When Did 357 SAAMI Pressure Change?

Status
Not open for further replies.
jaywalker,

go to "sammi.org" under "info and specs" you will find the ansi standards that came out in 1993. their charts show both copper crusher and piezo electric transducer pressure data for the same test ammo. so, you can compare the two.

fyi, i think there are 11 kinds of people: those who understand internal ballistics, those who don't, and those who have never been exposed (ignorant).

murf
 
Thanks, murf, it was there and I just didn't see it CUP and PSI compared. You wouldn't happen to have the pre-1993 standards, too, would you?
 
not from sammi. i get all my pre-1993 pressure data from the speer reloading manual number eleven (was going to type 11, but thought it might confuse someone).

the max pressures (in c.u.p.) are in each of the cartridge info page.

murf
 
Can you list a couple of the pre-93 pressures that approximate factory, please?

I generally get rid of my older reloading manuals when I get new ones, but I did keep my Speer Number 3 from 1959. There's no pressure listed in it, and only cast bullets for handguns. (I was a little young to reload but I used this manual when I started a few years later with a 1917 Colt.)
 
I'm not following the "change in testing methods" argument. Even if changing over to piezo electric testing showed pressures were higher than when testing with copper crush method of testing why would that trigger lowering the pressures? I could understand lowering the powder charges to lower the pressures read by piezo electric testing down to where they should be but why would you need to lower the limits? :confused:
 
jaywalker,

it would be easier for you to give me a cartridge, or a list, first.

archangelcd,

who knows what goes on in the minds of men. i'm sure they had their reasons: political, most likely. can you say 40 s&w and 357 sig (over did it with the 10mm)?

the only two rifle cartridges with a drop in max pressure: 270 win and 222 remington. all others stayed the same. go figure!

murf
 
the standard pressure for the 257 roberts has always been 45,000 psi (they did not use the "c.u.p." designation back then). this is per the speer number 11 manual.

the 257 roberts+p pressure is 50,000 c.u.p. the 257 roberts pressure is 45,000 c.u.p. this is per the sammi voluntary performance standards of 1993.

murf
 
I'm not following the "change in testing methods" argument. Even if changing over to piezo electric testing showed pressures were higher than when testing with copper crush method of testing why would that trigger lowering the pressures? I could understand lowering the powder charges to lower the pressures read by piezo electric testing down to where they should be but why would you need to lower the limits?
ArchAngelCD,
SAAMI is an industry association and members all agree to abide by the pressure limits set. This allows gunmakers to know what pressures to build firearms to and us to be sure the cartridge we've bought won't be either a squib or a bomb when we squeeze the trigger. SAAMI serves as a clearinghouse for industry's wishes, not a governing body, so once industry has decided, SAAMi publishes a new standard and members (and probably others) load their cartridges to it.

murf,
Just the pre-1993 standard pressure for the 357, please, if you have it. I've read anything from 45,000 to 47,000 cup.
 
Last edited:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups=#!msg/rec.guns/S_dalM1NJe0/cBSU4bR2jz8J

2. John Bercovitz Feb 11 1993, 5:48 pm
Newsgroups: rec.guns
From: [email protected] (John Bercovitz)
Date: 12 Feb 93 00:48:39 GMT
Local: Thurs, Feb 11 1993 5:48 pm
Subject: Re: Brass Expansion in a .357
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
In article <[email protected]> [email protected]
(Mike Janeczko) writes:

#....... Also, some postings ago,
#suggested that the thickness of the metal used for the cylinder has something
#to do with it. Next time I see the guns, I'll compare.

Sheesh! I can tell _I'm_ not a very convincing poster! :cool:
OK, here's something I posted a long time ago after I did
some figuring for a friend of mine. It's a little broader
than your question but the answer to your question is imbedded.

John Bercovitz ([email protected])

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

A friend asked why steel cases aren't more common since they would
allow higher chamber pressures. I thought that as long as I had
written something up for him, I might as well post it here:

Material Properties
CDA 260 cartridge brass: barrel steels:
Young's modulus = 16*10^6 psi Young's modulus = 29*10^6 psi
Yield stress = 63,000 psi min. Yield stress: usually > 100,000 psi

I was going to get back to you and explain further why brass is a better
cartridge case material than steel or aluminum. Sorry I took so long. I
left you with the nebulous comment that brass was "stretchier" and would
spring back more so it was easier to extract from the chamber after firing.
Now I'll attempt to show why this is true given the basic material properties
listed above.

A synopsis would be that the propellant pressure expands the diameter of
the thin wall of the cartridge case until it contacts the interior wall
of the chamber and thereafter it expands the case and the chamber
together. The expansion of the cartridge case, however, is not elastic.
The case is enough smaller in diameter than the chamber that it has to
_yield_ to expand to chamber diameter. After the pressure is relieved by
the departure of the bullet, both the chamber and the cartridge case
contract elastically. It is highly desirable that the cartridge case
contract more than the chamber so that the case may be extracted with a
minimum of effort.

A quick review of the Young's modulus: this is sort of the "spring
constant" of a material; it is the inverse of how much a unit chunk of
material stretches under a unit load. Its units are stress / strain =
psi/(inch/inch). Here's a basic example of its use: If you have a 2
inch by 2 inch square bar of steel which is 10 inches long and you put a
10,000 pound load on it, how much does it stretch? First of all, the
stress on the steel is 10,000/(2*2) = 2500 psi. The strain per inch will
be 2500 psi/29*10^6 = 0.000086 inches/inch. So the stretch of a 10 inch
long bar under this load will be 10 * 0.000086 = 0.00086 inches or a
little less than 1/1000 inch.

Yield stress (aka yield strength) is the load per unit area at which a
material starts to yield or take a permanent set (git bint). It's not
an exact number because materials often start to yield slightly and then
go gradually into full-scale yield. But the transition is fast enough
to give us a useful number.

So how far can you stretch CDA 260 cartridge brass before it takes a
permanent set? That would be yield stress divided by Young's modulus:
63,000 psi/16*10^6 psi/(inch/inch) = .004 inches/inch.

How far can you stretch cheap steel? Try A36 structural steel:
36,000 psi/29*10^6 psi/(inch/inch) = .001 inches/inch.
How about good steel of modest cost such as C1118?
77,000 psi/29*10^6 psi/(inch/inch) = .003 inches/inch.
(Note that C1118 doesn't have anywhere near the formability of CDA 260.
Brass cases are made by the cheap forming process called "drawing"
while C1118 is a machinable steel, suitable for the more expensive machining
processes such as turning and milling.)

What about something that's expensive such as CDA 172 beryllium copper?
175,000 psi/19*10^6 psi/(inch/inch) = .009 inches/inch.
(This isn't serious because CDA 172 is pretty brittle when it's _this_
hard.)

Titanium Ti-6AL-4V
150,000 psi/16.5*10^6 psi/(inch/inch) = .009 inches/inch
(This is an excellent material though expensive and hard to work with.)

Really expensive aluminum, 7075-T6
73,000 psi/10.4*10^6 psi/(inch/inch) = .007 inches/inch
Cheap aluminum, 3003 H18
29,000 psi/10*10^6 psi/(inch/inch) = .003 inches/inch
(Aluminum isn't a really good material because it isn't strong and cheap
at the same time, it hasn't much fatigue strength, and it won't go over
its yield stress very often without breaking. So you can't reload it.
It makes a "one-shot" case at best. Also, 7075 is a machinable rather
than a formable aluminum, primarily.)

Magnesium, AZ80A-T5
50,000/6.5*10^6 = .0077
(Impact strength and ductility are low. Corrodes easily.)

+Here's the important part: Even if you stretch something until it
+yields, it still springs back some distance. In fact, the springback
+amount is the same as if you had just barely taken the thing up to its
+yield stress. This is because when you stretch it, you establish a new
length for it, and since you are holding it at the yield stress (at
least until you release the load) it will spring back the distance
associated with that yield stress. So the figures given above such as
.004 inches/inch are the figures that tell us how much a case springs
back after firing.

Changing subjects for a moment: How much does the steel chamber expand
and contract during a firing? Naturally this amount is partially
determined by the chamber wall's thickness. The outside diameter of a
rifle chamber is about 2 1/2 times the maximum inside diameter,
typically. The inside diameter is around .48 inches at its largest.
Actual chamber pressures of high pressure rounds will run 60,000 psi or
even 70,000 psi range if you're not careful.

One of the best reference books on the subject is "Formulas for Stress
and Strain" by Roark and Young, published by MacGraw-Hill. Everyone
just calls it "Roark's". In the 5th edition, example numbers 1a & 1b,
page 504, I find the following:

For an uncapped vessel:
Delta b = (q*b/E)*{[(a^2+b^2)/(a^2-b^2)] + Nu}

For a capped vessel:
Delta b = (q*b/E)*{[a^2(1+Nu)+b^2(1-2Nu)]/(a^2-b^2)}

Where:
a = the external radius of the vessel = 0.6 inch
b = the internal radius of the vessel = .24 inch
q = internal pressure of fluid in vessel = 70,000 psi
E = Young's modulus = 29 * 10^6 psi for barrel steel
Nu = Poisson's ratio = 0.3 for steel (and most other materials)

A rifle's chamber is capped at one end and open at the other but really
it's not too open at the other end because the case is usually bottle-
necked. You'd have to go back to basics instead of using cookbook
formulae if you wanted the exact picture, but if we compute the results
of both formulas, the truth must lie between them but closer to the
capped vessel.

For an uncapped vessel:
D b = (70000*.24/29*10^6)*{[(.6^2+.24^2)/(.6^2-.24^2)] + .3} = .00097

For a capped vessel:
D b = (70000*.24/29*10^6)*{[.6^2(1.3)+.24^2(.4)]/(.6^2-.24^2)} = .00094

There's not a whole heck of a lot of difference between the two results
so let's just say that the chamber's expansion is .001 inch radial or
.002 inch diametral.

The cartridge case's outside diameter is equal to about .48 inch after
the cartridge has been fired. So its springback, if made from CDA 260,
is .004 inches/inch (from above) * .48 inch = .002 inches diametral
which of course is just the amount the chamber contracted so we've just
barely got an extractable case when chamber pressures hit 70,000 psi in
this barrel. This is why the ease with which a case can be extracted
from a chamber is such a good clue as to when you are reaching maximum
allowable pressures. By the same token, you can see that if a chamber's
walls are particularly thin, it will be hard to extract cases (regardless
of whether or not these thin chamber walls are within their stress limits).
A really good illustration of this can be found when comparing the S&W
model 19 to the S&W model 27. Both guns are 357 magnum caliber and both
can take full-pressure loads without bursting. The model 27 has thick
chamber walls and the model 19 has thin chamber walls. Cartridge cases
which contained full-pressure loads are easily extracted from a model 27
but they have to be pounded out of a model 19. So manufacturers don't
manufacture full-pressure loads for the 357 magnums anymore.
8-(

We can see from the above calculations that a steel case wouldn't be a
good idea for a gun operating at 70,000 psi with the given 2.5:1 OD/ID
chamber wall ratio if reasonable extraction force is a criterion. Lower
pressures and/or thicker chamber walls could allow the use of steel cases.
jb

I was so impressed with this 1993 post that in 2005 I tapped John to help me prove the load books were wrong about the CZ52 vs the Tokarev strength.

I sent him ~ a dozen CZ52 barrels and he tested them for RC hardness at JPL.
 
Clark,

That's interesting. Can we assume from that that the J-frame 357's five-shot cylinder allows for greater cylinder wall thickness than the six-shot cylinders of the old Models 19/66?
 
Jaywalker,

Model 60 J frame 5 shot 38 sp I reamed out to 357 mag:
.058" to the outside
.108" between chambers
1.308" cylinder diameter
1.535" long cylinder
.250" x.090" slots in cylinder for bolt

Model 66 K frame 6 shot 357 mag:
.084" to the outside
.075" between chambers
1.456" cylinder diameter
1.675" long cylinder
.275" x.105" slots in cylinder for bolt

The 357 mag cartridge could be 1.59 long and the rim could be as short as .049" so the cylinder should be at least 1.541" long

I have blown up enough cylinders on 38 specials and 32 S&W Longs to know that both the between cylinders AND the to outside thickness must both break. That would mean they add for strength, like ropes in parallel.

J frame = .164" sum for strength calc
K frame = .159" sum for strength calc

It is going to be real hard to blow up either. What happens with smiths is that the slots in the cylinder or the slot in the frame get sloppy. That makes the cylinder loose like a Ruger in rotation, not tight like a post 1907 Colt. The S&W model 29 44 mag got bigger slots in later dash numbers to beef it up.
 
Clark,

Just to be clear, are those measurements to the outside of the cylinder the maximum measurements, or do they include the cylinder stop slots? It appears to me the M19/66 has the slots over the chamber proper, while the J seems to offset to thicker metal.
 
jaywalker, for the 357 magnum:

old - 46,000 c.u.p.

new - 45,000 c.u.p.

new p.s.i. - 35,000

murf
 
Jaywalker,
You are right, I was measuring from the chamber to the major OD of the cylinder.

I never noticed it before, but the 5 shot geometry does not have the slot over the a chamber. The slots are between the chambers. 6 shot cylinders have the slot weakening the chamber. That is an advantage for 5 shot strength.
 
I don't think you can ascertain a cylinder's strength by measurements alone. Particularly if you are not taking into account the location of the bolt notch in relation to the chambers. Because this is almost always the weakest point.
 
CraigC
I could do a thin wall formula for stress, and maybe a Lame's formula for thick wall, but to do it right you would need one of Roark's open end tube formulas. In all three the stress goes up proportional to the inside diameter.

So at the cave man level, I have tried to blow up many guns.

I don't care if the gun is 150 years old or new, unless it is a Ruger 454 made of specialty steel, this is my guideline for 3/8" to 1/2" inside diameters:
.100" thick, I can't blow it up.
.050" thick, blowing up is easy.

I bought a 90 year old 32-20 revolver Thursday. It is .136" between and .120" to the outside. The inside dia is .356"

SAAMI is 16kcup.
I have not shot it yet, but...
I can tell by looking at it that in a work up it will pierce a CCI450 small magnum rifle primer [the toughest I have found] before it will burst the chamber.
That should be 80 or 90k.
 
Clark,
Well, if I read John Bercovitz's formulae right, the M19/M66 cylinder slot cuts are less a yield strength issue than a Young's Modulus inconvenience. It probably only added to the extraction issue he already noted. The numbers don't lie, though - the K-frame cylinders aren't as strong as the J-frame. I'd read about the K forcing cone problems, but this one is new to me. Thanks.

murf,
Thanks. Only a 1,000 cup, then. I would think we'd get that much variance from how deeply we seat or crimp, or how hot the day is. Hardly seems worth the effort. I appreciate your looking.
 
So there is no consideration of the alloy used or its heat treatment??? This is a dangerous game you're playing and I hope everybody reading this thread understands that.
 
I am glad all these problems apply to S&W. I have seen people use ruger only charts, then add a little more. The only thing that happened is the gas check failed (in the bullets we were able to recover). I realize that the gas check failing causes leading and in time a loss of accuracy. But nothing happened that would cause a catastrophic failure.

I have only seen people do this with cast bullets. I have no idea what, if anything would happen to a jacketed bullet.
 
CraigC: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/young-modulus-d_417.html

Sorry, posted before I finished. Clark is much more qualified than I am to respond to this, but pending his response, here's my quick take:

Young's Modulus is just a ratio, and it applies to many material, not just steel, as shown on the linked page. As far as alloy of steel goes, it just doesn't make much difference. It might be a small number followed by 6 zeroes, so you're dividing some number by 25,000,000, 29,000,000, or 35,000,000. The difference is nearly too small to measure, and not enough to worry about in revolver cylinders.

I'd be interested read Clark's take on heat treating, but if anything I would expect it to improve the situation.
 
Last edited:
Oi, am I not qualified. I inherited gun design books, but not gun design brains. I designed electronics. Some gun electronics, but not the gun. I modify guns for fun.

They don't do much heat treat on revolver cylinders, usually.

All the 38 specials I reamed out to 357 mag were soft.

If you try to make a gun, you want some heat treat so it can be light. But hard metal is not easy to machine. And heat treating after machining can be a problem with warpage.

So there is a trade off. .. except the Ruger 454 that they just wanted to ream out a 44 mag design paper thin and then have really high proof loads. They split cylinders and blew out forcing cones until they found a specialty stainless steel that was economical to machine and strong too.

Most of the time over the last century when making revolvers, they took something like 4140 steel that would be RB86 80ksi fully annealed, but they buy it hardened to RC29 132 ksi tensile strength.

Put RC29 4140 in your lathe or mill and it machines ok with coolant all over it. If you ever let a spot get hot, the steel turns very hard and wrecks your tool Then you must try to cut out the hard spot with carbide.

4140 can be hardened to ~RC60 ~ 300 ksi strength, but that is not your firearms chamber. My father called out 4140 in coil springs for gun designs. I think some chisels are made of it. So in other applications 4140 is very hard. But not in revolver cylinders.
 
Ruger has been the true king of revolvers for many years now. Smith & Wesson is largely stuck in the past, and hasn't improved anything beyond their triggers. Their standardized frame system leaves no room for major innovation, as anything new they make has to fall within dimensions that were defined more than half a century ago. Other manufacturers are free to innovate at will, and come up with completely new designs as needed. Only Smith & Wesson has shot themselves in the foot this way.
 
WardenWolf,
I am nobody in the world of revolvers. My father did design a 115mm six shooter for the marines in 1960, the XM-70. "X" means experimental, and we never got much money. The patent on his 6 shot revolver
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4353285.pdf
That patent does publish the formula for parabolic taper hydraulic recoil, that before he did the math on his M55 design, the tapers were determined empirically since the French invented it in WWI.
Anyway, I own ~ ~ 50 revolvers, mostly bought for testing.
~10 years ago I got (5) Colt Police Positive revolvers as police surplus for destructive test. I was really shocked by the quality of the design. I could not shoot them loose.
I bought a Ruger blackhawk ~5 years ago and fired one shot. I was impressed negatively. I have not pulled it out of storage since. I also have a security six, which seems like a better gun.
I don't doubt that Ruger revolvers might take over the world, but this nobody likes Colts.
There is a poster on the firing line that makes amazingly good posts about gunsmithing almost all guns. He was a trained watchmaker before he became a gunsmith.
Dfariswheel May 9, 2001, 03:24 AM
Posts: 6,394
Colt was always seen as the Rolls Royce of handguns. Colt spread their dollar around on the gun, pretty equally on the outside finish, and the inside. Smith & Wesson spent their's on the outside, with a great blue job.

I think if you research the posts made by Dfariswheel, you will see HE is intrinsically somebody.
 
Ruger has been the true king of revolvers for many years now. Smith & Wesson is largely stuck in the past, and hasn't improved anything beyond their triggers. Their standardized frame system leaves no room for major innovation, as anything new they make has to fall within dimensions that were defined more than half a century ago. Other manufacturers are free to innovate at will, and come up with completely new designs as needed. Only Smith & Wesson has shot themselves in the foot this way.
I'm very confused as to what you are talking about? Not that I care what anyone thinks about S&W but what you said confused me. S&W has come out with the X frame which is different than the others. They also developed the Bodyguard 38 which is completely different than any other revolver ever made for several reasons. It also has an integral laser which is different too. They were also the first to make 7 and 8 round centerfire revolvers. Please clear up what you meant, I'm curious...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top