Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns what's your opinion on 357mag?

Gets me things to throw on the fire, revolver or carbine.






GR

I only have 2 .357’s left. My brother has permanently borrowed my SP-101 and the NM Blackhawk I got about 20 years ago only because it was waved in front of me for a really good price went out to Missouri with me last time and stayed with one of my sons. That leaves me a 27-5 and a PC 627. I shoot them occasionally. They are much easier shooting in a big revolver than the other magnum revolver rounds. Both of mine being N frames they have no advantage, carry-wise, over a .41 or .44 magnum.

I love it but have only two 357 mag revolvers, a first gen 4" blue Colt Trooper and pre-27 S&W 8-3/8.

125gr Barnes' from 1450 to 1600 fps
158gr Keith at 1000 fps
158gr Cast Performance hard casts from 1400-1500 fps
180gr Swift A Frames 1400 fps

No hand gunner here, but i think a man can get a lot done with a good 357 mag revolver.

Modern "fighting" guns are semi automatic and have a capacity larger than 6 rounds. As semi autos became more reliable, These factors combined along with a few high profile shootings were likely the reason that revolvers became obsolete in LE work. The .357 mag earned its reputation as a manstopper using a 125 jhp. Its versatility is a benefit, but if using a revolver, Id rather use a 45 LC or 44 Magnum. A concealed snub nose 357 mag snubby for CCW or a backup wouldn't be a horrible idea.

Unless you actually touched one off with full power Magnum rounds in it. No fun at all.

A new model Black Hawk, capable of the most off the wall 357 loads just shy of a Model83 Freedom Arms @ 2 grand & change.

180's at 1938 velocities for 158's. Over 1500. Been there, done that.

Risky, but doable. Superior dimensions & tolerances of the FA might save brass. But when testing stuff like this, the Ruger holds, the brass doesn't. I never went to the point of blowing or splitting brass, but the primer pockets were toast.

Time to stop & back up. Use the 357 for things that don't require a 44. All of them have their place.

Never said it had to be a full power .357 mag load.

+1........

gunner500, is that velocity from the 8-3/8" barrel?

My favorite duty load back in the day was either the Remington reduced velocity scalloped jacket hollowpoint which was a 125 gr. at 1250 fps, or the Winchester 145 gr. Silvertip hollowpoint at 1275 fps. In a 4" K frame Combat Magnum either load was much easier to handle than the full house 125 gr. at 1400+ fps. I had the bad luck to be inside a vehicle when a 4" .357 was fired six times with the Federal 125 gr. full house magnum load. It will get your attention and it will blow a lot of dust and debris around in your face in a "disconcerting" way.

The M66 must be one of the early ones. Stainless front and rear sight. I suppose: Model 66-no dash. Very nice. And I like the appearance of the M27

Yes Sir, load book not handy so those are from memory, do know:

125's with Longshot and 296/h110
158 Keith, [plinker load] Longshot
158 hard cast 296/h110/lil gun
180 SAF's 296/h110/Lil gun

All are book loads from Hodgdon website, most don't like to load a 125gr bullet to 1600+ fps, what a fireball LOL, but you damn sure safely can.

Forgot one buzzsaw load, 140gr copper Barnes at 1500 fps with lil gun, that load is a flying chainsaw on homemade media testing ; ]

Thanks, gunner!

I don't think anyone makes an 8-3/8" barrel 357mag anymore?

Taurus does i think

Thanks for the kind words on my three .357’s.
Yes, the stags are Grashorn’s on the M19-2. On the M27-2 they are Culina’s.
The M66 is an early one I bought new in 1973. The sights were very hard to see in certain light so the front sight has some paint on it and the rear sight blade has been replaced with a blue one. The corners were rounded a bit because they were bothersome in my duty holster.
While I think of myself as a .45 caliber guy I seem to have a lot more .38 caliber handguns. 😁

Well, the .357 Magnum, in general, will do everything I really need a handgun bullet to do. I have seen, first-hand, what it will do to a human opponent. (Police patrol, line-of-duty incident.) In places where feral hogs are a hazard, well, acquaintances, whose opinions I respect, have said that 180-grain hard-cast .357 will do the job. Feral hogs killed and partially ate a woman, one county east of here. https://abc13.com/christine-rollins...d-animal-attack-death-wild-hogs/5716849/

Cougars/Pumas/Mountain Lions face hunting pressure, here in Texas, so tend to stay away from human encounters. Should a big cat decide to behave in an anomalous way, well, he .357 is enough for the cats.

If I could rescue only one of my firearms from a house fire, it would be my first GP100, a very-early-Nineties sample, with a 4” lugged barrel, adjustable sights, and made of stainless steel. It is the one I used in the above-mentioned defensive incident. I have another, just like it, plus a 3” version, with a black finish and an XS Big Dot night sight, a 4” fixed-sight stainless, without the full lug, and a 6”, adjustable-sight stainless, without the full lug. The original-pattern OEM grip fits my hands better than anything I have tried, and my index finger falls natrually into a perfect position on the trigger. A GP100 points “naturally,” for me, which means that acquiring a sight picture is for refining the point-of-aim, rather than just beginning the process of lining-up the sights. So, I obviously consider the Ruger GP100 to be a viable weapon, and I would rather have six rounds of .357, than five rounds of .44 Special, or deal with moon clips for the 10mm version.

There are, of course, other handgun cartridges that can do what I need a handgun to do, but though I have relatively long hands, I have medium-length fingers, so, medium-framed revolvers are a best fit, for reaching a DA trigger. I like some autos, but, am already having trouble with an aging right hand that does not always do what I want it to do, so, it does not always provide a stable, firm platform for reliable auto-loader functioning. I can, of course, shoot lefty, but using that gimpy right hand to run the slide may become problematic, in the future. (I already had to change to the “Israeli method” of running the slide.) Ambidextrous shooting is desirable, for one’s important weapons, and, for me, that means revolvers remain important, as auto-loaders decrease in importance. (I have nothing against auto-loaders, conceptually; my favored home defense weapons are Benelli M2 shotguns, one of which was my police duty shotgun, and I stil love my 1911 pistols, which I see as relatively less-susceptible to malfunctions, if I “numb-thumb” a limp-wrist type of user error.)

So, yes, the .357 Magnum seems plenty useful, and viable, for my needs. Others’ needs may vary. I could have written much more, but long posts are difficult to read. I did not even get to all of the reasons I love the Ruger SP101, or the S&W Model 19.

Would prefer a .41 caliber revolver over a .357.

Perhaps one get their gp100 or S&W 686 re-bored to 41 mag?

Back when Skeeter Skelton was alive, he touted a load using the Lyman 358156GC bullet on top of 14.5gr. of 2400. I had a six inch Security Six at the time, and had a friend who cast those bullets. I was able to get some from him, and chrono-ed them at 1465fps. out of that Ruger. Granted, that gun was a "fast" one (shot loads faster than some identical revolvers), but that load would shoot into 1.5" at 25 yards.

It made the .357 a real contender. Subsequent revolvers have been equally accurate, but a lot slower. If I still had that Security Six, I'd probably be happy as hell with that combo. I never liked the lighter bullets. Probably the easiest shooting .357 I've had was a 4" 686 CS-1 (round butt, all black sights, front sight was only .10" wide). It was smoother than any other wheelgun I've ever owned, but it wasn't anywhere near as "fast" as that Security Six. They were in different classes, really. Still excellent, but not quite the gun that Ruger was.

SAAMI had to reduce the 357 registered max average pressure when thin wall chambered 357 mags were first newly manufactured that got sticky cases when the chamber expanded too much.
The old high pressure was ok with the old thick chamber walls of heavy revolvers.

Analysis from John Bercovitz in 1993 who then worked at the Jet Propulsion Lab [retired but still alive].




Newsgroups: rec.guns
From: [email protected] (John Bercovitz)
Date: 12 Feb 93 00:48:39 GMT
Local: Thurs, Feb 11 1993 5:48 pm
Subject: Re: Brass Expansion in a .357
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
In article <[email protected]> [email protected]
(Mike Janeczko) writes:

#....... Also, some postings ago,
#suggested that the thickness of the metal used for the cylinder has something
#to do with it. Next time I see the guns, I'll compare.
Sheesh! I can tell _I'm_ not a very convincing poster! 8-)
OK, here's something I posted a long time ago after I did
some figuring for a friend of mine. It's a little broader
than your question but the answer to your question is imbedded.
John Bercovitz ([email protected])
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A friend asked why steel cases aren't more common since they would
allow higher chamber pressures. I thought that as long as I had
written something up for him, I might as well post it here:
Material Properties
CDA 260 cartridge brass: barrel steels:
Young's modulus = 16*10^6 psi Young's modulus = 29*10^6 psi
Yield stress = 63,000 psi min. Yield stress: usually > 100,000 psi
I was going to get back to you and explain further why brass is a better
cartridge case material than steel or aluminum. Sorry I took so long. I
left you with the nebulous comment that brass was "stretchier" and would
spring back more so it was easier to extract from the chamber after firing.
Now I'll attempt to show why this is true given the basic material properties
listed above.
A synopsis would be that the propellant pressure expands the diameter of
the thin wall of the cartridge case until it contacts the interior wall
of the chamber and thereafter it expands the case and the chamber
together. The expansion of the cartridge case, however, is not elastic.
The case is enough smaller in diameter than the chamber that it has to
_yield_ to expand to chamber diameter. After the pressure is relieved by
the departure of the bullet, both the chamber and the cartridge case
contract elastically. It is highly desirable that the cartridge case
contract more than the chamber so that the case may be extracted with a
minimum of effort.
A quick review of the Young's modulus: this is sort of the "spring
constant" of a material; it is the inverse of how much a unit chunk of
material stretches under a unit load. Its units are stress / strain =
psi/(inch/inch). Here's a basic example of its use: If you have a 2
inch by 2 inch square bar of steel which is 10 inches long and you put a
10,000 pound load on it, how much does it stretch? First of all, the
stress on the steel is 10,000/(2*2) = 2500 psi. The strain per inch will
be 2500 psi/29*10^6 = 0.000086 inches/inch. So the stretch of a 10 inch
long bar under this load will be 10 * 0.000086 = 0.00086 inches or a
little less than 1/1000 inch.
Yield stress (aka yield strength) is the load per unit area at which a
material starts to yield or take a permanent set (git bint). It's not
an exact number because materials often start to yield slightly and then
go gradually into full-scale yield. But the transition is fast enough
to give us a useful number.
So how far can you stretch CDA 260 cartridge brass before it takes a
permanent set? That would be yield stress divided by Young's modulus:
63,000 psi/16*10^6 psi/(inch/inch) = .004 inches/inch.
How far can you stretch cheap steel? Try A36 structural steel:
36,000 psi/29*10^6 psi/(inch/inch) = .001 inches/inch.
How about good steel of modest cost such as C1118?
77,000 psi/29*10^6 psi/(inch/inch) = .003 inches/inch.
(Note that C1118 doesn't have anywhere near the formability of CDA 260.
Brass cases are made by the cheap forming process called "drawing"
while C1118 is a machinable steel, suitable for the more expensive machining
processes such as turning and milling.)
What about something that's expensive such as CDA 172 beryllium copper?
175,000 psi/19*10^6 psi/(inch/inch) = .009 inches/inch.
(This isn't serious because CDA 172 is pretty brittle when it's _this_
hard.)
Titanium Ti-6AL-4V
150,000 psi/16.5*10^6 psi/(inch/inch) = .009 inches/inch
(This is an excellent material though expensive and hard to work with.)
Really expensive aluminum, 7075-T6
73,000 psi/10.4*10^6 psi/(inch/inch) = .007 inches/inch
Cheap aluminum, 3003 H18
29,000 psi/10*10^6 psi/(inch/inch) = .003 inches/inch
(Aluminum isn't a really good material because it isn't strong and cheap
at the same time, it hasn't much fatigue strength, and it won't go over
its yield stress very often without breaking. So you can't reload it.
It makes a "one-shot" case at best. Also, 7075 is a machinable rather
than a formable aluminum, primarily.)
Magnesium, AZ80A-T5
50,000/6.5*10^6 = .0077
(Impact strength and ductility are low. Corrodes easily.)
+Here's the important part: Even if you stretch something until it
+yields, it still springs back some distance. In fact, the springback
+amount is the same as if you had just barely taken the thing up to its
+yield stress. This is because when you stretch it, you establish a new
length for it, and since you are holding it at the yield stress (at
least until you release the load) it will spring back the distance
associated with that yield stress. So the figures given above such as
.004 inches/inch are the figures that tell us how much a case springs
back after firing.
Changing subjects for a moment: How much does the steel chamber expand
and contract during a firing? Naturally this amount is partially
determined by the chamber wall's thickness. The outside diameter of a
rifle chamber is about 2 1/2 times the maximum inside diameter,
typically. The inside diameter is around .48 inches at its largest.
Actual chamber pressures of high pressure rounds will run 60,000 psi or
even 70,000 psi range if you're not careful.
One of the best reference books on the subject is "Formulas for Stress
and Strain" by Roark and Young, published by MacGraw-Hill. Everyone
just calls it "Roark's". In the 5th edition, example numbers 1a & 1b,
page 504, I find the following:
For an uncapped vessel:
Delta b = (q*b/E)*{[(a^2+b^2)/(a^2-b^2)] + Nu}
For a capped vessel:
Delta b = (q*b/E)*{[a^2(1+Nu)+b^2(1-2Nu)]/(a^2-b^2)}
Where:
a = the external radius of the vessel = 0.6 inch
b = the internal radius of the vessel = .24 inch
q = internal pressure of fluid in vessel = 70,000 psi
E = Young's modulus = 29 * 10^6 psi for barrel steel
Nu = Poisson's ratio = 0.3 for steel (and most other materials)
A rifle's chamber is capped at one end and open at the other but really
it's not too open at the other end because the case is usually bottle-
necked. You'd have to go back to basics instead of using cookbook
formulae if you wanted the exact picture, but if we compute the results
of both formulas, the truth must lie between them but closer to the
capped vessel.
For an uncapped vessel:
D b = (70000*.24/29*10^6)*{[(.6^2+.24^2)/(.6^2-.24^2)] + .3} = .00097
For a capped vessel:
D b = (70000*.24/29*10^6)*{[.6^2(1.3)+.24^2(.4)]/(.6^2-.24^2)} = .00094
There's not a whole heck of a lot of difference between the two results
so let's just say that the chamber's expansion is .001 inch radial or
.002 inch diametral.
The cartridge case's outside diameter is equal to about .48 inch after
the cartridge has been fired. So its springback, if made from CDA 260,
is .004 inches/inch (from above) * .48 inch = .002 inches diametral
which of course is just the amount the chamber contracted so we've just
barely got an extractable case when chamber pressures hit 70,000 psi in
this barrel. This is why the ease with which a case can be extracted
from a chamber is such a good clue as to when you are reaching maximum
allowable pressures. By the same token, you can see that if a chamber's
walls are particularly thin, it will be hard to extract cases (regardless
of whether or not these thin chamber walls are within their stress limits).
A really good illustration of this can be found when comparing the S&W
model 19 to the S&W model 27. Both guns are 357 magnum caliber and both
can take full-pressure loads without bursting. The model 27 has thick
chamber walls and the model 19 has thin chamber walls. Cartridge cases
which contained full-pressure loads are easily extracted from a model 27
but they have to be pounded out of a model 19. So manufacturers don't
manufacture full-pressure loads for the 357 magnums anymore. 8-(