Why 357 ammo is "watered down"

[RetiredUSNChief]

OK, I skimmed through the postings after the first page, so forgive me if someone has already covered this.

Reviewing the history behind the .357 magnum, I re-discovered the cartridge is going on a century old...it's 85 years old, in fact.

It came out in 1935 as the result of a group of individuals being spurred by Colt's .38 Super Automatic, which had the distinction of being the only pistol cartridge capable of penetrating automobile cover and the early bullet proof vests. At the time, testing showed those vests to be proof against any handgun bullet traveling less than about 1,000 fps. Colt's .38 Super Automatic just peaked over that velocity and was able to punch holes in automobile cover and vests that bootleggers/gangsters were using as cover.

So the original design and function criteria were different than for today...namely a bullet and velocity which enabled reliable penetration of automotive sheet metal door construction and personal armor. There was no consideration for hollowpoint ammunition as we know it. In fact, though hollowpoint ammunition had been around for a while at that time, it was not until around the 1960s or so that it started coming into its own in terms of marketability and probably the 80's or 90s when bullet design and manufacturing made some pretty impressive engineering leaps which greatly improved performance and reliability.

Initial bullet design (the "Keith-style bullet") utilized a large, flat "meplat" which was a compromise in terms of greater wounding capacity combined with the kind of penetration desired as noted above. Commercial economics being what they are, Smith & Wesson immediately jumped on the .357 Magnum bandwagon and began developing their own bullet design (the "Sharpe bullet"). Then came Winchester and their design.

And now here we are, 85 years later, with all that entails with respect to design and development of modern self-defense cartridges. The end result is a fantastic spread of ammunition type and capabilities to choose from to meet one's needs. And since then we've also come a long ways in terms of understanding terminal ballistics and what constitutes "decent", if not downright "excellent", self defense ammunition.

So it's no surprise when you look back at the history of the .357, and the subsequent 85 years of development, that we find a lot of "watered down" ammunition. If you want a round capable of penetration as originally designed, perhaps even better, you can have it. If you want a decent self-defense ammo, you can have it. If you want a good hunting round, you can have it. If you want low-powered target ammunition, you can have that, too.

 

[mcb]

I won't speak to pressure, but ballistic pendulums could easily measure velocity to within about 1%.

The Copper and Lead crusher method of estimating peak pressure goes back into the late 1800's.

There were also electromagnet/pendulum base chronographs from the late 1800's also that did not require the bullet to strike the pendulum. They use a pair of wires separated buy a known distance when the first wire was broken the electromagnet was turned off releasing a pendulum to swing. When the second wire was broken a relay would open and re-energized the electromagnet freezing the pendulum. By cutting both wires simultaneously you could determine the delays cause by the release and stopping of the pendulum and required relay switch delay. Then when you separate the two wires the additional swing of the pendulum was easily turned into a very precise time interval since by this point the motion of a pendulum was very well understood. This could then be used to calculate an accurate average velocity over the distance between the wires.

 

[Kleanbore]

Thanks, MCB

 

[CraigC]

One thing that is hardly mentioned is the powders used. In 1935, 2400 was brand new and the best available. 2400 is still a great powder for magnum handgun cartridges but when the case starts getting close to 100% load density, pressures start climbing rapidly. Today, it is not going to yield the highest velocities. That would go to H110, Lil Gun or the new 300MP. So if Brian Pearce had to use Lil Gun to get to 1500fps, that tells us something. Keith's 1350fps .38-44 load was tested at 42,000psi and that also tells us something. It tells us that original pressures were measurably higher than they are today, despite claims that CUP and PSI are vastly different. In straightwall handgun cartridges, they are very close, if not interchangeable. IMHO, the change from 43,500CUP to 36,000psi was not just a change in the way pressure is measured but also a drop in maximum allowable pressure.

Think about it like this, Keith's 173gr .38Spl load gets 1350fps, yet people today are satisfied with a 158gr at 1250fps out of the .357Mag.

Keith's heavy - a 173 grain bullet over 17.5 grains of #2400 in a .38 special case - is well documneted.

That was the powder charge for his .44Spl load, not .38-44.

However, as the BBTI website shows, you can still get well over 1500fps out of current .357Mag 158gr loadings--if you shoot them out of an 8" barrel.

Yes but that is also an unvented barrel. When you look at actual guns with 6" barrels, it drops to well below 1300fps.

But if it's matching the weight and speed of the original load I don't consider it "watered down", even if there's now room for improvement due to advances in technology.

That's the point, they are NOT reaching the weight and velocity of the original loadings. Only the boutique outfits like Buffalo Bore, which run AT maximum pressure with the best powders, are reaching original specs. When Buffalo Bore is able to get a 180gr to 1500fps in a 6" Ruger, that tells us that common factory loads are not only watered down but significantly so.

buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=541

 

[CraigC]

I don't know that 357 loads are now so much watered down as much as the original loads were loaded too hot.

What's the difference? Too hot for what?

Plus when the only 357 revolvers were heavy framed guns like the N frame S&Ws the heavier built guns could better handle the pressure. So when lighter built 357s came along reducing the loads made sense.

I think this point gets to the crux of the matter. The cartridge was developed for and in the N-frame. IMHO, the pressures were dropped in deference to the K-frames and J-frames which came later. Remember, SAAMI isn't some objective, third party governing body. It IS the industry.

I have read that the lead bullet loads would plate the bore in just a few rounds.

That's because they used swaged bullets. They took lessons from folks like Keith and Sharpe with regards to propellants and pressures but ignored the lessons on bullets.

Those initial loads were probably at the suggestion of Elmer Keith who's ballistic knowledge came down to loading a case full of powder and trying it and if it didn't blow the gun up when fired it was a safe load.

Not true at all. Keith was not the ballistician Sharpe was but he was no fool either. As Ross Seyfried said, while everyone else was in grade school, Keith was operating at the doctorate level. Or words to that effect. Keith was smart enough to have his loads tested at H.P. White labs. Contrary to popular myth, he did not blow up a bunch of guns.

In one article by Brian Pearce he reported getting 1495fps from a 6" gun with a 158gr bullet pushed by 19grs of Lil Gun and a 550 primer. That should be close enough to the original loads to satisfy anyone looking to duplicate it. But it would not be a load I would shoot a lot of out of a model 19 or similar sized guns. If you want to shoot those loads use an N frame or even better a Ruger Blackhawk. That gun should take anything you can stuff in it. Elmer would have a ball with that gun.

Agreed. Although a Colt SAA, replica or medium frame Blackhawk is plenty of gun for the cartridge with anything but 353 Casull loads.

 

[fxvr5]

A concern with the linked article is the information on pressure readings. The numbers the author shows for the loads Keith refers to for the old ammo are listed in psi, such 47,000 to 47,000 psi for the original loads. Were they really measuring psi back in 1935? The SAAMI manual lists the 357 Magnum's old max pressure measured in copper units of pressure as 45,000 CUP. The modern measure with a piezoelectric transducer has a max of 35,000 psi. Has the author confused CUP with psi? I think verification of methods and units of pressure and a source for the information the author claims is prudent before accepting it.

 

[mcb]

A concern with the linked article is the information on pressure readings. The numbers the author shows for the loads Keith refers to for the old ammo are listed in psi, such 47,000 to 47,000 psi for the original loads. Were they really measuring psi back in 1935? The SAAMI manual lists the 357 Magnum's old max pressure measured in copper units of pressure as 45,000 CUP. The modern measure with a piezoelectric transducer has a max of 35,000 psi. Has the author confused CUP with psi? I think verification of methods and units of pressure and a source for the information the author claims is prudent before accepting it.

As as stated earlier the Copper and Lead crusher pressure method dates back to the late 1800's, by the time SAAMI came into existence in the early 1920's it we fairly well standardized for small arms pressure testing. So articles and technical publication published before 1960's using the crusher method will report the pressure as PSI because they though CUP/LUP pressure measurements were actual peak pressure. It was not till the advent of the piezo electric force and pressure sensors (in the 1960's) used in modern SAAMI and CIP testing did they realize that CUP/LUP were not measuring peak pressure as exact as they thought it was. So in the late 60's and early 70's as SAAMI added the piezo transducer method to the acceptable pressure measurement methods (CUP/LUP is still acceptable even today) they started using the CUP and LUP units to distinguish the crusher method from the new transducer method that was reported in PSI. So publication before the 1960 will report pressure measurement in PSI even though it was done with a Copper or Lead crusher measurement system.

 

[fxvr5]

Colt had come out with a .38 Super - as a way of showing up the .38 S&W Special - in a "Special eh? Look what we can do with a .38!"
​

Colt came out with the Super 38 Pistol in 1928/9. It was chambered in 38 Automatic. The velocity of the .38 ACP cartridge with a 130 grain bullet in the 1928 Colt ad was 1190 fps. This was typical for this cartridge at the time. Douglas Sheldon (1997) writes: "Contrary to popular belief, the cartridge ballistics were not changed in 1929 for the new model [Colt Super .38 pistol]…” Remington upped the speed speed to 1300 fps in 1932-1933. In 1936 Remington showed 2 loads, the 38 Super automatic at 1300 fps and the 38 Automatic at 1050 fps.

Sheldon, Douglas G. 1997. Colt's Super .38, The Production History From 1929 Through 1971. Quick Vend, Inc. Willernie, MN.

 

[fxvr5]

As as stated earlier the Copper and Lead crusher pressure method dates back to the late 1800's, by the time SAAMI came into existence in the early 1920's it we fairly well standardized for small arms pressure testing. So articles and technical publication published before 1960's using the crusher method will report the pressure as PSI because they though CUP/LUP pressure measurements were actual peak pressure. It was not till the advent of the piezo electric force and pressure sensors (in the 1960's) used in modern SAAMI and CIP testing did they realize that CUP/LUP were not measuring peak pressure as exact as they thought it was. So in the late 60's and early 70's as SAAMI added the piezo transducer method to the acceptable pressure measurement methods (CUP/LUP is still acceptable even today) they started using the CUP and LUP units to distinguish the crusher method from the new transducer method that was reported in PSI. So publication before the 1960 will report pressure measurement in PSI even though it was done with a Copper or Lead crusher measurement system.

If that's right, then the pressure values listed in the linked article are genuinely suspicious.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

The Copper and Lead crusher method of estimating peak pressure goes back into the late 1800's.

There were also electromagnet/pendulum base chronographs from the late 1800's also that did not require the bullet to strike the pendulum. They use a pair of wires separated buy a known distance when the first wire was broken the electromagnet was turned off releasing a pendulum to swing. When the second wire was broken a relay would open and re-energized the electromagnet freezing the pendulum. By cutting both wires simultaneously you could determine the delays cause by the release and stopping of the pendulum and required relay switch delay. Then when you separate the two wires the additional swing of the pendulum was easily turned into a very precise time interval since by this point the motion of a pendulum was very well understood. This could then be used to calculate an accurate average velocity over the distance between the wires.

Now you make me want to start a new project...

I could just see my wife asking:

WIFE: What are you going to do with that thing when you're done?

ME: Shoot it.

 

[CraigC]

A concern with the linked article is the information on pressure readings. The numbers the author shows for the loads Keith refers to for the old ammo are listed in psi, such 47,000 to 47,000 psi for the original loads. Were they really measuring psi back in 1935? The SAAMI manual lists the 357 Magnum's old max pressure measured in copper units of pressure as 45,000 CUP. The modern measure with a piezoelectric transducer has a max of 35,000 psi. Has the author confused CUP with psi? I think verification of methods and units of pressure and a source for the information the author claims is prudent before accepting it.

According to Elmer Keith and H.P. White, it was PSI. Brian Pearce also had the .44Spl Keith load retested recently, again by H.P. White and found it to be the same 26,000psi that Keith had reported all those years ago.

 

[Kleanbore]

If that's right, then the pressure values listed in the linked article are genuinely suspicious.

Pressure measurements are important to firearms designers, ammunition manufacturers, developers of loading manuals, and perhaps, to some historians.

They measure an internal process variable, and are unimportant to re-loaders who use the manuals and to persons who use factory loads.

Some of us are interested in the history and the technology, but our pressure measurements are far less sophisticated, such as "what do the fired primers look like?".

Input variables are what --how many grains of shat, and bullet information--are what ordinary people work with.

The whole question of whether .357 ammunition is "watered down" has to do with output variables, such as velocity.

 

[e rex]

Fellows, we fret about slower loads but if I have a 150 grain or a 158 grain or a 173 grain lead bullet traveling 1000 FPS, who can I not defend myself against? I once told a friend that a .25 Automatic was no good for anything and he ask me to let him shoot me in the belly with one then repeat that statement, I declined.

 

[Kleanbore]

I once told a friend that a .25 Automatic was no good for anything and he ask me to let him shoot me in the belly with one then repeat that statement, I declined.

What is it that you are trying to say?

 

[e rex]

What is it that you are trying to say?

I don't think I have to have full bore .357 to defend myself or put meat on the table, just have to place my shot.

 

[Kleanbore]

I don't think I have to have full bore .357 to defend myself or put meat on the table,

I don't either.

just have to place my shot.

You need sufficient effectiveness in terms of terminal ballistics to do the job.

For a defensive handgun, that means sufficient penetration and expanded diameter. One does not need .357 Magnum performance. But a .25 ACP would be a very poor bet.

For the taking of mammalian game, you need something adequate for the target at hand.

 

[Hal]

ballistic pendulums could easily measure velocity to within about 1%.

So they say. Has anyone ever compared one to a modern Chronograph?

 

[Kleanbore]

So they say. Has anyone ever compared one to a modern Chronograph?

I'm sure someone has.

I really don't care very much about minor differences in velocity.

 

[mcb]

So they say. Has anyone ever compared one to a modern Chronograph?

The pendulum and its physics are extraordinarily well studied and very fundamental as far as the physics go. By the end of the 1700's we could calculated longitude to within a nautical mile and navigated the world using a watch build around a torsional pendulum. The only real loss in such a system is friction at the pivots and that, with modern (1700's) manufacturing, can be reduced to negligible losses for the quarter cycle needed to measure the momentum/kinetic energy of a bullet.

I have used ballistic pendulums, one that holds the rifle rather than catch the bullet to do recoil testing. The mil-spec for recoil measurement still retained the ballistic pendulum as one of the approved ways to measure free recoil energy of a shoulder fired weapon systems up until the latest revision in 2016.

Pendulums are still used for material testing in both Izod and Sharpy material testing in a lab setting as a very precise way to impart a very precise and repeatable amount of momentum/energy into the test sample.

I have little doubt that we could create a ballistic pendulum that would be equal to any of the consumer grade chronographs on the market. But they would not fit in your range bag nearly as nicely.

This ballistic pendulum example from 1742.

They still sell ballistic pendulums, though setup for much lower energy levels for use in high school and college physics classes. It is such a fundamental application of basic physics that despite being obsolete as a practical device it is such a simple and pure application of physics it lives on as a teaching device. (https://www.pasco.com/products/lab-apparatus/mechanics/projectiles/me-6830) <- This teaching ballistic pendulum claims an accuracy of 2.5% of the predicted value. That pretty good for a teaching device, image in we got serious about it for making money. Every physics book I have ever cracked open has a ballistic pendulum problem, usually many problems, in it somewhere.

-rambling as usual

 

[Palladan44]

I think the big ammo makers obviously load their ammo to best suit their profits, that means using as little powder as they can get by with while still maintaining both safe operation (they don't want to buy your exploded gun) and ballistics that are to be reasonably expected from that cartridge in any random gun. None of them load anything to the max, that's too big of a liability. This is where your boutique ammo makers come in (and subsequently how they became popular) because they can and will load cartridges to levels that previously only handloaders could achieve.

The projectiles are a factor too, and I'll use 10mm as an example because everyone complains about 10mm not being loaded to full potential. Well outside of not wanting the liability for it, often most .400" bullets are designed round typical .40 S&W velocity mainly because that's what sells the most. People want a 180gr HST loaded to 1300 fps but fail to realize that 1300 fps is too fast for that bullet design and it's probably not worth it to Federal to design a separate 180gr HST that would hold up to 1300 fps when in reality, 10mm is still quite uncommon overall. For the most part, when considering JHP bullets and that I too handload, I don't really see much point of the 10mm in general, as the .40 can fire most all JHP bullets to the point of fatigue and bullet separation.

I'm not speaking ill of the 10mm as I've owned many, but knowing what each is capable of, why would I go buy a 10mm when I can run a 180gr @ 1300 fps from my Glock 35? I've loaded a lot of 10mm btw, but my point is that if 1300 fps is already borderline too fast for even the tougher 180gr bullets, why drive it faster? It won't kill any better and may actually perform worse. Some will claim that faster is always better but that's too simple minded, faster can indeed be better if the bullet holds up and maintains good penetration, but when it starts breaking up and not going as deep, that's not ideal.

I agree, ive tested several JHP bullets pushed high in the 10mm load range. Good accuracy, but terminal performance is a fragmenting bullet with dwindling penetration the faster they go past 1,250 or so. XTPs are pretty good up to 1300 or so. HAP as well, but they are a target JHP. Hard cast are the way to go if you want reliable penetration in 10mm, they would likely hold up better than FMJ.
Id like to see some bonded JSPs for the 10mm hand loader. Those would perform well, giving some expansion with great penetration at high velocity.

 

[unspellable]

Some time back I investigated DWM's original 7.65 mm Parabellum (30 Luger) loading. The chronograph they used (circa 1898) had two foil strips several meters apart.. When the first strip broke, an electromagnet released a falling weight. When the second strip broke it interrupted current to a spark coil on the weight, the spark made a mark on a vertical strip of paper. Same principle could be made to work with a pendulum. Trying to stop the pendulum would yield poor accuracy, you can't stop it that quick. The falling weight would travel a greater distance, yielding better resolution.

P.S>: I did the ballistic pendulum thing for my college physics class with a Webley. Saying I took a revolver on campus to the physics building is giving away my age. Fancy doing that today!

 

[Palladan44]

I think we can summarize that perhaps back in the day velocities were not only tougher to measure, but if you print 1400fps on your box back then, who was going to test it to discover it was exaggerated? Not enough for the word to get out. Now today, Chronographs can be had for around 100$ and ive seen them at plenty of retail stores.

Watched a very old tv commercial where a machine jiggled your fat for you, because they thought that moving it is what burned it off. Why jog to jiggle it, when you can stand in place and jiggle it?

 

[Goosey]

That's the point, they are NOT reaching the weight and velocity of the original loadings. Only the boutique outfits like Buffalo Bore, which run AT maximum pressure with the best powders, are reaching original specs. When Buffalo Bore is able to get a 180gr to 1500fps in a 6" Ruger, that tells us that common factory loads are not only watered down but significantly so.

buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=541

Buffalo Bore is easily exceeding the power of the original loads.

Among other things they offer a 180 gr XTP at 1501 fps from a 6" GP100. Or a 158 gr JHP at 1485 fps from a 4" Smith.

The original factory load was a 158 gr lead bullet in the low 1500 fps range from an 8-3/8" barrel. Elmer said it was about 15.4 grains of 2400. Weaker than the Buffalo Bore offerings.

Convert that to a 4" barrel, and then consider jacketed vs unjacketed factor, and things will be a lot closer. For example, I see posted data on another forum showing 15.2 grains of modern 2400 and a 158 grain Speer JSP got 1263 fps from a 4" Smith (in another source 15.0 grains of modern 2400 and a 158 gr cast exceeded 1500 fps from an 8-3/8 Smith, so 2400 still seems to produce as much velocity as the old days).

So the 158 gr, 1235 fps loads might be not as quite powerful than the original load. It happened with a lot of loads, lessened for safety or function or just because original advertising was unrealistic. Some only slightly and others by a lot. But I don't think the standard load of 158 gr at 1235 fps / 4" barrel is weak and puny. IMO it's respectable numbers. And the 125 gr loads are still what they have always been.

 

[fxvr5]

The original factory load was a 158 gr lead bullet in the low 1500 fps range from an 8-3/8" barrel.

Minor point - 8 3/4" barrel. As a minor historical note, the Registered Magnum (pre - model 27 name) had up to a 8 3/4" barrel length. That was later standardized to 8 3/8".

 

[JohnKSa]

Yes but that is also an unvented barrel. When you look at actual guns with 6" barrels, it drops to well below 1300fps.

Paco's website was talking about testing an S&W revolver. So let's look at the 686 on the BBTI website shooting the 158gr Federal Hydrashok. It's got a 4" bbl and is turning in 1248fps with that loading. From the upper chart, we see that adding 4" of barrel length to that loading will result in an increase in velocity of about 261fps. So in the same revolver with an "8+" inch barrel, it's reasonable to expect that the velocity could be 1509+fps.

I've posted this before, but the 2006 August/September issue of Handguns magazine had an interesting article on this topic. The author managed to find some vintage .357Mag ammunition and tested it vs. current offerings. There was no evidence that the old loadings were appreciably hotter than the new stuff.

I think that there are two things that really complicate this discussion:

1. There certainly reduced loads out there and people make the assumption that they are representative of the entire spectrum of available loadings.
2. The differences in measuring techniques, both in terms of pressure and velocity over the lifetime of the .357Mag round.

Here's another interesting source.

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/51111218/american-handgunner-july-august-1977

This source, for example, claims that original velocity testing was done in "a one-piece test barrel equivalent to a 8.5" barrel plus cylinder". Given that the cylinder length in a typical .357Mag revolver is about 1.75" long, that is equivalent to a 10.25" unvented test barrel. Looking at the BBTI website, we see that length barrel produces velocities over 1600fps with the Federal Hydrashok load in question.

The author in that article (from 1977, by the way) notes that performance from revolvers (that have cylinder gaps) and in more common barrel lengths was less impressive.

The article also claims the original pressure was 40,000 CUP--now, according to SAAMI, it's 45,000CUP.