Why 357 ammo is "watered down"

[Kleanbore]

I have scanned it,

I have read it carefully several times.

concludes that the 9 mm is best. Because women can shoot it.

That's not mentioned.

The .357 is gloriously effective.

Of course it is, if it hits the critical body parts.

But once there is enough penetration, more does not help.

And if the rate of controlled fire is reduced, the round is less effective.

It's just that semi-autos are much more common than they used to be, so we see far more 9mm and .380 rounds on the autopsy table than we do the .38 and .357.

What is seen on the autopsy table is not a measure of defensive effectiveness. Lethality doesn't count.

I said that I was using a .45 and a .40 with FMJ. I don't think that I am being adamant. I just have 3 guns with good reputation as fight stoppers.

The .40 has rapidly fallen out of favor among law enforcement. MARSCOM has dropped the .45. One reason has to do withe the effect of recoil on the rate of controlled fire.

We just had a long thread on thea dvantages of JHP ammo for self defense.

 

[mistermills357]

1.What is seen on the autopsy table is not a measure of defensive effectiveness. Lethality doesn't count.

2.The .40 has rapidly fallen out of favor among law enforcement.

3.MARSCOM has dropped the .45. One reason has to do withe the effect of recoil on the rate of controlled fire.

4.We just had a long thread on thea dvantages of JHP ammo for self defense.

1.Autopsies provide info that are implied, and can be inferred. I have inferred that a .45 is an excellent round.

2.I favor the .40, and I don't care what LE favors. Their likes an dislikes are like a merry go round.

3.I don't care what MARSOC does either. There are a lot of politics in the military.

4.I am using FMJ because that is what I can afford. I am a big fan of Con Bon otherwise.

When it comes down to brass tacks, it all depends upon your faith in the round, and your ability to make them count.

 

[Kleanbore]

Autopsies provide info that are implied, and can be inferred.

Autopsies determine the cause of death. Death is not an objective in self defense.

I have inferred that a .45 is an excellent round.

I favor the .40, and I don't care what LE favors.

I respectfully suggest that LE have, collectively, put more consideration into scientific evaluation, shooting ability with different rounds, and actual experience than you have.

I don't care what MARSOC does either. There are a lot of politics in the military.

MARSCOM, or MEU(COM), uses what they want ti use. Politics are not a factor.

I am using FMJ because that is what I can afford.

Alrighty then.

When it comes down to brass tacks, it all depends upon your faith in the round, and your ability to make them count.

One's "faith in the round" is a worthless commodity.

It also depends upon ammunition performance.

One's ability to "make them count" in a real SD encounter has a lot to do with the rapidity with which one can put rounds on target, which drives the probability of hitting the critical internal body parts. That is strongly influenced by recoil. When I learned that in a training class a decade ago, I retired my .45 and started carrying a 9MM.

Those factors are also relevant to this thread--a .357 with excessive recoil would not be a very good primary carry piece.

 

[Mr. Zorg]

The simple answer is have a test barrel made that incorporates all three pressure measurement systems into it and you can create an precise correlation between the three measurement systems for that cartridge. Baring that have a few different batches of ammo loaded and then tested by all three methods in separate test barrels using the three methods would be the next best thing.

Denton's attempts to correlate the three methods across all cartridge is flawed. It runs afoul of basic math and how linear fits work (set aside the physical difference in the how and what is being measured). Within the SAAMI data set there are sub-groups of cartridges that all have the same CUP spec but different Transducer Specs (and vice versa). This fact alone means you can never create a linear fit that will work with those sub-sets of the total data set thus means a linear fit to the larger data set is also mathematically flawed.

221 Rem Fireball 52 60
6mm Remington 52 65
7mm Rem Mag 52 61
7mm-08 Rem 52 61
17 Rem 52 63
221 Rem Fireball 52 60
223 Rem 52 55
243 Win 52 60
270 Win 52 65
308 Win 52 62
35 Whelen 52 62

This is the largest of these sub-sets the first number is kCUP second number is kPSI (trans) put this sub-set of data into Excel and have it try ask it to do a linear regression, it will fail. The correlations between measurement methods are interesting but always flawed and not useful for anything other than internet arguments.

I'm guessing you didn't click on that link before your post, here it is again.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/converting-cup-to-psi.847461/

I can't use the forum "Quote" feature since that thread is over a year old and thus closed, so I'll have to settle for a simple clipboard copy-paste of an especially relevant post from there.

dentonMember

The results are close to being the same whether or not the 357 Magnum is in the mix. The stats say that there was something unusual about the human decision making in assigning the 357's PSI rating. You do get a little tighter result for the typical cartridges by leaving it out, but putting it in does not destroy the model.

The little red triangle represents the 357.

I used some color for emphasis, to match at some degree the red triangle in the graph in that post by @denton.

We have seen SAAMI plucked their rationale for the 8X57mmJS cartridge when migrating from CUP to PSI very subjectively from dead center between their left and right hip pockets. Same was done for the 7X57mm Mauser. And all evidence points to something similarly very subjective with the 357 Magnum cartridge even though it didn't originate in Europe. Perhaps that subjective basis is on record somewhere accessible to someone with extra access within SAAMI, as something performed much more recently than setting the CUP standards for the 357 Magnum cartridge. I'd find that record every bit as interesting as I do for the SAAMI PSI bases for the 8X57mmJS and 7X57mm Mauser cartridges.

 

[mistermills357]

If you think that MARSOC is not politically influenced and does what it wants, then you are lost in your own wordy fog.

I have seen Green Berets ready to piss their pants, because of unit cuts. Which are more political than anything else.

 

[Kleanbore]

If you think that MARSOC is not politically influenced and does what it wants, then you are lost in your own wordy fog

What I said was that they choose what they want to use.

They chose the M45-1 when the MP was the standard UCMC handgun, and they were and are allowed to carry the G-19.

After some experience, the are dropping the M45-1 in favor of the G-19.

Are you suggesting that "politics" somehow influenced any of those decisions?

Can you think of any reason why a civilian defender might be better served with a 1911 than with a G19, when the MEU(SOC) folks seem to thong that hey were not?

 

[murf]

The stats say that there was something unusual about the human decision making in assigning the 357's PSI rating.

the test ammo is the same whether testing is done with the cup method or the piezo method. the 357 results are not "human decision making" and are not "assigned". i can't say what test ammo is used by the cip.

the model is wrong. there is no correlation between the cup and piezo methods.

murf

 

[JohnKSa]

There is correlation, but correlation only shows that there is some kind of relationship--it doesn't mean that the relationship is tight enough that a reliable formula to convert between the two exists. We would expect them to be related/correlated because they obviously are related at the core--they're both trying to measure something similar.

In spite of the correlation, there is no general formula that relates a single-number CUP figure to a single-number PSI figure. That's because while the PSI figure (actually a maximum PSI figure) really is a single number that is the peak pressure, the CUP figure, although it appears to be just like the PSI figure, is actually the result of an entire pressure curve (time vs pressure profile) acting on a complicated system.

So while there is correlation that shows that they are related somehow, there isn't, and can't be, a formula that converts back and forth between them, in general.

My understanding is that for a single cartridge, it is possible to come up with an approximation that is reasonably accurate, but that approximation should not be used on other calibers--only the one it was derived for.

There is a way to derive both CUP and MAP PSI figures from a single data set but it involves using the entire time vs pressure curve to derive them. In other words, if you have a full plot of the pressure as it changes over time, one can use that entire curve to calculate the CUP result as well as to read the maximum pressure in PSI. It's not a simple process, but it can be done. Dr. Ken Oehler said that he worked on a team that spent something like a year on the problem, as I recall and finally came up with that result which, though interesting, turned out to not be especially practical or useful.

 

[murf]

There is correlation, but correlation only shows that there is some kind of relationship--it doesn't mean that the relationship is tight enough that a reliable formula to convert between the two exists. We would expect them to be related/correlated because they obviously are related at the core--they're both trying to measure something similar.

In spite of the correlation, there is no general formula that relates a single-number CUP figure to a single-number PSI figure. That's because while the PSI figure (actually a maximum PSI figure) really is a single number that is the peak pressure, the CUP figure, although it appears to be just like the PSI figure, is actually the result of an entire pressure curve (time vs pressure profile) acting on a complicated system.

So while there is correlation that shows that they are related somehow, there isn't, and can't be, a formula that converts back and forth between them, in general.

My understanding is that for a single cartridge, it is possible to come up with an approximation that is reasonably accurate, but that approximation should not be used on other calibers--only the one it was derived for.

There is a way to derive both CUP and MAP PSI figures from a single data set but it involves using the entire time vs pressure curve to derive them. In other words, if you have a full plot of the pressure as it changes over time, one can use that entire curve to calculate the CUP result as well as to read the maximum pressure in PSI. It's not a simple process, but it can be done. Dr. Ken Oehler said that he worked on a team that spent something like a year on the problem, as I recall and finally came up with that result which, though interesting, turned out to not be especially practical or useful.

there is no time/pressure curve generated by the cup method. a copper slug gets crushed, the length measured and the maximum pressure is derived from a tarage table. so, i don't follow you here. there is no pressure curve measured using the crusher method.

reference: www.enfield-rifles.com/british-system-of-chamber-pressure-measurement_topic10711.html

murf

 

[JohnKSa]

there is no time/pressure curve generated by the cup method.

Correct. It's just the reverse. The CUP figure is the RESULT of the entire time/pressure curve operating on the crusher mechanism. The MAP PSI figure is actually the peak point on that same time/pressure curve.

So while they are related, the MAP PSI is specifically one single point on a time/pressure curve while the CUP figure is a function of the entire curve.

What Dr. Ken Oehler found was that it was possible to take an entire time/pressure curve (measured with strain gauges) and derive a CUP figure from it using a formula that he and his team developed. The PSI figure can just be read off as the peak number from that time/pressure curve. The determination was that the method, while viable, wasn't really practical because no one really cares about CUP figures any longer.

Again, this shows a relationship (as does the correlation) but since the entire pressure curve is required to calculate the CUP figure, there's no way to just take the peak PSI figure and derive the CUP figure. Nor is there a way to take that CUP figure and regenerate the entire time/pressure curve and then find the peak PSI figure.

For a single caliber, it's possible to derive a reasonable approximation that allows conversion between the two single numbers, but in the general case it simply can't be done.

 

[Mr. Zorg]

the test ammo is the same whether testing is done with the cup method or the piezo method. the 357 results are not "human decision making" and are not "assigned". i can't say what test ammo is used by the cip.

the model is wrong. there is no correlation between the cup and piezo methods.

murf

And you accessed the SAAMI archives to personally look at this - when? My guess is - never.

We know SAAMI chose to artifically restrict the 8X57mmJS figure with the change from CUP to piezo PSI, with some credo the SAAMI standard will allow a cartridge loaded with a .323" diameter projectile to be somehow *safely* fired in a firearm with a barrel designed to be used with .318" projectiles. We know of no such change by CIP.

We know this was also done by SAAMI with the 7X57mm Mauser cartridge for SAAMI standard ammunition to be fired in older cock-on-close design actions. We know of no such change by CIP.

So the only *honest* way to know whether SAAMI did something similar with ANY other cartridges including 357 Magnum and all the other ones listed in this thread would be to actually review the SAAMI archives for the documentation to see what other capricious cooked up by commitee exceptions may have been done with any cartridge. And the people who post about having connections t SAAMI never, ever, post they've ever chosen to even begin to see about taking this course of action in the past or in the future, instead choosing to simply choose to argue despite knowing this has been done by SAAMI in at least two broadly known cases.

 

[Kleanbore]

We know SAAMI chose to artifically restrict the 8X57mmJS figure with the change from CUP to piezo PSI, with some credo the SAAMI standard will allow a cartridge loaded with a .323" diameter projectile to be somehow *safely* fired in a firearm with a barrel designed to be used with .318" projectiles.

The SAAMI spec is for the American "8MM Mauser"--a lower pressure loading with a .323 bullet. There is nothing artificial about it, and it did not result from a change in measurement.

We know of no such change by CIP.

They don't have the problem. They have specs for two different "8MM Mauser" cartridges.

One would not prudently fire European-spec 8X57JS ammunition without knowing that the rifle has a .323 dia. bore.

 

[murf]

And you accessed the SAAMI archives to personally look at this - when?

i get my info from reliable sources: https://saami.org/technical-information/ansi-saami-standards/

happy reading,

murf

 

[mcb]

And you accessed the SAAMI archives to personally look at this - when? My guess is - never.

We know SAAMI chose to artifically restrict the 8X57mmJS figure with the change from CUP to piezo PSI, with some credo the SAAMI standard will allow a cartridge loaded with a .323" diameter projectile to be somehow *safely* fired in a firearm with a barrel designed to be used with .318" projectiles. We know of no such change by CIP.

We know this was also done by SAAMI with the 7X57mm Mauser cartridge for SAAMI standard ammunition to be fired in older cock-on-close design actions. We know of no such change by CIP.

So the only *honest* way to know whether SAAMI did something similar with ANY other cartridges including 357 Magnum and all the other ones listed in this thread would be to actually review the SAAMI archives for the documentation to see what other capricious cooked up by commitee exceptions may have been done with any cartridge. And the people who post about having connections t SAAMI never, ever, post they've ever chosen to even begin to see about taking this course of action in the past or in the future, instead choosing to simply choose to argue despite knowing this has been done by SAAMI in at least two broadly known cases.

I would be happy to believe you when you show me the historic SAAMI specification that shows 357 Mag changed. I have spent a fair amount of time combing library archives and similar looking for old copies of SAAMI Specs and even tried to get the information out of a SAAMI voting member and failed. I have not seen any change in 357 Mag going back to the 80's for the copies of specs I have seen. Maybe they changed it before then but I have not seen proof and until I see the proof and what I know about SAAMI I highly doubt they would change an accepted cartridge. There is no safe direct you can change an established cartridge's peak pressure, a change either direction sets up a potential kaboom.

 

[amd6547]

All I know is, it's pretty sad that if I want to shoot full power 8mm Mauser in my kar98k, I have to order S&B.

 

[Goosey]

SAAMI 2015 says 45,000 CUP, 35,000 psi for the 357 Magnum.

Among other loads they list 158 gr at 1600 fps instrumental velocity from a 10" barrel (1220 fps from a 4" vented barrel).

Hodgdon seems to follow this showing a max load of 16.7 grs of H110 pushing a 158 gr XTP to 1591 fps in a 10" barrel for 40,700 CUP.

 

[Palladan44]

I think manufacturers are making loads for what they are intended on being used for.
For SD, 357 Mag and 10mm are among the hotter of your common calibers for that purpose. Meaning over penetration, recoil, and pushing a hollow point faster than it was designed (possibly making it fragment undesirably) are among the possibilities.
This is why a lot of SD style HP ammo is not loaded to max potential for the caliber, or even close for that matter. If the same manufacturer makes target FMC/FMJ ammo, it will likely be lighter and likely to perform accurately, and to follow the similar velocity and weight characteristics of the same manufacturer's SD offering. Speer does this really well with Its Lawman ammo supposedly performing the same as the Gold Dot counterpart....its a great idea, and is the whole point of "practice ammo"

Ammo for 10mm and 357 Mag marketed for Hunting deer, Black Bear or Boar....whole different story. But thats a much slimmer part of the market, but is where you will find the Hot stuff.

 

[CraigC]

Factory .454Casull is "watered down" and they didn't even have to drop SAAMI maximums to do it. While maximum pressure is still 65,000psi, most factory stuff is around 50,000psi.

 

[Palladan44]

Factory .454Casull is "watered down" and they didn't even have to drop SAAMI maximums to do it. While maximum pressure is still 65,000psi, most factory stuff is around 50,000psi.

Yeah, 454 Casull at full power is pretty Nuclear stuff. If everybody rolled those up like Buffalo Bore does....whew!!!! There would be a thing called The "Casull Scar" a scar and a dent right above the right eyebrow. Seen it happen more than once.

 

[CraigC]

Actually Buffalo Bore is right there with the rest at 50-55,000psi. Freedom Arms was the last I know of to load them to full pressure.

 

[Mr. Zorg]

I would be happy to believe you when you show me the historic SAAMI specification that shows 357 Mag changed. I have spent a fair amount of time combing library archives and similar looking for old copies of SAAMI Specs and even tried to get the information out of a SAAMI voting member and failed. I have not seen any change in 357 Mag going back to the 80's for the copies of specs I have seen. Maybe they changed it before then but I have not seen proof and until I see the proof and what I know about SAAMI I highly doubt they would change an accepted cartridge. There is no safe direct you can change an established cartridge's peak pressure, a change either direction sets up a potential kaboom.

I have zero information on the reasoning applied when SAAMI changed from CUP to piezo PSI, and ave never claimed to have such. It would be interesting for someone who claims ability to review SAAMI archives to see if there was any specific rationale applied as is well documented by authors / editors of many reloading manuals that was done with the 8X57mmJS cartridge and 7X57mm Mauser cartridge that so many in this post choose to deny exists, despite my having posted photos directly from the Accurate Manual 2 and once my cataract surgery tomorrow has been completed I'll post up photos from additional reloading manuals including the 7X57mm Mauser cartridge as mentioned not only in this thread but others.

Please use the "Quote" feature to display where I ever posted anything requiring or requesting"belief" by anyone in my post you copied into yours - and please be precisely specific.

 

[Mr. Zorg]

The SAAMI spec is for the American "8MM Mauser"--a lower pressure loading with a .323 bullet. There is nothing artificial about it, and it did not result from a change in measurement.

They don't have the problem. They have specs for two different "8MM Mauser" cartridges.

One would not prudently fire European-spec 8X57JS ammunition without knowing that the rifle has a .323 dia. bore.

Well according to the photos I previously posted this thread from the Accurate Manual 2 is in no way congruent with what I see in yourpost. Here's those photos again, and as I said I'll post up similar photos from other reloading manuals, which all list SAAMI as a source of information.

I have a difficult time believing if this information was not factual, SAAMI wouldn't force a revision or retraction of these statements across the decades this information has been published.



I see nothing stating firing cartridges loaded with. 323" diameter bullets in a barrel designed for .318" diameter bullets is smart, nor that a chamber cast would not be prudent in these photos, or in my posts including the one I copied into yours.

I further see nothing supporting load data for 8mm cartridges using .318" diameter bullets nor .323" diameter bullets is restricted to a single continent, and especially with regard to CIP member states, which as I previously noted span 3 continents, so exactly where are you referring to when you use the term "they"? CIP member states are on these continents as I previously posted: Europe, Asia, and South America.

Are you stating no load data for 8mm Mauser cartridges using .318" diameter projectiles exist in the USA? That wouldn't make too much sense as I know of no ban on the importation or manufacture of 8mm Mauser rifles designed to use .318" diameter projectiles in the USA, nor ammunition for those firearms and I have personally seen such firearms offered for sale in the USA on Gunbroker.com and GunsInternatinal.com, and availability of such .318" diameter projectiles in the USA. So I know both exist "here", and lack evidence of load data for either not existing "here". Those for .318" diameter projectiles are noted to lack the "S" following the "J" (or "I") whether here, there, or anywhere. But lack of standardization makes a chamber cast prudent if any question exists, no matter .318" diameter design, .323" diameter design, or anything else questionable such as 25-06 prior to its adoption by Remington in 1969, or the 338-06 in general s it was at one point adopted by A-Square and SAAMI who subsequently folded - as mentioned where any question exists - whether in the USA, Greenland, Africa, etc such an item is located.

What I see actually exists in those photos is exatly what I stated was shown in those photos and I'll type it out specifically here in italics as apparently without including those photos in every post I make referring to the information presented in those photos is construed differently.

"For several years after the change in bore dimensions by the German military, the manufacturers of sporting rifles in Europe continued to use both bore sizes. This causes no confusion to the European users of those cartridges. The American shooting public, however, tends to lump all 8mm cartridges into one category. This fact, plus the importation of older military rifles and some sporting rifles using the smaller dimension bore, has created the potential for damage or injury if the 8X57 "JS" cartridge is fired in an 8X57 "J" firearm.

SAAMI's solution to this problem was to limit the pressures of American manufactured 8mm Mauser ammunition to 35,000 PSI. This low pressure loading allows the safe use of American ammunition in both weapons."

For those who may believe I somehow Photoshopped or otherwise adulterated photos I posted from my hard copy of that manual I purchased from another THR member through the Classifieds, I've run across a pdf copy of the Accurate Manual 2 (for short) recently at this link. And no, I didn't create this website, upload that info, etc.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAGegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw3kw3mGNxbLEhzFYgOjOSEN

Now if those with inside access at SAAMI can procure documentation from SAAMI that disputes this well published background, please post it up. If those with special access to SAAMI can produce documentation from SAAMI requesting withdrawal of this information from this, or any other manual due to not being factual in any part, please post it up.

ETA: I know of at least one source of both 8X57mmJS factory ammunition as well as 8X57mmJ factory ammunition in the USA, "here" colloquially I suppose in relative terms. Reed's Ammunition and Research in OK.

8X57mmJ Factory Ammunition (which must have used 8X57mmJ load data to manufacture)

https://shop.reedsammo.com/8x57-J-Bore-318_c361.htm

8X57MMJS Factory Ammunition same Factory

https://shop.reedsammo.com/8x57-Mauser_c331.htm

Plus, 8X57mmJR factory ammunition, the rimmed version of 8X57mmJ ammunition

https://shop.reedsammo.com/8x57R-J-Bore-318-Rimmed_c360.htm

 

[Hal]

Factory .454Casull is "watered down" and they didn't even have to drop SAAMI maximums to do it. While maximum pressure is still 65,000psi, most factory stuff is around 50,000ps

& you know this how?

 

[Kleanbore]

Well according to the photos I previously posted this thread from the Accurate Manual 2 is in no way congruent with what I see in yourpost.

What you posted here is correct, and my description is "congruent" with it.

What you posted here...

We know SAAMI chose to artifically restrict the 8X57mmJS figure with the change from CUP to piezo PSI, with some credo the SAAMI standard will allow a cartridge loaded with a .323" diameter projectile to be somehow *safely* fired in a firearm with a barrel designed to be used with .318" projectiles.

is not correct. The "8MM Mauser" data are different from that for the 8x5JS, for the reasons stated.

While "8M Mauser" ammunition loaded by Remington, Winchester, etc did use the S ( .323 Spitzer) bullet, it was not properly listed as "8.57 JS". as were the hotter loads from Norma and RWS---which were certainly sold here.

Those firms sold ammunition for bot h bore sizes.

I see nothing stating firing cartridges loaded with. 323" diameter bullets in a barrel designed for .318" diameter bullets is smart, nor that a chamber cast would not be prudent in these photos, or in my posts including the one I copied into yours.

The operative phrase is "safe use"

Are you stating no load data for 8mm Mauser cartridges using .318" diameter projectiles exist in the USA?

Of course not.

Now if those with inside access at SAAMI can procure documentation from SAAMI that disputes this well published background, please post it up.

Again, the background is accurate, and it has been very well understood for many decades.

 

[CraigC]

& you know this how?

It's common knowledge. I think I've even seen it mentioned in a reloading manual.