The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > Handloading, Reloading, and Bullet Casting

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 7, 2002, 02:47 PM   #1
mec
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2001
Posts: 1,530
Old Load New Components.

this was a standard .357 Semi Wadcutter Load back before they introduced magnum primers. The current loads get higher velocities in the Ruger GPs than Speer did in 1959 using a Smith pre-27 6.5" the 14 grains / 2400 reaches the base of the bullet with the bullet seated to the bottom edge of the crimp groove and is slightly compressed at the full seating depth. The load seems mild with no difficulty in extraction or other gross pressure signs.

Last edited by mec; August 28, 2010 at 09:23 PM.
mec is offline  
Old October 7, 2002, 03:53 PM   #2
Southla1
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 19, 2000
Location: Jeanerette, La. Near the
Posts: 1,999
Different guns........

A revolver is VERY sensitive to cylinder gap=velocity. The same load will show a marked difference in velocity if fired in a test barrel with no gap or in revolvers with different gaps. I have tested 2 S&W .357's that are identical but one has a 2/1000 BC Gap and the other has a 5/1000 gap the one with the 2/1000 gap is consistantly about 100 FPS higher in velocity than the one with 5/1000, all else being the same. Barrels slug the same at .356. Throats may be a little different.............I have no way of measuring that. I think its the gap.
Southla1 is offline  
Old October 7, 2002, 04:37 PM   #3
mec
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2001
Posts: 1,530
that would make sense but there are so many variables that surprises are always in store. Rugers-especially stailness rugers have a rep for shooting "Fast". Old handbook references are farely consistent in putting velocities of this load or similar loads in the high 1200 fps range with circa 6" barrels. On the other hand, I worked up to the old original approximate of 15.2 /2400 158 a few months back - with new 2400 and shot it in an 8 3/8" smith. Velocity was with in singel digits of the original advertised velocity -same barrel length- 1500+ fps.

New handbooks have dropped loads and pressures considerably. Reasonably new lyman pressure data would indicate that this load is considerably under what they have considered as maximum.
mec is offline  
Old October 7, 2002, 05:59 PM   #4
Southla1
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 19, 2000
Location: Jeanerette, La. Near the
Posts: 1,999
"New handbooks have dropped loads and pressures considerably. Reasonably new lyman pressure data would indicate that this load is considerably under what they have considered as maximum."


That's what happens when lawyers write the books instead of shooters.
Southla1 is offline  
Old October 8, 2002, 08:10 AM   #5
Ben Shepherd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2001
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,462
The "original" (circa 1935) load was as follows:

1. Winchester nickel case.
2. Small rifle primer.
3. 15.8 grains of 2400.
4. 158 gr. HCSWC.
5. Heavy crimp.

This load is fairly heavy, and not to be used in weak/lightweight guns.

I shoot this load in several different gp100's and a couple of redhawks. The 7.5 redhawk is knocking the slug out at about 1620 fps.
__________________
From my cold dead hands.........

NRA certified rifle, pistol and shotgun instructor.
Hunter education instructor
Ben Shepherd is offline  
Old October 8, 2002, 01:35 PM   #6
mec
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2001
Posts: 1,530
my references put the original load at 15.2 grains of non-canister 2400. this wouldn't be set in concrete though. The exact charge would vary according to their pressure/velocity readings. Also the original load used large pistol primers.
When I did an approximate of it a while back-for an article on the model 27, I checked it out first in my 4" ruger and got 1460. From the 8 3/8" smith, it went 1520- withing single digits of the originally advertised performance.

Such loads are pretty hard on revolvers which is probably why post war loads were reduced a bit and why current handbook loads are far more sedate.
mec is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.06835 seconds with 7 queries