 Magnum. The old gas-checked LSWC was rambunctious, and outclasses anything
Click to expand...
Yep. I just recently shot the last of mine. They are stout. I wish I had chroned them.

I do not know about the old .357 Mag loads, except I did not like them in the revolver I had at the time. I recently fired some newer .357 mag ammo and wondered if I remembered wrong, or gotten tougher. My old bones have not gotten tougher, I assure you.
 
Yep. I just recently shot the last of mine. They are stout. I wish I had chroned them.
Click to expand...

I've still got about 70 rounds of that stuff. Been hoardin' it like gold. Seems like the last that I shot across a chronograph through a 6.5-inch Model 29 clocked around 1450-1460 fps...but it's been a while...so I may not be remembering clearly.

I've also found a small lot...50 rounds...of a handload that I worked up to closely match the velocity of the factory stomper.

Now all I need is a .44 magnum revolver to shoot it in...

:)
 
Keep in mind the .357 Magnum was originaly developed at the end of prohibition, in the middle of the depression, to penetrate the makeshift body armor of thugs at the time, which often included dozens of layers of clothing and other padding. (Only criminals used body armor at the time.)
Click to expand...

I will have to disagree with that last statement. My understanding is that the criminals usually stole their body armor from the police. Many times, their Thompson sub-machine guns were obtained the same way.

I have read accounts of FBI agents wearing body armor in the 1930s. Baby Face Nelson was shot in the back with a .22 pistol during a bank robbery, and it did not stop him.

I have read that Franz Ferdinand was wearing body armor when he was assassinated. I seriously doubt that the Arch-Duke was wearing make-shift armor under his dress uniform. The US congress investigated silk body armor for soldiers after the McKinley assassination, but gave up the idea due to the high cost, and the fact that it was only effective against low velocity bullets.

Tuner, I too have replicated those old .357 and .38-44 loads. I am seriously glad that I used a Model 27 to do so. Doubt I will ever do so again, unless some young whippersnapper just has to be shown the light.
 
Old school, thanks for the story; do you remember what ammo/loading was used?

Wonder what the 10 would have done. Prolly punched a vortex through space and time.
Click to expand...

:D :p

P.S. What was the definition of the word "magnum" prior to the introduction of the .357 magnum, and thus the word's association with "powerful cartridge"?
 
P.S. What was the definition of the word "magnum" prior to the introduction of the .357 magnum, and thus the word's association with "powerful cartridge"?
Click to expand...

A "Magnum" is the term for a jug for storage/transportation of wine in bulk quantities. Specifically, 1.5 L, or two standard bottles.

Additionally, a "Jeroboam" is a bottle holding 3 L, or four standard bottles.

So, by extension, the X frame revolvers like the 460 XVR and 500 S&W Mag should really be labeled something like:

".500 S&W Jeroboam"

Cute.

-Sam
 
We were startled to find that the mangum had gone through all of the cardboard slices and into the 55 gallon drum located directly behind them.
Click to expand...

What kind of bullet? FMJ, LSWC, JHP?

Ken
 
P.S. What was the definition of the word "magnum" prior to the introduction of the .357 magnum,
Click to expand...

From the Latin, meaning great, and came to mean bigger...more...extra, etc.

Chrysler used it to distinguish their high-performance engines from the more mundane versions of the same cubic inch displacement. i.e. "383 Magnum" and "440 Magnum."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
The .357 Magnum is a girl's caliber
Replies
17
Views
2K
buck460XVR
buck460XVR
P
  • Locked
The First Official Utah Red Neck CZ Club shoot...yeehaa!
Replies
3
Views
673
12 Volt Man
1
Narwhal
  • Locked
Moving to alaska, keep my .40 or buy a .44?
2 3 4 5
Replies
124
Views
9K
KnightHawk
KnightHawk
W
  • Locked
One Shot Stopping Stats on Goats.
2
Replies
43
Views
3K
lacy
L
M
  • Locked
Problem loading revolver rounds... it's been a while
Replies
10
Views
820
murf
murf
Back
Top