.357 mag 125gr hp at 1900fps, is that fast enough for everyone ;)

[jfh]

sonier, I will eagerly await the report of the actual velocity. For now--and based on my experience on measuring velocities with a chronograph on shorter-barreled .357s--I will bet 1911Tuner has it figured about right.

FWIW, a ballistician at another company--one that uses a nominal 7" pressure barrel--gave me a 20% factor for guesstimating revolver velocities.

Jim H.

 

[W.E.G.]

Now that we know what it does to milk jugs at close range, how about an accuracy report?

 

[Stainz]

Accuracy isn't so important when you are attacked by hordes of marauding gallon jugs of water. Collateral damage isn't a problem - there are no good gallon jugs of water - the worst are the droolers. Get 'em all!

Stainz

PS I am happy with my .357 Magnum 'posers' - 125 gr JHPs making 900 fps from my 4".357M - great plinkers - even drop some steel plates!

 

[batmann]

Stainz-----All I can say is LMAO-----

 

[MachIVshooter]

it dosnt say so i could jsut as well argue the loads were used witha snubbie couldnt I

You could, but it won't make you right. Take it from those of us with lots of handloading experience and chronographs

 

[sonier]

theres not much accuracy in my python anymore the barrel and rifling is near non existent lol

 

[Walkalong]

I am happy with my .357 Magnum 'posers' - 125 gr JHPs making 900 fps

Yep. Lots of fun. I'll shoot 125's at 1300 FPS if I want a little power, but I am not interested in 125's at 1900 FPS.

 

[snooperman]

1900 ft/sec from a 6" revolver in a 357 magnum??

I have been reloading the 357 for about 48 years now and using a chronograph as well. That is hard to believe.

 

[Gryffydd]

where does it say that it was used in a 10 inch or 15 inch contender?

As has been said, click the print function.

 

[Gryffydd]

If you look at http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html you'll see that their Corbon 125gr load was getting 1943fps from a 10" barrel. From a 6" it was 1715fps. Now drop off another 100fps or so for the barrel cylinder gap.

 

[c919]

125gr hornagay xtp's

Was that a typo or what you think of the company?

Ok I just about spewed a drink on that one...

 

[sonier]

look at the difference from a leer gun .357 magnum and normal wheelgun with 6 inch, the velocity increase is not too much for the extra 15 inches nearly so im thinking that youd loose 50-75 fps for 4 inches shorter and 100 sounds right for the gap, so say 200 off 1966 would put it at estimated 1766 which is stil smoking lol

 

[Gryffydd]

look at the difference from a leer gun .357 magnum and normal wheelgun with 6 inch, the velocity increase is not too much for the extra 15 inches nearly so im thinking that youd loose 50-75 fps for 4 inches

. From a 6" wheelgun to a levergun you gain 500fps or so on average. But the it's an issue of diminishng returns. The biggest gains come sooner rather than later.

Given that Corbon's load from a 10" barrel closely matches Hodgdon's data from a 10" barrel, and you agree that 100fps for the gap sounds right, that puts it close to 1600fps. Which is still nothing to sneeze at!

By all means though, get a chrony and prove us wrong!

 

[FoMoGo]

And still nowhere near 1900


Jim

 

[sonier]

well if it is at 1600 i wander what the actual velocitys on the other charges equate too makes me think most of those powders are pretty darn puny lol

 

[jfh]

I have no trouble believing Hornady's numbers--for their 10" pressure barrel, with that particular batch of powder, with the (other) components listed, on that particular day.

It's just that our 6", 8" / whatever revolver barrel isn't the same as their test barrel, and that the test barrel doesn't have a cylinder / chamber - barrel gap in it.

Jim H.

 

[MachIVshooter]

well if it is at 1600 i wander what the actual velocitys on the other charges equate too makes me think most of those powders are pretty darn puny lol

I don't know that I'd call any load pushing 125's at 1,400-1,600 FPS from a real world revolver puny.

But if you really wanna push that 2k mark, you need to step into a .357 Maximum. But don't use 125's, or you'll torch the top strap in short order. Even 158's are a bit light for that cartridge. It was meant to use 180 and up to knock down silhouettes and medium game animals at respectable ranges.

 

[FirearmsEnthusiast]

I pushed a 200 gr SWC .357 at 25,517 fps without even pulling the trigger.

I was in the space shuttle Endeavour during it's entry to the earths atmosphere

 

[1911Tuner]

im thinking that youd loose 50-75 fps for 4 inches shorter

Al else equal, you can count on 35 fps per inch of barrel loss...and possibly more, depending on the starting and ending barrel lengths and powder burn rate. I've seen as much as 100 fps between two identical guns with a given load.

It's just that our 6", 8" / whatever revolver barrel isn't the same as their test barrel, and that the test barrel doesn't have a cylinder / chamber - barrel gap in it.

Besides the barrel/cylinder gap, there are other signifigant differences. Standardized pressure barrels are held to exacting tolerances, with minimum chambers, bore diameters, land/groove dimensions, and minimum headspacing. All these things add up to consistently higher velocities. They aren't made that way in order to"fudge" on the testing to specifically produce high velocities...but rather to insure consistent results.

Using pressure barrel figures to determine what will be produced with a given gun is a lot like using engine dyno torque and horsepower numbers to predict who will win at Talledega.

 

[1911Tuner]

As an addendum...

Published velocity figures are a suggestion, and not much more. The ballistics techs are primarily interested in pressures...not velocity. Maximum pressure produced...peak pressure...average pressure...area under the curve, etc. What these numbers tell us is that a listed load didn't exceed SAAMI maximum and average pressure for a given test lot, and that the data is safe in a gun that meets SAAMI minimum proof standards. Velocity is incidental, and given mainly because shooters seem to be overly concerned with velocity.

"And, by the way...the velocity produced with this particular safe lot was X."

They don't care so much what the actual velocity is. Pressure is their concern, because they don't want any of us blowing up guns and killing ourselves with their published data.

Finally...Loading manuals that show figures obtained with a certain gun is what was seen with that gun and with that lot of powder and that lot of primers and that lot of bullets on that day. Pressures were already determined by using a pressure barrel. The manuals publish "Test Gun" results mainly as a matter of courtesy, in order to give us a suggestion as to what we may expect with the same gun...but it's not a guarantee. No two guns are the same. I think its also probably so that those of us who chronograph won't be screaming about the "lie" in the manuals when our guns don't produce velocities that are even close to theirs if they used the pressure barrel velocities instead of actually measuring it with a real gun.

 

[snooperman]

YES , I have the older Dan Wesson 357 maximum..

that I used for silhouette shooting years ago, but as Mach!Vshooter said , and I agree, that is a different game. You can not extrapolate what the Bullet companies are testing ammo with to your gun. You have to do your own homework on this with YOUR gun. You need to get a chronograph and then test your loads before you print this kind of information. Each gun behaves differently with the same loads , because of cylinder gap, forcing cone length, rifling, etc, etc....

 

[sonier]

id love a 357 max but dont want the dan wesson models just that rare blackhawk