Hello I've read numerous articles concerning the 357 stating that the load has been watered down considerably from it's introduction. I was just wondering what the actual difference is in actual chamber pressure and foot pounds, and is Buffalo Bore still the most powerful commercial round currently available for the 357? Thanks

Tom j

Pretty much everything ever introduced has, so don't read too much into that.

If you want a good hunting load, try the Federal CastCore 180gr. load. I've duplicated that with the Beartooth 185gr. FNGC and it's deadly on whitetails.

BB stuff should be good too. Cor-Bon has some loadings also I believe.

Buffalo Bores ammunition is good.
As with any max spec load be sure your firearm is in good working order and was designed for the elevated pressure.
I have use Buffalo Bore for years on game and have not been disappointed so far.
Both the gold dot and Keith style loads are very deadly.

Pretty much everything ever introduced has, so don't read too much into that.

If you want a good hunting load, try the Federal CastCore 180gr. load. I've duplicated that with the Beartooth 185gr. FNGC and it's deadly on whitetails.

BB stuff should be good too. Cor-Bon has some loadings also I believe.

Any idea what the foot pounds where like when it was first introduced? say anyone have access to a real old loading manual, just curious what those loads looked like when it was first introduced. Thanks!

Tom j

The question is academic, at best. Few people owned chronographs, pressure testing equipment was primitive by our standards, and the factories claimed whatever level of performance suited their PR department.

I really wouldn't devote much time to it, to be honest.

The WFN bullet designs, even if pressures / velocities are reduced, are so much more effective than the old SWCs that there is just no comparison for hunting.

Likewise, we have vastly superior JHPs for personal defense.

The question is academic, at best. Few people owned chronographs, pressure testing equipment was primitive by our standards, and the factories claimed whatever level of performance suited their PR department.

I really wouldn't devote much time to it, to be honest.

The WFN bullet designs, even if pressures / velocities are reduced, are so much more effective than the old SWCs that there is just no comparison for hunting.

Likewise, we have vastly superior JHPs for personal defense.

I'm sure the equipment wasen't as sophisticated but the equipment did exist to measure chamber pressure and velocity, just read an article in Combat Magazine as a matter of fact the whole article was centered around this, they said the reason for the reduced loads was the lighter frame weights that were brought out by Smith & Wesson. Well I might just have to pose this question on the handloading board the 357 is one of my favorite rounds and I'm very much interested in it's history.

Tom j

Lyman #44 copyright 1967 lists 1020 fps for 195 grain cast bullet, and 1258 fps for 158 grain cast, among others. Speer #13 copyright 2005-7th print lists 1265fps for 158 grain jacketed and 1034 fps for lead SWC. Speer doesn't list a ny loads for 195 gr cast.

Lyman #44 copyright 1967 lists 1020 fps for 195 grain cast bullet, and 1258 fps for 158 grain cast, among others. Speer #13 copyright 2005-7th print lists 1265fps for 158 grain jacketed and 1034 fps for lead SWC. Speer doesn't list a ny loads for 195 gr cast.


Thanks! now that's' the kind of thing I was looking for, going to post this on the handloading forum and see if someone can dig up a loading manual from the thirty's. I thank the 357 was introduced in 1935. Once I locate it I'll post what I find.

Tom j

I just did this on another forum in response to a thread that was complaining about loading data being watered down and showed by using the latest Speer and Lyman manuals and comparing them to my oldest manual (1959 and 1962 respectively) that in most cases it wasn't true. I feel most of the changes were the results from changes in the powders themselves.

The original .357 was made using N frames, when they started making the K-frames there was concern that the smaller frame guns would have problems but realized that they would hold up. What didn't hold up was the consumer's reaction to the recoil those older loads produced in the lighter handguns. The ammunition manufacturers realized that in order to keep sales they needed to produce loads the k frame owners would be willing to buy and use in the lighter guns and adjusted things accordingly. It was marketing that resulted in lighter factory loads.

Lyman #44 copyright 1967 lists 1020 fps for 195 grain cast bullet, and 1258 fps for 158 grain cast, among others. Speer #13 copyright 2005-7th print lists 1265fps for 158 grain jacketed and 1034 fps for lead SWC. Speer doesn't list a ny loads for 195 gr cast.

Keep in mind that regardless of any pressure changes, we have superior powder and primers compared to that day and age. Bullet designs have advanced, too.

Reading Phil Sharp's Complete Guide to Handloading is an eye-opener in that respect. The 'good old days' aren't quite as good as you'd suspect, when it comes to handloading.

I'll repeat my assertation that pressure testing was primitive then as compared to now. Copper crushers simply do not measure absolute peak chamber pressure with any certainty. They just can't. Chronographs, too, absolutely could not have been very sophisticated in 1935. For one thing, how could you calibrate one? We have vastly superior tools to measure extremely small increments of time.

Curt31,

To answer your question directly, from the 1944 Gun Digest, Winchester mmunition data, the .357 is listed at 1515 fps and 800 fpe from an 8 3/4" barrel. The 8 3/4 (not 8 3/8) was the maximum barrel length available in the S&W Model .357 Magnum at the time. This velocity can be duplicated in the 8 3/8 " with a 158 SWCGC and 15.2 gr. 2400. This load was published by Hercules and Alliant until quite recently. Whether this is the best in todays world is really a moot point. The load does exceed current SAAMI specs. for the cartridge, but not the originally developed Winchester load.

So far as how to calibrate a chronograph back then? Easy, a chronograph then and now is nothing more than a clock started and stopped by an electric impulse generated by a bullet passing through a screen of some sort which triggers the switches. Accurate time measureing equipment was avaliable then, just as it is now. The major difference is now we have digital displays that give velocity in a direct readout. Then the machine displayed time of flight between the screens and they had to consult a table that showed them what velocity that corresponded to. In the old days the screens were wire and good for only one shot, now we have the so-called sky screens that read a bullets shadow.

Someone on another board posted that the original .357 Magnum load was 16.0 grains of 2400 with a 158 grain bullet. He chronographed some of this original ammo and got 1500 fps out of a long barreled revolver. I wasn't there so take it for what it's worth.

Pressure was unknown. The limitations of the copper crusher are well known, but the original S&W Magnum revolver was build on the large N frame and was a better gun for hot loads than some of today's light weights. There's an ongoing argument as to whether today's 2400 is faster than 1935's. Speer believes that 2400 is primer sensitive and today's primers are hotter than the pre-war chlorate primers. So it's possible that the pre-war loads were safer than a load made with modern components.

Chronographs were accurate enough if you could afford one and hire an engineer to run it. After all, the still-useful Ingalls ballistic tables were last revised in 1917. The researchers got around the lack of high-speed timers by using very wide screen spacing. Muzzle velocity for military ammunition like the .30-06 was listed at 78 feet. The first screen was at 6 feet and the second at 150 feet, so 78 feet is half way between them.

Bye
Jack

I just did this on another forum in response to a thread that was complaining about loading data being watered down and showed by using the latest Speer and Lyman manuals and comparing them to my oldest manual (1959 and 1962 respectively) that in most cases it wasn't true. I feel most of the changes were the results from changes in the powders themselves.

The original .357 was made using N frames, when they started making the K-frames there was concern that the smaller frame guns would have problems but realized that they would hold up. What didn't hold up was the consumer's reaction to the recoil those older loads produced in the lighter handguns. The ammunition manufacturers realized that in order to keep sales they needed to produce loads the k frame owners would be willing to buy and use in the lighter guns and adjusted things accordingly. It was marketing that resulted in lighter factory loads.

Good point and well I didn't know that, The latest issue of Combat handguns has an article on the 357 Power Ball ammo and they seem to think it was in response to the lighter frame weights that S&W brought out, they never made the connection you made to the ammo manufacturers think I'll take a look at that article again just to make sure. Thanks

Tom j

Keep in mind that regardless of any pressure changes, we have superior powder and primers compared to that day and age. Bullet designs have advanced, too.

Reading Phil Sharp's Complete Guide to Handloading is an eye-opener in that respect. The 'good old days' aren't quite as good as you'd suspect, when it comes to handloading.

I'll repeat my assertation that pressure testing was primitive then as compared to now. Copper crushers simply do not measure absolute peak chamber pressure with any certainty. They just can't. Chronographs, too, absolutely could not have been very sophisticated in 1935. For one thing, how could you calibrate one? We have vastly superior tools to measure extremely small increments of time.

Quote ALK8944.. So far as how to calibrate a chronograph back then? Easy, a chronograph then and now is nothing more than a clock started and stopped by an electric impulse generated by a bullet passing through a screen of some sort which triggers the switches. Accurate time measureing equipment was avaliable then, just as it is now. The major difference is now we have digital displays that give velocity in a direct readout. Then the machine displayed time of flight between the screens and they had to consult a table that showed them what velocity that corresponded to. In the old days the screens were wire and good for only one shot, now we have the so-called sky screens that read a bullets shadow

I agree but I'm sure they were accurate enough to give you a good idea, so that a reasonably accurate comparison could be made. I suggest you read ALK entire post.

Tom j

I did. I'm not ignorant of technology by any means. I've read McGivern's book about speed shooting and the aparatus used to measure that. Pretty neat, but I wouldn't take the measurements as absolutes. They would, however, be useful in comparison to other measurements taken with the same equipment.

It would be foolish, however, to not realize how far technology has come and to ignore the possibility of errors being overlooked in the past. Who has taken one of the old chronographs and compared it against what we can get with modern electronics, sensors, etc.... ???

A measuring tool is only as good as the reference standard that it is calibrated with.

Jack's comment about having to hire an engineer to run it raises a good point. Do you really believe that EVERY load published in EVERY load manual from the time period was extensively checked and double-checked? Especially when for statistical purposes, 20 or more rounds are the bare minumum to get useful data.

Can you imagine trudging out to the 150 foot line to change screens all day?

It's an interesting campfire discussion, but I don't believe that you can look at load data figures from back then and have a great deal of confidence that they were accurate to the last foot-second and CUP.

And that's my point.

I guess I missed one point in the first post. That is that I have shot several hundred rounds of the Alliant load from my 8 3/8" Model 27 Smith, actually two different ones. Velocities from both guns was quite similar, but the current one, built in 1981, gives slightly higher numbers. Over many series of shots over my Oehler 35P, instrumental at 12', this load has averaged 1515 to 1525, sometimes as low as 1490 depending on atmospheric conditions. That is excellent correlation to the published figure in the older Hercules/Alliant manuals of 1515 or 1520 as I recall.

The only manual I have ever used that seems to be very accurate and show velocities closely aproximating listed data is the Hercules/Alliant pamphlet. Over thousands of rounds, in many calibers, which I have chronographed, the correlation betweem published velocities and actual velocity realized has been uncanny.

So far as I am concerned this has shown to me that the method of measuring velocity used, even in the 1930's, can be accepted as accurate. This is not to say that much published data in various re-loading manuals and factory lists isn't, to say the least, optimistic.

I usually will not post loading data, but this is from the Alliant manual dated 1996. Most of the above was from memory, but the following is directly from the mentioned pamphlet and varies slightly. The published load is:

Primer; Federal 200
Charge; 15.3 gr. 2400
Bullet; 158 gr. LSWC
C.O.L.; 1.580"
Case: Not specified. Apparently they didn't find this a significant variable.
Barrel length shown 4.6", no doubt a test barrel in Universal receiver though, especially to get this velocity.
Vel; 1620 @ 34,000 psi (not LUP or CUP!) As I recall the earlier pamphlets showed 1520 as I stated above.

This load is as hot as I would want to shoot in any .357. The sharply defined pressure ring and primer flow well into the annulus with frequent cratering indicate quite high pressure. Extraction is usually quite free. The fired case and primers look very much like factory loads from the 1950-60's, before the cartridge was loaded down somewhat for later K-frame and similar guns and imports.

As another post suggested, read the chapter on development of the .357 Magnum in Phil Sharpe's book "Complete Guide to Reloading". It is fascinating. He makes the assertion that 2400 was specifically used in early load development and early Winchester factory ammunition. Since he was directly involved in cartridge development, and was a major factor in development of the Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver, his information is quite worthy of consideration.

http://www.darkcanyon.net/MyFriend_The357.htm

This is a very interesting article from Skeeter. I hope it helps.