K Frame & Warm 357

[74A95]

Originally Posted by Pumpkin

Is there a good reason for pushing a handload to the point of catastrophe or the mechanical problems that could lead to the failure of the gun or worse?
I can see a race engine being pushed to its limits in competition to possibly give a winning result but what small ballistic advantage is gained from loading a cartridge to the edge. Do we really get measurable benefit?

Given that modern ammo is not pushed to the edge, it's not an issue. Keep in mind that for most cartridges, there is a considerable safety margin built into the SAAMI specs. For example, the .357 Magnum SAAMI MAP is 35,000 psi. The SAAMI proof load for this cartridge is 50,500 psi. Guns have to take the Proof pressure, and who know how much more than they will really take before failure.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Pumpkin
Is there a good reason for pushing a handload to the point of catastrophe or the mechanical problems that could lead to the failure of the gun or worse?
I can see a race engine being pushed to its limits in competition to possibly give a winning result but what small ballistic advantage is gained from loading a cartridge to the edge. Do we really get measurable benefit?

Of course pushing a handload to the point of catastrophic failure is foolish, but I don't really see anyone advocating doing that. The load data that the OP mentioned is within current published data from multiple sources so, as long as he does his due diligence in working up to the load as one should with any new load or firearm, I see no reason to think that it is unsafe or "pushing to the point of catastrophe."

As I said earlier, I really don't think the quoted 16.5 gr H110 with 158 gr bullet is as hot as some seem to think. My Lyman manual lists 17 gr under a 158 gr Hornady XTP with a CCI Magnum primer at 1309 fps from a 4" barrel. I have personally chronographed Federal factory 158 gr .357 Magnum at very similar velocity from a 4" revolver, so I see the OP's load as being in line with normal factory .357 Magnum ammunition.

[Pumpkin]

Comments like a load being okay in a N Frame but clearly not in a K Frame don't seem to describe a safe load, if not for the shooter but the accelerated wear on the particular gun.
Again, does a couple of hundred FPS give any real world advantage?

[74A95]

Originally Posted by Pumpkin

Comments like a load being okay in a N Frame but clearly not in a K Frame don't seem to describe a safe load, if not for the shooter but the accelerated wear on the particular gun.

It's okay and safe to shoot it in a K-frame. Accelerated wear is an owner's choice. It might never be noticed over the gun's lifetime.

Originally Posted by Pumpkin

Again, does a couple of hundred FPS give any real world advantage?

Hell yes!!! That's why there are MAGNUMS.

[JohnKSa]

Guns have to take the Proof pressure...

SAAMI recommends it and provides the specs for proof cartridges, but proof testing is strictly voluntary in the U.S. There's no guarantee that a new U.S. made firearm has been proof tested.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Pumpkin
Comments like a load being okay in a N Frame but clearly not in a K Frame don't seem to describe a safe load, if not for the shooter but the accelerated wear on the particular gun.
Again, does a couple of hundred FPS give any real world advantage?

I, personally, don't think that the OP's load is unwise to shoot in a K-Frame and I would do so myself if I'd worked it up myself (my preferred .357 Magnum loads, which I do routinely shoot in my K-Frame, use 2400 rather than H110). I bought my .357 Magnum revolvers to shoot .357 Magnum ammunition in, if I'd wanted to shoot .38's I'd have bought a .38 and saved myself size, weight, and expense.

While I do consider the full-power 125 gr loadings to be unwise to shoot in a K-Frame, I don't think they're unsafe and I have shot them myself in a K-Frame though only in very limited amounts. A factory full-power 125 gr Magnum or equivalent handload isn't going to blow up a K-Frame, in fact you can probably shoot several thousand of them before they cause any problems at all other than maybe a flinch from blast and recoil. They will, however, accelerate wear and may eventually cause the forcing cone to crack. If someone feels that the ballistics of the full-power 125's are worth the tradeoff of the increased wear and tear they put on the gun, there's nothing unsafe about shooting them.

There is a tradeoff in everything and everyone needs to decide at what point the benefit is not longer worth the risk. Will a K-Frame last longer if you only shoot .38 Special +P in it rather than .357 Magnums? Sure it will but it will last longer still if you only shoot standard pressure .38 Special and even longer than that if you only shoot light target wadcutters. Is another couple hundred fps worth increased wear and tear on your firearm? I'd say that, in some cases, the answer is yes depending on the gun, caliber, and what you're trying to accomplish. Several years ago, my primary CCW was my S&W Model 36 which was made before S&W started rating J-Frames for +P ammunition. I still carried, and sparingly shot, .38 Special +P ammunition in that revolver because there were no commonly available standard pressure .38 Special loadings that I felt gave adequate terminal performance. Was I accelerating wear on my gun by shooting +P ammo in it? Probably a little but I wasn't shooting that much and any increased wear and tear was, in my estimation, worth the tradeoff for the increased terminal performance that .38 Special +P gives over standard pressure .38 Special.

Can an N-Frame handle more powerful ammunition than a K-Frame? Yes it can. Have I shot ammunition in my N-Frames that I wouldn't in my K-Frames? Yes, I have but only out of curiosity, only in very limited amounts, and it's not something I advocate, encourage, or condone others doing. I currently own five .357 Magnum revolvers and three of them are N-Frames, one is a K-Frame, and one is a Ruger SP101. I've also previously owned an additional K-Frame .357 Magnum. I didn't buy nor do I keep my N-Frames because they can handle more powerful ammunition than the smaller guns can, I'm quite content with .357 Magnum ammo that I'm comfortable shooting in all of my so-chambered revolvers. I like my N-Frames because they fit my hand better, are better looking IMHO, and are more comfortable to shoot with the same Magnum ammo than my smaller revolvers.

[Screwball]

Originally Posted by Webleymkv

While I do consider the full-power 125 gr loadings to be unwise to shoot in a K-Frame, I don't think they're unsafe and I have shot them myself in a K-Frame though only in very limited amounts. A factory full-power 125 gr Magnum or equivalent handload isn't going to blow up a K-Frame, in fact you can probably shoot several thousand of them before they cause any problems at all other than maybe a flinch from blast and recoil. They will, however, accelerate wear and may eventually cause the forcing cone to crack. If someone feels that the ballistics of the full-power 125's are worth the tradeoff of the increased wear and tear they put on the gun, there's nothing unsafe about shooting them.

In older K-frames that had the barrel relieved to fit the yoke/gas ring… yes, heavier loads will, over time, cause the forcing cone to crack.

However, K-frames now do not have that worry. S&W reengineered them so there is no interference that required the barrel to be relieved. My 19-9 Carry Comp… you aren’t going to see a cracked forcing cone.

[Pumpkin]

Originally Posted by 74A95

It's okay and safe to shoot it in a K-frame. Accelerated wear is an owner's choice. It might never be noticed over the gun's lifetime.




Hell yes!!! That's why there are MAGNUMS.

I never meant to say the gun would blow up or that a 357 should be neutered to make it a 38spl +P+. My bigger concern would be towards the life span of the gun. Hot hand loads that are fine in one gun but give hard to extraction in another gun would raise a red flag to me. Have you ever had a factory load (Rem, Win, Fed, etc.) cause you to have a sticky case in your revolver? I can say that since 1978 (which is when I started reloading my 7mm-08 and 44 MAGNUM) I have never had a factory magnum or other pistol round create a hard extraction. I did have a Trooper MK III in 22 mag that was very hard to extract 6 spent cases.

[Mike Irwin]

"I understand that, but it is also my understanding that, subsequent to the introduction of the .38/44 cartridge, it was determined that, with then-modern heat-treating, that the N-Frame could handle higher pressures and thus even more poweful ammunition thus leading to the development of the .357 Magnum."

Yeah... that's EXACTLY what Phil Sharpe was telling Smith & Wesson as the reason why S&W should pursue the .357 Magnum project that he fronted to them, and I've never said anything different to that effect.

But Sharpe knew, from his own experimentation, that trying to develop .357 Magnum ballistics in the .38 Special case could, and would, lead to problems even in an N frame.


"What I don't understand is why they'd lengthen the case by 0.135" to get an OAL only 0.04" longer."

That is a good question. One that I've never seen adequately answered. Perhaps they felt that the extra bearing area of the case was required to ensure that the bullet stayed in place under recoil with an acceptable amount of crimp.

Or, perhaps Smith & Wesson didn't want to change the tooling to lengthen the cylinders on the N frames and arrived at that as a compromise (sort of like the 8 3/8" barrel was the maximum available barrel length... Because we don't want to change our tooling).


But, I still don't buy the reason for lengthening the .357's case was purely out of concern that someone might stick one of those new cartridges into a .38 Special revolver and blow it up.

That didn't seem to be much of a consideration for S&W when they brought out the .38-44 HD, although they did advise that the new ammo was not to be fired in older .38 Specials (which at that time were all K frames).

I don't buy that Winchester came up with that as the reason for the longer case, either, given that they were perfectly content to market .45-70 cartridges that would literally take a Trapdoor Springfield apart and the only accommodation they made to it was to print a small warning on the box.

[wild cat mccane]

It's a bit of a side track, but the comment has been made multiple times. I too would be interested in learning the "real" history of the longer 357 mag case, if any exists at all.

That said, the "coffee" instance we all references...the old lady had 2 reconstructive surgeries on her (probably going to get censored, so I'll just write this).

US law is and always has been based on Tort Law. It's a little fantastical to say that the US is just recently or for some particular reason became litigious. In fact, our history has always been and is base on that premise.

A point, all highly successful countries have this in common, tort law. We aren't even the highest litigus society.

It's a deviation, but Mike, I had to address it because it's a common and wrong theme in some circles to blame the victim in relatively high profile cases when the reality is, no, McDonalds actually burned a woman so bad she needed two reconstructive surgeries on her privates.

What the true history on the 357 case length is, it doesn't sound settled. I think you are right. I don't think your right on your opinion of it American history though.

[Mike Irwin]

"It's a deviation, but Mike, I had to address it because it's a common and wrong theme in some circles to blame the victim in relatively high profile cases when the reality is, no, McDonalds actually burned a woman so bad she needed two reconstructive surgeries on her privates."

I never said that US law wasn't based on tort law.

What I did say, and I think history proves it, is that in the past there was a much higher bar for consumers blaming ills/injuries on a company for something be able to come out on top.

Part of that change over time was the rise in consumer protection laws through the 20th century. Laws like the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906.

What used to fly 100+ years ago simply won't anymore.

And regarding Stella Liebeck, that was never a good example of lawsuits gone wrong in the United States even though it's been widely touted as such. McDonald's own consumer research did a lot to hang them in that case.

[Jim Watson]

(sort of like the 8 3/8" barrel was the maximum available barrel length... Because we don't want to change our tooling).

The ORIGINAL maximum barrel length was 8 3/4” based on a target shooting rule setting barrel plus cylinder length at a maximum 10”, an interpretation of the rule for 10” single shots. Reduced to 8 3/8” when somebody noticed that the maximum sight radius was 10”.

Phil Sharpe showed .38 Special loads way up into Magnum pressure and velocity

[74A95]

Originally Posted by Mike Irwin

"What I don't understand is why they'd lengthen the case by 0.135" to get an OAL only 0.04" longer."

That is a good question. One that I've never seen adequately answered. Perhaps they felt that the extra bearing area of the case was required to ensure that the bullet stayed in place under recoil with an acceptable amount of crimp.

You might not find the answer of the longer case being made to prevent it from being shot in 38 Special guns adequate, but you're only one person. I find the explanation adequate. I'm also just one person. But Elmer Keith did not protest that claim that I saw in his 1955 SIXGUNS book, and if I'm going to go with any explanation, I'll go with Keith. He was there, and unless he or someone else who was there at the time comes up with another explanation, then the safety reason seems to cover the issue.

Originally Posted by Mike Irwin

Or, perhaps Smith & Wesson didn't want to change the tooling to lengthen the cylinders on the N frames and arrived at that as a compromise (sort of like the 8 3/8" barrel was the maximum available barrel length... Because we don't want to change our tooling).

8 3/8" was not the maximum barrel length available. The original Registered Magnum guns could be had with a 8 3/4" barrel. That's what Keith had in his 1935 article, and that's the length some ammo makers used in their ballistic tables until they were all switched to 8 3/8"

Originally Posted by Mike Irwin

That didn't seem to be much of a consideration for S&W when they brought out the .38-44 HD, although they did advise that the new ammo was not to be fired in older .38 Specials (which at that time were all K frames).

Ammo makers had in their catalog that the 38/44 ammo was recommended for the heavier guns, but that the pressure was safe in lighter guns, "but the recoil is likely to be more unpleasant and the frame may be shaken loose in time."

- from a 1954 Remington Dupont catalog.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Mike Irwin
That is a good question. One that I've never seen adequately answered. Perhaps they felt that the extra bearing area of the case was required to ensure that the bullet stayed in place under recoil with an acceptable amount of crimp.

Or, perhaps Smith & Wesson didn't want to change the tooling to lengthen the cylinders on the N frames and arrived at that as a compromise (sort of like the 8 3/8" barrel was the maximum available barrel length... Because we don't want to change our tooling).

But, I still don't buy the reason for lengthening the .357's case was purely out of concern that someone might stick one of those new cartridges into a .38 Special revolver and blow it up.

Maybe it wasn't to prevent it from being chambered in old guns, maybe someone at S&W or Winchester thought that the new cartridge should have longer cases so that it looked bigger and more impressive. Maybe they wanted to make sure that handloaders didn't try to load .357 Magnum ammo in old balloon-head .38 Cases and blow case heads.

But I still don't buy that they lengthened the case solely to increase case capacity, only to negate most of the extra length by seating the bullet deeper.

Originally posted by Mike Irwin
That didn't seem to be much of a consideration for S&W when they brought out the .38-44 HD, although they did advise that the new ammo was not to be fired in older .38 Specials (which at that time were all K frames).

Perhaps that's because, while .34/44 was certainly higher pressure and its use would greatly accelerate wear on a smaller-frame gun, it still wasn't as high pressure as .357 Magnum and wasn't enough to blow up a K-Frame.

John Taffin has admitted to using a load consisting of 13.5 gr of 2400 under the Lyman #358156 (155 gr SWC-GC) in his .38 Chief's Special albeit only very sparingly.

http://sixguns.com/tests/tt38spcl.htm

My Lyman 49th Edition loading manual shows that as being only 1/2 grain under the maximum load for that bullet and powder in .357 Magnum so it's certainly at least equivalent, if not more powerful, than what the factory .38/44 ammo was. If something like that won't blow up a J-Frame, I highly doubt it would blow up a K-Frame.

That being said, the original .357 Magnum load used a 158 gr LSWC over, depending on the source, anywhere from 15 to 15.5 gr of 2400 in cases primed with large rifle primers. Between the heavier powder charge and the different primers, I think it's a safe assumption that .357 Magnum was significantly higher pressure than either the load used by Taffin or the factory .38/44 ammo of the time. I find it plausible that, while they might not be afraid of .38/44 pressure in an old gun, they may well have been worried about the even higher pressure of .357 Magnum in old guns. After all, an old gun shot loose by hot ammo is one thing, but an old gun blown up by hot ammo is another entirely. Also, just because they weren't worried about getting sued doesn't mean they weren't worried about it at all. Having the fancy new cartridge you've just developed get a reputation for blowing up guns isn't a look that I think S&W or Winchester likely wanted.

Finally, as 74A95 pointed out, Elmer Keith himself stated that the reason was to keep the ammo from getting chambered in old guns and used the same rationale when he suggested lengthening the .44 Special case to create a factory version of his heavy .44 Special handloads (which would eventually evolve into the .44 Magnum). A lot of the .357 Magnum's development was based on his heavy .38 Special handloads in .38/44 revolvers. The load that Keith worked up in .38/44 was his Lyman #358429 170 gr SWC over 13.5 gr of 2400, a load which is a maximum .357 Magnum load in today's manuals (Taffin mentions in the linked article that it produced over 1300 fps in his 4" M19 and over 1400 fps in his 8 3/8" M27). I have a difficult time believing that factory .357 Magnum ammo was so much more powerful that it couldn't be safely loaded in .38 Special cases, but was dropped to safe pressure by such a miniscule increase in case capacity. Keith might not have been directly involved with developing the .357 Magnum, but he was a contemporary of the people who were and his explanation of why the case was lengthened is not only the one I find most plausible but also the only one offered by anyone who was around at the time.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Pumpkin
I never meant to say the gun would blow up or that a 357 should be neutered to make it a 38spl +P+. My bigger concern would be towards the life span of the gun. Hot hand loads that are fine in one gun but give hard to extraction in another gun would raise a red flag to me. Have you ever had a factory load (Rem, Win, Fed, etc.) cause you to have a sticky case in your revolver? I can say that since 1978 (which is when I started reloading my 7mm-08 and 44 MAGNUM) I have never had a factory magnum or other pistol round create a hard extraction.

Yes actually, I've seen sticky extraction with factory ammo twice. The first time was with Winchester White Box .44 Magnum 240 gr JSP in a S&W M29-2 (was present but not my gun or ammo). The rest of that box of ammo was later fired without incident in a Ruger Redhawk. The second was when I bought an old box of Greensburg, IN produced Super-Vel .357 Magnum 110 gr JSP and fired it in my S&W M27-2 and experienced sticky extraction. I only bought that box because of all the mystique I'd read about Super-Vel ammunition over the years (this ammo was not produced by the current company called Super-Vel) and wanted to see what all the hype was about. Apparently the hype was about overpressure ammo and I wouldn't have bought more, even if more had been available.

[FoghornLeghorn]

Late to the party but I pulled this from my files. Sorry, don't remember the source.

The 125 grain bullets driven to maximum velocities used large charges of relatively slow-burning powders. Handloaders know the powder types as WW296 and H-110, among others. The combination of slow ball-type powders and the short bearing surface of the 125 bullets allows prolonged gas cutting of the forcing cone and top strap area, accelerating erosion and wear.

Borescope studies of rifle, machine gun, and auto cannon chamber throats shows a lizzard-skin-like texture due to this gas cutting damage, called "brinelling". The results of brinelling are fine microcracks that weaken the surface of the steel, and further promote erosion. In machine guns and auto cannons, barrel life is measured in terms of "useable accuracy", and round counts that determine this are based on group sizes at engagement ranges.

In the K-frame magnums, the forcing cone dimensions combined with the barrel shank dimensions results in a relatively thin shank at the 6 o'clock position, where a machine cut is made to clear the crane. This is usually where the forcing cone cracks. The L and N frames use much beefier barrel shanks and do not have this cut. S&W intended the K frame magnums to be "carried much and fired seldom" service arms, designed to fire .38 Specials indefinitely, with light to moderate use of .357 Magnums. You notice that S&W has discontinued production of K frame .357 magnums, no doubt due to product liability issues and a couple generations of K frame magnum experience.

[Drm50]

It is common knowledge and common sense among S&W shooters that K frames take a beating with magnum loads. In years past there were many horror stories of 110 & 125 gr loads cracking forcing cones. Personally never saw one but did see a High Standard snub nose that had better than half forcing cone missing. A cop had it and was always bragging about his atomic loads for .357s.

[wild cat mccane]

Because there isn't hydrostatic shock in a magnum cartridge, because velocity increases slower than drag, and because velocity was a problem for old style JHP only, and because JSP has the same drag issue above...

I will never understand what people are thinking they are accomplishing pushing 357 to the max.

If you sort the luckygunner 357 2"/4" data by expansion and then by velocity, it is clear that high velocity isn't the factor for maximum expansion nor penetration. It's bullet brand.

I don't know if it's safe or not, but I know it's not gaining you anything to be hot loading it, even not knowing your real world purpose. If it's questionably close to safe, we'd probably benefit what the purpose is in your quest

[Jim Watson]

Trivia alert

atomic loads for .357s.

.357 Atomic was a Great Western trademark for their SAA copy "rated" for 158 gr bullet, 16 gr No. 2400.

I am going to dig in Sharpe and see what he has to say about Magnum case length. He was closer to Doug Wesson than Elmer was and claims a lot of experience with the developments.


ETA: I can't find much about Magnum case length by Sharpe. He says the greater case length prevents chambering in .38 Specials, but not that that was the intended purpose. He goes on at greater length about the strength of Magnum cases and their better internal geometry. At the time WW was using large primers, Remington small. He said chamber pressure as loaded at the time was 35000 - 38000 psi.
He tabulated .38 Special loads in the same pressure range. Where to use them, he did not specify.

[74A95]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

Because there isn't hydrostatic shock in a magnum cartridge, because velocity increases slower than drag, and because velocity was a problem for old style JHP only, and because JSP has the same drag issue above...

I will never understand what people are thinking they are accomplishing pushing 357 to the max.

If you sort the luckygunner 357 2"/4" data by expansion and then by velocity, it is clear that high velocity isn't the factor for maximum expansion nor penetration. It's bullet brand.

I don't know if it's safe or not, but I know it's not gaining you anything to be hot loading it, even not knowing your real world purpose.

So you're saying that 357 Magnum ammo should never be loaded to factory specs, even by the factory?

[wild cat mccane]

At the suggest level, I'd ask what you think you're gaining given drag increases at 4xs the rate of velocity and that drag is not at the TFL agreed 2,700fps minimum rifle level hydrostatic shock damage speed.

If you're loading up FMJ, drag will equalize all calibers. If you're loading up a hunting round that expands minimally like XTP, are you really gaining what?

Look no further than 9mm. Micro HST at 150gr running under 900FPS expanded and penetrated as a top performer on luckygunner.

Drag is the barrier FPS creates. So what's the point?

[74A95]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

At the suggest level, I'd ask what you think you're gaining given drag increases at 4xs the rate of velocity and that drag is not at the TFL agreed 2,700fps minimum rifle level hydrostatic shock damage speed.

If you're loading up FMJ, drag will equalize all calibers. If you're loading up a hunting round that expands minimally like XTP, are you really gaining what?

Look no further than 9mm. Micro HST at 150gr running under 900FPS expanded and penetrated as a top performer on luckygunner.

Drag is the barrier FPS creates. So what's the point?

Your reasoning seems, well, odd, to say the least. You think that every use for the 357 Magnum (and god knows how many other cartridges you'll add to that) is all based on the gel results of luckygunner? that seems like a very narrow focus. maybe you're not aware that people use their 357 for other purposes than whatever you're thinking about that make your imagined criteria completely irrelevant.

[wild cat mccane]

Drag is the problem.
I've said that in every single instance. Regardless of your use, drag at super hot is going to counter what you think is happening at 4 times the rate.

If you're trying to have fun with the hardest safest load, great. No one has responded they've heard new K frame forcing cones splitting or erosion.

Is it specific to this load? no one here knows, I'd assume that is equally true at the S&W forum.

Good luck

[Pumpkin]

Webleymkv,
I would like to have seen that box of Super-Vel tested in an instrumented barrel. And it is not what I would consider one of the major manufacturers.

[74A95]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

Drag is the problem.
I've said that in every single instance. Regardless of your use, drag at super hot is going to counter what you think is happening at 4 times the rate.

If you're trying to have fun with the hardest safest load, great. No one has responded they've heard new K frame forcing cones splitting or erosion.

Is it specific to this load? no one here knows, I'd assume that is equally true at the S&W forum.

Good luck

This is just a non-sensical post.