357 magnum wadcutter development – bone crusher

M

Mr.RevolverGuy

New member
Many before me have discussed 38 special wadcutter it’s accuracy and it’s ability to be a crusher. Ed Harris documented the effects of the DEWC (full wadcutter) in 38 special very well for us to reflect upon all of it’s goodness.

This got me to thinking if it was this good and still yet very capable today would it not be better in 357 Magnum? Only one problem stood in my way. I could not find one manufacturer producing 357 Magnum Full Wadcutter today. With the popularity of this round surely there would be loads documented some where for the reloading addict like myself. Google enters here, sure there are a lot of people talking about it but nothing well documented. As a matter of fact some of the loads that was documented is downright scary. I searched hi and low and nothing I would trust, most amazing I could not find any type of load even in reloading manuals dating back to the 80’s. This lack of data inspired me and started me on this journey to create Mr.Revolverguy’s 357 Magnum Bone Crusher.

Being a user of Quickload Ballistics for 5 years or more now and with about 4 loading manuals sprawled across my desk I knew I had all the right tools to be successful in my mission.

This is my first test of this load to chronograph the recipe and get velocity numbers.

Test number two will most likely be testing in ballistics gelatin.

I am also taking suggestions of other test that can be safely completed to prove out Mr.Revolverguy’s 357 Magnum Bone Crusher.

The loads utilized in this video was operated safely but should not be used in your firearm without loading down by 10% and working up. If you elect to utilize any of this data it is at your own risk, you take full ownership and responsibility for your ammunition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gr4mW7SLdI
 
Alliant used to have .357 Magnum DEWC data. I think Bullseye was a really good powder for it; and from memory it was something like 5.7 grains but I don't really trust my memory for things like that and you shouldn't either.
 
You have followed up on that idea nicely. I corresponded with Mr Harris about which mold might produce the best "fit" for a load such as this and be accurate enough for shots out to possibly 25yds on small game. By "fit" I meant a mold recommendation or a particular type. I've been casting for going on a decade, while just a beginner for some I have learned a ton about alloys and the differences between them.

I have poured up several pounds of a half dozen different bullets in various weights with slightly different profiles to try. So far that's about as far as it has gone. Just have too many irons and not enough fire to get to them all.

Nicely done, appreciate your sharing with us.
 
Mr. RG, much respect, I enjoyed your video!

I guess I am an “old guy” as I have the Lyman Pistol and Revolver Reloading Handbook c.1994 with 7 recipes for 141 g no.358495 wc. If you are interested, drop me a private message with your email address and I’ll forward you a copy of that table.

What you’re doing warms my heart- because you are out there doing stuff and recording your data, doing your own science.

I shot .357 magnum long ago in Ruger Vaqueos and a Marlin lever action. I sold those guns off because for me, they did not fit the jobs I had at that time. I would not mind it if those guns magically appeared back in the gun safe, yet a grateful my kid is out of college with no debt, too!

For shooting deer, I decided “Ruger Only” .45 colt from my Blackhawk (stainless Bisley) was the optimal ticket for me. My Savage muzzle loader fired the same bullets but far flatter and farther out, and I had a nice 30-30. The .357’s only advantage is gentle recoil, and I was young and hammerproof back then.

For small game, I still use my bullseye .22- a customized Norinco copy of a TT Olympia which outshot the .22 rifle I had at the time (from sandbags. Now I have a CZ bolt action for genteel show and 10/22 for rain, snow, scratching up and both are tack drivers, the CZ clearly better.) For rabbits and squirrels, it’s hard to beat the .22

My “kit gun” is a Ruger LCRX 3” in .38 special. It’s very light, fairly accurate, doesn’t throw it’s brass in the weeds or snow... I would not feel silly shooting small game with it, or old tin cans, and it’s fun to shoot. But it’s a “close range” gun, by which I mean I practice at the range at 25 yards outdoors or 50’ indoors. I have no intention of getting in to any altercations with human beings, but ain’t no one going to volunteer to stand in front of a 148 g wadcutter and enough 231 to push it around 900 FPS. It’s gentle on my hand, accurate and fulfills all my goals. If I wanted to shoot a deer, back to big bore or a rifle. I got old and maybe smarter or maybe just my eyes lost their eagle edge. By quite a bit!

You say that you want to “improve” the DEWC performance... to make it better.. but in what way better?

More accurate?
Flatter Shooting Trajectory?
More effective on a game animal?
More kinetic energy, just because you like that? (I’m not judging!)

The foundation of science is to have a hypothesis, then do experiments to prove or disprove it. You say in your video that you think that having 90% full remaining case volume will give best accuracy. I suggest you test that hypothesis as I have not found it to be more than a good rule of thumb. Suggestion:
Load 14 of your present load
Load 14 of the same load but the bullet seated less deeply and crimped on a lube band. Pressure will be less.
Load 14 of the same load but seated even less deeply.

Shoot each set from sandbags at 25 yards at NRA 25 yard pistol slow fire targets. See which is most accurate by overlaying the targets and holding them to the light. I found for me, stuffing the bullets all the way in was less accurate in my 3 guns. But then, I wish I had an old model 19 bullseye revolver!

Your velocity is right within 25 FPS of all the ‘hot’ loads I have, if the goal is kinetic energy.
Blue Dot has the highest maximum velocity in my table at 1382 FPS, 2400 at 1376 FPS, HS-7 at 1356 fps... pressure “measurements” mean little to me as now I know how much variation there was in old data and even still in modern data. The DEWC isn’t great because it can go fast, and pushing the max load just isn’t worth it to me. If you want fast, I have used the Hornady 125 g. Hollow points and found them accurate and will get you more speed with less pressure. Or... golly I want a 327 Fed Mag, if only I had the eyes for that. It must shoot flat as a banjo string from a 6” barrel or better yet from a Contender!

The old recipe for “most accurate bullseye load” is 4.8 g of Bullseye, 1.435” oal for a Lyman 358495 Linotype 141g WC. Sipping along at a blistering 730 FPS and 18,000 CUP.

I can tell you that load goes right through any bunny you can find in North America.

Keep up the good work. What works in my gun might not work in yours, we’re in to the black arts at the fine edge of science. The goal is “better” so the method is shoot a group at a standard target, change one thing, shoot again. See which is better.

You might even consider loading every other chamber with loads A, B, A...to compare and shoot left, right, left targets... reload the chambers the other way, B,A,B... shoot again and even out potential variations in barrel leading, heat, and chamber variations...

You got me going there. It must be hard to sell guns. A good one lasts several lifetimes and a Linotype wadcutter with a powder as old as Bullseye is still hard to beat after 100 years.

Kids today can throw 18 9mm cases in to the weeds as fast as you can sneeze, but it’s the first shot that gets the rabbit in to the pot.
 
zxcvbob said:
Alliant used to have .357 Magnum DEWC data. I think Bullseye was a really good powder for it; and from memory it was something like 5.7 grains but I don't really trust my memory for things like that and you shouldn't either.
Click to expand...
I just looked it up in the 2001 Alliant reloading guide. There are 2 rows for 148 grain DEWC for .357 Magnum. All loads have an OAL of 1.33" and were fired from a 5.6" test barrel. The target load is 2.8 grains, for a velocity of 780 fps and 10 kpsi. The full power load is 5.7 grains of BE (I remembered it right!) for 1475 fps and 33.1 kpsi.

Bullseye gave the 2nd highest velocity of all their powders for this bullet. (first place goes to Herco and third was Unique, and they were all pretty close) HTH
 
Pete,

I just can't bring myself to call you stinkey.pete :)

Thank you very much for the ideas. I am not a hot road kind of guy I load more for accuracy. So not that I have the numbers the question is can I now push it out to 50 yards to test accuracy.

Most times when wadcutters are talked about they are spoken in the same sentence with 38special and many more qualified than me have shot 38 special with DEWC accurately out to 50 yards. But I have yet to see anyone push it to 357Magnum velocities and maintain the accuracy. Just a fun thing to do for me I love a challenge or safe challenge.

I agree bullseye is the real deal in 38special target loads my data says to achieve 1475 fps with Bullseye you have to go up to 7gr which is WAY ABOVE SAAMI SPEC. I feel like Bullseye is to fast to achieve that sort of velocity.

I will shoot these loads at 25 yards from rest then jump out to 50 and see if they tumble when they hit the paper.

And by the way great job with the kids I right with you on them being graduated with no debt. Thanks Pete.
 
Mike,

Keep blowing on that fire to keep it lit my friend. Question you think I should be trying these with lead bullets? Some have said I would get way better accuracy but I was worried about barrel leading at 357Mag velocities.

Pete -- Would it be bad to change direction mid stream to lead bullets? Many say Berry's are good for plinking but never good for accuracy.
 
The 2001 manual that is online doesn't even list .357mag except for Cowboy Action Shooting which are all very week loads.

I looked in my Lyman's cast bullet loading manual and it doesn't even show a wad cutter for the .357 mag. That's pretty pathetic.

Now for 141 gr button nose wadcutters, the Complete Loading Manual for .357 Mag shows this.
This is all I can find at this point in time.
 

Attachments

  • button nose 141gr wadcutter data.jpg
    button nose 141gr wadcutter data.jpg
    125.5 KB · Views: 43
The above load data for the Lyman 358495 cast bullet came from the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook - 3rd Edition.

Don
 
Don,
Lyman's cast bullet handbook 4th edition doesn't list that bullet in .357mag.
It doesn't list any wadcutters.

You better hang on to that 3rd edition you have.
 
That same exact data in Lyman 46 th edition. I don't have the last 2, AA 5 and Bullseye.

I load +P for my carry 38, same bullet.

David
 
That same exact data in Lyman 46 th edition
Click to expand...

I'm sure that's where it came from originally. Complete book of Reloading manuals are like Lee's reloading manuals,
It's everyone else's data that's been collected and republished.

I just don't understand why publications like Lyman's cast bullets wouldn't show all the lead bullets they have tested over the years.

I think Lyman should take all the lead bullet loads they have tested with the powders we have today and put them all in one cast bullet reloading manual.

That I would buy,

What I won't buy is another Lyman's cast bullet manual edition after spending money on the 4th edition.
 
There are things here that if you have taken them into consideration, I missed where its been mentioned.

One of them is not the wadcutter shape, but its construction. I get it, you want a heavy, high speed load with a wadcutter profile to be a "bone crusher" load.

The point is, however, no one else does. Traditionally, wadcutters have always been regarded as a target load. Because the flat nose cuts nice clean holes in paper. Loads have always been only as heavy as needed to be for that use.

That's why there is so little ".357 wadcutter" data, simply put for shooting at such low speeds as expected .38 SPL loads are adequate and also work fine in .357 Magnum cases.

Nearly all commercial wadcutters have, for generations, been swaged, from a very soft lead alloy. Nothing more was needed. And such bullets are not suited to higher velocities. They are just too soft, generally.

They will take a bit more than the target load speeds, but not full .357 Magnum levels.

For that "bone crusher" you are looking at , what you need, first, is the right bullet, in both profile AND construction. Look at what is done with the hardcast SWC bullets. The same alloy with a full wadcutter profile is what you ought to be looking at, given what you say you want.

Again, about no data (from established companies) for such a slug exists. Development of safe loads will be up to you.

its not "pathetic" there is no .357 wadcutter data, its just that there's no real need for it for people shooting paper, and (until now) no demand for a bone crusher/manstopper wadcutter, so no research and no data.

There's no free lunch, and while a soft wadcutter does get benefit from the bore size flat point, and will deform and expand a little, often, you can't drive them very fast. A hard cast one can be driven fast, but won't deform or expand any practical amount. SO a bore size hole all the way through, most likely. Useful, certainly, but is it as effective, defensively, as a JHP?

I suspect not, but since its not something that has any data to judge with, we don't have numbers to compare against JHPs for which we have lots of actual shooting and results to examine.

I played around a bit with the HBWC in .38s seated upside down, and at low speeds, and the results were quite impressive, due to the softness of the slugs and the huge "cup point" hollow of the base being the nose.

Several folks have explained how this is a bad idea, and even dangerous, due to the possibility of the wadcutter "coming apart" at the thin nose section (that was supposed to be the base) and it is certainly possible. My experience is that does not happen if the loads are kept light enough, but many seem incapable of doing that, and just have to keep going in order to get "better" results.

So, if you're looking for a "bone crusher" choose the right hardness of slug for the speed you want, and don't push what shouldn't be pushed.
THEN start looking at loads for the chosen slug.
 
Following on 44 AMP’s thoughts, Bayou Bullets offers a button nose wad cutter that is coated in hi-tek and hard cast at 18 bhn. I have run it up to 1200 fps in 357 with no issues. Accuracy was excellent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I've been thinking along these lines as well, possibly with either the coated type or the copper plated type that can be pushed up to 1200 fps.
 
The concept hasn't really been lost, but improved upon in my opinion. Instead of light for caliber wadcutters companies like Buffalo Bore, DoubleTap etc., have been loading heavy for caliber hardcast flat nose or semi-wadcutter bullets to faster than normal speeds for a while now.

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=100


If you're wanting bone crushing penetration these bullets are your huckleberry.
Loads in 9mm, 357, 10mm and 45 are getting around 60" of penetration in gel and have taken down brown bear and cape buffalo by hunters.

Like others have said, I just don't see any demand for the lightweight wadcutters for anything other than punching paper.
 
If you cast your own bullets, look at Lee's 158 grain RNFP bullet. It's not really round-nosed, it's more what I would call a "wide flat nose" bullet, and the front edge is sharp like a full wadcutter. Shooting paper, it punches holes like a .32 wadcutter with a little gray ring around it. And the tapered sides make it a lot faster to load in the cylinder, with or without a speedloader.

I do agree with your original premise about a .36 thru-and-thru hole being better than a .32 hole and this bullet won't give you that unless it deforms a little (or you load it backwards which is probably stupid ;)) but it meets all your other requirements, and there's lots of 158 grain cast bullet load data available.

BTW, I'm pretty sure Magnus Bullets sells hard cast 148 grain DEWCs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top