Which is easier on my guns? .357 Mag 125 grain or 158 grain?

[aarondhgraham]

I only have 4 firearms in .357 Magnum,,,
S&W 686
Colt Trooper Mk-III
Dakota (Uberti?) SAA clone
H&R Handi-Rifle

I never shoot .357 Mags out of the Colt and the Dakota,,,
They are range toys so I use .38 Special with them.

That leaves the 686 and the Handi-Rifle.

I have about 1,000 rounds of semi-jacket round nose in 158 grain,,,
And about the same in jacketed hollow point in 125 grain.

Recently a gentleman at my range told me that I should never use the 125 grain out of the 686,,,
His thoughts is the lighter bullets were very fast and therefore hard on the forcing cone.

His recommendation was to use the 158 grain in the revolver,,,
And only use the 125 grain in the Handi-Rifle.

Is there any truth/merit in his advice?

Aarond

.

[BarryLee]

There were some forcing cone issues with the M66, but not sure about the M686.

[aarondhgraham]

I had read that about the K-Frame S&W's.

I guess what I'm really asking is not so much gun specific,,,
As it is a question about the two different bullet weights.

Are the 125 grain bullets significantly faster out of the cylinder than the 158 grain bullets?

If they are significantly faster is that necessarily damaging to a revolver?

I have the Handi-Rifle scoped in at 75 yards using the 125 grain bullets,,,
So I'll probably keep using them in that rifle,,,
They vaporize armadillos.

Aarond

.

[labnoti]

The 686 was specifically developed to allow a large volume of 125 grain Magnum loads to be shot from it without issue. It effectively replaced the Model 19/66 explicitly for this purpose.

It is still fair to say that some 125 grain cartridges can cause more barrel face and forcing cone erosion and will result in a limited amount of flame-cutting on the top strap sooner than some 158 grain cartridges. The reason is primarily due to the 125 grain load typically using more powder. There could be some effect of the shorter, lighter bullet passing the barrel/cylinder gap earlier in the combustion cycle.

A 158 grain XTP bullet can be loaded over 16.7 grains of H110. A 125 grain XTP can be loaded over 22 grains of H110 -- that's 25% more powder.

One way I heard rifle barrel life explained was by the volume of powder shot through it. The proposal was that one could shoot 20-pounds of powder over the life of the barrel. Of course people have different opinions about when a rifle barrel is "shot-out," different disciplines have different requirements, and revolver lifespan is substantially different than that of rifle barrels. But you get the idea that the greater mass of powder you're burning, the more hot gas you're generating to erode the metal.

The type of powder, it's flame temperature, and the mass of the actual loads you're using could be quite different. Three grains of Bullseye is quite a bit different than 18 grains of Lil'Gun.

[NoSecondBest]

That gentleman was incorrect. I seriously don't know many people who've shot more .357mag ammo than I have. I've had a lot of different guns in this cartridge, and four of them were custom built. I also have three 686 revolvers...well one is actually a 586 which is the blue model and a 686 and a 686+ (seven shot). I have shot thousands and thousands of rounds out of those guns and they've never had a problem. Back in the 60s and 70s you'd hear about some K frames having forcing cone issues and even those weren't common. The L frames have never had a problem in that regard. I will add that I've never found the 125g bullet to shoot as well as the 158g in any gun and I've never understood using them in a strongly built revolver. You really ought to shoot some groups with different bullets and see which one shoots the best out of your guns. I don't think it will be the 125g. Bullet speed isn't an issue anyway, it's flame cutting and gas erosion. A lot of the lighter full power loads are real flame throwers.

[T. O'Heir]

Neither. A hot 125 grain load will be as hard on 'em as a hot 158 grain load. Cast or jacketed matters, but a 125 grain, jacketed, Max load of H4427(just because it's on top of Hodgdon's list) runs 42,000 CUP. A 158 runs 42,600 CUP.
The firearm makes no difference. Rifle or revolver makes no difference either. Loads are the same, but tested in different barrel lengths.
"...never use the 125 grain out of the 686..." That's nonsense.

[44 AMP]

Recently a gentleman at my range told me that I should never use the 125 grain out of the 686,,,
His thoughts is the lighter bullets were very fast and therefore hard on the forcing cone.

The gentleman is both right, and wrong.

125s are faster, and do put a bit more "stress" on the forcing cone than 158s. This is due to several factors "hot" powder and volume of same being the major ones, but there are others as well.

This caused problems in the Model 19, due to specific factors in the construction of the model 19. This has long been resolved.

The model 686 was designed long after the Model 19's issues were known, and is different in the critical areas, and so is not an issue shooting 125s, or anything else.

So, he's right about 125s being hotter, but he's wrong about "don't shoot this in that".

[Ben Dover]

The 125 grain was the "Gold Standard" for law enforcement during the age of cowboy pistols.

[gwpercle]

With the S&W 686 (updated design) and the Handi-Rifle , being a single shot rifle , have no concerns about shooting either load in them .

The 125 Gr. JHP's were a little hard on model 19's but when this was noticed future models were updated to correct this ... the 686 is built to take these loads .

As Troy Landry would say "Choot Em !"
Gary

[Tom Servo]

As others have mentioned, the forcing cone issues were pretty much only a concern with the K-Frames.

That said, I've never seen any issues with 125gr bullets loaded to reasonable pressures, and I've shot thousands of rounds of them through my K-Frames. I have seen issues from the old 110gr loadings, but I never saw the point of those anyway.

Long story short: you're not going to hurt an L-Frame.

[aarondhgraham]

Well thanks Gentlemen.

I shoot those guns so rarely that there probably wouldn't be a chance of damage anyways,,,
I just like to know the real nitty-gritty of a topic.

(that sentence will date me)

The Handi-Rifle is already scoped in for the 125 grain rounds,,,
So it only seems logical that I keep them for the rifle.

So just for that factor alone I think I'll reserve the 158 grain rounds for the handgun.

Thanks again.

Aarond

.

[44 AMP]

The 125 grain was the "Gold Standard" for law enforcement during the age of cowboy pistols.

Just how do you define "cowboy pistols"??

When you say "cowboy pistol" most of the world thinks of Single Action revolvers, and in their age of law enforcement use the .357 Magnum did not exist, let alone the 125gr load for it.

When I first met my wife to be, she defined handguns in two groups, "Cowboy guns" (all revolvers) and "James Bond guns" (all semi autos).

Since then, she has learned better.

[2ndtimer]

I have also loaded and fired thousands of .357 Magnum loads over the years. My best friend liked to load hot loads with 125 gr bullets in his beautiful 6" Model 19. I also liked thel high velocity lightweight bullets and their performance on ground squirrels out of my Ruger Security Six. After a year or so, he was cleaning his Model 19 and noticed the crack in the forcing cone of his prized revolver. Our research indicated that the 125 gr loads increased powder charges and the quickness of the lightweight bullet leaving the chamber allowed more of the extreme pressure and hot gasses to erode and put greater pressure on the forcing cones. I reduced my consumption of the 1500 fps 125 gr loads, and switched over to milder 158 gr loads. Granted, this may be an isolated incident from 40 years ago, but it did influence my load choices over the decades. YMMV, but that was my experience.

[rodfac]

I will add that I've never found the 125g bullet to shoot as well as the 158g in any gun.

Yep that's been my experience with a half dozen .357's (all Smiths & Ruger BH's), that I've owned and shot over the years. Also true for my Marlin 1894CS in .357.

Aarond....As to damage from shooting hot 125 gr loads, 2ndtimer's post covers it well. Personally, I shoot a lot of both types (125 & 158), but don't hot-rod them, and have yet to see any wear on my guns, (currently a Ruger FTBH, 2 model 19's, a pair of 66's, and one Smith M60). It's my opinion, you have to shoot one heck of a lot of jacketed 125's backed by near max charges of slow burning powder, to put your guns in jeopardy.

YMMv Rod

[Nanuk]

It is the length of the bullets, not the weight/speed that is the issue there is really not that much difference. Its not like you are shooting pressure/speed levels of a S&W 460.

The 158 lead/copper bullets are long enough to seal the barrel/cylinder gap, the 125/110's are too short and cause excessive top strap cutting. In my experience and steel guns the cutting only goes so far and stops.

[44 AMP]

Our research indicated that the 125 gr loads increased powder charges and the quickness of the lightweight bullet leaving the chamber allowed more of the extreme pressure and hot gasses to erode and put greater pressure on the forcing cones.

This is essentially true. Compared to the 158gr loads. It is ALSO true compared to the 110gr loads. (we're only talking factory ammo here).

However the hot 125 load was not the sole cause of the problem with S&W M19s. The problem resulted from the combination of that ammo and the Model 19's design. This has been discussed in detail and at length and a TFL search will give you LOTS to read.

In a nutshell, the M19 barrel forcing cone is not the same as other guns. There is a flat spot which makes a portion of the forcing cone thinner than the rest. M19s served well for years in police use when the standard ammo was the 158 load, no unusual issues. Police went to the 125 and at first no issues, but after the police (generally) went to using the hot 125s as both duty and practice ammo the failure rate of M19s went above expected norms, significantly enough to create the whole "125=bad for your gun" thing.

Other .357s, Rugers, Colts, S&W N frames, did not have this problem. Only the M19. And, not all of them, either. It took a specific combination of factors to create the problem, and not every gun that went through that specific combination of factors failed, either..

The issue has long been resolved but the myth persists.

[223 shooter]

As already mentioned the 686 will handle the 125s just fine but I still fire the 158s most often. The muzzle blast with the 125s with magnum powder charges borders on the absurd.

I save the 125s for lighter loads or 38 Special. Or through my 357 Henry. Although my 8 3/8" Model 27 Smith shoots the 125s fairly well with a little less blast compared to the short barrel 357s. Even then I still fire the 158s the most.

[J.G. Terry]

Personal Opinion: I had called Smith&Wesson concerning some work on my Model 19. Lady there talked over me explaining no cylinders or barrels. That convinced me that the 19 can be used as a 357 but prudence would be to shoot 38 Special rounds most of the time. I have both a Model 19 and a 586. It does not take the rocket scientist making a comparison , K and L frame, to see what Smith did get a full time 357. Just a personal opinion about my guns. My gun is a 19-5 and would be hard to replace. It works very well.

[Nanuk]

During the early 1990's the US Border Patrol was still using 357 magnums. While my issue was a 686, we still had a lot of 1960's vintage model 19's with untold thousands of 357's fire with no problems. Sure they can break, but it is not as common as the internet would make it seem.

[44 AMP]

It does not take the rocket scientist making a comparison , K and L frame, to see what Smith did get a full time 357.

Smith had a "full time" .357 before the M 19. It was originally known as the Registered Magnum. Created in 1935 on the heavy "44 frame" later known as the "N" frame. When S&W introduced model numbers it became the Model 27. Later a "lower cost" version was made for police use, named the Highway Patrolman, the Model 28.

The Model 19 was S&W's response to requests by Bill Jordan and others, for a lighter gun, one easier to wear all day, that could still handle .357 loads for duty use but was intended that most of its practice would use .38 Specials.

And basically, that's what S&W delivered. An upgraded .38 Special that could handle a limited amount of .357 shooting without trouble. When these guns were used as "full time .357s" they held up fairly well, until they became "full time .357s shooting hot 125s" and then some held up surprisingly well, some failed.

The L frame guns, designed after many years of seeing what was good and what wasn't in K frame .357s do not have the limitations prudent to use in model 19s.

[KyJim]

And, just to clarify, the current Model 19s from S&W have some design changes to address the forcing cone issue. So, don't pass those up out of concern of forcing cone issues with 125 gr. magnum loads.

[JERRYS.]

the K frame 357s had a weak spot at the 6 o'clock position of their forcing cone. a portion of the cone was cut away so the yoke/crane could close in the frame, this is where the cone cracking occurred. the larger frame L frame guns have a full forcing cone making this a non-issue for them.

[idek]

Not to sidetrack the topic, but regarding ammo being hard on guns (specifically M19 & M66), I've also heard people say that factory .357 ammo was originally loaded much hotter than typical stuff today.

For example, the original .357 loading was something like a 158gr bullet going around 1500fps. That's like Buffalo Bore offerings, but while we consider that more of a specialty load today, it was considered the norm decades ago. I don't know specifically what the first 125 grain offering were, but I'd heard that those were also significantly hotter than most modern ammo.

Some people have claimed that concerns about damage to guns originated back when factory ammo was typically much hotter, and even with the 19/66, one needn't worry that much nowadays. Can anyone confirm or deny whether there's any validity to this school of thought?

[44 AMP]

Not to sidetrack the topic, but regarding ammo being hard on guns (specifically M19 & M66), I've also heard people say that factory .357 ammo was originally loaded much hotter that typical stuff today.

The OP asked about .357 ammo, and it being hard on guns, so I'd say its still on topic. The info about the M19 and the 125gr load was background on why some people think the ammo is hard on guns, because in THAT gun, that load was.

You've heard people say that the .357 was originally loaded hotter than it is today because it is absolutely TRUE. (and I'm not talking about the modern "boutique" loads that actually do return the .357 to its former abilities, but the general run of factory ammo common today)

The original .357 Magnum load, introduced with the S&W Registered Magnum was advertised as a 158gr bullet (a lead SWC) at 1550fps from the 8 3/4" barrel of the Registered Magnum.

Chronographs in private hands were extremely rare in those days, but ammo from that era has been tested and found to do about that. Some sources say 1500 some 1550fps and that could just be the difference between individual test guns. Also note it was an 8 and 3/4" barrel. Some years later S&W shortened their "long" barrel length to the current 8 and 3/8".

Those original loads were "hell for stout" and period advertisements recommended the .357 Magnum "only for men of exceptional physique".

It wasn't entirely advertising hype back then though that certainly was a part of it.

The Registered Magnum and its descendants, the model 27 (and 28) are big heavy frame guns with large strong cylinders. People use the phrase "bank vault" about their strength. My personal experience agrees.

Since the 1950s the market has been wanting lighter .357s. Eventually it got them, and we now have .357s all the way down to the J frame pocket guns.

However, in order to make this happen, the general run of ammo has been downloaded. Not only because the original heavy load batters the shooter in lighter guns but it batters the guns, as well. AND, the smaller guns simply cannot take the same levels as N frame guns, and some of the other larger .357s.

So, today "regular" .357, including the "hot" 125s are all loaded so they will work in any of the common guns, from the light snubnoses on up. AND the modern loading manual reflect this as well.

DO remember that the original .357 load was developed before SAAMI, before modern pressure measuring methods. and amazingly it worked pretty well, in guns made to handle it.

Today, if you want to get close to the original .357 load (other than the specialty stuff like Buffalo Bore) you need to handload to do it.

AND, NOT ALL .357 GUNS CAN DO IT!!!!!

(grab your popcorn, for now comes the tale of 4 guns, some hot 125gr handloads and the then new "Chrony" chronograph, its from a couple decades ago, dang, more I think now, but its actual personal experience and I think in general still valid)

I had gotten a Chrony, and a friend came over with his 6" M19 S&W, his Marlin 1894 .357 carbine and a box of 125gr handloads. The load was straight out of the Speer manual of the day, and while hot, not the listed max.

I added my 6" S&W model 28 and the new Desert Eagle .357 (6" barrel)

We set up and my friend went first, putting 6 rounds in his M19 to shoot over the chronograph.

BA-BANG!! His "first" shot was two rounds!

Now, either he pulled the trigger a second time in the fastest DA I've ever seen, or somehow the gun doubled. Two rounds were fired. The Chrony showed the last one at 1620fps.

125gr JHP, stiff load of 2400, 1620fps from a 6" model 19

At that point we decided to suspend further firing of that ammo in that gun. Gun was opened, 4 unfired rounds fell out. (normal) The two fired cases could not be removed with hand pressure on the ejector rod. They had to be driven out of the cylinder with a rod and a small hammer.

CLEARLY that ammo was too hot for that gun.

Same ammo, loaded into the M 28. Stout recoil and large blast, but normal operation, including hand ejection of all six cases. Avg vel 1670fps!

Same ammo loaded into the Desert Eagle. Full mag (9 rounds). Flawless function, feed and ejection all shots. Avg vel: 1720fps

Same ammo from the Marlin carbine right on 2200fps. flawless function all rounds.

I tell this to illustrate that some guns simply will not handle loads as heavy as some others.

I don't have an L frame and have never personally tested any with max level loads but I fully expect their frame and cylinder size would put them closer to the N frame level than the K frame.

I should make clear the ammo used was NOT worked up in any of the guns it was fired in that day. It was a load picked out from a book and used. The results we got is also a good example of why one should NOT DO THAT!, either.


Generally speaking modern factory ammo from FedREmChester or other major maker is made so as to not batter a J frame to bits in short order and so that the fired cases will all come out. it is not up to the level of the original 1935 ammo and if it was you couldn't shoot it in the small light guns (which to me includes some K frame size guns).

[J.G. Terry]

Personal Opinion: The 38/44 rounds in the old N frame 38 Special duplicates the performance of some factory 357 Magnum rounds today. This N frame 38 Special was introduced several years before the 357 Magnum. The Registered Magnums ran $75.00 when the minimum wage was $.25 cents an hour. Phil Sharp was apprehensive about heavy loads in the 357 Magnum ("Complete Guide to Reloading pp.406-3rd Edition).

For me, it is reckless to shoot a steady diet of heavy 357 loads in my Model 19. Smith&Wesson rep was quick to point cylinders and barrels were no longer available was a wake up call of sorts to me. Why run the the risk of excessive wear or damage to irreplaceable parts to prove a point? I back off on my handloads and still have plenty of horse power. With one L frame and one N in 357 why take a risk. I have bought enough police turn-in to be skeptical about how many times these guns were fired. Colt original 357's were made on New Service and Single Action actions. Yes, I know about the new J frames in 357. Those guns, as I do not have one, are excluded from my personal opinion.

Added: I wonder if there were split forcing cones on 19's all along before common use of 125gr. loads. There are probably no reliable figures for Model 19 failure rate with either round. What ever it was, there is no desire to be one of the numbers-no crap shoot here.