moooose102
Member
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.
.357 Maximum
- Thread starter moooose102
- Start date
- Status
Brian Williams
Moderator Emeritus
Nobody makes a 357 max except a TC contender.
There are a few used ones around.
There are a few used ones around.
Koos Custodiet
Member
Dan Wesson made revolvers in 357 Max. The guys on the Dan Wesson list on yahoogroups seem to find mint 2ndhand ones quite regularly 
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
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.
JesseL
Member
1911Tuner said:
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.
Confederate
Member
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!
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!
zxcvbob
Member
I think it would be a great round for a lever-action rifle.
Heavy Barrel
Member
[/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.
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.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
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.
Koos Custodiet
Member
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.
Peter M. Eick
Member
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.
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.
Okiecruffler
Member
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.
Course it is a Contender. May just be one of the best calibers for a break action platform.
Confederate
Member
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.
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.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
That's probably 'cause Contenders don't have topstraps...
PotatoJudge
Member
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.
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.
MachIVshooter
Member
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.
zxcvbob
Member
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...
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Which would accomplish nothing at all. Thinning of the topstrap still equates to a weakened topstrap.
zxcvbob
Member
It would be a controlled thinning of the top strap, with no sharp edges that could propagate a crack.
papajohn
Member
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!
Papajohn
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!
Papajohn
moooose102
Member
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.
Heavy Barrel
Member
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.
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.
- Status
