The original .357 factory load.

[Owen Sparks]

Original factory loadings of the .357 magnum were a good bit hotter than today’s loadings propelling a 158 grain bullet faster than todays 125 grain loads.

The factories toned them down a good bit since then.

Why?

Was it because the first .357’s, the Smith and Wesson’s were built on the heavy “N” frame that could handle more pressure?

Did they lighten the loads to make them compatible with “K” frame model 19 when it first came out? *

Should those of us with heavy frame revolvers attenuate our loads to comport with the modern loading data that is designed not to over stress the weakest small frame .357’s made?

*The model 19 and its stainless steel counterpart the model 66 have both been discontinued because they could not handle a steady diet of modern .357 loads.

 

[El Mariachi]

I'm curious as well, given that I just bought a stainless '83 Ruger Blackhawk.....

 

[Owen Sparks]

The Blackhawk should hold up to heavy loads pretty well. Rugers are tough. I just want to know if the step down in power was made to accomidate the small frame model 66. My model 28 is MUCH heavier than some of the new pocket sized .357's and I can't help but believe that it can safely handle much heavier loads.

 

[Curt Blunt]

Perhaps because those original velocities were achieved in 8 3/8 inch barrels and not everyone and his brother owned a chronograph to challenge the factory figures.

I seem to recall that the original loading was with 15.3 grains of 2400 with a 158 SWC which probably would be ok in a Blackhawk or N frame, except that today's 2400 is reckoned to be a bit faster than the original. (I see that Alliant is listing 14.8 grains with a Speer Gold Dot which isn't all that far off from the original.)

In answer to your questions, I seem to recall that smaller frame guns were at least part of the reason. It may also have to do with better pressure measuring equipment that illustrated the need for less pressure.

To be on the safe side we should follow the manuals; a lot depends on the specific combination of components and your experience level in deviating from recently published data.

 

[RugerMcMarlin]

I believe you are exactly right. Mr Blunt all I could remember was the 2400. I couldn't remember the charge weight. thats DB WESSON , ELMER KEITH days. When they were first selling it they showed Wesson hunting Polar Bears with it. Seems like he got one.

Can you remember the Lyman bullet mould number? for the Keith load? 358XXX something 156? the 44mag was #429421

 

[robctwo]

I've been playing around with .357 loading this past year. I have a M27 6.5", a 620 L frame 4" and a couple 19s, 4" & 6". I also have a 6.5" Blackhawk. I've loaded some Montana Gold up to Max and beyond with 2400 and 110. Won't shoot that in my 19s, but have shot in the L, N and Ruger. Can't see the point.

Lots less recoil with a full charge .45 Colt, bigger hole, good penetration.

 

[DWFan]

The following information is not meant to imply or suggest anything. It is strictly for the knowledge of those who read it....
The cylinders of the Ruger .357 Blackhawk and the .357 Maximum SuperBlackhawk are identical except for length. Same diameter, same material, same heat treating. The .357 Maximum loads for the SRM typically run 44-46 kpsi.

For those interested in what the 1st Magnum used to be like, search out the writings of Paco Kelly. The reason for the neutering of the .357 is simple. Lighter guns equal more recoil but the name Magnum sells more guns than the name Special.
The answer was obvious. Keep the Magnum label and download the cartridges.
I could be wrong but I believe these are right....
The Keith designed Lyman bullet is the #358429.
The Phil Sharp bullet is the Lyman #358477.
The Ray Thompson bullet is the Lyman #358156.
The Emer Keith bullet is too long to fit in a lot of .357 cylinders.

 

[RugerMcMarlin]

Thanks I was thinking the 44mag Keith bullet was # 429421

I just couldn't remember the last 3 on the other.

 

[1911Tuner]

Owen...You answered your own question.

The K-Frame .357 revolvers.

Bill Jordan, who is almost solely responsible for the Model 19, echoed Smith & Wesson's wise advice in his own cowboy way to use ".38s for practice and .357s for business."

But people generally didn't heed that advice. In those days, the 158 grain LSWC was the only factory offering in the caliber. They'd paid a premium for a .357 Magnum revolver and bygod...they meant to shoot a .357 magnum.

It was a rerun of the problems with the .38-44 HD, which was clearly headstamped and with all due warnings on the box that it was only to be used in large-framed Colt and Smith & Wesson revolvers. "A .38 on a .44 Frame." The geniuses of the day figured that they knew more about internal ballsitics and guns than the engineers and ballisiticians and loaded it up in .38 Hand Ejector models...which became the Model 10...so they could knock tin cans into the next county, and they paid the price...just like the Model 19 owners did with the "real" .357 Magnum ammo.

Smith threw in the towel about the time that the ammo makers conceded and dropped the ammunition...and introduced the L-Frames so that the hardheads could shoot the stuff. Additionally, handloading was gaining in popularity about the same time, and it was understood that many handloaders would figure that if a little was good...a lot would be gooder...and load up to maximum or beyond for every round they fired.

Note that you can still beat an L-Frame apart with a steady diet of full-power ammo. It just takes longer than it does with a K-frame. Smith banked on the average buyer not firing more than a couple thousand rounds in a lifetime. For the heavy shooters, they could eat the warranty work.

The original loading for the .44 Magnum was also a pretty intense number, and the same advice applied for the Model 29...which also went unheeded. The saving grace for the 29 was that only a few people were willing to shoot enough to loosen one up. It wasn't unusual to see a used 29 for sale, along with a half box of ammunition included. I can personally attest to the "ZOMG!" reaction to firing a 4-inch Model 29 with the original loading.

So it came to be that the factory 158 grain .357 offerings aren't too much more intense than the old .38-44 HD standard. Sort of a .38-44 +P if you will. The .357 Magnum has been gelded, but the K-framed revolvers and others in its class are living longer, more productive lives.

I know that it probably seems like I'm anal-retentive on this gun/ammunition question, but it's just that I love fine revolvers and it makes me cringe to see'em abused, and...as I've said before...I tend to be a little cautious when it comes to triggering a controlled explosion less than 2 feet from the end of my nose.

 

[StrawHat]

The magnum round that beat on the K frames was and is the 125 grain load. Many M19s fired many hundreds of thousands of the 158 grain load with no problem. The powder and pressure used in the 125 grain bullet caused problems with the K frames.

Another Keith designed 357 diameter bullet is the 358439, a hollow point version of 358429 and the only HP to recieve it's own number in the Lyman lineup.

 

[1911Tuner]

The 125 JHP is the round that cracked and blew forcing cones. The 158 grain LSWC was beatin' K-frames apart long before Lee Jurras came up with the lightweight JHP screamer concept. First with the .38-44 HD in Hand Ejectors and later with the magnum cartridge in the Model 19s.

 

[Owen Sparks]

It seems that the ammo companies load for the weakest link in the chain.

 

[336A]

I am not convinced that the .357 has been toned down or that 2400 has changed. The older .357 ammo used 158gr plain lead bullets and velocities were taken from 8 inch or longer barrels, or unvented test barrels . When jacketed bullets came on the scene the powder charge had to be adjusted due to the jacketed bullets creating more pressure due to friction. The new Lyman Pistol & revolver manual (3rd edition) still lists 15.0gr of 2400 for the 358477 and the 358311 bullets. Elmer Keith suggested 15.0gr as well and only dropped his charge weight for the .44 SPL to 17.0gr of 2400 due to solid head brass.
http://www.bbhfarm.com/gallery/album06/aat?full=1

It was not full house 158gr ammo that is responsible for causing K frame magnums to shoot loose or crack forcing cones. The load that is responsible for that are the full house 125gr JHP loads, it was this loading that lead S&W to bring out the L frame.

Some people also speculate that Unique has changed in burning rate as well, this individual proved that wrong too.
http://www.bbhfarm.com/gallery/album06/abd?full=1

 

[1911Tuner]

Quote:

>I am not convinced that the .357 has been toned down or that 2400 has changed. The older .357 ammo used 158gr plain lead bullets and velocities were taken from 8 inch or longer barrels, or unvented test barrels . <

I've clocked some of that old ammo in 4 and 6-inch revolvers against the present stuff.
It's been brought down quite a bit. Trust me.

And 2400 has changed. It's a little faster than the old Hercules 2400, but not enough to be concerned with unless you load right on the peg.

 

[Jim Watson]

Mr Keith said of the then-new Model 19 that he would shoot it mostly with his old heavy .38 load of 13.5 gr No 2400 and Lyman 358429 170 gr.

I recall the ads for the Great Western .357 Atomic. Same case and bullet as .357 Mag, but 16 gr No 2400.

 

[rcmodel]

Another reason was back when, Keith & others were using properly sized & lubed cast bullets.
But Remington and Winchester were using soft swaged lead bullets in factory loads.

About a cylinder full of them would lead the bore shut!

I still remember the horrendous leading with Winchester factory lubaloy loads in my first .357 Flat-Top & S&W Highway Patrolman.
They didn't lead at all with Keiths hot loads & bullets.

Course, you sometimes had to beat on the ejector rod to get the cases out, but what the heck! I was young & foolish then!

rc

 

[RugerMcMarlin]

I'll throw my hat in the ring I think, 2400 has changed since the 1980s, much less the1940s.I would be very much surprised if they maintained the same level in ANY powder since the old days.2/3rds of them they just flat dont make. I think they have improved black powder some. What you could do, is use a fresh pound of 2400, load a max rated charge from the 40s, 358156 or whatever, and shoot it!

You know some guys shoot them out of Chief Specials, right. I guarantee its been neutered.

Anybody loading out of a 70 year old book, is going to put themselves in orbit.

I know none of you old salts will, but as I have had pointed out to me, a lot of new shooters read these posts.

 

[1911Tuner]

Jim...My "New" 2400 load in .357 cases is 13.5 grains 2400. It closely duplicates most factory offerings and beats a few of'em. With Hercules, it was 14.5 grains and it beat the modern factory velocities by a good margin. I could duplicate the velocities of the original .357 ammunition with 15.2 grains Hercules 2400. With Alliant 2400, I can't get to within 50 fps without sticking the cases.

I've got about 3 pounds of Hercules 2400, and I'm hangin' onto it like gold.

.44 Magnum was the same way. A 240-grain lead gas-checked bullet that was triple-crimped. I could duplicate the Winchester SuperX velocities with 22.5 grains Hercules 2400 and my own cast 245 grain bullets.

RC...The Winchester Super X "Lubaloy" round stopped that heavy leading in its tracks. Over 1400 fps in a 4-inch gun and no leading. Wish I'd bought up a case of the stuff when I had the chance.

So! The grand old man of OMG pressures downloaded for the Model 19, eh?

In law enforcement circles...that there's known as...a clew!

 

[Owen Sparks]

I started this thread and want those new to reloading to realize that I am talking about early factory loads that were intended for the old Model 27 and 28. Both were built on the same frame as the .44 Magnum and has a huge cylinder with thick walls.

 

[1911Tuner]

Quotes:

>Anybody loading out of a 70 year old book, is going to put themselves in orbit.<

Quite possibly...and that makes three times in a week we've ageed on something. We've got to stop this. Otherwise, Orville Redenbacker popcorn sales will fall off drastically.


>>I know none of you old salts will, but as I have had pointed out to me, a lot of new shooters read these posts.<<

I've warned about it for several years...especially when talking about old Lyman manuals. Even as Speer and Hornady were becoming more conservative...Lyman was standing its ground and publishing some truly wicked data.

 

[1911Tuner]

Owen...Spot on. You've brought up a point that I've made several times when addressing the Model 19 and other K-frame .357 revolvers. The .357 Magnum was developed with a large-framed revolver in mind.

Of course, most of it has fallen on deaf ears, and my poor little K-frames are suffering this very minute.

Oh! The inhumanity!

 

[RugerMcMarlin]

OK I just got up so I dont get the popcorn deal. But what RC was talking about was about, in post #16,was when they invented the Gas Check, and several new molds that threw for it.

 

[1911Tuner]

mmm...nah. The gas check has been around since the late 19th century. Winchester and Remington were both using them in their original .44 magnum loadings. Why nobody thought to use'em for the .357 is still a mystery.

 

[RugerMcMarlin]

Great the Universe is back in balance!

First 357 use 1939, Ross Sernow , Available in Cramer Catalog, LA, Calif.

It was actually invented by Franklin Mann 1906 So I had that part wrong.

But commercially available for .357, 1939

Uncle Elmers 44Magnum 1956?

 

[gamestalker]

I own a couple of K frames, 66's. I hand load and usually I load the 125 gr. JHP's and exclusively with H110 or 296. I have fed those hand cannons a steady diet of those loads, thousands of them, and haven't experienced any problems, none, ziltch. According to tests performed by S&W in response to the 125 gr. JHP causing forcing cone fractures, S&W fired H110/296 125 gr. JHP's to the tune of 250,000 rounds and didn't have one single fracture or other type failure. They did a simular test using non jacketed bullets and began to experience forcing cone failure early on.
In conclusion, S&W claims the issue with the K frame is the result of lead build up in the forcing cone increasing the pressures to an extreme degree. In general the lack of cleaning or proper cleaning is the primary cause of forcing cone failure in K frames.