357 Magnum load question

V

Vet66

New member
Getting ready to load some Hornady 158 gr HP-XTP bullets using IMR 4227
powder. Hornady's 5th edition manual lists the starting load @12.4 gr and
the max load @14.5 gr. Looking at Lyman's revolver load data and, the 47th edition listed starting load @12.2 gr and, the max load @16.1 gr using the same bullet Hornady 35750. Hornady is using an 8" Colt Python where Lyman is using a 4" barrel with a universal receiver. I'm using a S&W 686 4" along
with a S&W 28 6" barrel. In the Lyman 47th catalog it lists the 16.1 gr load as matching factory velocities. What are your thoughts,
 
I've found Lyman to be quite conservative compared to other manuals. Many times I've found them to be right on when it comes to max. loads. Other times, not so much. This is why you should start out low, work up gradually and watch for pressure signs.
 
Lyman's 49 says 16.1 is max load for 4227 also. I guess it's max load in their 4"universal receiver.

How I feel about it? I've been using Lyman manuals for 40+ years of reloading and haven't damaged any firearms yet.

If I really wanted to know why I would call Hornady and tell them what Lyman's max load is for their bullet and ask them how they feel about it.

It would be interesting to know what they say.
 
you should compare Hodgdon to Hornady. Hodgdon has some starting loads that are higher than Hornadys max load if I remember correctly.
 
Unless you have the same gun, same lot of powder, same manufacturer and lot of bullets (and manufacturers do make changes without any announcements), the same manufacturer and lot of primers, and the same manufacturer of cases (not sure about lot numbers of cases), and the same COL, how can you hope to get the same results.
This is one of the reasons why multiple reloading manuals are strongly recommended.
I also get tired of hearing about "conservative" manuals when they are all being pressure-tested to the same SAAMI specs and most reference the pressures found.
Some use "off the shelf" guns and some use tightly chambered custom barrels in universal receivers (and no two chambers are identical).
In all cases, a manual is no more than a guideline and the OP is very smart to check several sources.
Start at the lowest starting load and be safe.
 
Maybe I have tunnel vision. . .

When I have a bullet - such as the Hornady 158gn XTP (and I do - almost 600 of them ;) ) - I always refer to the bullet manufacturer's data. In this case, Hornady 9th. The bullet manufacturer's load manual trumps all, IMO.

Now sometimes the bullet manufacturer load manuals won't have data for the powder I want to use - which coincidentally, is often the case with Hornady 158 XTP's - I will then refer to other sources. And usually that means other bullet manufacturer manuals. On line powder manufacturer data tends to take up the rear.

As far as 158 XTP's and 4227 goes: I think 4227 is too slow unless the gun's barrel is at least 6"; and preferably 8"; or better yet, a carbine lever-action. But that's just me. The beauty of loading our own, is we get to make our own choices. And I tend to load with faster powders than most. When I load my 158 XTP's for my 3" & 4" 686's, I reach for AA#7 or Power Pistol. Only my 8-3/8" 686 gets fed the super slow magnum stuff (in my case, W296).
 
There are many variables, and every one of those engineers puts together what they believe is a safe load while keeping as many of those variables in context. Just changing primers with some loads will have huge effects.

If you are smart, you will be conservative in approaching these loads, start low, work up, watch for trouble, and if possible, use a chrono to see where your velocity is going. if you're running 200 fps over a predicted number, that may mean that you're running higher pressures, too.

Chasing that maximum load isn't the best idea, and cherry picking among all the load data to find the biggest possible punch isn't a good idea. at one time, I knew a guy who would go through magazines, even, taking whatever load data he could.
 
Thank you for the replies. I just emailed Hornady asking about the huge difference in data. I think that Nick_C_S is correct insofar as the bullet maker
will stand by their data. Scratching my head at the Lyman loads. I'll post when I hear back from Hornady.
 
Well, lyman is in fact a company that tests the loads it publishes. That's the way it used to be, at least. Any reputable publisher will only put on paper loads that were tested in top ballistic laboratories. There may be a lot of data sharing. I don't know exactly how many ballistic labs there are operating, The legal ramifications of passing out this data is probably overwhelmingly complex.

All things considered I believe that you should use the hornady data. Lyman's data is perfectly alright as long as you follow the exact process.

Wanna hear something funny? I once put together a .38 special load. The data for .38 called for about 8 grains maximum of a powder, maybe 7 mininum. the +P load that I was making called for 9 grains. There was a warning on the +p load that said "do not reduce, load exactly as published". So, I could load 7 or 8 as standard, but to load 9, I couldn't reduce the charge to 8 and work up. :confused:
 
I loaded my 158gr XTP's from my published min of 14.5gr of 4227 to the max load of 16.0gr. my workup gave me a sweet spot @ 15.4 from a 20" barrel. Did not like the load from my snubbie, loaded them down to 13.5 in the snub, that I could handle as was not dirty at all. 4227 is my favorite 357mag powder as of late, it is not dirty or problematic when loading under minimums, and has a softer report than h110 even when loaded to the same velocities. I get clean ignition wit a very light crimp at min data. 4227 loves mid-heavy bullets and stands very close to the "hammer-of-thor" H110 in loads from 140 to 158, but with a seemingly softer touch and slightly more economical density. love the stuff, lately I save what I have for 300BLK(amazing powder across the entire spectrum of 300 weights, cycles everything and does it cleanly) and have been finding that TiteGroup actually makes for a nice magnum powder, to my surprise, although it still makes me nervous with the crazy low case fills, it doesn't seem to effect it at all, and can still reach respectable velocities that us mere mortals would probably be more comfortable shooting.

sorry, off topic. I think 4227 may be the best powder choice for 158gr bullets period, as long as 60-90FPS isn't going to be a deal breaker for you.. If you are chasing the absolute highest velocities for a death ray 158gr load, see if your cylinder will allow for seating a few tenths past the max oal, ignore the cannelure and fill to capacity with lil gun. I only get to use my friends chrony occasionally, but call me a liar if it makes you fell better....(WARNING: THESE LOADS FAR EXCEED MAX PUBLISHED DATA AND SHOULD BE ATTEMPTED BY NO-ONE, EVER...PERIOD!!!)but I seated some very short jacketed flat points, 158GR, to max cylinder length and filled up with 21.5gr of lil gun and got low 1500's consistently from a 4" barrel(Taurus 66?), still staying well under the pressures of max published load of 17gr of H110. lil gun is by far the fastest, cleanest(and thermally hottest)IMO powder out for 357 and runs at significantly lower pressures, it's only downfall is it's case capacity.

I had another member tell me that lil gun shouldn't be run compressed, not sue if there is validility to that, but best do your own research before trying silly things. BUT, I remember reading somewhere some posts from TFL's own "Clark"(the crazy awesome handgun killer) bout compressing 24gr of lil gun into a 357mag case, he had to do use a rod on the press to "double-compress" the powder to fit. maybe clark will chime in, but I remember for whatever reason, his velocities would get lower the more powder he compressed into the case, would love to hear his opinions on this, as I may be remembering his test completely differently than what actually happened.
 
IMR 4227 is a really versatile powder. I use it in my 357 magnum lever rifle, and in my 32-40 High Wall, breach seated. It is really cast bullet friendly. I like 2400 also, but I believe I get better accuracy from 4227.

OP, I don't know whether you are seeking velocity or accuracy, but with IMR4227 I find my best accuracy near the low to middle velocity.

Some people report erratic performance with this powder in 357 mag. I haven't seen it, but in 357 Magnum I shoot cast bullets with a crimp, and it performs well for me. Lot to lot consistency is also good. Which reminds me, I probably need to get another 8 pounder of this.

I would start at the low end, and work my way up slowly looking for good accuracy. I'll bet you find it near the lower end of the pressure spectrum. OP if your question is why the discrepancies in load data published from different sources, there are many variables I suppose, that may have stacked during the development of data at one source, that maybe didn't stack at the others. I don't know.
 
Last edited:
The powder mfg website is free, and makes a great 2nd or 3rd opinion, and in this case Hodgdon agrees with Lyman. (16.0)

Personally, I give powder mfg recommendations most creedance when available, and Lymans is usually pretty close to them. Every so often bullets mfgs data will have some listing that is totally off the charts, usually in the low direction.
 
as crazy as this may seem, back in the really olden times, 2400 was described as the ONE powder to keep on your bench. A writer put together an article and chart giving details for loading every available cartridge, from .222 to the .458 with nothing a keg of 2400.

Loads were run to a low pressure and velocity in almost every non-pistol rounds, and outside of a very narrow range, all of those cartridges performed rather poorly.

But the point of the article was that in absolute emergency or shortages, a person holding a can of 2400 could put together shootable rounds of ammo for anything he owned. A person with a 30-30 who couldn't find an appropriate powder and had run out right before deer season began could still take the can of powder he used for his pistols to load effective rifle rounds.

The other point of it was to show that no matter what the round, a person could use 2400 and create rounds for a child to use. Low recoil, lowere noise level, in general, pain free. This was back before kids were routinely handed magnum firearms on their tenth birthday.
 
No reply from Hornady yet, guess they don't like my question, oh well. I'll stay with their spec and, try Lyman specs on the soft step.
 
What are your thoughts
Click to expand...


My thought is, you'll never get enough IMR4227 under a 158gr XTP to be dangerous in any modern .357 firearm. It's impossible. Period. My experience is while a good powder for .357 it is not the greatest. It really shines in .44 mag., especially in long piped revolvers and carbines. It is also my preferred powder in .460 S&W with heavy bullets. In all three calibers, IME, best performance is at the point or just slightly compressed.
 
I guess I was suffering under the delusion that Hodgdon stopped putting the IMR label on '4227', and that the only game in town is now H4227...

:confused:
 
Well I finally received a reply from Hornady concerning the Lyman load data as follows.

"If they are using our bullet you can use the data in the Lyman book. We would suggest to stick with our data."

Thank You,
 
About what you should have expected.

"No, unless you are following the instructions we have already provided." There is great legal risk in giving anyone permission to do something that could involve even a touch of risk.
 
I guess I was suffering under the delusion that Hodgdon stopped putting the IMR label on '4227', and that the only game in town is now H4227...
Click to expand...


It's the other way around. The "new" IMR4227 is the "old" H4227 and the product named H4227 has been discontinued. Hodgdon claims that the "old" IMR4227 and H4227 were never the same.
 
Throughout the years, both companies have stated that the products that shared names were different production and were not to be used interchangeably. My results with 4350 were similar. Iirc, there were slight visual differences. Now there is accurate 4350 to complicate things even more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top