TexasCHLforum.com

I don't know anyone who shoots full power .357 Magnum loads all the time. As handloaders we tend to experiment with lots of different loads, even the really light Wadcutter loads for target shooting. Follow the data and you'll be fine. With the model 27 and 28 being N-Frame Smith's, I wouldn't be much concerned about wearing them out.

I don't use flake powders because I've just found too many advantages in using sphericals; metering in particular. But in a pinch, or an all I could find kinda situation, BE86 is one I'd want to work with. I haven't taken a hard look at data for it, but from what I've seen, it looks versatile enough, and mid-range loads from the data might be interesting as would loads at or just above start charges. It could be a good choice for someone who doesn't want to stock many powders. Certainly not an issue for me because I have enough sphericals for any load level I choose to make.

Then, because it is flash suppressed, if the need arises you should be able to turn out good defense loads. For very light loads you may find you need something a little faster burning like say, Bullseye. Power Pistol is simply a larger flake cut version of Bullseye to slow the burn rate. Same with BE86 except that a flash suppresant is added, and one reason that BE is in the name BE86.

I might also add that when anyone looks at the Western data you should look at the list of abbreviations for the bullet they used. Page 17 in the downloadable edition No 7 load guide. The good news being that they tend to use more different bullet types than others do.

dhoobler wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 8:54 pm I was just testing .357 mag loads this past weekend. I had some accurate #9 sitting on the shelf and I wanted to use it up. I had plenty of odd brass and some Winchester magnum primers. I used the starting load, 11.2 grains under a Hornady 158 gr LSWC, according to loading data:
http://www.accuratepowder.com/wp-conten ... eb-REV.pdf
which lists Winchester magnum primers.

The primers were flat after firing. I chronographed the load out of my 686+ with a three inch barrel and got 1145 f/s with a SD of 21.81. I did not expect to get flattened primers with the minimum load. The load data shows 1104 out of a six inch barrel.

I loaded up the same round, but with CCI standard primers. I got 1110 f/s with a standard deviation of 17.26. The edges of the primers were rounded, not flattened.

I am puzzled as to why an increase of 35 f/s would require so much more pressure that it flattened the primers. I suspect the Winchester primers are made of softer alloy.

Simple: the loads that got the magnum primers were operating at a significantly higher pressure level. A simple test since you have a chrono, use a standard primer and work your loads up in charge-weight until you get the same 1145 FPS you chrono'd for the loads that got magnum primers. Even then, with the same velocity, the loads with standard primers will yield a lower Max Pressure than the loads that got magnum primers.

Much of the problem is data. The older Accurate data that was properly chrono'd from a S&W 6" 686 is the most impressive .357 magnum data in my possession. In BOLD print you'll see it stated that a standard small pistol primer was used for those loads, and that should you use a magnum primer, the charge-weights of the powders in that data should not exceed the START CHARGE!

If you set out to make great loads with AA No 7 or No 9 it will be incumbent upon the handloader to find which powder does best with which primer. So the standard deviation calculator built into better chronographs will help by giving you the standard deviation of either method of using a standard vs a magnum primer. Just remember that with those 2 powders, No 9 might be the better choice for full-power loads while No 7 won't be far behind in velocity, while the better of the 2 for "medium" level target loads will be No 7. Because I've been there, done that, if the goal is target grade accuracy at a higher velocity level than can be had from W231/HP38, well play with as many as you care to. When you get around to True Blue it will speak for itself and I use a CCI550 with True Blue for .357 Magnum loads.

And many who would offer advice might recommend W296/H110/L'il gun. How they fail to comprehend the difference in the internal combustion area of a .357 Mag vs a .44 Mag is a matter I won't waste time on trying to understand. The smaller case capacity of the .357 Mag will not require the powder to burn as slow as what might be ideal for the .44 Mag where W296/H110/l'il Gun are among the very best choices if you don't mind the blast/flash. 11 FS will definitely put an end to that! And back in the day when we didn't have the lot variation issues with Blue Dot, and at a similar burn rate to AA No 7, Blue Dot was capable of giving higher velocity than slower magnum powders like W296/H110/2400, so long as idiot testing wasn't involved, like say publishing velocities where you need to read the fine print that states that they were tested from a 10" barrel.

Another aspect considering burn-rate of powders, the hyper velocity .357 Magnum loads that were chrono'd from a 10" barrel will the poorest choices for barrels shorter than 4". Matching the burn rate proportionately to the barrel length is how I roll in terms of powder selection. And then, powder selection becomes even more finite from that powders pressure stability. The kind of stuff you may not read in a particular handload manual or guide. The odds of getting sound advice on the net . . . it might be best to get some background on the knowledge of the person advising it.

Lastly, flattened primers aren't quite the same kind of evil as poor or difficult extraction from a revolver's cylinder. Thinner chamber walls that come with 7 holes drilled in the cylinder must also be considered. And lastly, the 158 gr. SWC used in the Western Data was hard-cast and not the soft swaged lead of the Hornady bullet which is best avoided for super-sonic velocity or even down to around 900 FPS. And by super-sonic I'm talking about the speed-of-sound at sea-level and approx. 1118 FPS.

SQLGeek wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:29 am

K-Texas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 3:50 pm The best powder for the job depends on barrel length and the type of load you're after.

Right now, I'm looking to load target loads for paper and steel at <25 yards. I'll be shooting these through a 6" Model 27 and a 4" Model 28. I'm sure I'll be expanding my .357 collection in the future but for now those are it.

I am looking at mid level to hot velocities as I like the thump that .357 offers over something sedate like 9mm or the push of .45 ACP. I enjoy recoil.

I'm sure I'll also load up some lighter .357 loads as well for when I want easy wheel gun plinking. I figure HP-38 would work for that.

I've received several recommendations to look at CFE Pistol here and elsewhere. I might have to give that a serious look and I think Academy around here usually carries it too.

All of the advice is very much appreciated folks, thank you.

I have not used CFE Pistol because that roll is already filled by Silhouette which it was intended to compete with. Both are similar in burn rate and both have Flash Suppressants added. Neither, however, would be at the top of my list for Target loads in .357 Mag and they won't provide a good amount of case fill where they do better in high pressure auto cartridges. BE 86 is a double-based flake propellant that is similar and is also flash suppressed. Basically the flash suppressed version of Power Pistol.

The thing here being sensitivity or insensitivity to powder positioning. One reason that Titegroup is as popular as it is. It doesn't matter how the powder lays in the case when cartridges are being fired. Same with AA No 2. A lot of handloaders are not aware that TiteGroup is also one of the hottest burning powders you can use, and exacerbated by using it in high pressure cartridges. For the lower pressure types like .38 Sp. and .45 ACP it does fine.

In the "medium" burn rate group in regard to what's been mentioned with BE86, AA No 5, Power Pistol, True Blue, Silhouette, CFE Pistol, 3N37 and N350, or HS6, where case-fill will be around half or less, True Blue is the least sensitive to powder positioning with 3N37 being a close 2nd. Power Pistol will produce an impressive Fire-Ball out of the muzzle, enough so that I'd use BE86 over it. But as far as pressure stability, True Blue is in a class by itself. It's also capable of reproducing factory load velocity when needed. That you'll see in the Lyman 49th, and you will also see that among all of the powders used by Lyman in their .357 Magnum data, it was actually True Blue that they loaded to the highest pressures even while there are slower burners in the data.

As far as the powders best suited for full power magnum loads, the choices for me really begin with AA No 9 and 2400. That doesn't mean that AA No 7 get's left out in the cold, it's because it's in-between these 2 categories. And depending on data, No 7 doesn't fall very short of the "magnum" class of powders for full power loads.

As far as recommendations for powder, well in this day and age, a couple recommendations can easily turn into a couple hundred or a couple thousand. When I started, any application where a magnum powder wasn't being used, the herd said Unique, and well after I started handloading for that matter. And for .38 +P, maybe it is worthwhile, but magnum loads are a different animal where their own set of rules requiring greater pressure stability. I first started using True Blue in 2001 and I have never seen any handgun powder that can be used for good loads from cartridges like .38 S&W limited to 13,000 CUP in the Lyman data up to 54,000 PSI in Western's .454 Casull data.

It's actually more impressive to consider how well it does in some of the lower pressure cartridges as noted by Lyman. It's pressure stability is certainly documented. Not so commonly known with True Blue coming from Belgium is that it was the powder supplied to FN Herstal for their development of the 5.7 x 28mm. I'd also recommend reviewing the Western data for True Blue AA No 5 and No 7 for .357 Magnum.

Convenience will likely be a factor and you may need to get what's available. Try several and then try True Blue when you run across some. Hopefully you have a chronograph, and one that will give you values for standard deviation.

I should also point out for those who view Hodgdon's data that the velocities shown came from a 10" test barrel. How they can find that relevant while 4" barrels are the most common is a head scratcher. But hey, it looks good in the data!

On the primer issue, flake powders do not require a magnum primer. As far as 2400, it kinda gets down to the handloaders preference. Also, when magnum primers are used for all powders in the data, that data will be somewhat reduced because of the magnum primers. AA No 7 and 9 are a couple of other examples

It might not be easy these days to find .357 Magnum data where primers were selected to match the specific powder. The data I have where standard primers were used comes from the Accurate 2000 - 2002 load guides. But be advised, since that time, Accurate has had their spherical powders made in the US by St. Marks. The older powders came from EXplosia/Lovex in the Czech Republic, and now available under the Shooter's World label.

The best powder for the job depends on barrel length and the type of load you're after. There's certainly no reason to try another powder of near the same burn rate or even faster burning. As I mentioned in another thread, W231 and HP38 are identical.

For barrels 3" and under, Ramshot True Blue is excellent, accurate and has low flash, and it won't lose as much velocity from the shorter barrels. Also great for "medium" magnum loads in longer barreled revolvers. Not so much different in burn rate than HS6. V-V 3N37 & N350 are also good powders for the "medium" range loads. Going a bit slower burning for say the 3 - 5" barrel lengths, AA No 7 can provide excellent accuracy. 4" and longer, No 9 has a really good burn rate for higher velocity.

Then for 5" or longer you have the usual suspects, but they may not improve over No 9 that's similar in burn rate to Alliant 2400 which is also quite popular. I stopped using flake powders about 15 years ago, and I burned a lot of Blue Dot in .357 & .41 Magnum loads for a good many years before Alliant found some irregularities among different lots of Blue Dot, and then they stated that Blue Dot should not be used in .41 Mag. loads. I wasn't aware that they're warning against it's use in .357 Mag. Another reason for the switch to sphericals was because they are denser and much finer grained. That can add up to better uniformity of the charge-weights you throw.

Recently, I've bent my own rules a bit in terms of defense loads for the 4.2" GP100, and have been using Accurate 11 FS. The letters FS are for Flash Suppressed and it definitely delivers on that score. Very low flash. Otherwise, it's basically the same powder as W296 which H110 is copy of. I suspect the same is true for Alliant 300-MP and it's also flash suppressed.

V-V N110 is another good one, and you can buy the Vectan copy of it at a better price. It's made in France and that company and Vihta Vuori are owned by the same group. I would have no problem in trying Vectan Ba 6 1/2 which is the copy of V-V N110. But if you need to keep flash to a minimum, I'd recommend Accurate 11 FS.