Are "Magnums" magnums anymore

[MagnumDweeb]

This is something that has been bothering me for awhile now. I'm only 26 now. But I've learned that the .357 magnum in a 158 grain SWC, is commonly on run at 1100-1250 fps nowadays from a six inch barrel. Thanks to a post by rcmodel-

Just looking at a 1967 Shooters Bible.
(Velocities from 8 3/8" barrels)

Remington offered only three .357 Mag loads.
158 Hi-Speed Lead SWC @ 1,410 FPS.
158 Hi-Speed Lead Metal Piercing @ 1,410 FPS.
158 Hi-Speed JSP @ 1,550 FPS.

Winchester offered two.
158 lead SWC @ 1,410 FPS.
158 lead Metal Piercing @ 1,410 FPS.

Norma only had one load.
158 JSP @ 1,520 FPS.


Too often when I've done research on the velocities offered by a lot of ammunition manufacturers, they list the .357 magnum commonly at a velocity of 1100fps to 1250. They don't list the test barrel lenght though so I assume that's from a six inch barrel.

From a model 28 six inch barrel, the .357 magnum commonly ran a 158 grain SWC at 1400fps as I understand it. Now the SAAMI tuned down most ammunition in 1970s, setting its own standard that some have voiced the opinion of being that it was the gun manufacturers wanting to avoid possible lawsuits for poorer built guns exploding.

There is Doubletap with its hot running ammunition, Wolf Gold on its website lists the 158 grain JHP running at 1607fps(but sportmansguide.com for the same ammunition lists 1235), and there is Fiocchi with some JHP loads running over 1400fps(but what is the barrel lenght), not to forget Buffalo Bore, but the rest of the guys seem to have neutered the once hard hitting .357 magnum round.

Handloaders still get great mileage from their own stock but the commercial market at large seems to have tuned down the .357 magnum.

I'm not saying a 158 grain JHP .357 magnum running at 1150 fps doesn't have a place, it does certainly as a HD/SD round but mayhaps in my past childlike perception "MAGNUM" meant something. Saying it meant power and awesomeness. Something to fear and secretly yearn to tame better than all others for the prestige of it. My first gun was a Ruger Security Six 4" .357 magnum I foolishy traded away and I laughed when my friends feared it as I shot and hit small targets at 25 yards with it while making it all look easy.

Shoot my nickname on here is "MagnumDweeb." Most good quality guns as I understand it can stand up to steady shooting with the 158 grain pushed between 1250-1400fps. Why does it seems only so few are prepared to stand up and take advantage of that.

 

[wanderinwalker]

Well, I have chronographed some Independence .357 Magnum 158gr JSPs at 1225 fps average from my 4" Model 19. And I distinctly recall being very surprised when I ran some WWB 240gr SJHPs in .44 Magnum out of my 6" 629. Those bad boys were honestly over 1300-fps.

I have read part of the "watered down" we see is due to having: A) Much better and more reliable pressure testing techniques than the Copper Crusher System and B) The use of shorter, vented test barrels for revolver cartridges, instead of 8-10" solid test barrels.

And I don't think it's just our precious Magnum revolvers that suffer from this. From what I have read and heard, most modern 10mm loads are NOT what the original factory Norma ammo was.

As for DoubleTap's claims, there is at least one thread going on them over on GlockTalk, that is less-than-favorable.

 

[DWFan]

Go back in the past and you'll find certain major revolver makers warning folks to shoot .38 Specials in their ".357 Magnums". Shooting .357 Magnum ammo would knock their weapons out of time and destroy forcing cones; but somehow the manufacturers aren't held responsible.
Fast forward a few years and you have people whining that their .357 Magnum snubbies/conceal carry weapons have too much recoil and muzzle flash for them to shoot with full-power ammo. If you can't shoot it, why did you buy it? Duh. Dirty Harry syndrome strikes again and +P ammo is born so those folks can say they still carry a Magnum even if they can't shoot a Magnum.
Fast forward a few more years and the rush to semi-autos is in full swing. Manufacturers are claiming things like the .357 SIG and various longer than normal 9mm's are equal to the .357 Magnum. Of course, it isn't true but people will tell you that even today. The rounds like the 9x25 Dillon, .38 Casull and 10mm that actually do equal the .357 are treated like red-head stepchildren because, "surprise", people can't shoot them. Thus is born the .40 S&W which has the same ballistics as the 125+ year old .38-40 Winchester.
Throughout all of this are people putting Magnum ammo in weapons that either should be retired if not rendered completely non-functional and then gleefully running to their lawyers and trying to sue people and be rewarded for their own brain-dead stupidity.
The only way to correct all of the above is to do what they did...castrate the 1st Magnum.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

In some cases today's Magnums are no more powerful than the hot .38 Special Police ammo of the 40's and 50's. I read about 158gr .38 Special ammo that was rated at well over 1100 fps back then, some of the current .357 Magnum ammo is no faster today.

I guess my answer is NO, .357 Magnum ammo isn't really magnum today. Even the load data is anemic so we are cheated there too.

 

[tipoc]

It is interesting that most of the major manufacturers have topped their 158 gr. loads at between 1230 and 1250 fps, whether hunting loads or self defense.

Cor-Bon, and a few others, offer some hotter.

tipoc

 

[Slamfire]

I have read part of the "watered down" we see is due to having: A) Much better and more reliable pressure testing techniques than the Copper Crusher System and B) The use of shorter, vented test barrels for revolver cartridges, instead of 8-10" solid test barrels

I think that is it.

 

[buck460XVR]

I'm not saying a 158 grain JHP .357 magnum running at 1150 fps doesn't have a place, it does certainly as a HD/SD round but mayhaps in my past childlike perception "MAGNUM" meant something. Saying it meant power and awesomeness. Something to fear and secretly yearn to tame better than all others for the prestige of it.

I believe part of the problem is your subjective definition of the word "magnum". I don't think the gun gods meant for it to strike fear into the hearts of mere mortal men when they added it to an ammo's name, but only to distinguish it from the parent cartridge from which it was born.....i.e., a definition of the word from a dictionary shows us this......

A magnum cartridge is a firearm cartridge larger than, or derived from, a similar cartridge. A magnum firearm is one using such a cartridge.

........see, no mention of thunder and lightning or no mention of ground tremors and little girls crying.

Is the .357 watered down from it's original form? Yeah, maybe a little, but at one time there was no other option than to load it hot if you wanted the meanest animal on the block. Nowadays, even in it's original form, it is pale and meek compared to the new boys in town. You don't get a rush from factory .357s anymore, try something bigger, there's plenty of others to choose from. I'm bettin' before you run out of options, you'll find one that will satisfy your hunger for pain, muzzle blast and concussion.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

I'm bettin' before you run out of options, you'll find one that will satisfy your hunger for pain, muzzle blast and concussion.

That about says it right there.

 

[Justin Holder]

If I understand correctly way back in the day they used what is called 'Balloon Head' brass that supposedly could produce higher velocity than what we use now given the same powder charge.

I think basically a heavy .38 load in balloon head brass could equal a modern .357 magnum load.

Also I don't know how much I trust the accuracy of the chronographs they were using 50 years ago.

 

[jeeper1]

Balloon head brass was strictly for low pressure loads. The case is very thin like a balloon. That is why centerfire cases made now (since before WW2) have a thick base is so they don't rupture from the higher pressure.

 

[captain awesome]

Even the load data is anemic so we are cheated there too.

yeah but (disclaimer to cover my @$$; never exceed max loads, I am an idiot and probably going to blow myself up) i only view that as a place to start my loads. you do it slowly and patiently, you find the limits safely, which on multiple occasions have been surprisingly higher than the "MAX" Also noticed that according to different companies load data, the max loads vary significantly.

 

[Fishslayer]

Dunno. Haven't ever fired a factory .357 load.

 

[CraigC]

I believe part of the problem is your subjective definition of the word "magnum". I don't think the gun gods meant for it to strike fear into the hearts of mere mortal men when they added it to an ammo's name, but only to distinguish it from the parent cartridge from which it was born.....i.e., a definition of the word from a dictionary shows us this......

Excellent post on the true definition of the overused word "magnum"!

Much of today's .357 factory loads and loading data are watered down. However, Hodgdon's data still shows 158's@1600fps and 180's@1400fps.

Today's .44Mag is more potent than it's ever been almost strictly due to bullet development. 240's are still pushed to 1500fps but we now have heavyweights that are much more efficient and 355's can be safely pushed to 1200fps without exceeding standard pressures. The major difference is that we now have the wisdom that it is folly to try to make a rifle out of a revolver. That velocity and energy are not the be-all, end-all we previously believed them to be. That a 250gr cast bullet at 900fps is a better game load than a 180gr@1800fps will ever be. We also understand that we have little need to push these superior cast bullets beyond 1200fps to be effective. Not working harder, but smarter. More effectiveness, less recoil. Everybody wins.....except our quarry.

 

[Jim Watson]

As said, much of it is the test method. If you see a 4V for barrel length, the load was shot in a 4" barrel vented to simulate a revolver. If you see 7.7 it was shot in a straight barrel equal to a 6" barrel plus 1.7" for the cylinder but NOT vented. Velocity will be higher.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Just looking at a 1967 Shooters Bible.
(Velocities from 8 3/8" barrels)

There's most of your problem. Not only were they shot from an 8 3/4" barrel, it may have even been a factory test barrel without a cylinder gap.

There's a lot of silliness around "magnums". Just a few weeks ago somebody told me (with a straight face) that his .460 shot flat out to 300 yards.

After 30 years of playing around with various handguns (anybody remember the .445 super-mag?) I've come to a few conclusions with which you are all free to disagree.

1. For standard self defense or light big game (deer), the .357 still can't be beat.

2. If you need something for bigger game, then step up to the Ruger level .45 Colt.

3. If you need something more powerful than that (hunting or defense against dangerous game), get a rifle or shotgun.

 

[lonegunman]

.357 Magnum was toned down by SAAMI in the early 1970's when cheap revolvers were being imported. I've loaded using older Lyman manuals and had good luck with my trusty S&W's and other high quality guns.

 

[hardworker]

Look at how old 357 magnum is. There were a bunch of guns made for it way back when. Nowadays, those guns are getting some age on them and since the ammo makers don't want lawsuits for these pipebombs waiting to happen they tone down the ammo a little. It'd be one thing if everyone in the world had enough common sense to not push those old guns but they don't.

 

[unspellable]

It isn't just the 357 magnum. Plenty of cartridges suffer from this syndrome. I shoot the 7.65 mm Parabellum (30 Luger) and there is no way you will ever see the velocity Winchester claims for it. Fiocchi's load is even more anemic. It's open to question whether or not it really has enough steam to cycle the action. I could relate similar gripes about other cartridges.

In the case of the 10 mm, it's more or less openly admitted that most factory loads are on the soft side.

 

[jeffmack]

38 super +P

Once the most powerful semi-auto handgun round...
Now in most factory loadings a glorified 9mm...

 

[Manco]

In the case of the 10 mm, it's more or less openly admitted that most factory loads are on the soft side.

In fact, some factory 10mm Auto loads are well within the range of .40 S&W, or even approximately equal to typical factory .40 S&W loads (e.g. Federal).

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Much of today's .357 factory loads and loading data are watered down. However, Hodgdon's data still shows 158's@1600fps and 180's@1400fps.

But that's from a 10" pressure barrel, not a 4" or 6" revolver.

 

[CraigC]

You're right, I had confirmed their reported .44Mag velocities in a 7½" Ruger and just assumed the .357's were sixgun velocities as well. Test barrel length must be listed in the printed manual but it's not on the website.

 

[Manco]

In fact, some factory 10mm Auto loads are well within the range of .40 S&W, or even approximately equal to typical factory .40 S&W loads (e.g. Federal).

Oh, I forgot to mention that 10mm Auto loads are typically measured with longer barrels than the 4" ones used for .40 S&W, which means that in a way some factory 10mm loads are actually lighter than factory .40 loads.

 

[wanderinwalker]

Look at how old 357 magnum is. There were a bunch of guns made for it way back when. Nowadays, those guns are getting some age on them and since the ammo makers don't want lawsuits for these pipebombs waiting to happen they tone down the ammo a little. It'd be one thing if everyone in the world had enough common sense to not push those old guns but they don't.

But the oldest .357s are S&W N-frames and similarly sized Colts. While they are not quite to the metallurgy of post-WWII, they are mor3e than capable of withstanding 35K PSI loads without stress. I believe "over-built" really does apply here. And while I enjoy shooting and packing my K-frame Model 19, it never was meant for what we now consider "high volume" shooting, especially with .357s.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

You're right, I had confirmed their reported .44Mag velocities in a 7½" Ruger and just assumed the .357's were sixgun velocities as well. Test barrel length must be listed in the printed manual but it's not on the website.

If you hit the "print" button on the top right the page that comes up has more information on it like barrel length and primer used.