Why 357 ammo is "watered down"

[Kleanbore]

That's an interesting definition of "watered down".

I don't think that's what Craig said.

 

[CraigC]

That's not what I said. What I said is that if the standard factory ammo is well below what the boutique makers produce, then it is "watered down".

 

[Kleanbore]

I had for some time labored under the impression that early .357 Magnum loads were more powerful than what is being sold today.

I haven't read every post in this thread carefully, but I am not under the impression that that widely held opionion is false, and that it stems from changes in test barrels and from changes in which chamber pressure is measured, and that the results are influenced by changes in the burning rates of the propellants used..

Am I right?

 

[fxvr5]

Here's what Elmer Keith wrote in 1935: (article in the American Rifleman)

"The bullet weighs 158 grains. . . . The powder charge, which varies with different lots, is approximately 15.4 grains of No. 2400, giving a muzzle velocity of 1518 foot-seconds."

This was from a 8 3/4" barrel. I don't know if it was a test barrel with no gap, or from a S&W revolver.

I also don't know if the factory load used 2400.

Speer's current load data for 158 grain plated and jacketed bullets is a max of 14.8 grains of 2400 and is listed as producing the highest speeds (1265 fps) for that bullet weight from a 6" Model 19. https://reloading-data.speer-ammo.c...caliber_357-358_dia/357_Magnum_158_TMJ_FN.pdf

Speer's data from their manual #10 (circa 1979) was 15.9 grains of 2400 and it also produced the highest speed (1335 fps) for that bullet weight, from a 6" Ruger security six.

 

[ThomasT]

I don't know that 357 loads are now so much watered down as much as the original loads were loaded too hot. I have read that the lead bullet loads would plate the bore in just a few rounds. And no telling how quick the jacketed loads eroded the forcing cone and rifling in the throat of the barrel. Plus when the only 357 revolvers were heavy framed guns like the N frame S&Ws the heavier built guns could better handle the pressure. So when lighter built 357s came along reducing the loads made sense.

Those initial loads were probably at the suggestion of Elmer Keith who's ballistic knowledge came down to loading a case full of powder and trying it and if it didn't blow the gun up when fired it was a safe load.

In one article by Brian Pearce he reported getting 1495fps from a 6" gun with a 158gr bullet pushed by 19grs of Lil Gun and a 550 primer. That should be close enough to the original loads to satisfy anyone looking to duplicate it. But it would not be a load I would shoot a lot of out of a model 19 or similar sized guns. If you want to shoot those loads use an N frame or even better a Ruger Blackhawk. That gun should take anything you can stuff in it. Elmer would have a ball with that gun.

 

[ThomasT]

Speer's current load data for 158 grain plated and jacketed bullets is a max of 14.8 grains of 2400 and is listed as producing the highest speeds (1265 fps) for that bullet weight from a 6" Model 19. https://reloading-data.speer-ammo.c...caliber_357-358_dia/357_Magnum_158_TMJ_FN.pdf

I didn't see where they listed the test gun as a model 19 but if they did they may have made loads more suitable for that gun. And yes Speer has reduced and even removed some loads published in their older manuals. Loads like 12grs of Blue Dot and a 158gr bullet. I loaded some of those and ended up pulling the bullets and reducing the loads to 10grs of Blue Dot. Then in a later manual they listed the Blue Dot load again with a max of 10.2grs of Blue Dot.

 

[fxvr5]

I didn't see where they listed the test gun as a model 19

From their Manual #14

 

[Kleanbore]

I don't know that 357 loads are now so much watered down as much as the original loads were loaded too hot.

Eh?

I have read that the lead bullet loads would plate the bore in just a few rounds.

Likely--because of the lead.

Plus when the only 357 revolvers were heavy framed guns like the N frame S&Ws the heavier built guns could better handle the pressure.

Nope--Mdium frame Colts were okay.

So when lighter built 357s came along reducing the loads made sense.

That's the question.

Are modern loads reduced?

 

[fxvr5]

So when lighter built 357s came along reducing the loads made sense.

Have you looked to see when the 'lighter built 357s' were made and checked for changes in 357 ballistics before/during that time?

 

[Goosey]

That's not what I said. What I said is that if the standard factory ammo is well below what the boutique makers produce, then it is "watered down".

It seemed you implied "full power" means producing near the maximum power possible while keeping safe pressures, like the original loads did. With modern powders, metallurgy, etc, that means a round typically would have to be more powerful than the original loads to not be considered "watered down" under such a definition.

But if it's matching the weight and speed of the original load I don't consider it "watered down", even if there's now room for improvement due to advances in technology.

 

[ThomasT]

Have you looked to see when the 'lighter built 357s' were made and checked for changes in 357 ballistics before/during that time?

No I haven't because the loads being reduced from the original specs was never an issue or concern for me. Thats the OPs question, not mine. If I need more power than what the book listed maximums are I don't try to squeeze just a little more from a round, I just use a bigger gun. There is no point in beating the hell out of a perfectly good gun trying to turn it in to something its not.

Eh?

That's the question.

Are modern loads reduced?

It's obvious they have been reduced. The OP asked why. That was the question.

 

[Kleanbore]

It's obvious they have been reduced.

Your basis for that assumption?

The OP asked why. That was the question

Yeah.

 

[fxvr5]

No I haven't

So you made that claim based on nothing. Got it.

 

[ThomasT]

So you made that claim based on nothing. Got it.

You want research done do it yourself. It has been mentioned in the gun magazines I used to read that I no longer have.

 

[ThomasT]

Your basis for that assumption?

Yeah.

It’s pretty easy to see that loads originally listed as getting 1500+ FPS that are now getting 1250fps are reduced from the original specification. And that’s not an assumption. It’s a fact.

 

[fxvr5]

You want research done do it yourself. It has been mentioned in the gun magazines I used to read that I no longer have.

The person who makes the claim has the burden of proof. That's you.

 

[fxvr5]

It’s pretty easy to see that loads originally listed as getting 1500+ FPS that are now getting 1250fps are reduced from the original specification. And that’s not an assumption. It’s a fact.

The original 1500 fps speeds were from a 8 3/4" barrel. Current 1250 fps speeds are from 4" vented barrels.

 

[ThomasT]

The person who makes the claim has the burden of proof. That's you.

HaHa. Good luck.

 

[ThomasT]

I felt sorry for you so I looked it up. Read paragraphs 7&8.
http://www.leverguns.com/articles/paco/357_magnum_and_the_literature.htm

 

[JohnKSa]

Read paragraph 5. The load they tested that gave 1530fps was tested in a revolver with a barrel that was '8+' inches. The Ballistics By The Inch website provides data on loads shot in different barrel lengths. They tested 2 different loadings with 158gr bullets and the difference was between a 4" and 8" barrel was 261-277fps.

When SAAMI leaned on ammo manufacturers to start reporting their velocities in 4" barrels, vs. the much longer test barrels (at least 8") they had been using, the ADVERTISED velocities dropped.

However, as the BBTI website shows, you can still get well over 1500fps out of current .357Mag 158gr loadings--if you shoot them out of an 8" barrel.

 

[ThomasT]

In post #80 I stated Brian Pearce got 1495 FPS from a 6” barreled gun. So if you handload yes those speeds are possible. Or buy Buffalo Bore ammo.

The poster fxvr5 wanted proof that pressures were lowered for lighter framed guns and I provided one source. And that is not the only place I have read it.

Anyway have fun with it. I’m done.

 

[Kleanbore]

Read paragraph 5. The load they tested that gave 1530fps was tested in a revolver with a barrel that was '8+' inches. The Ballistics By The Inch website provides data on loads shot in different barrel lengths. They tested 2 different loadings with 158gr bullets and the difference was between a 4" and 8" barrel was 261-277fps.

When SAAMI leaned on ammo manufacturers to start reporting their velocities in 4" barrels, vs. the much longer test barrels (at least 8") they had been using, the ADVERTISED velocities dropped.

However, as the BBTI website shows, you can still get well over 1500fps out of current .357Mag 158gr loadings--if you shoot them out of an 8" barrel.

That pretty well answers my question.

The oft-repeated comment that .357 Magnum factory loads have been reduced in performance since the round was introduced is incorrect.

The question and discussion in the OP were based on misconceptions.

I was of those who labored under those misconceptions.

 

[mcb]

I have yet to see proof that SAAMI has changed the specification on 357 Mag since it was adopted as a SAAMI cartridge. What the manufacturers did means little to this if they where not following SAAMI. In the 1930's SAAMI was still a fledgling regulatory body and many of the ammunition manufacturers did not have the testing equipment or rigorous testing protocols in place to follow the specifications and SAAMI did not yet carry the weight it does today. No doubt some manufacture where loading over SAAMI spec and either didn't care or didn't know.

 

[Hal]

I had for some time labored under the impression that early .357 Magnum loads were more powerful than what is being sold today.

I haven't read every post in this thread carefully, but I am not under the impression that that widely held opionion is false, and that it stems from changes in test barrels and from changes in which chamber pressure is measured, and that the results are influenced by changes in the burning rates of the propellants used..

Am I right?

Interestingly - when you look at Phillip Sharpes Complet Guide to Handloading - 1937 - he goes into some detail of how & why & who - were behind the .357 S&W Magnum. He also claims the powder used was a Special Hercules #2400 not available to anyone except Winchester to use in the .357 magnum.
Hercules #2400 was available to handloaders - just not he "same thing" as he so claimed.
Then when it comes to the actual handloads - which he admits to have been working on * - he only lists one single load using #2400 & he uses a 146 grain bullet for that load.
I find that sort of odd - why no loads using the 156 to 160 grain bullet with #2400?
It's as if he kknew something & didn't want to put out anything that could disrupt S&W .

Some other things - other than components that have changed dramaticly since the 1930's would be - the test instuments.
Pressure and velocity both were nothing more than an "educated guess".
Transducers came out in the 1960's & farirly affordable chronographs came out around that same time period.

Prior to that - test equipment was - expensive - crude - and not readily available.
The bottom line there would be - anybody could claim anything - and there was little to no way to prove otherwise.

My personal "feelings" on the 158 grain S&W Magnum of 1935 is - it was more sales hype than truth.
Colt had come out with a .38 Super - as a way of showing up the .38 S&W Special - in a "Special eh? Look what we can do with a .38!"

Afer a couple of decades of looking around the interent - I've come to the conclution that - there may have been a fluke round in the test facility that managed to hit 1500 fps with a 158 grain bullet - but - in the real world, the ballistics of that ear were the same as they were well into the 1990's and beyond.

There's countless people that toss out that 1500 fps figure - but - none of them can point to any proof of it other than - "So and so said".
What's that line from the Movie (Man who shot Liberty Valance), "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend".

* Sharpe admits to working up heavy loads for the .38/44 & also ommunicationg with others doing the same. Somewhere in my reading, I came across mention that SR80 offered good performance for heavy loads - but the "New" powder from Hercules, #2400 offered better performance with less pressure. I take that as - Hercules #2400 was the "go to" powder for heavy .38 loads. Keith's heavy - a 173 grain bullet over 17.5 grains of #2400 in a .38 special case - is well documneted.​

 

[Kleanbore]

Pressure and velocity both were nothing more than an "educated guess".

I won't speak to pressure, but ballistic pendulums could easily measure velocity to within about 1%.