Help loading a non-neutered .357 magnum...

[CTSigLover]

I am looking to replicate the original .357 magnum loading out of a S&W Model 27 8-3/8" bbl. I have historical data indicating that this load was a 158 grain LSWC, 15.4 - 15.8 gr. of pre WWII vintage 2400 (depending on batch), and a large primer.

My problem is, I always try to stay within the load limits published in reloading manuals, and nothing published today even seems to come close to this load using 2400 (granted modern 2400 is different than pre war 2400, but not that much different right?).

It is a matter of record that SAAMI has reduced the maximum pressure specs for the .357 dramatically over the years, resulting in a "neutered" .357.

Yet if the gun I am shooting existed during the time the pressure specs were higher... shouldn't I be able to work up to the old recipe? If it was "safe" in 1940, why shouldn't it be safe today?

If anyone knows of published data from a reputable company which will give 1500 fps with a LSWC using 2400 out of an 8" bbl, could you please share it, otherwise can anyone tell me why I should not work up to loads published in old manuals if I am shooting an N frame Smith...

Were the .357 pressures dropped to 35K merely to allow the round to be safely fired in J and K frame .357's... neither of which I am using?

I would really prefer to stay with 2400 as I have a ton of it... and I have old data saying I can use it... but I want to be safe... what say you?

 

[Quoheleth]

I think you answered your own question.

You have old data.
You have new 2400.

My problem is, I always try to stay within the load limits published in reloading manuals

This is not a "problem." This is "SAFETY."

If you "always" do this, then continue to do so. Consult your manuals (you do have paper manuals, yes?) and do what it prescribes, carefully working up full-house loads, watching for problems as you go.

If you want that hot of .357 loads, my Lee MODERN RELOADING 2ND EDITION manual does show a max charge of 2400 that will will break 1600fps, but I don't know barrel length. The story is Lee gets his data from powder manufacturers, so check Allaint's website and see what it specifically recommends.

Q

 

[Walkalong]

A lot of the old data was done without pressure testing. Find an old manual, and take your chances. Why do you want to shake a perfectly good gun loose prematurely anyway. JMHO

 

[CTSigLover]

Thanks for the replies so far...

I guess my question can be distilled down to the following:

If I am shooting a S&W N-Frame, or Ruger Redhawk, why should I limit myself to the modern 35K SAAMI spec, when the spec used to be 40K or more?

Is modern 2400 that different than pre-WWII 2400? Surely S&W did some pressure testing before releasing the .357 magnum loading in 1935?

Alliant's website lists no 2400 loads for LSWC... I will check out Lee's 2d edition... Thanks Quoheleth

By using pre war load data an I abandoning safety in the .357 magnum, or by changing the data did SAAMI abandon the "true" .357 magnum?

 

[mkl]

Pick up a copy of the Speer Manual #8 on Ebay.

It was the last manual they did without pressure testing equipment.

I think of it as the Speer "Proof Load Manual."

Use at your own risk. Most of the loads for handguns in there are significantly hotter than what's published today. Some (like the 38 Special "defense" loads) are just plain dangerous.

 

[Old Fuff]

A difference in the powder is one issue, but a bigger one is the way the cartridge cases are or were constructed. The early cases had what are called "balloon heads,” and were formed out of sheet stock much in the same way as .22 rimfire cases are today. Those case heads were very weak by our standards, and are the reason that the Smith & Wesson cylinders had chambers that were recessed to support the case head.

By virtue of this construction the case powder capacity was greater, so in theory if not practice, a particular charge of powder produced less pressure then the same charge would in a solid head case of the kind made today. Solid head cases made it possible to make .357 Magnum revolvers and not have to recess the heads, but one should always reduce the charge if working with old data.

The original round used a soft-lead 158 grain semi-wadcutter bullet with a true muzzle velocity of between 1450 to 1510 FPS out of a 8 3/8” barrel. That odd barrel length came about to make the sight radius an exact 10 inches – the maximum length allowed by NRA rules for bullseye match shooting. The powder charge was 15.3 grains of #2400 powder in balloon head cases. DO NOT TRY TO DUPLICATE THIS LOAD IN MODERN CASES!

If you had ever shot any of these you’d know that it was a lousy one. The combination of high pressure (in the 45,000 psi range) combined with a soft lead bullet, resulted in quick and excessive barrel leading. Making an exact duplicate would not be a bright idea.

When the original .357 Magnum revolver was introduced, hand loaders in general, and Elmer Keith in particular solved the leading crisis by going to hard cast lead bullets in place of soft ones swaged from lead wire.

Keith also discovered that when using N-frame Smith & Wesson’s a shorter-then-necessary cylinder made it necessary to crimp the case over the front shoulder of the semi-wadcutter bullet, rather then doing it right by crimping the case in the crimping groove. He and others solved this by loading Magnum level loads in .38 Special cases and crimping the bullet where it should be crimped. This is a good practice, but only necessary with some S&W revolvers. If you follow this practice, use high-end .38 Special loads, not those listed for .357 Magnum.

If you are going to use cast lead bullets (highly recommended) I suggest you get a Lyman reloading handbook. They list loads that approximate the original one, but before you load any, be sure the overall cartridge length will work in your model 28 S&W, and if you have to deep seat the bullet and crimp around the bullet’s front shoulder BE SURE TO REDUCE THE POWDER CHARGE AND THEN WORK UP TO THE LISTED LOAD WHILE LOOKING FOR SIGNS OF EXCESSIVE PRESSURE. If you see some, STOP!

 

[bobotech]

Very informative post, Old Fuff.

 

[mkl]

Recessed Cylinders

Great post Old Fluff.

Do all the "pin-frame" S&W revolvers have recessed cylinders?

================

To CTSiglover: The Speer #8 Manual used a S&W Model 27 for load development in the 357 magnum. They used a 6" barrel.

 

[ReloaderFred]

Another aspect of this discussion is the fact that pressure testing equipment in use today didn't exist in 1935. When modern pressure testing methods were adopted, they found that pressures were much higher in some cases than they thought they were, hence the reduction in some loads.

Hope this helps.

Fred

 

[CSA 357]

The old loads leaded the barrels bad and very fast, gass checks and jacked bullets came latter and the rest is history, csa

 

[rcmodel]

1935, when the .357 S&W Magnum came out, was before my time, but I don't believe the .357 Magnum case was ever made with a balloon head.

Balloon-head cases were the norm in .38 Spl, .44 Spl, .45 Colt, and all other calibers of the time.
But not the .357 Magnum.

The very first ones did use Lg Rifle primers, not Sm Pistol primers though.

OVER MAX WITH TODAYS 2400 POWDER - DO NOT USE
The original load was reported by some to be either 15.3, or 16.0 grains of what was then 2400 powder, a 158 grain soft swaged lead bullet, and a Lg Rifle primer. Pressure ran to 45,000 PSI or more as best they could measure it then.
OVER MAX WITH TODAYS 2400 POWDER - DO NOT USE

My first .357 was a Ruger Blackhawk in 1961. I later got a S&W Highway Patrolman in 1963.
Winchester factory loads at that time were loaded with a 158 Lubaloy coated soft-swaged LSWC bullet. I don't know, or recall what the powder type or charge was.

The cases gave very stiff extraction in the Ruger, and had to be beat out of the S&W with a stick!

Barrel leading was severe after 6-12 rounds in either gun.

rc

 

[ReloaderFred]

The first .357 Magnums were primed with large pistol primers, as were .38 Special brass. I still have some of them, and the primer pockets are too shallow to accept a rifle primer.

Other than that small distinction, rcmodel is entirely correct, and I second his opinions. I've seen, and possess, many balloon head .38 Special cases, but I've never seen a balloon head .357 Magnum case. I've been loading since 1963, and I'm an avid scrounger/collector. The balloon head cases were designed to be able to get more BLACK POWDER into the case, since the pressures are so different than smokeless powder, and more is required.

Hope this helps.

Fred

 

[Old Fuff]

Do all the "pin-frame" S&W revolvers have recessed cylinders?

For the most part, yes. But they're might be exceptions.

To this day, S&W never junked parts that were useable. So as long as older style barrels remained in stock they would use them, even though they had to be matched with non-recessed cylinders.

A lot is made over "pinned and recessed" revolvers vs. "not pinned and not recessed cylinders." So far as barrels go I agree, as I don't like the crush-fit method. However when it comes to head-recessed chambers I don't give a hoot.

They were unquestionably a good idea before, and shortly after World War Two, but when solid head cases became the order-of-the-day they are totally unnecessary. S&W kept them for a long time when they didn't need to, because it was an exclusive S&W feature. Colt, Ruger and Taurus never used recessed chambers, and they're revolvers didn't suffer for lack of them.

What Smith & Wesson should have done and didn't, was lengthen the N-frame .357 Magnum cylinders to match in length those used in the .41 and .44 Magnums. Then this business of crimping the case over the bullet's shoulder would have become a moot point. As a rule-of-thumb I prefer Keith's idea of using .38 Special Plus-P cases that have thicker solid heads, and crimping the bullet where it should be crimped. But if you do this using maximum loads, don't start there. Instead, cut the load 10% and then work it up to the point where it's best for your gun. Also keep in mind that this is something you don't have to do in all revolvers, just N-frame Smith & Wesson's with a cylinder length = 1.62 inches and having recessed heads, or shorter cylinders without recessed heads.

When changing to a new bullet/case combination it is always advisable to make a dummy first, and see how it fits in your individual revolver, regardless of make or model.

 

[RidgwayCO]

Speer #14 gives a starting load of 13.8gr of 2400 for their 158gr jacketed bullets, with a max load of 14.8gr (COLs 1.570" or 1.575").

For a Missouri Bullet 158gr LSWC seated to 1.595" COL (.400" of the bullet seated in the case with .315" sticking out of the case), QuickLOAD computes a maximum load of 2400 to be 13.7gr, with 13.2gr computed to give about 1500 fps out of an 8 inch barrel. I wouldn't feel uncomfortable with a starting load of 12.3gr of 2400 (90% of 13.7gr) behind this bullet and chronographing the velocities to see where I fall on the load spectrum. But ultimately it's your gun and your choice.

The leading you'll get (or not) in your barrel depends on so many variables that the only answer I can give you is "It depends." Try it and see. You may need to go with a harder (or softer) alloy, or go with a gas check bullet design.

I know that writers who shot the original fire-breathing .357 Magnum loads complained of quick and severe barrel leading. As I understand it, this was one of the first motivations (along with the .44 Magnum in 1955) for the bullet makers to produce jacketed handgun bullets.

 

[Old Fuff]

I've seen, and possess, many balloon head .38 Special cases, but I've never seen a balloon head .357 Magnum case.

Somewhere I do have an early Winchester headstamped .357 Magnum case that has a balloon head. At the time (1935) I don't believe any revolver cartridges were made with solid heads. If there were never any balloon head .357 cartridges made, recessing the cartridge heads would have been unnecessary in the first place.

Also at the time there was some discussion about the questionable practice of rechambering .38/44 Heavy Duty and .38 Outdoorsman rvolvers from .38 Special to .357 Magnum. Among the reasons cited to not do so was the need to have the case heads recessed (which you couldn't do in a .38/44 revolver) and the lack of special steel and heat treating used in Magnum cylinders.

 

[Old Fuff]

I fired my first "original" .357 Magnum cartridges in about 1949, and I believe the ammunition was from pre-war stock. It was made by Winchester, and had 158-grain "Lubaloy" soft lead bullets. It may be that whatever they had been lubricated with might have dried out. I believe it was wax rather then grease based.

After 6 rounds I looked down the barrel, and discovered that toward the back end of the bore it was no longer rifled...

A cleaning rod and bore brush was brought into play, and the lead literally came out in strips! In a few minutes the bore looked like new, but I decided thereafter to shoot .38 Special to avoid the issue until I knew more about it. Besides, .38 rounds were much easier on my somewhat restrained budget.

Soon afterwards I became one of Elmer Keith's thousands of true believers. Hard cast bullets and reasonable handloads ended the leading problems. Following his wise advice will still do so today.

 

[rcmodel]

That's exactly the same experiance I had in 1961 with pretty new factory Win Lubaloy ammo.

I don't think the wax had time to dry out on mine yet!

BTW: I also think that crummy ammo had a role to play in the Model 19 forcing cone breakage problems when the jacketed 125 ammo started replacing it.

Imagine driving a 125 grain JHP Mag through a Model 19 barrel that had been shooting that 158 grain LSWC Mag ammo of the day!

rc

 

[fjlee]

My 1995 Alliant/Hercules book has the following .357 mag load from a 5.6 inch barrel, using 2400:

158 gr LSWC
Fed 200 primer
Minimum yes minimum COAL 1.580”
Max load 15.3 gr 2400 gives 1620 fps @ 34,000 psi
Book says to reduce above load by 10% for “start load”

If it was me, and it ain't......I'd try to find a second source that agrees with the above.

FjLee Denver CO

 

[Ben Shepherd]

CTSigLover-

The 357 magnum is my favorite caliber by far. I have a couple rifles and well over a dozen Ruger handguns chambered for it. I enjoy shooting full snort, full potential loads in it. I have spent many hours running thousands of rounds over a chrono with different load combinations over the last several years trying to wring every possible ounce of power out of this cartridge.

With that in mind-

Years ago, I was shown a note given to a police dept armorer by a Winchester rep on how to load the 357 magnum that was dated somewhere during 1937 IIRC. I do not know if it was for balloon or solid head cases however.

WARNING!! THE FOLLOWING DATA IS WELL ABOVE CURRENT PUBLISHED MAXIMUMS. IF YOU CHOOSE TO PURSUE THIS LOAD, YOU DO SO AT YOUR SOLE DISCRETION AND RISK!! NEITHER THR , IT'S STAFF, OR IT'S MEMBERSHIP WILL ACCEPT ANY LIABILITY FOR INJURY OR DAMAGE RESULTING FROM ITS USE


The charge was 15.8 grains of 2400 behind a 158 lead SWC. I worked up to it ONCE in one of my redhawks. Case extraction was very stiff, with no noted head expansion or primer issues.
Load work up went as follows-

Case: Federal
Slug: Laser-cast 158 HCSWC, seated to crimp groove, heavy crimp
Primer: CCI small magnum
Powder: 2400


In .2 grain increments, from 14.0 through 15.2 powder charge and velocity increase were linear. From 15.2 through 15.6, velocity gains slowed considerably, with extraction starting to get noticeably harder at 15.4. At the 15.8 charge velocity was actually lower than the 15.6 charge, and case extraction effort doubled. As far as recoil goes- That redhawk is a very big, very heavy gun, and with charge weights at and above 15.4 the felt recoil was very nearly the same as a 44 redhawk, with a very substantial increase between the 15.2 and 15.4 powder charge.

What that means is this- Above 15.2, I was walking on eggs. Period. With a powder that is less forgiving, one that I had less experience with, or a weaker firearm, I would have put the brakes on right there. And that 15.8 charge? STRAIGHT UP REDLINE DANGEROUS.

In other testing I've done, as well as some others here on THR between the old 2400 that's in little square cans labeled rifle powder, vs the new stuff in plastic bottles, identical charge weights show a roughly 50 fps faster velocity with the new stuff.


What this all means?

Powder formulation has changed, and pressure testing equipment has gotten much better.

We've been asked this kind of question before here on THR, and more than once I've typed this post up and then changed my mind and not posted it, as it is honestly outside the bounds one should EVER go. But since I understand where you're coming from having been there myself, and people keep asking this question I finally posted it.

Two notes:
1. Unless you are a handloader with a lot of experience I highly recommend you DO NOT pursue this.
2. If you decide to purse this and you do not have and understand how to use a chronograph correctly while working your load up, you're absolutely crazy.

 

[Old Fuff]

Minimum yes minimum COAL 1.580”

Which is also the length of a S&W N-frame .357 Magnum cylinder that doesn't have recessed heads. Using a typical 158-grain LSW bullet and .357 case, you would have to crimp over-the shoulder rather then in the crimping groove if you were to be able to get the cartridge into a chamber without the bullet nose sticking out the front. Deeper seating would quickly cause pressures to peek at an unsafe level.

Ben Shepherd's observations and warnings should be carefully noted. When loading for a Ruger as he was, it is not necessary to seat the bullet for crimping over the shoulder, and seating the bullet out further would somewhat reduce pressures. Should someone make the mistake of duplicating the suggested 1937 Winchester load in a solid-head case and deep-seated bullet with current #2400 powder, - for use in a Smith & Wesson - one might come to grief very quickly.

 

[Ben Shepherd]

Old Fuff, exactly. I've edited my post with the complete information.

 

[CTSigLover]

Thank You Ben and Old Fluff, that's exactly the information I was looking for. Your experience is appreciated, and will help me from making any potentially dangerous mistakes.

Based on a PM from another board member, it seems as if Alliant did at one time in the modern era publish a load calling for 15.3 gr. of 2400, Federal 200 (SPM) primer and a 158 gr. LSWC which they claim reached 1620 fps out of a 5.6" bbl at 34,000 psi with a COL of 1.580". This was found on page 69 of the Complete Reloading Manual for .357 Magnum, 2004 Edition. Can anyone confirm? This seems to be the same load fjLee posted above... but I would love to see just one other source at 15.3 with a SPM primer...

I can find nothing in the histories about any .357 magnum case ever being made with a balloon head, the recessed cylinders simply hearkened back to a time when high pressure loads could blow out the head, and thus the recessed cylinders were never a functional necessity, more like a "belt and suspenders" approach to "magnum" loadings. If someone has a solid reference to a .357 Magnum Balloon case or manufacturer post-1935, I would love to hear and if confirmed can add it to the histories... even a picture of the casing would be wonderful evidence...

Ben, if you still have access to speed data from your load work, can you share it, and does the above Alliant load look close to your speeds at 15.2 and 15.4 grs.?

I think based on the comments here I will work up to the Alliant load above looking for pressure signs and watching velocity, with a bullet sized to my throats, gas checked, and hard enough to prevent leading. Anyone see a problem with this.

Thanks Again everyone, Ben and Old Fluff especially... I really appreciate it!

 

[rcmodel]

15.3 2400 - 158 LSWC load was published in the 1996 Alliant Reloaders Guide I am looking at right now.
1,620 FPS @ 34,000 PSI.
No mention of barrel length, although I envision a long pressure test barrel without a cylinder gap.

No 2400 loads for that bullet was given in the 2002 edition.

I have great difficulty believing the 34,000 figure in a revolver myself, based on 47 years of loading .357 with 2400. It could certainly be true in a pressure barrel with no forcing cone that allows the bullet to slug up during the transition from cylinder to bore.

I might add, they don't say anything about the bullet used other then LSWC.

If you buy soft bullets, all bets are off.

It would be safe with a properly sized hard-cast Keith plain base or Ray Thompson Gas-Check type bullet.

I have shot a bus-load of them over the years at 15.0 grains.
Above that, I have found sticky extraction in several different guns.

rc

 

[Steve C]

From Alliants online data saved on 8/8/97.

 

[CTSigLover]

That's my load then... thank you all very much... and yes, I will work up to it!