Questions about. 357 mag reloading data

[Dudedog]

Ok, while attempting to stay on the High Road

"...Ball powders need a magnum primer or one that is for a .357 Mag..." Not at all true. Magnum primers are about how easily the powder used ignites and nothing else. Absolutely nothing whatever to do with the cartridge name. The one used for a .357 Mag is a small pistol primer. Not a small pistol magnum primer. Period.

Wrong, maybe not 100% wrong for all ball powders Winchester recommends mag primers for use with W296.....
I sure like to use SP magnum primers for H110/W296 in .357, I'm sure most people will agree that these powders should have a SP mag primer.

A plated bullet is not a jacketed bullet either. They use cast data.

First part correct, plated is not jacketed, second part is Wrong no matter how many times it's posted, plated bullets generally fall between lead and jacketed data.
(I suppose it is possible whatever plated bullets Sunray is using need lead data, since he keeps posting this) but RMR plated, Berrys plated and Xtreme plated all seem to fall in the middle in all my tests.

PSI data lower vel Than CUP data,
two thoughts
1. PSI data is newer and quite possibly gathered with more accurate equipment giving a better idea of what is going on, so a better indication leads to saying ok maybe we were a bit on the hot side before
2. Modern Lawsuit fever

#9 is small balls/flattened balls and very dense, VMD of .0657ish one of the smallest VMDs (most dense) powders commonly used in pistol rounds.
Something like Red Dot (VMD .14) or Green Dot (VMD .126) around would take up close to Twice the space in the case for the same weight charge.
VMD = space in cc/grains of powder
not real data but an example
10gr of Red Dot = 1.4cc (space)
10gr of #9 = .657cc (space)
Note VMDs listed are close but seldom spot on.
They are useful for
#1 Lee Pro disk users
#2 to give an idea of how dense (low VMD) or fluffy (high VMD) a powder is. General range is about .065 (dense=less space) to .14 (fluffy=more space)

Never used AA#9 but if it was me I would stick to the new data, I would Westerns current data from their site or data from a current manual Lyman etc.
Favorites vary but for Full power .357 I really like H110/W296 (currently the exact same powder)
Side note: HP38/W231 are the same as each other as well at this time


Differences due to different test conditions, lots of powder, bullet hardness and bearing surface of the lead bullets most likely.

 

[243winxb]

Ball powders need a magnum primer or one that is for a 357 mag. Reloading data lists these primers to be used with the 357 magnum. CCI 550 Mag., WSPM, FED 200, REM 5 1/2 .

"...Ball powders need a magnum primer or one that is for a .357 Mag..." Not at all true. Magnum primers are about how easily the powder used ignites and nothing else. Absolutely nothing whatever to do with the cartridge name. The one used for a .357 Mag is a small pistol primer. Not a small pistol magnum primer. Period.

Remington seems to think the 5 1/2 primer is the correct one to use. Not the 1 1/2 small pistol primer.

 

[Mixed Nuts]

Walkalong, dang it! I hope I have some luck with No9.

Dudedog, I think part of the problem with the western powders data may be that they don't have any cast loads listed for 158gr .357 mag.

I've noticed that in my older data book on the .357 mag. A number of the companies that make 158 grain lead bullets, like hornady and speer, have very low power load data maxes for their lead 158s.

I've assumed the low maxes were because the slugs were soft lead and would skid or lead the barrel at pressures the caliber could usually handle.

Could this be why westerns SWC data is so anemic? EDIT... WENT BACK AND CHECKED THIS and is probably cast bullet, dammit.

243winxb, I have already loaded all my brass with cci small pistol primers as my data did not indicate magnum primers. Another thing to worry on.

 

[Dudedog]

Lyman 50 data
.357 Mag AA#9 150gr lead SWC (linotype) Start 12.1gr vel 1096 MAX 13.5gr vel 1331 MAX Pressure CUP 40,600
.357 Mag AA# 9 155gr lead SWC (linotype) Start 13gr vel 998 MAX 14.5gr vel 1221
MAX Pressure CUP 39,600
.357 Mag AA#9 160gr LRN (linotype) Start 12.3gr vel 1123 MAX 13.7gr vel 1350
MAX Pressure CUP 41,800
.357 Mag AA#9 170gr lead SWC Start 11.7gr vel 1028 MAX 13.0gr vel 1231
MAX Pressure CUP 40,500

Linotype = hard cast lead bullets

No way to get from PSI to CUP but Lyman is running their loads around 40,000-41,000 CUP the one almost 42,000
(added pressure info)

Dudedog, I think part of the problem with the western powders data may be that they don't have any cast loads listed for 158gr .357 mag.

oopppps


Powder pics of AA#9 are interesting, no doubt something changed along the way.

 

[someguy2800]

Most of the magnum pistol powders work best with magnum primers. I've not tested magnum vs regular with A#9, but I have tested with H110 in 3 different cartridges and it makes a world of difference in accuracy and consistency. I personally would not load H110, 2400, or A#9 without magnum primers. There just isn't any reason not to.

Go ahead and shoot the loads you have put together, they will shoot just fine but next time get magnums and work back up again. I'd bet money you will see an notable improvement.

 

[Mixed Nuts]

Dudedog, this whole thing is making me dizzy and a little demoralized.The western powders load is for a 158 grain, laser cast SWC. It is for a hardcast bullet. And it starts at 11.2 grains and maxes at 12.4. The PSI is under 33000.

The Lyman data is night and day different. It starts at the western max. It is crazy different and I don't know quite what to do. Gonna start real low and go up slow. What else to do? But I don't like it.

Someguy2800, yes. I wish I could replace the primers. I was hoping to get a good load with AA no9 but now the whole thing seems kinda jammed and I hate taking steps backward to go forward. I'm in the city right now and it cost money to shoot. I have to waste cash and materials just to restart the experiment with better conditions.

 

[Mixed Nuts]

Western max load psi is quite low, at 32214. Many max loads break 35000 on the same page.

Their choice of max seems arbitrary as it does not approach 35000.

Maybe they stopped because accuracy fell off badly. Or maybe they didn't want to shoot cast lead too fast.

But listed pressure for their max load is quite low.

Lyman's data seems more sensible from this vantage.

 

[243winxb]

, I think part of the problem with the western powders data may be that they don't have any cast loads listed for 158gr .357 mag

The Accurate data uses a Laser Cast, Oregon Trail Bullet Company bullet.

Oregon Trail data and Accurate data, for #9 powder.

 

[Mixed Nuts]

Yes, 243winxb, i did catch that eventually. Stuck an edit up in the old post. What do you make of the low PSI numbers for the western powders max load? 32214, well under 35000, and one of the lowest posted PSI measures for the max loads in 158 grain data?

This may be why the current lyman data and the western data disagree so dramatically. The western data is low powered by fiat as the .357 can handle much more than 32214 PSI.

 

[243winxb]

Your 12.4 gr load #9 with CCI standard primers will not blow up your Ruger.

If anything, the fired brass may need a little help to extract it.

 

[someguy2800]

I think you need to pick a data source to work with and forget the noise. For me all my 357 data comes from Lyman

 

[Mixed Nuts]

Someguy2800, best advice tonight. Thank you. I'll confirm my lyman mini book with their current big book and then start low and work up. If the cases get sticky I'll back up.

Problem solved. I'm going to bed before I change my mind.

 

[Dudedog]

Looking at the different data I understand your concerns.

 

[Walkalong]

Walkalong, dang it! I hope I have some luck with No9.

Some folks here report good success, maybe I gave up too soon, or was too picky about the large ES numbers I was getting. Maybe I stopped at too low of a charge.......

 

[Rule3]

My Goodness! Good Grief
Information overload!!

357 mag and a 158 grain CAST bullet is not this complicated or convoluted.

AA #9 is fine,
THE 357 mag powder for a gazillion years has been 2400, but if you don't have it use your #9
There are also many other suitable powders

LYMAN data is "usually" higher than others, but then it has been around for a Gazillion years also.

It is really very easy, use the the Accurate data and all will be well in the Universe. If you are just learning and shooting paper you do not need MAX loads of any powder.

Pull your "hot" loads, start over and be happy and safe!

 

[buck460XVR]

You guys are complicating this much more than necessary. Outta all the calibers I load for, .357 is probably the easiest. It probably has the most, readily available published data of any caliber and a multitude of appropriate projectiles and powders. None of which will blow up any modern firearm as long as one follows standard reloading techniques. .357 is probably one of the easiest calibers to have success with as far as accuracy, seems the little magnum is quite forgiving and adaptable, from mild to wild. Mixed Nuts there's a wealth of published info out there for .357, you do not need to use old photocopied data. There are free online published and tested reloading guides from most every powder company and many bullet manufacturers. A new $25-$30 manual is a good investment for any reloader, some of those are free for the asking. Stay within the parameters of any published manual, start low and work up and you will find that reloading .357 is pretty basic and simple.

 

[rfwobbly]

Mixed Nuts there's a wealth of published info out there for .357, you do not need to use old photocopied data. There are free online published and tested reloading guides from most every powder company and many bullet manufacturers. A new $25-$30 manual is a good investment for any reloader, some of those are free for the asking. Stay within the parameters of any published manual, start low and work up and you will find that reloading .357 is pretty basic and simple.

+1

► Powders change formulations decade to decade. The photos presented in this thread prove that.

► In the late 1990 to early 2000's load testing labs took a quantum leap and converted from Copper Units to a measurement system using electronic pressure gauges and computers. Instead of a single pressure reading, the newer method took a pressure reading every millionth of a second, allowing the entire combustion cycle to be mapped. As a result, a lot of the load data changed significantly.

Get and use the most up-to-date data you can. All the powder makers have new data on-line. Anything else is simply (apologies my friend, but there's no other way to say it) risky and foolish.

All the best.

 

[Mixed Nuts]

Rule3, gonna be conservative, but unless something looks sketchy, I'm going to shoot up into the lyman load range.

Buck460xbr, i hear you and im going to buy the newest lyman book today before i shoot.

Rfwobbly, i appreciate your input, (and I like your avatar)and i intend to be conservative and shoot lighter to stronger loads carefully. However, the lyman data I'm using is in current publication. If you're saying that I cannot trust the load data in a new edition publication from any company that doesn't manufacture the powder in question, I... well, I just find that hard to believe. Also, if I can't shoot 158grain cast bullets faster than 1140fps or higher pressure than 32214 PSI, then why own a .357 magnum if you want to shoot cast bullets?

 

[Mixed Nuts]

I'm in a parking lot, outside the sportsman warehouse, looking in the lyman 50th addition reloading handbook.

The data is the same as dudedog's post for Accu. #9 And the .357.

A 160gr cast RN starting at 12.3 and going up to 13.7 grains.

A 170gr cast LSWC starting at 11.7 and going up to 13.0

I'm planning on shooting several loads for 158gr cast bullets from 11.6 to 13.2 grains.

I mught pull my 13.4s, but I'd bet I don't need to.

 

[someguy2800]

We don't have pressure transducers in our revolvers and neither did the people that designed the cartridge or the guns that shoot them. Only way to find out is to start low, work up, and pay attention. There is 80 years of experience in the world of loading for 357 magnums.

 

[someguy2800]

I'm in a parking lot, outside the sportsman warehouse, looking in the lyman 50th addition reloading handbook.

The data is the same as dudedog's post for Accu. #9 And the .357.

A 160gr cast RN starting at 12.3 and going up to 13.7 grains.

A 170gr cast LSWC starting at 11.7 and going up to 13.0

I'm planning on shooting several loads for 158gr cast bullets from 11.6 to 13.2 grains.

I mught pull my 13.4s, but I'd bet I don't need to.

Good plan, go shoot!

 

[Rule3]

I'm in a parking lot, outside the sportsman warehouse, looking in the lyman 50th addition reloading handbook.

The data is the same as dudedog's post for Accu. #9 And the .357.

A 160gr cast RN starting at 12.3 and going up to 13.7 grains.

A 170gr cast LSWC starting at 11.7 and going up to 13.0

I'm planning on shooting several loads for 158gr cast bullets from 11.6 to 13.2 grains.

I mught pull my 13.4s, but I'd bet I don't need to.

As a general rule of thumb, heavier bullets use LESS powder than lighter bullets.

You also do not want to start at a lower charge weight than then starting load, especially with a slow powder. Why make this harder then you need to??

As mentioned previously use the darn Accurate load data.

 

[Steve C]

I like to load .357 mag using 158gr SWC Hard Cast bullets with 12.2 to 12.3 grs of AA9. The load equals typical 158gr jacketed factory loads at around 1,258 fps from a 4" barrel.

 

[eo1bart]

Here's my favorite load for the Ruger GP100 (6" Barrel);

Laser Cast-158gr LSWC 12.4 AA#9 1280fps/ avg

Pretty much inline with the data in the Accurate Arms and Laser Cast manuals

 

[Mixed Nuts]

Someguy2800, on my way this morn.

Rule3, good solid, bullet weight, advice. The sort of thing I need to keep in mind.

SteveC, thanks for posting your load and the fps. I have some 12.2 loaded up.

Eo1bart, I have some 12.4 loaded, too. Top of the western powders range. Thanks for posting.

Steve and eo1bart's posts have reminded me that I wasn't intellectually honest in response to rfwobbly's last post. I disagreed with his suggestions by using only a single load sample as evidence of my counter point. Obviously, this is weak stuff. Sorry.