Same old publication (1965) some 357 and 44 Mag ballistic data: Geez they were hot!!!

[saturno_v]

I spent few minutes through the ballistic tables of regular commercial loads of several brands (Winchester, Western, Remington, Norma and Federal) for the 357 and 44 Magnum from the old Italian gun publication (1965) I mentioned in my previous post.
I did the conversion of velocity from m/sec to fps and Kg/m to ft/lb, I checked and re-checked...
Gosh they were screamers....this is what I found....more or less they were all similar across different brands, however here I mention the "tamest" of them.

357 Magnum, 158 gr, barrel lenght 8" Winchester brand

Velocity 1419 fps (430 m/sec), Energy 694 ft/lb (96 kg/m)!!!

44 Magnum, 240 gr, barrel lenght 6,5" Remington brand

Velocity 1479 fps (448 m/sec), Energy 1151 ft/lb (159 kg/m)!!!

Basically the 44 Mag is almost close to a modern day 454 Casull load...
The 357 is basically at the same level of the hottest 10 mm Auto available on the market today, just few dozens of ft/lb shy in some cases (Double Tap)

To make absolutely sure that I didn't make any mistakes with the conversion, I extensively tested my calculation with several other calibers in these old tables (9 mm Luger, 45 ACP, 45 ACP + P, 30-06, 308, 30-30, etc...) and they are basically equivalent to today values for the same ammo...so no calculation errors

Accordingly to this "experiment" 357 and 44 in common commercial loads have been "robbed" of at least 30 if not 40% of their real potential during the years....I ask...Why??? When this happened?? Has been gradual??

Now I understand why when I was kid I heard my dad and his friends talking about how brutal the recoil for the 357 and the 44 Mag was (the 44, I recall, was labeled "monstrous")....now, in recent years, I had the chance to fire for the first time both the 357 and the 44 (I don't know what loads were used) it didn't seem to me too bad at all...it was some sort of disconnect between what I heard then and what I experienced myself...

The revolvers (no autoloaders in these caliber at that time) chambered for this calibers in this old catalog are the usual old pieces we all know....Colt Trooper, Colt Python, Smith & Wesson 29, 27, 28 Highway Patrolman, 19 Combat Magnum, Ruger Blackhawk and Super Blackhawk...I do not recall these old guns blowing up all the time because of such hot loads...

Final curiosity...in Italy the Colt Python price in 1965 was 217 dollars, a S&W Mod 29 $241

 

[zinj]

The big difference is that those figures are probably from unvented test barrels. You can expect to lose 15% of your speed from gas blowing through the barrel/cylinder gap.

 

[saturno_v]

Yes but the other ammo I checked from these old tables (other than 357 and 44) shows the same values of today's commerical loads...

 

[rcmodel]

Actually, the Big Differance is that SAAMI dropped the pressure limit on both the .357 & 44 mags some years ago.

That, in conjunction with the introduction of +P loads in .38 Spl, & 9mm, as well as others, has de-tuned the magnums, and made the "standard" .38 Spl. of then, the +P of today.

No, guns didn't blow up back then, but they probably didn't last as long either.

rcmodel

 

[saturno_v]

When the SAAMI pressure limits were dropped for these 2 calibers?? what were the old values??
Presently the SAAMi specs for 357 Magnum are 35.000 psi and for the 44 Magnum 36.000 psi.

 

[rcmodel]

They used to be 40,000, or perhaps more.

I don't remember for sure.

I do know that in the mid 60's, you often had to use a wood block to beat the empty cases out of a S&W Magnum when shooting Winchester or Remington factory ammo!

rcmodel

 

[saturno_v]

40.000 PSI or CUP??

I heard from someone that these loads were loaded at 42.000 PSI..at least this is what this guy seems to remember.

 

[rcmodel]

Back then it would have had to be CUP.

Pressure transducers had not been invented yet to measure PSI in the 1960's. Copper Crusher test barrels were all there were.

And it very well could have been 42,000 CUP. I just know it was way more then what it is now judging by the bark & the bite, as well as the hard extraction!

rcmodel

 

[Jim Watson]

An old NRA publication says the .44 Magnum was rated for 40,000 psi (actually shot on a crusher gauge, would now be listed as CUP.) Their actual test of a factory load was over 41,000.

The next edition had some .44 loads listed only as <43,500 CUP which was given as the maximum product average pressure; and top .357s as <46,000 CUP with no spec listed.

Bear in mind that a piezo transducer will usually give a larger number of psi for a given load than a crusher gauge gives CUP, it definitely appears that they used to load hotter.

Elmer Keith complained that early Winchester .44 Magnums were loaded too hot.

 

[saturno_v]

Gosh the old revolvers then should be actually stronger than the new ones to be able to withstand such beating!!!!

Must be one of this hot loads that threw this guy in the water!!!..LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daFb3J-cwLg&feature=related

 

[Jim Watson]

Naw, people just didn't shoot them all that much. Elmer Keith fired 600 .44 magnums the first year the gun was out and considered that a lot of heavy load shooting.

 

[Will5A1]

Were SAAMI "Voluntary Standards for Pressure and Velocity of Centerfire Pistol and Revolver Ammunition....." in effect in the 1960's? The current publication, Z299.3-1993, in its forward seems to indicate that the current system of setting standards was adopted in 1975 - a "Product Standards Task Force was established by the Institute in 1975 and charged with the drafting of this and other standards and with their subsequent periodic revisions". It goes on to say that "This standard for Centerfire Pistol and Revolver Ammunition was first published in 1979".

Prior to the 1979 standard, what was used? Was their an industry standard or did the ammunition companies use their onw in-house specs?

FWIW the current CUP specs for .357 show a max. average pressure (MAP) of 45,000 and a MAP under the transducer system of 35,000 PSI. The .44 Mag shows a max CUP MAP of 40,000 and 36,000 MAP PSI under the transducer system.

 

[Virginian]

Don't rule out the threat of litigation and the impact that has had on everything. That's why lawnmowers don't cut nearly as well as they used to.

 

[saturno_v]

Will5A1

Interesting what you say Where can I find on the net the two SAAMI values (MAP and MAP under the transducer system) for each cartridge??
The only SAAMI value tables I can find are in Psi and they show only one value per every cartridge....35.000 psi for the 357 and 36.000 psi for the 44

Can someone elaborate more about the difference between these 2 measurement??? (MAP and MAP under the transducer system)

Jim

Wiht the cost of ammo nowdays I would certainly not shoot more than 600 rounds per year...I do not reload

 

[Jim March]

Excuse me but...just looking at the 357, considering that's an EIGHT INCH BARREL that's not at all impressive.

Cor-Bon's best stuff (hunter series) is almost as hot. Both Buffalo Bore and Doubletap have loads that will spank that and make it run home to mama in tears.

http://www.buffalobore.com/ammunition/default.htm#357

Note the test data from a 5" barrel S&W 27 (a '65-period barrel design) - 158gr *jacketed* doing 1,485fps. The '65 test probably involved plain lead (hopefully hardcast, otherwise somebody had barrel leading from hell).

We see the same thing in the 44Mag:

http://www.buffalobore.com/ammunition/default.htm#44

(Note that BuffBore 44Mag ammo comes in three flavors: "low recoil", "standard full-house for any decent 44Mag gun" (above link) and +P for Rugers and the Taurus Raging Bull.)

They may have dropped the pressure specs, but newer powders have more than caught up.

 

[Will5A1]

saturno-v,

No where on the net that I am aware of, I purchased the publication from SAAMI as can anyone. I ordered it last year as I was confused by the wildly divergent numbers I kept seeing on the net regarding SAAMI specs. PM me with you email address and I'll scan the relevant pages on the .357 and .44 mag pressures to you, have to wait till tomorrow though as I don't have a scanner at home. I will include the section explaining CUP (copper units of pressure) and the transducer system.

In short, for now, the Copper Units of Pressure, or copper crusher system, uses chamber pressure to compress a piece of copper, the deformed copper plug/egg is then measured and the pressure is determined by how much the cooper is crushed. The piezoelectric transducer system has a transducer mounted in the test chamber, the transducer measures the force exerted on it when the cartridge case expands on it creating a measureable electric charge - or at least that's the way I read it.

I am not convinced, in general, that ammunition produced "back then" was loaded to higher pressure, it might of been, and some surely was, but I don't think it was across the board. I'll keep an open mind on the subject.

 

[zinj]

Yes but the other ammo I checked from these old tables (other than 357 and 44) shows the same values of today's commerical loads...

That is because those cartridges are not traditionally fired out of revolvers, and thus do not have to deal with the barrel/cylinder gap sapping their energy. You can read the patent for the vented test barrel assemby here:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3885293.html

It specifically references the problem of higher than real world velocities being published for ammunition meant for revolvers.

 

[saturno_v]

Will5A1 thank you for your explanation!!!

I found a very interesting article on the subject that explained the different measurements very clearly

It is here, on the Chuck Hawks web site

http://www.chuckhawks.com/pressure_measurement.htm

 

[saturno_v]

Zinj

That is an interesting exlanation..I never guessed the loss for cylinder-barrel gap could be that big

However ...

In that old manual I checked the values for other revolver cartridges such as the 38 Special, the 45 Colt, the 44 Special and the 44-40 and they are more or less equivalent with the new common commercial loads for these calibers..

Maybe there are proportionally less losses in the cylinder-barrel gap when lower pressure cartridges (non Magnum) are fired???

 

[Lou22]

After reading here about .44 mag loads being hotter at one time, I can better understand why some S&W 29's got beat up and had timing issues with a lot of heavy shooting back then. Could that be one reason that later load pressures were backed off for the .44?

BTW - I'm a big fan of the 29.

Lou

 

[Steve C]

1,417 to 1,475 fps from an 8" barrel with current load data isn't unusual, esp if the barrel is 1 piece like a Thompson Center. You need to know the test barrel length to determine if there is any difference between loads. For ammo where the barrel length is the same IE .45 ACP 230gr the old data is usually exactly the same now as then.

CUP's are not a linear scale but the corresponding pressure numbers seem to cross around 18,000 PSI/CUP. From there on up the CUP's are always a larger number than the equivalent pressure in PSI.

 

[tipoc]

In the mid 1980s S&W developed the "endurance package" for the M29. This was in response to numerous complaint of guns shooting loose afdter several hundred rounds of powerful factory loads. All 29s and 629s have had this package on them since then.

As is explained above before SAMMI standardized methods of pressure testing in the 70s it was up to the individual manufacturers to test their ammo and publish the results. Protocols and test barrels differed. There was also some fudging from time to time. Velocity gages were not then what they are now and often formulas were employed.

Was the ammo hotter "back in the day"? Yes, sometimes.

tipoc

 

[Checkman]

Jim Watson

Naw, people just didn't shoot them all that much. Elmer Keith fired 600 .44 magnums the first year the gun was out and considered that a lot of heavy load shooting.

Which comes out to an average of 12.5 rounds a week for a year. Now I'm sure there were times when Mr. Keith shot more then 12.5 44 magnum cartridges in a week, but no matter how you slice it that isn't a whole lot by todays standards. Which is interesting because Mr. Keith was known to be an "Okay" pistol shot. Makes you wonder even if reloading perhaps Mr. Keith did more plinking with the lowly 22LR or the downloaded 44 Special instead of shooting hundreds of "full-house" loads every week. I've read a few of his books and more than once he talks about the costs involved with shooting and hunting. Incidentally he also advocated dry firing. Quality vs. quantity.

Anyway I risk thread drift by going off on a tangent of my own making. Sorry.

Okay I can't resist. The .5 cartridge must be the "light special" that Inspector Callahan is talking about in the 2nd Dirty Harry movie Magnum Force(1973).

 

[DWFan]

According to Accurate Arms, PSI is anywhere between 82% and 87% of CUP values, (meaning a 35,000 psi load has 13%-17% less pressure than a 35,000 cup load), but the variables are so extreme that a direct ratio can't be used.
I mention this in another post, but if you look at the history of the .357 Magnum, you'll find the pressure has been steadily reduced from the original 48-50,000 psi loads to where it is now at 35,000 psi. All the Magnums have been done this way because manufacturers build guns that either can't handle the original loads or are simply too hard to control with full power ammo and shooters whine about the recoil.

 

[Steve C]

According to Accurate Arms, PSI is anywhere between 82% and 87% of CUP values, (meaning a 35,000 psi load has 13%-17% less pressure than a 35,000 cup load),

What Accurate Arms means is the numerical value for the same pressure in PSI is between 82% and 87% of the CUP value. So for a given pressure the umber of PSI's is less than the number of CUP's NOT that the pressure is LESS.

Consider the current SAAMI maximum pressure for the .357 magnum is 35,000 psi. That would mean that the pressure if measured in CUP's would be between 42,683 CUP and 40,230 CUP inclusive rounded to whole numbers. There would be an absolute value in CUP's but it would have to be measured as there is no direct calculation for conversion between the two measurements.