What am I doing wrong

jim8115 · May 1, 2012, 10:02 AM

CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond some currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.

I must be doing something wrong. I loaded some 158 Gr Nosler JHP's with 17.0 grains of H110, and only got 1287 FPS from a 6" GP 100....Seems i should be getting way more than that... I get 1180 with 8.0 grains of Unique ?? I dont have the numbers here with me, but I believe 14.0 # 9 gave me better than the H110. On the other hand, 21.8 Gr H110 gave me 1700+ FPS with a 125 Gr XTP

IllinoisCoyoteHunter · May 1, 2012, 11:17 AM

If it is accurate you have done nothing wrong.

If speed is what you are looking for get something chambered in 357 max or 357 B&D.

markr · May 1, 2012, 11:28 AM

So Unique is almost twice as economical to shoot, than H110:

oneoldsap · May 1, 2012, 03:30 PM

Well for starters , your Nosler 158 Gr. load is 1.1 Gr. over their suggested Max . Your 125 Hdy. XTP load is 1.2 Gr. over their suggested Max . You aren't going to duplicate their results with your 6" GP-100 , as their test barrels are 25% longer than your barrel . Plus they have no barrel/cylinder gap on the Nosler test barrel . Your GP-100 isn't going to stand up to those heavy loads for very long . It looks like you are trying to get more performance from the .357 Mag than it was designed to give . Especially in a light revolver ! Get yourself a 454 Casull if you really want some BANG !

jim8115 · May 1, 2012, 07:30 PM

Both those loads are right at max, according to my lyman manual ??

mehavey · May 1, 2012, 07:46 PM

The OP is correct that the (Max) loads are found in Lyman's 48/49th

Note also that the Lyman 158gr/H110/17.0gr test gave 1,300 fps in a 4" barrel.
But the test barrel was a closed Universal receiver with no cylinder gap.

So your 1,287fps actual velocity is well within test/gap differences.

jim8115 · May 1, 2012, 08:09 PM

Perhaps I should stick with the #9 load for the 158's. i used 110 because it is available here, and #9 usually isnt, and it seemed to work so well with the 125 grain bullet . However, if these loads are going to beat my gun up, I will go with something less. i shoot them out of a 6" ruger GP100, and a couple of S&W model 28's ( 4"). My wife and I shoot a couple hundred a week, just for fun.
BTW, I do have a Ruger Super redhawk 454 in layaway

JIM

m&p45acp10+1 · May 1, 2012, 08:14 PM

Jim I would say stick with the #9 it will as you have seen do everything the H-110 will do, and is more versatile for lighter, loads, and cast lead. I stopped using H-110 in my .41 mag when I started using #9. I just make sure to pick up an extra pound when I go to buy powder. That way I always have a pound in reserve on hand.

**Unclenick** · May 1, 2012, 08:49 PM

Jim8115,

You can post over maximum loads, but that warning I edited into your OP has to go in. Please read this sticky.

Your H110 load is about 10% faster and has about 20% more energy than the Unique load. 125 grains actually is an optimal bullet weight for H110/296 as bullets that are lighter (110 grain) or heavier (158 grain) are able to extract less energy from the amount of that powder you can fit under them in the .357 case. If you want more velocity, you can get it, though. Look at Alliant 300-MP powder, a new one that is posting velocities 100 to 200 fps faster than H110/296 at the same pressures.

Another thing to consider is your chronograph. Lots of folks run a bit too close to them without realizing the slow powders, in particular, can cause false triggering of the screens due to muzzle blast. It can cause either high or low readings. I always use 15 ft, same as SAAMI specs require, just to level the playing field, though I expect 10ft to be adequate with handguns. I don't trust closer spacing, though.

I still have some H110/296, but don't find I use it often, now. My main .357 revolver is a Dan Wesson, and the forcing cone showed significant signs of erosion after firing a fairly modest number of loads built with that powder, so I went back to 2400 in it, knowing it is beefy enough for the original, higher .357 pressure rating still used by the CIP which regulates European ammunition manufacturers. I haven't got around to wringing out 300-MP yet, as I focus more on rifles these days.

jim8115 · May 1, 2012, 09:13 PM

Thanks, I will remember the warning from now on. Allso, thanks for the chrono info. I will make sure I am not too close the next time I use it

Again,
Thanks

oneoldsap · May 2, 2012, 04:40 PM

My Lyman # 48 doesn't list a load for a 158 Gr. Nosler bullet in the .357 Mag.

mehavey · May 2, 2012, 06:15 PM

OneOldSap has a point.

While both the Nosler (6th) and Lyman 48/49th list a 158gr JHP, and both list 1.590 as the OAL, that's where the similarity ends.

Quickload tells me that my old standby, the HNDY 158gr HP/XTP, produces 39,200psi when loaded over 17.0gr of H110 with an OAL of 1.590"

Quickload also tells that the Nosler 158 JHP is 1/10" longer than the Hornady, and therefore sits deeper in the case ...reducing powder space.

The resulting pressure if the Nosler is seated to 1.590" over 17.0gr H110 is 67,500psi (!)

This is the reason that Nosler's listing for their 158grJHP tops out at 15.9gr ... and even that produces high pressures in the high 40's. (In fact, Quickload would tell me to stop at 15.2gr if I'm to match pressures w/ the Hornady bullet.)

(Size does matter)

postscript:
1. Lyman post max pressure data for its 357Mag load which reach as much as 40-42,000 CUP in some instances. SAAMI Max for 357Mag is 35,000psi (So Uncle Nick needs to weigh in here to determine if 42,000 CUP = 35,000psi for the specific instance of the 357Mag)

2. When proper water volume measurements are introduced in the QuickLoad calc's above, pressures drop about 6-7ksi. Both the Nosler and the Lyman loads are safe ...for the very specific bullets involved in each case.

jim8115 · May 2, 2012, 10:15 PM

"Quickload also tells that the Nosler 158 JHP is 1/10" longer than the Hornady,"

Not trying to be argumentative, because I really do appreciate the help...but..
I have both the Nosler and XTP 158's here
the Nosler is .684, and the XTP is .669, so the difference is .015, nowhere near 1/10th inch
Perhaps I will just go with the XTP's and use their data. The Noslers are just a bit better buy in the 250 packs

regards,
Jim

jim8115 · May 2, 2012, 10:21 PM

Perhaps i shold explain what I was trying to accomplish. I chrono'd some federal Champion 158 JSP's , and they averaged 1355 FPS. I wanted to reproduce that...

mehavey · May 2, 2012, 10:35 PM

Actual data is never argumentative.
Data is ... well..., data.

QuickLoad Lists:

158 Hornady HP/XTP as 0.675
158 Hornady FP/XTP as 0.664" (mine downstairs actually measure 0.660")
... and ...
158 Nosler JHP as 0.775" (bullet #044841 -- for which they list the 15.9gr/H110 load)

Should I go into the QuickLoad datafile and change the Nosler bullet length to 0.684 based on actual measurement ?

jim8115 · May 2, 2012, 10:40 PM

Just confirmed that the Noslers I have are part #044841

JIM

mehavey · May 2, 2012, 10:45 PM

Time to change the datafile.
Many thanks for the heads-up.

jim8115 · May 2, 2012, 11:12 PM

let me know how the data change effects the estimated pressure

thanks,
JIM

**Unclenick** · May 3, 2012, 08:26 AM

Several odds and ends.

Usually, Piezo transducer psi are higher than CUP in a cartridge, but the copper crusher is so squirrelly that in some cartridges the reverse is true. When SAAMI changed from 45,000 CUP to 35,000 psi for .357 Magnum, though, they appear to have lowered the pressure. I don't know why. The European CIP didn't get that big a drop in switching from copper crushers to Piezo transducers. (Like the U.S. Military, the CIP uses the same units for copper crusher and Piezo transducer output and you have to look to see which device the measurement was made in.) The CIP used 320 MPa by crusher (46,412 CUP) and went to 300 MPa by Piezo transducer (43,511 psi). There are some differences the the SAAMI and CIP measurements based on different pressure transducer port locations in the chambers for the two standards, but that normally creates no more than 2,000 psi disagreement. 43,511 psi vs. 35,000 psi is too much to be accounted for that way. So I'm not sure what the scoop is there.

The bottom line for .357 pressure is I would use the SAAMI standard in lighter .357 revolvers and the CIP standard in heavier ones. That's not because I think European-made .357 cartridges will burst a light revolver (I haven't heard of that yet) but rather just to prevent undue wear and tear over time.

My copy of QuickLOAD lists the Nosler JHP 44841 length at 0.669"—still not correct from Jim's number, but closer. I don't know how the 0.775" length got in Mehavey's copy and not mine? I do try to keep the databases updated. Be aware that many bullets in the QL database have their dimensions taken off illustrations rather than by actual measurements. The JBM site has a length database that often serves as a double-check, though it's not terribly complete. Bryan Litz's book, Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting, has about 240 rifle bullet dimensions including boattail dimensions, and I think it's worth correcting the QL database with his dimensions, which are all measured, and substituting his measured actual ballistic coefficients for those bullets for the sometimes optimistic factory numbers.

QuickLOAD was developed around bottleneck rifle cartridges. I find it less reliable with straightwall handgun cartridges if you don't take the time to do some chronographing and performance matching. Some such cases need to have their case volume artificially expanded several percent for the matches to get better. Also, it is common, especially with lubricated lead bullets, for the small powder space in a cartridge like the .45 Auto to be so pressurized by the primer that the bullet is unseated and starts forward before the powder gets fully burning, and that lowers start pressure and makes it behave as if the case were bigger. So, you need some comparative baseline and to match performance as Long's paper in that link describes.

One general rule of thumb about H110/296 that applies in the .357 among several other cartridges, is that it is safe to load to 100% case fill with any bullet weight. That will be underfilling in some instances, where a compressed load will actually be OK, but it is safe even where that's not the norm. To load it this way, you first determine seating depth from:

Seating Depth = Case Length + Bullet Length - COL

Set your caliper to that seating depth, then set the back of its beam on the mouth of the case so the depth probe is sticking down in and fill with powder to level with the end of the probe. Weigh the powder to see what the charge weight is. In the .357 this will stay within SAAMI specs pretty easily.

mehavey · May 3, 2012, 08:35 AM

Quote:

My copy of QuickLOAD lists the Nosler JHP 44841 length at 0.669"—still not correct from Jim's number, but closer. I don't know how the 0.775" length got in Mehavey's copy and not mine?

I've been running QuickLoad for about 5 years now, updating the versions as they came out.

About 4 months ago I bit the bullet (no pun intended) and bought the completely NEW
version of QL that included such powders as 8208XBR, etc.

I'm going to look back at my earlier-version bullet file/datafiles to see if somehow the correct Nosler 158 length is listed there.

**Unclenick** · May 3, 2012, 08:39 AM

I simply bought the upgrade. What version number do you show? I have 3.6. If your's is later, I'd like to know, as I've compiled a list of a half dozen minor bugs I was going to send to Hartmut. In the past when I've found a legitimate bug, he's had me post him my original disk to Germany and sent me back the corrections, so I've had a one-off version number for a short while. He then just includes the fixes in future versions.

mehavey · May 3, 2012, 08:42 AM

`Am out of the house now, but will have the version/file date info late afternoon.

AZAK · May 3, 2012, 01:21 PM

A slight tangent, (seems to me to fit with the general topic) I reload .38 Special in relatively tame target ranges, and have shot some hotter factory (is that allowed in the reloading forum?) Buffalo Bore .357 Mag 180 grain rated at 1,400 fps; I got an honest 1,450 out of my 6" Security Six at 10'; this from just a sample of one box.

This looks to be a bit beyond my reloading manuals data. Are they blending powders to achieve this? Something which I have never even researched; I am a pretty basic-straightforward-by the book-keep it pretty tame reloader.

mehavey · May 3, 2012, 06:48 PM

UncleNick, I've got various QuickLoad versions from V3.3 on. As you, I am now also running V3.6,
bought & installed ‎February ‎15, ‎2012, ‏‎7:00:03 PM. Its bullet datafile is from just two months prior:

Code:

; 21-DEC-11. BC's-only file of NOSLER(TM) and Combined Technologies(CT) bullets. 
; BC's are taken from published data by written permission of Nosler, Inc. Nosler,
; Solid Base, Partition,; Ballistic Tip are registered tademarks of Nosler, Inc.
; For use with QuickLOAD/QuickTARGET only. Any other use without expressed written
; consent is prohibited. User is responsible for any application of this data. 
; Data may be changed without any notice. ICAO BCs.

".357, 150, Nosler Pract.Pist. 44839     ","150",".625","","","","","",".357",".157",".157","","","","","","","","","","15"
".357, 150, Nosler SP 42056              ","150",".617","","","","","",".357",".153",".153","","","","","","","","","","15"
".357, 158, Nosler JHP 44841             ","158",".775","","","","","",".357",".182",".182","","","","","","","","","","15"
".357, 180, Nosler PART HP 35180         ","180",".810","","","","","",".357",".201",".201","","","","","","","","","","15"
".357, 180, Nosler SILH 42058            ","180",".743","","","","","",".357",".21",".21","","","","","","","","","","15"

...and shows the 0.775" listing for Nosler's .357/158gr JHP.

An earlier datafile from two years prior is identical:

Code:

; 31-JAN-10. BC's-only file of NOSLER(TM) and Combined Technologies(CT) bullets. BC's are taken from publis
;hed data by written permission of Nosler, Inc. Nosler, Solid Base, Partition,
; Ballistic Tip are registered tademarks of Nosler, Inc.
; For use with QuickLOAD/QuickTARGET only. Any other use without expressed written consent is prohibited.
; User is responsible for any application of this data. Data may be
; changed without any notice. ICAO BCs.

".357, 150, Nosler SP 42056              ","150",".617","","","","","",".357",".153",".153","","","","","","","","","","15"
".357, 158, Nosler JHP 44841             ","158",".775","","","","","",".357",".182",".182","","","","","","","","","","15"
".357, 180, Nosler PART HP 35180         ","180",".810","","","","","",".357",".201",".201","","","","","","","","","","15"
".357, 180, Nosler SILH 42058            ","180",".743","","","","","",".357",".21",".21","","","","","","","","","","15"

I'd appreciate knowing what you find in your version.

**Unclenick** · May 4, 2012, 10:54 AM

Mehavey,

Mystery solved. Here's what caused the difference: I'm in the habit of running the bullet caliber search function so I have one file of all brands for each diameter. It looks like I simply hadn't re-run that function for the .357" diameter for several years. As a result, it still had old data from an old Nosler.bul file that says it was created on 5/24/2008. That old file has the .669" inch length listed, while the newer Nosler.bul file has the same .775" number your's does. I was just using my old 357.bul file rather than the newer Nosler file.

Old file segment:

AZAK,

You can post heavier data but need to include the warning described in the sticky at the top of the handloading forum called REQUIRED READ for those posting Extra Heavy Load Information.

May 1, 2012, 10:02 AM	#1
jim8115 Senior Member Join Date: July 23, 2011 Location: Arkansas Posts: 229	What am I doing wrong CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond some currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information. I must be doing something wrong. I loaded some 158 Gr Nosler JHP's with 17.0 grains of H110, and only got 1287 FPS from a 6" GP 100....Seems i should be getting way more than that... I get 1180 with 8.0 grains of Unique ?? I dont have the numbers here with me, but I believe 14.0 # 9 gave me better than the H110. On the other hand, 21.8 Gr H110 gave me 1700+ FPS with a 125 Gr XTP Last edited by Unclenick; May 1, 2012 at 05:11 PM.

May 1, 2012, 11:17 AM	#2
IllinoisCoyoteHunter Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2008 Location: Southern Illinois Posts: 1,527	If it is accurate you have done nothing wrong. If speed is what you are looking for get something chambered in 357 max or 357 B&D. __________________ ~~IllinoisCoyoteHunter~~ ~NRA LIFE MEMBER~ ~NRA CERTIFIED INSTRUCTOR~

May 1, 2012, 11:28 AM	#3
markr Senior Member Join Date: January 23, 2008 Location: Arsenal of Democracy Posts: 405	So Unique is almost twice as economical to shoot, than H110: __________________ I like to make beer, bullets, and jerky.....but not at the same time. Washed up 11B1P

May 1, 2012, 03:30 PM	#4
oneoldsap Senior Member Join Date: September 16, 2009 Location: I live in the foot of the Green Mountains of Vermont Posts: 1,602	Really Well for starters , your Nosler 158 Gr. load is 1.1 Gr. over their suggested Max . Your 125 Hdy. XTP load is 1.2 Gr. over their suggested Max . You aren't going to duplicate their results with your 6" GP-100 , as their test barrels are 25% longer than your barrel . Plus they have no barrel/cylinder gap on the Nosler test barrel . Your GP-100 isn't going to stand up to those heavy loads for very long . It looks like you are trying to get more performance from the .357 Mag than it was designed to give . Especially in a light revolver ! Get yourself a 454 Casull if you really want some BANG !

May 1, 2012, 08:14 PM	#8
m&p45acp10+1 Senior Member Join Date: May 3, 2009 Location: Central Texas Posts: 3,930	Jim I would say stick with the #9 it will as you have seen do everything the H-110 will do, and is more versatile for lighter, loads, and cast lead. I stopped using H-110 in my .41 mag when I started using #9. I just make sure to pick up an extra pound when I go to buy powder. That way I always have a pound in reserve on hand. __________________ No matter how many times you do it and nothing happens it only takes something going wrong one time to kill you.

May 1, 2012, 07:30 PM	#5
jim8115 Senior Member Join Date: July 23, 2011 Location: Arkansas Posts: 229	Both those loads are right at max, according to my lyman manual ??

May 1, 2012, 07:46 PM	#6
mehavey Senior Member Join Date: June 17, 2010 Location: Virginia Posts: 6,883	The OP is correct that the (Max) loads are found in Lyman's 48/49th Note also that the Lyman 158gr/H110/17.0gr test gave 1,300 fps in a 4" barrel. But the test barrel was a closed Universal receiver with no cylinder gap. So your 1,287fps actual velocity is well within test/gap differences.

May 1, 2012, 08:09 PM	#7
jim8115 Senior Member Join Date: July 23, 2011 Location: Arkansas Posts: 229	Perhaps I should stick with the #9 load for the 158's. i used 110 because it is available here, and #9 usually isnt, and it seemed to work so well with the 125 grain bullet . However, if these loads are going to beat my gun up, I will go with something less. i shoot them out of a 6" ruger GP100, and a couple of S&W model 28's ( 4"). My wife and I shoot a couple hundred a week, just for fun. BTW, I do have a Ruger Super redhawk 454 in layaway JIM

May 1, 2012, 08:49 PM	#9
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,060	Jim8115, You can post over maximum loads, but that warning I edited into your OP has to go in. Please read this sticky. Your H110 load is about 10% faster and has about 20% more energy than the Unique load. 125 grains actually is an optimal bullet weight for H110/296 as bullets that are lighter (110 grain) or heavier (158 grain) are able to extract less energy from the amount of that powder you can fit under them in the .357 case. If you want more velocity, you can get it, though. Look at Alliant 300-MP powder, a new one that is posting velocities 100 to 200 fps faster than H110/296 at the same pressures. Another thing to consider is your chronograph. Lots of folks run a bit too close to them without realizing the slow powders, in particular, can cause false triggering of the screens due to muzzle blast. It can cause either high or low readings. I always use 15 ft, same as SAAMI specs require, just to level the playing field, though I expect 10ft to be adequate with handguns. I don't trust closer spacing, though. I still have some H110/296, but don't find I use it often, now. My main .357 revolver is a Dan Wesson, and the forcing cone showed significant signs of erosion after firing a fairly modest number of loads built with that powder, so I went back to 2400 in it, knowing it is beefy enough for the original, higher .357 pressure rating still used by the CIP which regulates European ammunition manufacturers. I haven't got around to wringing out 300-MP yet, as I focus more on rifles these days. __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle Last edited by Unclenick; May 2, 2012 at 07:02 AM.

May 1, 2012, 09:13 PM	#10
jim8115 Senior Member Join Date: July 23, 2011 Location: Arkansas Posts: 229	Thanks, I will remember the warning from now on. Allso, thanks for the chrono info. I will make sure I am not too close the next time I use it Again, Thanks

May 2, 2012, 04:40 PM	#11
oneoldsap Senior Member Join Date: September 16, 2009 Location: I live in the foot of the Green Mountains of Vermont Posts: 1,602	My Lyman # 48 doesn't list a load for a 158 Gr. Nosler bullet in the .357 Mag.

May 2, 2012, 06:15 PM	#12
mehavey Senior Member Join Date: June 17, 2010 Location: Virginia Posts: 6,883	OneOldSap has a point. While both the Nosler (6th) and Lyman 48/49th list a 158gr JHP, and both list 1.590 as the OAL, that's where the similarity ends. Quickload tells me that my old standby, the HNDY 158gr HP/XTP, produces 39,200psi when loaded over 17.0gr of H110 with an OAL of 1.590" Quickload also tells that the Nosler 158 JHP is 1/10" longer than the Hornady, and therefore sits deeper in the case ...reducing powder space. The resulting pressure if the Nosler is seated to 1.590" over 17.0gr H110 is 67,500psi (!) This is the reason that Nosler's listing for their 158grJHP tops out at 15.9gr ... and even that produces high pressures in the high 40's. (In fact, Quickload would tell me to stop at 15.2gr if I'm to match pressures w/ the Hornady bullet.) (Size does matter) postscript: 1. Lyman post max pressure data for its 357Mag load which reach as much as 40-42,000 CUP in some instances. SAAMI Max for 357Mag is 35,000psi (So Uncle Nick needs to weigh in here to determine if 42,000 CUP = 35,000psi for the specific instance of the 357Mag) 2. When proper water volume measurements are introduced in the QuickLoad calc's above, pressures drop about 6-7ksi. Both the Nosler and the Lyman loads are safe ...for the very specific bullets involved in each case. Last edited by mehavey; May 2, 2012 at 07:14 PM.

May 2, 2012, 10:15 PM	#13
jim8115 Senior Member Join Date: July 23, 2011 Location: Arkansas Posts: 229	"Quickload also tells that the Nosler 158 JHP is 1/10" longer than the Hornady," Not trying to be argumentative, because I really do appreciate the help...but.. I have both the Nosler and XTP 158's here the Nosler is .684, and the XTP is .669, so the difference is .015, nowhere near 1/10th inch Perhaps I will just go with the XTP's and use their data. The Noslers are just a bit better buy in the 250 packs regards, Jim

May 2, 2012, 10:21 PM	#14
jim8115 Senior Member Join Date: July 23, 2011 Location: Arkansas Posts: 229	Perhaps i shold explain what I was trying to accomplish. I chrono'd some federal Champion 158 JSP's , and they averaged 1355 FPS. I wanted to reproduce that...

May 2, 2012, 10:35 PM	#15
mehavey Senior Member Join Date: June 17, 2010 Location: Virginia Posts: 6,883	Actual data is never argumentative. Data is ... well..., data. QuickLoad Lists: 158 Hornady HP/XTP as 0.675 158 Hornady FP/XTP as 0.664" (mine downstairs actually measure 0.660") ... and ... 158 Nosler JHP as 0.775" (bullet #044841 -- for which they list the 15.9gr/H110 load) Should I go into the QuickLoad datafile and change the Nosler bullet length to 0.684 based on actual measurement ?

May 2, 2012, 10:40 PM	#16
jim8115 Senior Member Join Date: July 23, 2011 Location: Arkansas Posts: 229	Just confirmed that the Noslers I have are part #044841 JIM

May 2, 2012, 10:45 PM	#17
mehavey Senior Member Join Date: June 17, 2010 Location: Virginia Posts: 6,883	Time to change the datafile. Many thanks for the heads-up.

May 2, 2012, 11:12 PM	#18
jim8115 Senior Member Join Date: July 23, 2011 Location: Arkansas Posts: 229	let me know how the data change effects the estimated pressure thanks, JIM

May 3, 2012, 08:26 AM	#19
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,060	Several odds and ends. Usually, Piezo transducer psi are higher than CUP in a cartridge, but the copper crusher is so squirrelly that in some cartridges the reverse is true. When SAAMI changed from 45,000 CUP to 35,000 psi for .357 Magnum, though, they appear to have lowered the pressure. I don't know why. The European CIP didn't get that big a drop in switching from copper crushers to Piezo transducers. (Like the U.S. Military, the CIP uses the same units for copper crusher and Piezo transducer output and you have to look to see which device the measurement was made in.) The CIP used 320 MPa by crusher (46,412 CUP) and went to 300 MPa by Piezo transducer (43,511 psi). There are some differences the the SAAMI and CIP measurements based on different pressure transducer port locations in the chambers for the two standards, but that normally creates no more than 2,000 psi disagreement. 43,511 psi vs. 35,000 psi is too much to be accounted for that way. So I'm not sure what the scoop is there. The bottom line for .357 pressure is I would use the SAAMI standard in lighter .357 revolvers and the CIP standard in heavier ones. That's not because I think European-made .357 cartridges will burst a light revolver (I haven't heard of that yet) but rather just to prevent undue wear and tear over time. My copy of QuickLOAD lists the Nosler JHP 44841 length at 0.669"—still not correct from Jim's number, but closer. I don't know how the 0.775" length got in Mehavey's copy and not mine? I do try to keep the databases updated. Be aware that many bullets in the QL database have their dimensions taken off illustrations rather than by actual measurements. The JBM site has a length database that often serves as a double-check, though it's not terribly complete. Bryan Litz's book, Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting, has about 240 rifle bullet dimensions including boattail dimensions, and I think it's worth correcting the QL database with his dimensions, which are all measured, and substituting his measured actual ballistic coefficients for those bullets for the sometimes optimistic factory numbers. QuickLOAD was developed around bottleneck rifle cartridges. I find it less reliable with straightwall handgun cartridges if you don't take the time to do some chronographing and performance matching. Some such cases need to have their case volume artificially expanded several percent for the matches to get better. Also, it is common, especially with lubricated lead bullets, for the small powder space in a cartridge like the .45 Auto to be so pressurized by the primer that the bullet is unseated and starts forward before the powder gets fully burning, and that lowers start pressure and makes it behave as if the case were bigger. So, you need some comparative baseline and to match performance as Long's paper in that link describes. One general rule of thumb about H110/296 that applies in the .357 among several other cartridges, is that it is safe to load to 100% case fill with any bullet weight. That will be underfilling in some instances, where a compressed load will actually be OK, but it is safe even where that's not the norm. To load it this way, you first determine seating depth from: Seating Depth = Case Length + Bullet Length - COL Set your caliper to that seating depth, then set the back of its beam on the mouth of the case so the depth probe is sticking down in and fill with powder to level with the end of the probe. Weigh the powder to see what the charge weight is. In the .357 this will stay within SAAMI specs pretty easily. __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle Last edited by Unclenick; May 3, 2012 at 08:35 AM.

May 3, 2012, 08:39 AM	#21
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,060	I simply bought the upgrade. What version number do you show? I have 3.6. If your's is later, I'd like to know, as I've compiled a list of a half dozen minor bugs I was going to send to Hartmut. In the past when I've found a legitimate bug, he's had me post him my original disk to Germany and sent me back the corrections, so I've had a one-off version number for a short while. He then just includes the fixes in future versions. __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle

May 3, 2012, 08:42 AM	#22
mehavey Senior Member Join Date: June 17, 2010 Location: Virginia Posts: 6,883	`Am out of the house now, but will have the version/file date info late afternoon.

May 3, 2012, 01:21 PM	#23
AZAK Senior Member Join Date: May 15, 2008 Location: the object towards which the action of the sea is directed Posts: 2,123	A slight tangent, (seems to me to fit with the general topic) I reload .38 Special in relatively tame target ranges, and have shot some hotter factory (is that allowed in the reloading forum?) Buffalo Bore .357 Mag 180 grain rated at 1,400 fps; I got an honest 1,450 out of my 6" Security Six at 10'; this from just a sample of one box. This looks to be a bit beyond my reloading manuals data. Are they blending powders to achieve this? Something which I have never even researched; I am a pretty basic-straightforward-by the book-keep it pretty tame reloader. __________________ The lowest paid college major/degree in this country after graduation... Elementary Education. Now, go figure...