357 Mag, 180gr: What Is Really Achievable?

[WrongHanded]

A recent thread on sectional density of handgun bullets, and an included article with some formulas for estimating penetration depth and wounding diameter, now have me interested in .357 magnum loads again.

The article referred to a 180gr .357 Magnum load going 1,300fps from a 4" barrel. Like these:

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=396

https://doubletapammo.com/collections/handgun-ammo/products/357-mag-180gr-hardcast-solid-a-20rds

https://www.underwoodammo.com/357-magnum-180-grain-lead-flat-nose-gas-check.html

And that got me interested to see what was really achievable for a handloader if they were to stay on what they believed would be the safe side of SAAMI specs.

In Lyman 50th, there is one load claiming over 1200fps with a 180gr from a 4" barrel. W296 at 1,221fps. One other load with H110 scrapes just over 1,100fps, all others are below it.

In the Hornady manual, there is not a single load reported to reach 1200fps.

The Speer manual only goes up to a 170gr load. Still nothing that breaks 1200fps.

Lyman Cast Bullet 4th, does a 180gr lead bullet that gets over 1200fps with two powders. Enforcer hits 1,247fps. H110 hits 1,266fps.

This last one is getting us close. So I tried running some numbers through Quickloads with the closest bullet I could find. Using the data from Lyman Cast, QL found them over pressure, by a lot. Well, not all bullets are equal, and even with the same OAL and same weight in a solid cast bullet, the case capacity may change and effect the results.

So I found a bullet that was in both QL and the Lyman Cast manual. It is a Lyman #358429 170gr with an OAL of 1.553". And I ran the data for H110, 2400, AA9, Enforcer, and 4227 from the manual in QLs.

H110 - 49.6k psi
2400 - 70.2k psi
AA9 - 65.5k psi
Enforcer - 47.5k psi
4227 - 58.4k psi

Given that SAAMI has a max of 35k psi for the .357 Magnum, that's pretty scary stuff. The difference between these results and staying inside SAAMI specs is 1 or 2 full grains, depending on the load. Quickloads is only a modelling program, but it if were inaccurate to such a huge degree, I would have thought it would be widely known. CUP and psi are pretty different in how they're recorded, and a the Lyman data is in CUP. But it still makes me wonder, what is really safe and what's not.

If you decide to run QL for .357 Magnum in CIP (the European standards), you can push harder and because the limit is up around 43.5k psi. And compared to some of the modern semi-auto cartridges, this isn't much of a leap depending on the particular gun. But there's still no getting to 1300fps with a 180gr bullet from a 4" barrel.

So here's what I want to know:

Have any of you produced a .357 magnum load that pushes a 180gr from a 4" barrel to 1300fps (or even 1250fps)?

Edited to add:

Using the bullet length and cartridge OAL for Lyman bullet #358429 provide by @LaneP in post #7, the same charges I used in the Lyman Cast manual give very different results on pressure. There's simply much more room available in the case due to the different dimensions. I'll include them now as an illustration of the difference seating depth makes to the program results, but that does not mean these pressure directly apply to the data in that reloading manual; the OAL is very different, as are the bullet lengths used in the original numbers compared to these ones below. It's purely for informational purposes.

H110 - 27.7k
2400 - 42.1k
AA9 - 39.5k
Enforcer - 29.2k
IMR-4227 - 30.4k

 

[WrongHanded]

I happened to have one of the loads in the links above. So I disassembled it. Looks like it might be a rim rock bullet, weighed in at 177gr including gas check (which detached from the bullet and got stuck in the case right at the mouth).


I weighed the powder at 16.6gr. Left is my own 300-MP, right is the mystery powder. I've never used W296/H110, so I can't say if the powder is likely to be that or not. But it is a standby, so perhaps someone could say how similar this powder appears to W296.


Now I'm not looking to replicate this load, so much as I'm trying to figure out how far from SAAMI specs it may be. And this is where it gets tricky.

I plugged in the OAL, case length, bullet length (adding the GC thickness) and bullet weight to Quickloads. Then I put in 16.6gr of W296. This is what it spit out:


Velocity is pretty much right there for this charge (compared to the manufacturer's data). But powder volume is about 120% of available case capacity. I don't know how accurate that is, or if W296 can be compressed that far. But QLs does occasionally tell me a load is lightly compressed when I can shake it and hear the powder moving. So perhaps that shows a failure of the modelling. What's concerning here is that QL is calculating 60k psi. Not good.

But trying about a dozen other powders that are close to W296/H110 in a burn rate chart (and random others I thought might be similar), I can't find anything that gets close to the target velocity without being more compressed and also having a higher max pressure. Everything I tried that is less compressed and at a lower pressure, is far slower.

Perhaps it's an obscure powder not in QL. Perhaps the program isn't quite correct with regards to case volume given the other variables. I just don't know.

I'm going to try a 180gr WFN-GC with 300-MP. I'm expecting it might reach 1190fps, based on what a 158gr will do and what I know about the powder and shorter barrels. Which is pretty much that it seems to push a lighter bullet about as fast as a heavier one, due to incomplete powder burn before the bullet gets out of the barrel. But we'll see.

 

[CarJunkieLS1]

I don't load for or even own a 357 Mag, but I do know if I did there's no way I'd shoot any load that advertises a 180gr bullet at 1300fps in any other pistol than the strongest Ruger revolver they make.

 

[LaneP]

I don't have anything at 180 gr, but I have the Lyman 358429, which casts a 170 gr SWC GC. I pushed it to 1295 fps from a 4" 686 using 16 gr LilGun and a CCI magnum primer. Based on my experience using LilGun in both .357 and .454, I'd say it may offer the best potential for max velocity within safe pressure limits.

 

[sharp tooth]

Left is h110 right w296 everyone says the same the mystery powder on your right 2nd picture looks different yet

 

[WrongHanded]

I don't have anything at 180 gr, but I have the Lyman 358429, which casts a 170 gr SWC GC. I pushed it to 1295 fps from a 4" 686 using 16 gr LilGun and a CCI magnum primer. Based on my experience using LilGun in both .357 and .454, I'd say it may offer the best potential for max velocity within safe pressure limits.

So this may simply be a failing of Quickloads. Lil'Gun is not in the Lyman Cast 4th with that particular bullet. But in QL, it's looking bad. That may very well be because I don't know the OAL or bullet length and am just working with what the program offers. Both seem wrong. Do you happen to know what the bullet length and OAL you are using are? It'll give me a better idea of how well or poorly this program actually works.

Certainly an impressive velocity you're getting though.

 

[LaneP]

So this may simply be a failing of Quickloads. Lil'Gun is not in the Lyman Cast 4th with that particular bullet. But in QL, it's looking bad. That may very well be because I don't know the OAL or bullet length and am just working with what the program offers. Both seem wrong. Do you happen to know what the bullet length and OAL you are using are? It'll give me a better idea of how well or poorly this program actually works.

Certainly an impressive velocity you're getting though.

I don't have loose bullets but the mold cavity is .7485" + gas check (.017" approx) so bullet length should be right at .7655". The COL loaded is 1.655"

LilGun gave comparable performance in the .454, beating H110 by a significant margin using 300 gr XTP's.

 

[WrongHanded]

I don't have loose bullets but the mold cavity is .7485" + gas check (.017" approx) so bullet length should be right at .7655". The COL loaded is 1.655"

LilGun gave comparable performance in the .454, beating H110 by a significant margin using 300 gr XTP's.

Thanks for the data. So I ran your numbers, with a bullet weight of 170gr (although QL has 168gr for that mold, same number). It came back with 37,204 psi. Which although technically over SAAMI doesn't seem like a big deal to me. It calculated the velocity from a 4" barrel at 1257fps. Pretty close to your real world results.

The same exact setup but with W296, required 16.26gr to reach about the same pressure, 37,191 psi. Calculated velocity 1236fps. So for the same pressure, Lil'Gun wins the velocity race by 21fps. That's not nothing.

Thanks again for providing the specifics.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

My hottest/fastest load for the Cast Performance 200gr. WFN-GC is 12.7gr. of Accurate #9 at 1320fps (ref. Speer #12). I don't use that load or recommend it. It is at the razor's edge even in a 10" T/C Contender. Also, it's not as accurate as a lighter load of 2400 powder (10.5gr.) which hits 1200fps in the same pistol. From a 6-1/2" RBH, those loads loose almost 100fps. Keep in mind, barrel length is not the only difference between a 10" T/C Contender and a 6-1/2" Ruger Blackhawk. I do load 170gr. and 180gr. WFN-GC and JHP bullets for .357Mag but no where near 1300fps. and not in a 4" barreled revolver. Wish I could find my notes on the 2400 load but it's not handy right now. I'm pretty sure it's in the 1050-1100fps range, not anywhere close to 1300fps.

 

[Palladan44]

DONT TRY THIS AT HOME!
But this is right up this threads alley.

 

[Palladan44]

Left is h110 right w296 everyone says the same the mystery powder on your right 2nd picture looks different yetView attachment 1072950

I think the light reflecting off the shiny metal cap vs
The black plastic cap is absorbing light. Since the ball powder has quite a bit of reflectivity, it appears different. Because H-110 and WW-296 have been the same powder for well over a decade now.
Hodgdon and Winchester had announced this publicly.

 

[WrongHanded]

DONT TRY THIS AT HOME!
But this is right up this threads alley.

Well, I wasn't going to say it was one of these that I pulled down. But it was. I weighed the powder again, but used 16.5gr worth of check weights to calibrate the scale. The powder weighed 16.3gr this time, though I may have lost a little since the first time I tried.

I know seating depth can make a difference, but based on what I measured, these loads seem likely to be well over SAAMI and pushing into the safety margin of some designs. Maybe not such a concern if you only ever shoot a box worth, but in some guns maybe it is. I might run the numbers later with Lil'Gun.

 

[Palladan44]

Well, I wasn't going to say it was one of these that I pulled down. But it was. I weighed the powder again, but used 16.5gr worth of check weights to calibrate the scale. The powder weighed 16.3gr this time, though I may have lost a little since the first time I tried.

I know seating depth can make a difference, but based on what I measured, these loads seem likely to be well over SAAMI and pushing into the safety margin of some designs. Maybe not such a concern if you only ever shoot a box worth, but in some guns maybe it is. I might run the numbers later with Lil'Gun.

They have the notion of "Use Sparingly" engineered into their prices they fetch for these things.....so the owners are "Broke" before the gun is.

 

[LaneP]

DONT TRY THIS AT HOME!
But this is right up this threads alley.

Thanks for posting that, very interesting. Hodgdon lists a max of 15gr under a 180gr Nosler Partition. BB is obviously riding the ragged edge of upper pressure limits, at least as evidenced by extraction effort. I've never pushed handloads into hard extraction territory, or at least if it happened that was my cue to back down.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Thanks for posting that, very interesting. Hodgdon lists a max of 15gr under a 180gr Nosler Partition. BB is obviously riding the ragged edge of upper pressure limits, at least as evidenced by extraction effort. I've never pushed handloads into hard extraction territory, or at least if it happened that was my cue to back down.

Yup, I always consider difficult extraction a sign of excessive pressure. Bad juju

 

[fxvr5]

You're QL data has shown that QL is wrong about the actual pressure. This happens, and the author of QL states very clearly that QL's output is no substitute for pressure tested data. So, ignore QL.

 

[buck460XVR]

In Lyman 50th, there is one load claiming over 1200fps with a 180gr from a 4" barrel. W296 at 1,221fps. One other load with H110 scrapes just over 1,100fps, all others are below it.

....I believe Lyman uses a 4" universal receiver, not a revolver for their test. Universal receivers do not have a cylinder gap. In their 49th they only show 1096fps using W296, while showing 1101fps with H110, which we all know are the exact same powders.

Commercial boutique ammo many times uses propitiatory powders that are not available to the general reloading public.

Have any of you produced a .357 magnum load that pushes a 180gr from a 4" barrel to 1300fps (or even 1250fps)?

Don't have any reason to, nor would I want to shoot it out of any of my 4" revolvers. But that's just me. I tend to have other guns that shoot 180s and heavier better than any of my .357s. Maybe outta my .357 carbines, it's a realistic obtainable goal that would still shoot comfortably and be accurate.

 

[bigpower491]

I have been kicking around the idea of trying some 353 Casull loads (357 mag ++p) in my Freedom Arms 83 using 180s and Accurate 9. I've read that 16-1700 was the norm there, at the expense of throwing the brass away.
Certainly wouldn't try one of them Buffalo loads in anything less than a SuperBlackhawk, that's for sure

 

[WrongHanded]

You're QL data has shown that QL is wrong about the actual pressure. This happens, and the author of QL states very clearly that QL's output is no substitute for pressure tested data. So, ignore QL.

To some degree, I would say that's true. Although perhaps with the ability to measure the actual OAL and bullet length, the numbers would be closer.

I don't think it's sensible to simply say "ignore QL". Yes, it's only modelling software. But it's still a tool that has some value.

If a load is in common usage with handloader/reloaders, and QL doesn't agree that it's safe, that's probably a good time to ignore it. But when no legitimate and well tested data exists, ignoring such information (if it's available to you) seems foolish.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

To some degree, I would say that's true. Although perhaps with the ability to measure the actual OAL and bullet length, the numbers would be closer.

I don't think it's sensible to simply say "ignore QL". Yes, it's only modelling software. But it's still a tool that has some value.

If a load is in common usage with handloader/reloaders, and QL doesn't agree that it's safe, that's probably a good time to ignore it. But when no legitimate and well tested data exists, ignoring such information (if it's available to you) seems foolish.

The model is only as accurate as the data from which it was derived. Of course there will be possible combinations that don’t satisfy the model but that’s also normal for any extrapolation. QL is not the word from on high and anyone who doesn’t understand the limits of a derivative model isn’t in a position to use one - I cringe at the idea of trusting a computer program - but within those limits it is a good tool for cross checking common sense and pre-pressure testing data.

 

[WrongHanded]

The model is only as accurate as the data from which it was derived. Of course there will be possible combinations that don’t satisfy the model but that’s also normal for any extrapolation. QL is not the word from on high and anyone who doesn’t understand the limits of a derivative model isn’t in a position to use one - I cringe at the idea of trusting a computer program - but within those limits it is a good tool for cross checking common sense and pre-pressure testing data.

I completely agree. Which is why the data I input directly from the Lyman manual and found over pressure, was so far off. The OAL, bullet weight and charge weight may have been right. But as I didn't have the actual bullet length available, I had to use the length QL has on file for that bullet. And that may have had a big effect.

In fact, looking at the results QL spit out for the load data @LaneP offered up for that same bullet mold (Lyman #358429), we can see that after I adjusted the bullet length to what he believed was correct, we got some pretty reasonable numbers.

Having said that, I ran the BB load with all the measurements I had from the pull-down and the 15.8gr of Lil'Gun the guy in the video had. That came back with 55.9k psi. The 16.3gr I reweighed came out more like 65.8k. Could the software be that wrong? Maybe, but I doubt it's wrong by enough that the load is under CIP max, never mind SAAMI max.

 

[Laphroaig]

I happened to have one of the loads in the links above. So I disassembled it. Looks like it might be a rim rock bullet, weighed in at 177gr including gas check (which detached from the bullet and got stuck in the case right at the mouth).
View attachment 1072928

I weighed the powder at 16.6gr. Left is my own 300-MP, right is the mystery powder. I've never used W296/H110, so I can't say if the powder is likely to be that or not. But it is a standby, so perhaps someone could say how similar this powder appears to W296.
View attachment 1072929

Now I'm not looking to replicate this load, so much as I'm trying to figure out how far from SAAMI specs it may be. And this is where it gets tricky.

I plugged in the OAL, case length, bullet length (adding the GC thickness) and bullet weight to Quickloads. Then I put in 16.6gr of W296. This is what it spit out:
View attachment 1072931 View attachment 1072932

Velocity is pretty much right there for this charge (compared to the manufacturer's data). But powder volume is about 120% of available case capacity. I don't know how accurate that is, or if W296 can be compressed that far. But QLs does occasionally tell me a load is lightly compressed when I can shake it and hear the powder moving. So perhaps that shows a failure of the modelling. What's concerning here is that QL is calculating 60k psi. Not good.

But trying about a dozen other powders that are close to W296/H110 in a burn rate chart (and random others I thought might be similar), I can't find anything that gets close to the target velocity without being more compressed and also having a higher max pressure. Everything I tried that is less compressed and at a lower pressure, is far slower.

Perhaps it's an obscure powder not in QL. Perhaps the program isn't quite correct with regards to case volume given the other variables. I just don't know.

I'm going to try a 180gr WFN-GC with 300-MP. I'm expecting it might reach 1190fps, based on what a 158gr will do and what I know about the powder and shorter barrels. Which is pretty much that it seems to push a lighter bullet about as fast as a heavier one, due to incomplete powder burn before the bullet gets out of the barrel. But we'll see.

Quite a few years ago I tried some .357 180's in my Security Six in hopes of shooting some pistol silhouette. I can't remember where I came up with my load but it was way less than 16.6 gr. of H110. It didn't take many shots before my cylinder was dragging. I sent it back to Ruger who fixed it, no questions asked.

Certainly in my case it was a bad idea.

 

[Antihero]

The 180gr Buffalo Bore load hits an average of 1493fps thru my 6 inch gp100.

I usually reload for accuracy so I used 14.6gr of IMR 4227 and it would net me about 1150fps out of the same gun

 

[Bfh_auto]

I don't have anything at 180 gr, but I have the Lyman 358429, which casts a 170 gr SWC GC. I pushed it to 1295 fps from a 4" 686 using 16 gr LilGun and a CCI magnum primer. Based on my experience using LilGun in both .357 and .454, I'd say it may offer the best potential for max velocity within safe pressure limits.

You used a lighter bullet than me. But I too noticed it stomps on h110 as far as velocity in heavy bullet 357 loads. I still use H110 because of the accuracy and slightly cooler burn.

 

[Varminterror]

Buy an OG 6 shot Redhawk from the 1980’s, and blow 357mag standard velocities out of the water. Either load it up to nearly 354 C levels out of the factory cylinder, or ream out to 357/44 B&D, fit ~24grn H110 behind a drawn 180grn rifle bullet, and have LESS than SAAMI standard pressure delivering 1700+ fps…

Just sayin’…