You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
110gr .357?
- Thread starter sixgun67
- Start date
I am guessing I will never understand the idea of most modern factory 110 grain loads being hard on revolvers. They may be but I don't understand it. Most are loaded to a nominal velocity of 1295 fps from a 4 inch barrel versus the 1450 fps nominal velocity of the 125s. The .357 pressure standard is, I believe, 35,000 psi and the 110s are probably generating somewhere around 27,000 to a little over 30,000 psi (at least according to what I've been told by some factory techs). The 115 grain 9mm standard pressure has a maximum pressure of 35,000 psi and I understand they usually produce something less than that, like in the low 30's. Both the 110 grain .357 and the 115 grain 9mm produce similar ballistics from an approximately 2 inch-barreled revolver. Why does no one talk about how standard pressure 115 grain 9mms beat up revolvers? Plenty of revolvers have been chambered in 9mm, both small and medium frame.
If we are talking about 110 grains at 1500 fps+ nominal velocity, I get it. But I really have my doubts about 1295 fps nominal velocity. At least I am willing to hear the explanation. That said, I'm not that fond of the round and prefer heavier bullets, though I do have a stash of them and they are easier to shoot in a small framed .357 than heavier full power loads.
If we are talking about 110 grains at 1500 fps+ nominal velocity, I get it. But I really have my doubts about 1295 fps nominal velocity. At least I am willing to hear the explanation. That said, I'm not that fond of the round and prefer heavier bullets, though I do have a stash of them and they are easier to shoot in a small framed .357 than heavier full power loads.
jglsprings
New member
Laz,
One of the theories is that the short bullet with large amounts of powder are harder on the forcing cone and also create excessive flame cutting on the cone / top strap area. It is the same argument about 125 gr loads destroying K frame 357 mags.
One of the theories is that the short bullet with large amounts of powder are harder on the forcing cone and also create excessive flame cutting on the cone / top strap area. It is the same argument about 125 gr loads destroying K frame 357 mags.
No, not really. The 125grn JHP's didn't come out until the 1970's. For the 4 decades before that, the .357's reputation (which was still quite good) came from the 158grn LSWC.
Don't think so. The 125 gr. was the standard by which the .357 was judged , and the most popular load, by far, used by LE.
When S&W and SIG teamed up to produce the .357 SIG in an attempt to imitate the velocity of the .357 Mag. in a semi-auto pistol, they designed it around the 125 gr. bullet.
Before reliable HP ammo came on the scene, the 158 gr. SWC may well have been what established the rounds reputation--but not after good JHP and SJHP's showed up.
Quote:
No, not really. The 125grn JHP's didn't come out until the 1970's. For the 4 decades before that, the .357's reputation (which was still quite good) came from the 158grn LSWC.
Don't think so. The 125 gr. was the standard by which the .357 was judged , and the most popular load, by far, used by LE.
Any idea of exactly how many agencies used the 125grn JHP's (I bet it's not nearly as many as you think)? Many large departments chose not to use 125grn JHP's, or even .357 Magnum ammunition, right up until they switched to semi-autos. NYPD stayed with .38 Spl 158grn LRN, the FBI stayed with Winchester .38 Spl 158grn LSWCHP +P, both the Virginia State Police and LAPD used loadings similar to the FBI load (i.e. the Remington or Federal versions). Also, the 125grn JHP's were not the only popular and well-respected loading. Winchester's 145grn Silvertip loading in particular also had a very good reputation.
Last edited:
I am guessing I will never understand the idea of most modern factory 110 grain loads being hard on revolvers. They may be but I don't understand it. Most are loaded to a nominal velocity of 1295 fps from a 4 inch barrel versus the 1450 fps nominal velocity of the 125s.
Laz,
It is not just the velocity. The 110gr and 125gr rounds are shorter in length than a heavier grain like a 158 gr. There is a lot of unburn powder that will cause more erosion on the forcing cone and frame cutting of the top strap. Here is a paragraph on what a lighter grain and shorter in length does.
The lighter bullet causes a few things to happen.
1: It accelerates faster in the cylinder, striking the forcing cone MUCH harder than the 158gr bullet.
2: Look at your forcing cone. The shorter 110 to 125gr bullet leaves the case before a 158gr bullet, causing more unburned powder to fly forward and combust in the throat and barrel. This causes flamecutting on the topstrap and erosion of the forcing cone.
3: The recoil impulse of the 110 to 125gr loads are much sharper and severe than a comparable 158gr load, so it batters the gun HARD.
Personally, I am not a fan of light grain rounds. I like the heavier grain rounds on a 357 because they don't beat the revolver up. There are lots of good rounds in the 140 to 158 gr by ammo companys.
Heck, I don't even use light grain rounds in my 38 special. I like 158gr rounds like the "FBI" load. I shoot nothing lighter than a 140 gr round in all my revolvers.
Howard
jglssprings and roaddog28 - I appreciate your input and answers to my questions. What you say makes a lot of sense, though I still have certain nagging doubts and questions and to why we don't hear the same things regarding high or higher pressure 9mm rounds which are even shorter causing similar problems. Guys, it is quite likely, even probable, that my stubbornness on this issue (I've broached the subject before on forums) is due to my own thick brain and I'm just not grasping the full picture. Could be the 9mm has less unburned powder, different powders, etc. Still, I used to read that the medium velocity 110 grain .357s (the 1295 fps loads) were developed to be used in smaller framed, lighter guns because their recoil was less. Could be the manufacturers just figured people wouldn't shoot enough of them to hurt. Could be they really are down-loaded and not as hard as the earlier versions of the 110 loading. As I said and others have noted, I prefer heavier loadings anyway so it doesn't matter a great deal. I'm not giving my 110 stash away, though.
As has been said, I prefer loads in the 145-158 grain class in both .38 and .357 though the Speer 135 is an exception and is truly a downloaded .357.
As has been said, I prefer loads in the 145-158 grain class in both .38 and .357 though the Speer 135 is an exception and is truly a downloaded .357.
jglsprings
New member
Laz,
Of course all generalizations are false...
I think the difference you are missing is this.
I'm with you. I ALWAYS shoot heavy for caliber. 148 gr wad cutters for target and 158 for serious work. Even in my snubbies. I got some Remington 125s from Wally World awhile back and they are HOT. It is like holding on to a hand grenade in my Model 60. I have shot 110s and 125s in all of my 357s and I feel I get better performance and control with the 158 gr bullets.
P.S.
I do like the Gold Dot Short barrel ammo as an exception to my "heavy" is best mantra!
Of course all generalizations are false...
I think the difference you are missing is this.
- 357 - Revolver. Cylinder (chamber), gap, forcing cone.
- 9MM - Pistol. Usually a single piece chamber barrel assembly with no gap and forcing cone to cause the flame cutting / erosion issues.
I'm with you. I ALWAYS shoot heavy for caliber. 148 gr wad cutters for target and 158 for serious work. Even in my snubbies. I got some Remington 125s from Wally World awhile back and they are HOT. It is like holding on to a hand grenade in my Model 60. I have shot 110s and 125s in all of my 357s and I feel I get better performance and control with the 158 gr bullets.
P.S.
I do like the Gold Dot Short barrel ammo as an exception to my "heavy" is best mantra!
Last edited:
jglsprings
New member
Wow, this is all new to me as I have 6 boxes of 110gr for my snubbies and about 10 boxes of 125gr for a my S&W 686. Man, now you guys have me looking to buy new ammo.
I think that if you read my first post you will see that I said...
One of the theories is
The problem has been internet mythed to disastrous proportion that the Smith K frame 357 guns, due to a cut on the bottom of the forcing cone, supposedly promotes forcing cone cracking. This has been repeated so many time that most people refuse to use ANY 357 ammunition in their Model 19s and 66s or 13s or 65s. I have a 6 inch Model 19 from the late 70s that I shot bulls eye competition for years and logged over 15,000 rounds of all types of ammo through it. It went back to S&W because I wore it out,not because it failed. They tuned the action and re-blued it. I didn't have any problems, some people have had the forcing cone crack.
The J frames DID NOT have the same problems. Shooting 110s and 125s in a J frame (hot) just isn't very pleasant and I don't get as good results as the heavier bullets. If you like 110s in the J frame and you can shoot them you are good to go. I think the stories of failed penetration and exploding on the surface are more a function of the bullet design that the weight. YMMV
Thanks for your reply jglsprings. You said
But the comparison I was trying to make is with 9mm revolvers, e.g. SP101, S&W 940 and 547, the Taurus 905(?) and perhaps others over the years.
they have the cylinder, gap, and forcing cone which you suggest is the source of the problems and fire a similar weight cartridge at as high and usually higher pressure and are even shorter. Why are they not noted for similar problems?
Apart from that question area, though, I really appreciate your knowledgeable response and the information you've posted and pretty much agree with all you've said.
I think the difference you are missing is this.
357 - Revolver. Cylinder (chamber), gap, forcing cone.
9MM - Pistol. Usually a single piece chamber barrel assembly with no gap and forcing cone to cause the flame cutting / erosion issues.
But the comparison I was trying to make is with 9mm revolvers, e.g. SP101, S&W 940 and 547, the Taurus 905(?) and perhaps others over the years.
they have the cylinder, gap, and forcing cone which you suggest is the source of the problems and fire a similar weight cartridge at as high and usually higher pressure and are even shorter. Why are they not noted for similar problems?
Apart from that question area, though, I really appreciate your knowledgeable response and the information you've posted and pretty much agree with all you've said.
Two things I know from firsthand experience about K-Frames and light Magnums:The problem has been internet mythed to disastrous proportion that the Smith K frame 357 guns, due to a cut on the bottom of the forcing cone, supposedly promotes forcing cone cracking.
- They can crack the forcing cone
- The problem is vastly overstated.
There is a possibility that, given a steady diet of very hot and light Magnums, the forcing cone can crack. I've seen it happen. In my case, we were running 110gr wadcutters out of a 6" Model 19, clocked at ~1610 ft/s. Chalk it up to an excess of youthful exuberance and a deficit of earthly wisdom.
That said, it takes a lot to get there, and it's a much rarer phenomenon than some folks would claim.
clocked at ~1610 ft/s
And therein, I believe, lies the issue. That's probably a 1500 fps load from a 4 inch, or thereabouts.
This thread contains a lot of information regarding the 110 grain .357 magnum ammo. I've re-read all posts and must admit I still have some confusion and concern with firing the Winchester 110's in my SW 620 (4") and Ruger SP101 (2.5"). To date I've fired only 50 or so rounds of 110's and have only 50 remaining in my target stash. So my bottonline question is: will I incur damage to either of these handguns if I use up the remaining 50 rounds?
Next question: I have some 357 Magnum 70-gr Defender rounds. The manufacturer states 1860 FPS and 538 ft-lbs when used in a 4" Dan Wesson. Will these very light powerful rounds result in undue wear if fired from the handguns I mentioned?
Apologies to all if this sounds dumb.
Next question: I have some 357 Magnum 70-gr Defender rounds. The manufacturer states 1860 FPS and 538 ft-lbs when used in a 4" Dan Wesson. Will these very light powerful rounds result in undue wear if fired from the handguns I mentioned?
Apologies to all if this sounds dumb.
No, you should not damage the revolver using the remaining rounds.So my bottonline question is: will I incur damage to either of these handguns if I use up the remaining 50 rounds?
I have some 357 Magnum 70-gr Defender rounds. The manufacturer states 1860 FPS and 538 ft-lbs when used in a 4" Dan Wesson. Will these very light powerful rounds result in undue wear if fired from the handguns I mentioned?
Well, as you can see the higher the velocity of the ammo and the lighter grain will in my opinion accelerate wear on the forcing cone area of any revolver. Even the heavier revolvers with thick forcing cones will still erode. It will take longer for the heavier ones to see a problem.
Let me say this, I have a New Model Blackhawk 357. One of the strongest 357 revolvers ever made. As strong as my Blackhawk is, I will not shoot light grain high velocity rounds. Plain and simple, they are harder on any revolver no matter who makes the revolver. So it really comes down to your choice. I don't care to punish my handguns.
Howard