Why 357 ammo is "watered down"

[Palladan44]

Most wheelgun (and other gun) aficionados know that the vast of majority of factory ammunition for "more powerful" handguns is watered down in power.
10mm that pops like a .40
357 mag that pops like a .38 +p
44 mag that dips as low as 450 ft./lb. energy...common.

There are great exceptions to this, Buffalo Bore, Underwood, Atomic and sime other high quality "small batch" manufacturers make excellent loads that are up to or exceed original power specs for the caliber. And they charge a hefty fee, usually more than double the price of your regular factory ammo. Since ive taken up handloading, ive been able to make whatever flavor i want.....from "mouse fart" .38s that go 650 fps, and the only reason you knew it wasnt a squib was because you saww the bullet arcing through the air like a marble from a slingshot......to hot 357 magnums that burn your eyebrows off and top 1400fps, fired from the same weapon...all while staying within published load specifications for the calibers.

A lot of ammo may be lightened up to address accuracy issues, for reasons of your average shooters capabilities when handling heavier loads. For target ammo from UMC, WWB, Federal champ/American eagle. Fiocchi, the list goes on....they may want to load these to the specification that was found to be the most accurate loading. That, to me, is important.

Economy, why pack more powder in than is needed..?

Not sure if legal departments from ammo manufacturers are worried about using full house loads, and wearing or destroying certain platforms..... i know Buffalo Bore post warnings not to use certain ammo in certain brand/model firearms.

SD loads and over-penetration: Lots of 357 and 10mm loads are designed for SD and are extremely light for the caliber. And there is a good reason for it. Based on hollow point bullet design, theyre looking for expansion and a certain amount of penetration, but not more than that, up to 15-18". Usually this is anywhere from 975-1,150 fps. In these calibers.. Original 357 mag, and 10mm can push rounds 1300-1400 fps, and these velocities can damage hollow points by either opening up and fragmenting, OR oppositely, penetrating too deeply.

Somebody asked me about this. And this is the best explanation i can come up with. Any input or greater wisedom, id appreciate a post.

 

[12Bravo20]

Another issue that ammunition manufacturers take into account is people using ammo in older guns that won't always hold up to full power loads. Another example is 38 Super ammo, it is not loaded to its full potential for the same reasons. No one likes to get sued.

 

[Alex Clayton]

Most major players load their stuff to be "safe" in guns that are not so to speak. There are a LOT of old and poorly made guns floating around. No matter how many "warnings" you put on a box someone is going to jam that ammo in some POS and if it damages it, or worse damages the shooter the first thing that happens is they want lawyers to give them money. For the major players there is ammo available for those who want the most they can get, if they do not want to roll their own. Even with that you know some are going to buy it, load it in a gun clearly not "safe" for it. <shrug>

 

[.455_Hunter]

I would disagree that most factory magnum ammo is watered down from listed specs.

Sure, you can find specific loads with lower power, but things like Federal AE .357 158 gr JSP, Remington UMC .357 125 gr JHP/JHP, Remington UMC .44 180 gr JSP, and WWB 240 gr JSP are full power.

 

[SharpDog]

.357 Sig loaded down to 40 S&W as well.

My theory is similar to yours in that the shooters prefer less recoil and less cost possibly while thinking they are still shooting the 'Magnums'

They are just making what people buy.

 

[Jonesy814]

Lower recoil would be desirable in a self defense load in .357, more so than top velocity.

 

[Riomouse911]

SD ammo has to balance a lot of stuff; effective bullets, adequate velocity, acceptable accuracy and controllability allowing the shooter to shoot multiple shots if needed. With the .357, as Jonsey814 stated, controllability is one of the key factors...especially with the popularity of carry revolvers in .357.

I'd opine that with the bullet designs that have come out in the past few years, especially those marketed for carry, SD ammo doesn't need top speeds and the heaviest bullets to be effective for its intended use.

It's nice to handload; making a load tailored for the day's planned activities and shooting them up is just about the best thing ever .

Stay safe.

 

[Pudge]

I would disagree that most factory magnum ammo is watered down from listed specs.

Sure, you can find specific loads with lower power, but things like Federal AE .357 158 gr JSP, Remington UMC .357 125 gr JHP/JHP, Remington UMC .44 180 gr JSP, and WWB 240 gr JSP are full power.

Do you think they are equal to BB, Underwood and such?

 

[tactikel]

Liability. A liability law suit can erase years of profits. Why take a chance?
Research the original .357 magnum load versus today's! Keep in mind that the original stats were a bit "optimistic".

 

[JJFitch]

When it comes to products the buyer determines the market and what people are willing to pay!

Think the different tiers of ammo prices like Winchester (promo) " white box" and Winchester (premium) Ranger ammo!

People don't think twice when buying promo ammo since it meets their need for "practice" ammo in 50 round boxes. But they'll also buy a box of self defense ammo for twice the price and 25 round boxes! Which shelf goes empty first?

As a reloader when loading "magnum" calibers I know my personal limit of discomfort and download to +P like pressures. Shooting is supposed to be fun!

20 or so years ago I shot an invitational match where FNH supplied their new offering and also supplied the ammo, full power Ranger 45 ACP! After 150 rounds I knew that would be my last time shooting full power 45 or magnum ammo more than necessary! My knuckles and 50 or so other shooters were "ground hamburger"! Barricades tend to do that!

Smiles,

 

[.455_Hunter]

Do you think they are equal to BB, Underwood and such?

No. But they generally meet the published standard specs, which have been the same for 30 years (my shooting lifetime). However, I would agree that Hornady tends to come in slower than listed.

A few years ago, I tested some Remington .38 Special +P 158 gr lead out of the same 6" Colt Official Police at the same range session. They only difference was the bullets- the 1977 production had lead round nose and the 2007 had the famous lead SWC hollow point. The average velocity for 5 shots differed by only 3 fps, both right at 1000 fps. For a 30 year production spread, that's pretty darn good.

 

[fxvr5]

Liability. A liability law suit can erase years of profits. Why take a chance?
Research the original .357 magnum load versus today's! Keep in mind that the original stats were a bit "optimistic".

What were those original 357 ballistics? And how do you know they were 'optimistic'?

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

"Watered down" or perhaps loaded for greater efficiency ? IIRC the original .357 of 1935 was pretty fierce, but there were problems with leading, then you fire a load developed for an 8 3/4" barrel out of a 3 1/2" barrel and...? Maximum loads are often not accurate loads. When I reloaded 41 Magnum for my 4" M-57 I was using 8 grains of Unique under a 210 SWC, I saw grains of unburned powder. I reduced my load to 7.5 grains, got the same accuracy, no unburned powder. For a manufacturer, that savings of 1/2 grain of powder can mean big savings for a big production run.

 

[fxvr5]

When I reloaded 41 Magnum for my 4" M-57 I was using 8 grains of Unique under a 210 SWC, I saw grains of unburned powder. I reduced my load to 7.5 grains, got the same accuracy, no unburned powder.

Which might be odd because more powder should mean more pressure and some folks say this means cleaner burning.

Maximum loads are often not accurate loads.

You can't conclude too much from one example. If one has three loads for a bullet, low, medium and max, there is a 1 in 3 chance that whichever one you select will be the most accurate.

Nosler tested 10 powders in their 357 magnum data. 6 of their max loads were the most accurate.
https://load-data.nosler.com/load-data/357-magnum/

Pick a different caliber/bullet weight/powder and you get different results.

 

[CDW4ME]

Barrel length matters, that said...
What constitutes "watered down" is it 10% less than maximum, 15% less?
Examples of loads that may not be maximum, but the term "watered down" doesn't apply.
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/revolver-ballistics-test/
Remington 125 SJHP 357 Mag from a 4'' barrel - 1,473 fps
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/10mm-auto-self-defense-ammo-ballistic-gel-tests/
Hornady 155 XTP 10mm from a 4.6'' barrel - 1,344 fps
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/357-sig-gel-test/
Winchester 125 PDX 357 Sig from a 4.5'' barrel - 1,423 fps

 

[FL-NC]

Don't have an answer for "why", but I know I obtained a box of steel case rusky 357 ammo a few years back (wolf?) that I ran through an old 101. It felt like blazer 38 special.

 

[JohnKSa]

There's lightly loaded .357Mag, 10mm and .44Mag on the market because there's a demand for it. Not all ammo in those calibers are lightly loaded.

There is full-powered .357Mag, 10mm and .44Mag on the market too and for the same reason. Not all ammo in those calibers is full-powered.

If you don't mind paying for it and running the associated risks, there are companies that are willing to load and sell ammo that is hotter than industry specifications. Again, because there's demand for such ammo.

As far as there being a decrease in the industry specs for .357Mag, I've heard claims there has been. Solid evidence to support those claims seems hard to come by. Usually the "evidence" comes in the form of quoting very old velocity claims made before chronographs were ubiquitous and it was easier to get away with advertising "optimistic" velocity figures. There was an apparent decrease in velocities during the late '70s and early '80s as SAAMI pressured the ammo makers to start providing revolver velocities measured in 4" vented test barrels as opposed to the much longer barrels that had been more commonly used. That could have resulted in velocity claims dropping as much as 300fps in .357Mag even though the ammo didn't change.

The few vintage ammo tests I've seen indicate that the vintage full-power stuff shoots pretty much the same as the full-power modern stuff.

 

[wanderinwalker]

I would disagree that most factory magnum ammo is watered down from listed specs.

Sure, you can find specific loads with lower power, but things like Federal AE .357 158 gr JSP, Remington UMC .357 125 gr JHP/JHP, Remington UMC .44 180 gr JSP, and WWB 240 gr JSP are full power.

Working off of memory, my personal chronograph experience indicates the idea of factory magnum ammo being "watered down" is a bit overblown.

Remington-UMC .357 Magnum 125-grain JSP ammo did an honest 1400+ fps average from a 4" S&W 586. And that is the smallest gun I'd want to shoot much of that ammo from.

Winchester White Box .44 Magnum 240-grain JSP was at 1300-fps from a 6" S&W 629. Yeah, I'd say those were full-power Magnums for sure.

And while not Magnum ammo, I have also chronographed the much maligned Winchester White Box 9mm Luger 115-grain FMJ ammo, which clocked right on 1200-fps from a 4" or 4.5" Glock 19 or 17. Not exactly weak-sauce 9mm ammo by any stretch. Though for comparision, Winchester Ranger SXT 9mm 127-grain +P+ ammo ran right at the listed 1270-fps from a 4.5" Glock 17.

I'm sure I chronographed some factory 158-grain .357 Magnum loads somewhere along the line, probably from a 4" S&W 19, but I don't have any paper notes and any electronic files were lost a couple of computers ago.

I'm also convinced more modern pressure testing methods revealed things that weren't readily apparent with the copper crusher method, such as pressure spikes that were beyond the specified ranges.

 

[Kleanbore]

But they generally meet the published standard specs, which have been the same for 30 years (my shooting lifetime).

Think 1935.

 

[unspellable]

I have a soft spot for the 7.65 mm Parabellum, AKA 30 Luger.

The original DWM spec was 93 grains at 1220 fps from a 4.5” pistol, not a test barrel. I have done some research on this and have reason to believe DWM’s spec was pretty accurate. Their method measured velocity over a distance of several meters so true muzzle velocity would be expected to be a trifle higher.

SAAMI, for some reason lists the max pressure for 9 mm at 32,000 and the 30 at 28,000. Why? Same gun. Design working pressure for the Luger action was 40,000, although the 40,000 load was for the carbine only. (32,000 limited impulse for pistol.) CIP lists both at 32,000 which makes more sense.

Winchester claims 1220 fps from a 4.5” barrel.

So out to the range with a chronograph.

4” barrel: not even a single round makes 1220

4.5” barrel: not even a single round makes 1220

5” barrel: not even a single round makes 1220

6” barrel: not even a single round makes 1220

As we step up barrel length the average velocity increases noticeably. But at no time did a single round make 1220. Also, while there were no malfunctions in guns of three different makes and two action types, ejection was anemic in all cases.

Winchester is obviously downloading. But why can’t they be honest enough to say so? Or at least not claim 1220 fps?

 

[.455_Hunter]

Think 1935.

Using the .357 as an example, the standardization of reporting ballistics from a 4" vented test barrel is a newer development. In the 70s, ammo specs were still often shown using a long (8 inch?) unvented test barrel. This is where I think people's impression of general lower performance may originate.

 

[Pudge]

No. But they generally meet the published standard specs, which have been the same for 30 years (my shooting lifetime). However, I would agree that Hornady tends to come in slower than listed.

A few years ago, I tested some Remington .38 Special +P 158 gr lead out of the same 6" Colt Official Police at the same range session. They only difference was the bullets- the 1977 production had lead round nose and the 2007 had the famous lead SWC hollow point. The average velocity for 5 shots differed by only 3 fps, both right at 1000 fps. For a 30 year production spread, that's pretty darn good.

If you look at reloading manuals, the specs change. The Speer Reloading Manual No. 11 lists the max charge of 2400 for a 125gr .357 to be 19.5 grains, while Lyman's 49th Edition lists 17.7 grains to be the max charge. 1987-2008. Interestingly, other powders in 1987, like H110 and Unique have lower max charges in 1987 than in 2008. The point is that what is "within spec" changes over time, and if Buffalo Bore is within spec, then other commercial loads can legitimately be considered to be watered down. And the higher powered boutique offerings might be in response to decades of reduced power commercial offerings.

At the same time published velocities of 1555 (1987) and 1478 (2008) may look significant on paper, but there are so many variables, you can't always believe what you read. If it really matters to you, use a chronograph, do your research, and tread carefully.

 

[wiscoaster]

I've seen in some videos that my S&W 66-1 is subject to the frame cracking (or something cracking) if shot excusively with .357 Magnum. (Because the part of the frame just ahead of the cylinder is narrower, as I understand it). I asked someone who knows more about it than I do and was told that was originally true but not to worry today about modern production .357 Mag loads because they're not as powerful. So .... I suppose putting two and two together from this thread and that, I'm speculating that maybe problems with wheel guns taking the full power loads may have had some input into ammo manufacturers downloading their Magnum ammo? Anybody know if that's actually the case or not?

 

[Palladan44]

How about the majority of 10mm ammo?
80% of whats available commercially doesnt give much of an advantage over .40 s&w. Definitely not enough to justify the greater expense.
I handload, and i get the full potential (highest published book recipes) out of 10mm, which gets the 180gr. Jacketed projectiles of a few different varieties from 1300-1330 fps. from my 6" G40MOS
And up to 1379 from my CMMG banshee with 8" barrel. (Thank you Blue Dot and Power Pistol, you compress nicely!!!) If AA#9 compressed better, or at all, i think AA#9 would be the winner.

 

[.455_Hunter]

How about the majority of 10mm ammo?
80% of whats available commercially doesnt give much of an advantage over .40 s&w.

Absolutely true 10+ years ago. Not so much anymore with the revival of the 10mm in factory guns. Ammo manufacturers have upgraded their game to get nominal full 10mm performance, not the warmish .40 performance of the late 90's to 2010ish era.