The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 30, 2012, 10:16 PM   #1
jim8115
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 23, 2011
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 187
power pistol 357 snubby

Been playing around with power pistol in 357 Magnum. I am finding that it really shines if you are loading for a short barrel.

158 cast 8.0 PP
1103 FPS from a 2 1/2" 686 , 1226 from a ruger 6"GP100 a loss of about 10%

158 Nosler JHP 8.0 PP
1030 from 2 1/2 , 1160 from 6" -11%

For comparison
13.5 #9
1024 from the 2 1/2" , 1296 from the 6 " -23%

Especially interesting, 8.0 PP actually outperforms the #9 load in the 2 1/2"

JIM
jim8115 is offline  
Old October 31, 2012, 11:02 AM   #2
AlaskaMike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Posts: 907
The AA9 load seems a little conservative. Aren't typical magnum loads for it about 14.5 to 15 grains? I don't use AA9, and I don't have any load data handy.

I do like Power Pistol--that 8.0 grain load under a 158 grain SWC is a very nice load in my 4" S&W model 28.
AlaskaMike is offline  
Old October 31, 2012, 11:16 AM   #3
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,764
It's been my experience, both with pistol and rifle, that the quicker powders lose less velocity in shorter barrels than the slower ones, though they start with less to lose. There is definitely less flash and bang to them.

Quote:
Aren't typical magnum loads for it about 14.5 to 15 grains?
My books show max loads of 11.5-13.5 for AA9 and 158's.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old October 31, 2012, 11:37 AM   #4
iraiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2012
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 872
Is the flash any better/worse? I never tried PP in a revolver before, but every recipe I have for a pistol generates a pretty good flash. I also have recipes specifically for my snubbie.
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member Since 1999

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason
iraiam is offline  
Old November 1, 2012, 01:09 AM   #5
bkhann
Member
 
Join Date: August 5, 2009
Location: Grand Rapids MI
Posts: 96
I load PP in my 357 snubbie 2.25" barrel. 9.3 gr PP, 125 gr JSP bullet, small pistol magnum primer, COL 1.590" yields 1118 fps with a pretty good flash. For range work the flash is ok, in fact it is a crowd pleaser. For anything serious, I use low flash factory SD ammunition. 1118 fps is quite manageable in a small frame snubbie. It looks and sounds like a 357 magnum load without the brutal recoil of a heavy load.
bkhann is offline  
Old November 1, 2012, 01:25 AM   #6
joneb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2005
Location: Central , OR
Posts: 1,731
In a Ruger Sec Six w/a 2.75" AA#7 or 9 works well with 158gr jacketed bullets.
I have given thought to PP but I hear its flashy and not kind to lead bullets.
joneb is offline  
Old November 1, 2012, 09:25 AM   #7
jim8115
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 23, 2011
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 187
AS far as I can tell PP has less flash than # 9
jim8115 is offline  
Old November 1, 2012, 10:35 AM   #8
AlaskaMike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Posts: 907
Quote:
I have given thought to PP but I hear its flashy and not kind to lead bullets.
Nah, it's perfectly fine with cast bullets. Most of my midrange loads for my magnum revolvers use PP with cast bullets.

Flashy? Perhaps, but if I have to shoot a gun at night I will have far more important things to worry about than the level of flash from my gun. Honestly, I haven't noticed any more flash from PP than from the other powders I use in my magnum revolver loads, and it's definitely less flashy than some.
AlaskaMike is offline  
Old November 1, 2012, 11:11 AM   #9
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBob86
It's been my experience, both with pistol and rifle, that the quicker powders lose less velocity in shorter barrels than the slower ones, though they start with less to lose. There is definitely less flash and bang to them.
The affect may be so but the cause is the opposite.

Faster powders generate peak pressure sooner and therefor accelerate the bullet earlier. They should reach higher speeds in shorter barrels. But, burning faster means being burnt up faster, obviously, and so those same powders drop off in pressure quicker than do slow powders. The slow powders then "catch up" to the fast ones because the slow powders can generate/maintain pressure longer.

If you start with a really, really short-barrel, the fastest powders should generate the highest speeds. If you start with a really, really long barrel, the slowest powders generate the fastest speeds.

As you cut down that long barrel, the powder than generates the fastest speeds should continue to generate the fastest speeds, to a point. Somewhere along the line, round abouts the length of really long pistol barrel and/or really short rifle barrels, that starts to change, back to the faster powders creating faster speeds.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger 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 01:14 PM.


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 0.08645 seconds with 7 queries