.357 / H110/ Hornady XTP

S

Stats Shooter

New member
The other day I started a thread asking about data for the .357 mag, and a 6" barrel. I did some testing yesterday and thought I would share

Gun: Dan Wesson (Monson Mass) w/6" barrel
CCI 550 Primers
Win Brass
H110 Powder
158 grain Hornady XTP
12 shots (2 cylinders full) per series
velocities taken with a Labradar
All loaded on a dillon 550C
OAL 1.581"
Heavy Crimp

CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond or not covered by currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assumes any liability for any damage or injury resulting from the use of this information.




15.2 gr
avg 1089
es 31 fps
std 15.7 fps

15.6 gr
avg 1130 fps
es 61
std 21.4

15.8 gr
avg 1153 fps
es 70
std 25.8

16 gr
avg 1171 fps
es 44
std 25.1

16.2 gr
avg 1188
es 91
std 34.5

16.4 gr
avg 1198
es 84
std 29.8

16.6 gr
avg 1208
es 38
std 21.7

16.8 gr
avg 1232
es 35
std 16.1

17 gr
avg 1253
es 30
std 11.74

I stopped at 17 gr. There were no pressure signs, each case fell out of the cylinder after firing and the primer pockets were tight. I stopped at 17 gr just because its over published data for the combo I used and I believe 1,250 fps is fast enough for the cartridge/combo.

Also, the 17 grain load is very accurate out of my gun. 3" groups at 25 yards which is about as well as I can shoot free hand.
 
That 17-grain load has the lowest SD you measured, suggesting it may be achieving more consistent ignition over the previous loads. That it is just 0.3 grains over Hodgdon's listed limit and is within reason for your revolver. The Hodgdon 10" P&V barrel is the SAAMI standard's equivalent to a single-shot barrel, so it has no barrel/cylinder gap. That powder is slow enough that its peak pressure will be mitigated by the gas leak through the gap, so I doubt you are exceeding Hodgdon's maximum load's pressure number with it.
 
CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond or not covered by currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assumes any liability for any damage or injury resulting from the use of this information.

I am sharing MY experience here; and am in no way recommending the use of any load data.


17 gr
avg 1253
es 30
std 11.74

I stopped at 17 gr. There were no pressure signs, each case fell out of the cylinder after firing and the primer pockets were tight.
Click to expand...

In your previous post, I was a bit ambiguous about my actual set charge weight. Well, it is 17.0 grains. I have gone higher without trouble, but backed down to 17.0 for my set loading.

I use R-P (Remington) brass for this loading. R-P brass weighs about 5% less than Starline or Winchester (if memory serves - I don't have the numbers in front of me); so I assume that the R-P's have a little more internal volume. I trim my 357 Mag brass to 1.280".

Here's my chronograph numbers. 10-round samples. I place the chronograph at 4 yards (always - for consistency) The guns used are S&W 686's - 3"; 4"; & 8-3/8" barrels; plus a Henry carbine 16.5" bbl.

3" - 1158 f/s; 24.61 SD
4" - 1253 f/s; 13.19 SD (Same as yours)
8" - 1299 f/s; 18/30 SD
16.5" - 1749 f/s; 13.66 SD

So yeah, 17.0 grains seems to be a sweet spot for W296. I shoot this loading almost exclusively in my Henry rifle. In the 3" and 4" bbl guns, they erupt with a huge flame bloom, with a copious helping of thrust recoil. Impressive to the layman bystander; but I know my Alliant 2400 loading makes the bullets go just as fast (in the 3" & 4" guns) with a lot less bombast.
 
"...stopped at 17 gr..." That'd be good. Hodgdon shows 16.7 of H110 as the current max load. .3 isn't enough to worry about though. Different manuals will have different data because they show averages of all tests done with the exact components, firearm and environmental conditions on the day of the test.
However, it is nota good idea to be making up your own data. Or going over the Max published loads. Even without pressure signs.
Hodgdon just happened to use an XTP for their tests. A jacketed bullet is a jacketed bullet. For some daft reason, they tested with a 10" barrel and magnum primers. I suspect the barrel length is to let them show higher velocities.
The magnum primers is for nobody knows why. H110 doesn't need magnum primers(they're about the powder, not the cartridge name) and Hodgdon doesn't use 'em with H110 in non-magnum named cartridges. .30 Carbine, for example.
 
and Hodgdon doesn't use 'em with H110 in non-magnum named cartridges. .30 Carbine, for example.
Click to expand...
Probably because Winchester doesn't make a small rifle magnum primer....
If they say this powder requires a magnum primer then I'd suggest using one. WW296 and H110 (same powder) have a coating on them that requires a hotter primer to ignite with uniform ignition. Winchester has some primers that are designated as "use for magnum and standard loads". Trust the experts and not unsupported advice on the internet.
 
Test magnum primers. See if velocity SD goes up or down. A lot of powders that suggest magnum primers don't actually need them if the case-fill percentage (aka, load density) is high but do need them when it is lower. That's why testing with your load is helpful. I wouldn't make a blanket rule statement about it either way.

The Hodgdon data uses the same primer for all loads for a given bullet. That is a flaw in their methodology, IMHO. It would be best if they tried both kinds of primers with each load, as it might affect their results, and then list the one that produced the lowest pressure and velocity SD. But the testing is expensive, so I am not holding my breath and don't want to have to pay more for powder because they start doing it.
 
FME....with H110/W296 in a small case like .357, there's no legitimate reason to NOT use magnum primers. Probably the reason most every load manual ever written recommends them. They are not rare, hard to come by or any more expensive than standard small pistol primers. The old adage of simplifying your reloading inventory by eliminating them makes little or no sense. I doubt if it has anything to do with testing costs as for trying both types of primers, but most likely the experience of those companies doing the testing, that the difference is so small, to be insignificant. Space for printed info is where the cost is and is why they don't include recipes for powder/bullet combinations that give poor performance. Since their results are not the same as what we get in our gun, so we still might want to see if there is a difference. But even as long as I have been reloading, I still don't think I know more than they do.

Hodgdon just happened to use an XTP for their tests. A jacketed bullet is a jacketed bullet.
Click to expand...

What I have found with .357 bullets is that while they are similar, some(especially 158grainers), have the cannelure situated so they sit considerably deeper in the case than others. This results in a smaller case capacity. Thus, iffin I was at max charge or over, I'd certainly look at this before loading what I thought was a similar bullet at those levels without a new workup.
 
You are correct that a jacketed bullet is not always just a jacketed bullet. Mr. O' Hier keeps repeating that mantra about them all being the same, despite my having pointed him to an article in which the author measured up to 30% difference in peak pressure from different same-weight bullets.

The .357 case is longer than the 38 Special case, but the two cartridge's OALs are a smaller difference. As a result, a given bullet shape will have a lower crimp cannelure on it for .38 Special than a version intended for .357 does. Some bullets even come with two cannelures or, for cast bullets, crimp grooves, one for each cartridge. Or, you can get a revolver with a long enough cylinder to accommodate the 38 Special bullets crimped into a 357 case, but the OAL will exceed the SAAMI standard for 357 and it will need a little more powder to perform up to .357 standard loads. All this applies to 44 Magnum and Special as well.

The testing actually is a good deal more expensive than publishing online load data. The reason Hodgdon stopped publishing non-overlapping Winchester load data for a time was that part of their contract for taking over distributing Winchester powders included that Olin would be responsible for keeping the testing up to date (required in Hodgdon's improved QC system from the early 2000s). Olin didn't do it, so rather than have to pay the testing costs themselves, Hodgdon ceased publishing load data for it. That seems to have been resolved now, as a lot of Winchester data is up.

If you want a look at the test process, read the SAAMI standards. It involves temperature conditioning, firing expensive reference loads for cross-calibration, and using up the life of expensive conformal transducer barrels. It's not cheap. Indeed, Hornady has gone to a non-standard strain gauge system because of the costs, though I expect they still calibrate it by reference load.
 
Over 40 years ago, Speer’s ballistician Dave Andrews published piezio pressure data for the .357 Magnum in a handgun which was modified to use a pressure transducer. He was looking for data showing the pressure loss in a revolver barrel versus the then industry standard non-vented test barrel. Instead he found that the maximum pressure was recorded when the bullet was entering the forcing cone and the cylinder gap was closed. I don’t remember the powders used but they were appropriate for the cartridge. Funny how actual data (even ancient data) can challenge old-skool thinking.



.
 
H110 is not optimum for pistol length barrels. It's really more of a 30 carbine powder and works well in 357 rifle loads. With some powders you should be pushing 1350 to 1400 or better from your 6 inch barrel. 1450 is full power with 125grain loads. To do this you need to carefully work up a load with a faster powder in the speed range of blue dot. With faster powders you have to be careful not to get in trouble with pressure. With H110 you probably can't get enough in the case with light bullets to get in trouble. rc
 
Yep. H110/296 is slow for the magnum chamberings it is used in. It peaks late and keeps the barrel pressure up longer. That's how it gets high velocity without needing excessive peak pressure. But one disadvantage is it squibs out easily when the barrel/cylinder gap starts bleeding off the pressure. That's why they warn not to try to load it down below published numbers. It can squib out and leave a bullet stuck in the barrel waiting for the next round to hit it and burst the gun.
 
1450 is full power with 125grain loads.
Click to expand...

6" barrel .357 Magnum, 1450fps is NOT a full power load. it MAY BE, however what most ammo companies will sell you and claim its a full power load.

Now, there are a lot of .357s on the market that will NOT handle full power loads, and because of that, the "acceptable" power of the .357 Magnum has been reduced from what it once was.

With very few exceptions, what the factories sell today as "full power" loads DO NOT even come close to the original .357 loads.
 
I think that's because of powder changes. When a cartridge is standardized in the SAAMI system, the standard bullet weights are assigned standard velocities to be expected from SAAMI velocity and pressure test barrels and are expected to meet those ±90 fps. Back when the 357 was developed, the powders available needed higher peak pressure to reach those same standardized velocities than H110/296 (originally for commercial ammunition) or the more recent Power Pro 300MP do. With the adoption of the slower spherical propellants, the velocities stayed put, but the peak pressures dropped.

In addition to that, for 125 grain bullets, specifically, SAAMI has three different velocity levels. The highest is 1425 fps from a 4" vented barrel (the vent mimics a revolver barrel/cylinder gap). the same load reaching 1875 fps from a 10" closed breech barrel (to mimic a single-shot handgun).
 
1450 is full power with 125grain loads.
Click to expand...

With very few exceptions, what the factories sell today as "full power" loads DO NOT even come close to the original .357 loads.
Click to expand...

As for my experience with modern factory ammo, Federal's 125gn Hydra-Shok "Low Recoil" was the velocity champ at 1430 f/s through my 686 4" bbl. I personally don't consider it "low recoil" btw. I didn't have a chronograph back in the mid-eighties, but Remington's 125gn semi-jacketed HP was a seriously hot load. Back then, it seemed Remington made the hottest stuff across the board.

I have made a number of attempts to get my 125's up to 1400 f/s and failed. Mind you, I was not chasing velocities - I know better than that. Power Pistol did the best; with AA#7 coming a close second. 2400 would probably get to 1400 f/s but that load work up didn't get far. It's just too much - too much boom; too much flame; too much recoil. No doubt, W296 would be even worse.

I don't know what propellant factory ammo manufacturers are using in their 125's (I've also tested Speer and Hornady and they were competitive with Federal.) but they somehow deliver the velocity without the superfluous boominess of the slow magnum propellants I have. This is the only ammo class I haven't been unable to emulate the factory offerings. I have done well in many other calibers and bullet weights, but not 125/357Mag.

It became a moot point for me, btw. I am more than satisfied with the performance of my Power Pistol propelled 125's. They run well into the 1300's and that's plenty of punch. They also behave quite "balanced" in a 4" bbl gun - 3" too, for that matter.
 
44 AMP said:
With very few exceptions, what the factories sell today as "full power" loads DO NOT even come close to the original .357 loads.
Click to expand...

I suspect several loads will, including those by Remington, Winchester, Federal and Speer. Their 158 grain bullets run 1350 to over 1400 fps from my Ruger 6.5" barrel, and I suspect they would be right close to the original 158 grain at 1515 fps from a 8 3/4" barrel of the original S&Ws. Elmer Keith reports 1518 fps from a 8 3/4" S&W in his November 1935 article in The American Rifleman.
 
44 AMP said:
With very few exceptions, what the factories sell today as "full power" loads DO NOT even come close to the original .357 loads.
Click to expand...

That's because they are staying within the industry standards of SAAMI. Would be foolish on their part not to. Is foolish for handloaders to go beyond those same specs. No need to. Back in the day when .357 was the biggest dog out there, folks thought they had to hotrod it for certain hunting/shooting scenarios. Nowadays, the .357, while still very popular, is a pretty mediocre "magnum" caliber. Lots of more viable options out there than hotrodding a .357 if one feels the need for more power.
 
I am in the early stages of .357 load development. The gun is a Ruger Security Six with a 4" barrel. I can achieve the same max velocities as a max load of H110 when using a max load of HS6 powder. This results in less boom and flame. I am thinking because of the short barrel much of the H110 is making the boom.
tj
 
Potential danger!

CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond or not covered by currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assumes any liability for any damage or injury resulting from the use of this information.

The H110 makes the boom because the pressure it keeps up in the barrel is greater after the pressure peak has been passed than the HS-6 creates. That's how it keeps accelerating the bullet and getting the velocities it does without high peak pressures. HS-6 is a faster burning powder and to reach the same velocity as the H110 because it produces less total gas, it is making up for that lack of acceleration further down the barrel by creating a significantly higher peak pressure that H110 does.

For example, using Hodgdon's data for a 10" barrel and 125-grain XTP, their maximum load of H110/296 is 22 grains and achieves 1966 fps at a peak pressure of 41,400 CUP. Their max load of HS-6 is just 10.9 grains and reaches 1629 fps with a similar peak pressure of 42,100 CUP. To get to 1966 fps with HS-6 takes 13.7 grains and would produce a peak pressure of about 65,000 CUP which would destroy many handguns. Because the HS-6 charge is lighter, it produces less total gas, so less of the acceleration is happening after the peak which means, to get the same velocity, more acceleration has to happen at the peak, which means the peak has to be higher.

The pressure difference will be less with a 4" barrel, but the same principle applies. The velocities produced by two powders match when the average pressure during the bullet's travel down the tube matches, but that average can be comprised of a lower peak and larger muzzle pressure or a higher peak and lower muzzle pressure, and there is no way to tell just from the velocity which one you have. If your gun tolerates very high pressure (and Rugers are strong) you will nonetheless tend to produce more errosion and metal fatique from the very high pressres, so they wear the gun out faster.
 
Based upon my observations, i could easily get 1300 fps with my 158 gr xtp and H110. There is no pressure signs at all at 1250. As for 1350 w/h110, i don't think i can get enough powder in the case without compressing.

I know the western powders claim 1350 fps with some of their powders, but with this load i wasn't chasing velocity (which i do sometimes).
 
Back to the OP's 158's

Based upon my observations, i could easily get 1300 fps with my 158 gr xtp and H110. There is no pressure signs at all at 1250.
Click to expand...

I guess when W296/H-110 is the topic of discussion, this disclaimer is pretty much a given:

CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond or not covered by currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assumes any liability for any damage or injury resulting from the use of this information.

I load for my 4" bbl. We've established that. With 15.0gn of 2400, I got about 1275 f/s. That was my set charge weight; but have since backed down the charge to 14.6, yielding about 1250 f/s - that's still plenty of punch for me. During the workup phase, I got as high as 15.4 and was just touching 1300. I have little doubt pressures were high.

It is noteworthy that I can only get about the same velocities using W296. Pressures are likely lower, however (as aptly explained by Unclenick). And as already thoroughly covered: these are big booming monstrous rounds. They make me feel silly at the range.

Which leads me to a question for our OP: How committed to H-110 are you? Would you consider 2400? It's really good stuff and its wheelhouse is exactly the kind of ammo we're talking about here. H-110 is really slow. For years I used W296. But I was a young recoil junky and my loading attitude was immature. In this arena where we're talking about here, 2400 delivers a much more "balanced" 158 grainer. I think you'd be pleased.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top