K Frame & Warm 357

[radom]

Meanwhile .357 works just fine in my J frame model 60.

[wild cat mccane]

So far I believe I am the only person to answer the question of the OP that no current K frame S&W appear to have re-suffered old style K frames.

I then followed up with, "but why are you loading it, no bullet currently requires that velocity for these reasons, including directly from the largest manufacturer of ammunition that owns nearly all US produced ammo"

[wild cat mccane]

74A95, you've continued to move the goal line on why response to "why?" would some load it that hot.

Again, no 357mag in 4" is every getting close to your minimum set 2,000FPS. None. Even uber hot 1,600fps ultra light 357 is 20% away from your defined minimum.

The purpose of bringing this up is to help the OP understand that you might wear out or out of time your revolver faster, but the end purpose isn't all that worth it in the end unless that's the goal or you just want to shoot those.

[74A95]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

I then followed up with, "but why are you loading it, no bullet currently requires that velocity for these reasons."

A person needs no other reason than "because I want to".

You are delusional to think that only your reasons and criteria matter.

[74A95]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

Again, no 357mag in 4" is every getting close to your minimum set 2,000FPS. None. Even uber hot 1,600fps ultra light 357 is 20% away from your defined minimum.

And this is an example of your crazy idea of what you think is the only thing that matters when loading 357 Magnum. This crazy criteria of requiring the 357 to reach a speed that produces rifle-like hydrostatic shock or it's not worth loading to nominal 357 ballistics is completely irrelevant. What's wrong with you that you don't see that? Do you think there is no other purpose for the 357?

By all means, contact all the ammo makers who load the 357 and tell them to stop loading it so fast because it does not meet your criteria. That's what you're saying. If handloaders shouldn't do it, then either should factories.

[wild cat mccane]

I listed all reason velocity is required in a bullet. I'll do it again.

Velocity affects expansion, trajectory, time in flight, accuracy, and hydrostatic shock.

Not a single one of those is important in a 4" revolver given on shelf ammunition velocities.

You can keep name calling, but you've only do that and not proven me wrong.

[Pumpkin]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

So far I believe I am the only person to answer the question of the OP that no current K frame S&W appear to have re-suffered old style K frames.

I then followed up with, "but why are you loading it, no bullet currently requires that velocity for these reasons, including directly from the largest manufacturer of ammunition that owns nearly all US produced ammo"

The OP’s 65-6 has the old style barrel and forcing cone with the flat bottom. Not sure if this had been mentioned. I have a bought new 66-1 that has never had a 125 down it’s bore. The value of these guns would never allow me to come close to abusing it, plus I really like the old gun.

[74A95]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

You can keep name calling, but you've only do that and not proven me wrong.

You really don't get it. Oh well.

[Frank Ettin]

Enough