I cam across a box of Rem. 357 158 grain SWC at my local Academy recently, they shoot well but was wondering if they are more effective than the JSP for a woods type load. I cannot find any info on this load anywhere, any advice would be appreciated.
357 swc
- Thread starter CCantu357
- Start date
- Status
ColtPythonElite
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 10,477
What do you plan to shoot in the woods with them?
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
If it's an old box of ammunition, it's likely real .357 Magnum...not the watered-down stuff that's been the standard fare since the mid to late 70s. Advertised at 1510 fps from an 8.375-inch barrel, it would produce an honest 1400+ in a 6-inch tube, and nearly 1400 from 4 inches. Due to dimensional differences from one gun to another, this will vary, of course. I once chronographed an old lot of Winchester's 158 SWC from a 4.625-inch Blackhawk at nearly 1450, but Ruger has a reputation for "shooting fast."
It's the stuff that prompted Smith & Wesson to introduce the L-Frame revolvers because it was beating up the K-Frames so badly. Not long after that, the ammo makers capitulated and started downloading it.
It'll penetrate from here to breakfast, though it doesn't generally upset much beyond caliber diameter.
It's the stuff that prompted Smith & Wesson to introduce the L-Frame revolvers because it was beating up the K-Frames so badly. Not long after that, the ammo makers capitulated and started downloading it.
It'll penetrate from here to breakfast, though it doesn't generally upset much beyond caliber diameter.
Peter M. Eick
Member
It would be fun to run over a chrono and see how it does. Older 357 Magnum ammo was/is a lot hotter than modern ammo today. I have chrono-ed old ammo out of my 8 3/8" pre-27's that was right at 1500 FPS with a 158 lead bullet. Lots of fun to see what the Magnum used to be.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Peter...The old .44 Magnum gas checked LSWC was the same way. Those were sho' 'nuff snot knockers.
ApacheCoTodd
member
Kinda need to know the desired effect you're looking for relative to cost and availability. Sometimes "effectiveness" is a slippery notion.
Is this just a "got it at my side" thing or do you really need the impact effect expected from a JHP?
Is this just a "got it at my side" thing or do you really need the impact effect expected from a JHP?
BlindJustice
Member
I thought JSP/Jacketed Soft Point bullets were unreliable in consistent expansion - at least back in the '70s perhaps they have figured this out.
I do have a box of PMC .357 Mag 158 gr. JSP
My shooting buddy Ruger GP100 loads the 158 gr. SWC
hardcast leadhead to 950 FPS - very accurate
Seems back in the '60s/'70s, ballistics tables
would list 4" Bbl. for 9mm, 5" Bbl. for .45 ACP
and 6" for the .357 Mag
Randall
I do have a box of PMC .357 Mag 158 gr. JSP
My shooting buddy Ruger GP100 loads the 158 gr. SWC
hardcast leadhead to 950 FPS - very accurate
Seems back in the '60s/'70s, ballistics tables
would list 4" Bbl. for 9mm, 5" Bbl. for .45 ACP
and 6" for the .357 Mag
Randall
- Status