Casting 38 special ans 357 mag
- Thread starter CastAmerican
- Start date
Dang it, I'm not even sure I even want to jump into this mess. 
The OP asked for which bullets should he try for his .357 Mag. and it's turned into a history debate of some such.
So, for the OP, the two bullets I'd look at are the Lyman #358477 (150 gr.) and #358156 (158 gr.) Both shoot very accurately from my .38 Spl. and .357 Magnums with the bullets sized .359". I started casting the #358156 way back in 1954 for use in a Smith & Wesson 38/44 Outdoorsman loading the Spl. brass to 38/44 pressure levels. The 38/44 was the predecessor to the .357 magnum. Loads were on the hotter side of current Plus P ammo. I still use that mold today.
Personally, I'm not all that fond of a 30/1 alloy as it's a bit too soft for my taste. Frankly, I use cleaned wheel weight metal with a tad more tin added for a BHN (hardness) level of 11. As mentioned, sizing to .359" has worked quite well over the years and at times I've been tempted to try some sized to .360". However, for me it ain't broke so whether I ever end up doing it is anybody's guess.
My pet loads are 5.0 gr. of Unique in the .38 Spl. and 14.0 gr. A2400 in the .357 magnum. I use the same loads for the Lyman 150 gr. bullet. It's a plain base so may lead the barrel a bit but I haven't had too much trouble in that regard. The 158 gr. bullet takes a gas check so leading has not been a problem.
My target load is the Lyman #358495 148 gr. wadcutter over 3.1 gr. of W231. A standard loading is 2.7 gr. Bullseye with that bullet.
Dunno how much help that'll be but it's what has worked for me for over 60 years.
Paul B.
As someone brought up that 200 gr. .38 Spl. police load, I have the mold and the data. Very disappointing. I used one to finish off a cow elk that was down but not dead. At a range of three feet that bullet bounced off her skull. Here were three witnesses to that fiasco. I've though about trying it in the .357 but just another haven't gotten around to it thing.
The OP asked for which bullets should he try for his .357 Mag. and it's turned into a history debate of some such.So, for the OP, the two bullets I'd look at are the Lyman #358477 (150 gr.) and #358156 (158 gr.) Both shoot very accurately from my .38 Spl. and .357 Magnums with the bullets sized .359". I started casting the #358156 way back in 1954 for use in a Smith & Wesson 38/44 Outdoorsman loading the Spl. brass to 38/44 pressure levels. The 38/44 was the predecessor to the .357 magnum. Loads were on the hotter side of current Plus P ammo. I still use that mold today.
Personally, I'm not all that fond of a 30/1 alloy as it's a bit too soft for my taste. Frankly, I use cleaned wheel weight metal with a tad more tin added for a BHN (hardness) level of 11. As mentioned, sizing to .359" has worked quite well over the years and at times I've been tempted to try some sized to .360". However, for me it ain't broke so whether I ever end up doing it is anybody's guess.
My pet loads are 5.0 gr. of Unique in the .38 Spl. and 14.0 gr. A2400 in the .357 magnum. I use the same loads for the Lyman 150 gr. bullet. It's a plain base so may lead the barrel a bit but I haven't had too much trouble in that regard. The 158 gr. bullet takes a gas check so leading has not been a problem.
My target load is the Lyman #358495 148 gr. wadcutter over 3.1 gr. of W231. A standard loading is 2.7 gr. Bullseye with that bullet.
Dunno how much help that'll be but it's what has worked for me for over 60 years.
Paul B.
As someone brought up that 200 gr. .38 Spl. police load, I have the mold and the data. Very disappointing. I used one to finish off a cow elk that was down but not dead. At a range of three feet that bullet bounced off her skull. Here were three witnesses to that fiasco. I've though about trying it in the .357 but just another haven't gotten around to it thing.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Dang it, I'm not even sure I even want to jump into this mess."
Yes, it's a horrid, horrid mess, taking about both current and historic bullet weights used in both .38 Spl. and .357 Magnum and the history of the rounds themselves. Who gives a flip about context, right?
".357 from the start was loaded with 158 grainers. Elmer Kieth designed it as a "SUPER": .38 special."
Elmer Keith didn't design the .357 Magnum. Neither did Phil Sharpe.
Both men worked with existing .38 Special cases loaded with heavier powder charges beyond .38-44 Heavy Duty loads. It was Sharpe who finally convinced Maj. D. B. Wesson to take on the project formally.
Design of the case and development and testing of the loads was a combined effort of Smith & Wesson and ballisticians at Winchester. It was, I believe, Winchester that recommended adding 1/10th inch to the case, not as a safety measure to keep people from blowing up their guns, but to get the ballistics that Sharpe though the new round should have while doing it without spiking chamber pressure.
Elmer Keith actually lost interest in the heavy .38 Special/.357 Magnum fairly quickly and moved on to projects like the .333 OKH and preliminary work on rounds that would become the .41 and .44 Magnums.
So, back to this hot, hot, mess...
My personal preference for cast load 158s in the .357 and .38 is a Keith-style SWC in front of a charge of WW 231 powder. WW 231 is, by far, my absolute favorite powder for hand gun loading, especially with lead bullets.
If I want to go a bit heavier in the .357 and the lead bullets I'll go to Accurate Arms No. 7 powder.
If I want pop gun loads for my .38 (especially in my circal 1920-1925 M&P Hand Ejector) I'll move to Trail Boss. Trail Boss is my second favorite powder. It's wonderful stuff, especially for my .44 Special.
If I'm loading heavy jacketed bullet loads in my .357, that's when I break out my third most favorite powder, WW 296. I normally reserve it for "time to shift the earth on its axis" loads.
Yes, it's a horrid, horrid mess, taking about both current and historic bullet weights used in both .38 Spl. and .357 Magnum and the history of the rounds themselves. Who gives a flip about context, right?
".357 from the start was loaded with 158 grainers. Elmer Kieth designed it as a "SUPER": .38 special."
Elmer Keith didn't design the .357 Magnum. Neither did Phil Sharpe.
Both men worked with existing .38 Special cases loaded with heavier powder charges beyond .38-44 Heavy Duty loads. It was Sharpe who finally convinced Maj. D. B. Wesson to take on the project formally.
Design of the case and development and testing of the loads was a combined effort of Smith & Wesson and ballisticians at Winchester. It was, I believe, Winchester that recommended adding 1/10th inch to the case, not as a safety measure to keep people from blowing up their guns, but to get the ballistics that Sharpe though the new round should have while doing it without spiking chamber pressure.
Elmer Keith actually lost interest in the heavy .38 Special/.357 Magnum fairly quickly and moved on to projects like the .333 OKH and preliminary work on rounds that would become the .41 and .44 Magnums.
So, back to this hot, hot, mess...
My personal preference for cast load 158s in the .357 and .38 is a Keith-style SWC in front of a charge of WW 231 powder. WW 231 is, by far, my absolute favorite powder for hand gun loading, especially with lead bullets.
If I want to go a bit heavier in the .357 and the lead bullets I'll go to Accurate Arms No. 7 powder.
If I want pop gun loads for my .38 (especially in my circal 1920-1925 M&P Hand Ejector) I'll move to Trail Boss. Trail Boss is my second favorite powder. It's wonderful stuff, especially for my .44 Special.
If I'm loading heavy jacketed bullet loads in my .357, that's when I break out my third most favorite powder, WW 296. I normally reserve it for "time to shift the earth on its axis" loads.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"the 38 S&W was loaded with a 200 grain bullet. But the special "Standard was 158,"
The original .38 S&W load was a 146-gr. lead bullet. I've not done a full survey, but it appears that the 200-gr. .38 S&W load was introduced to the American market around the same time as the 200-gr. Special load, sometime in the late 1920s.
By 1932 Peters was offering 200-gr. bullets in both cartridges, advertised as "Official Police" loadings.
Truth of the matter is, though, that both loadings were ballistically... lacking.
The 200-gr. .38 S&W load was hard pressed to hit 600 fps. on a good day out of a 4" barreled revolver, and out of a snub, like an S&W Terrier, high 400 to low 500 fps wasn't out of the question.
The .38 Special 200-gr. load wasn't all that much better.
I've fired 200-gr bullet loads in .38 Special and .357 Magnum. They're good for bowling pins, and people use hard cast lead 200 gr. bullets for hunting.
The original .38 S&W load was a 146-gr. lead bullet. I've not done a full survey, but it appears that the 200-gr. .38 S&W load was introduced to the American market around the same time as the 200-gr. Special load, sometime in the late 1920s.
By 1932 Peters was offering 200-gr. bullets in both cartridges, advertised as "Official Police" loadings.
Truth of the matter is, though, that both loadings were ballistically... lacking.
The 200-gr. .38 S&W load was hard pressed to hit 600 fps. on a good day out of a 4" barreled revolver, and out of a snub, like an S&W Terrier, high 400 to low 500 fps wasn't out of the question.
The .38 Special 200-gr. load wasn't all that much better.
I've fired 200-gr bullet loads in .38 Special and .357 Magnum. They're good for bowling pins, and people use hard cast lead 200 gr. bullets for hunting.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"I believe the Brits used 200 grain bullets in .38 S&W cartridge during the war in their Webley and Enfield revolvers. Don't know if they copied us or we copied them."
Yes and no.
The British apparently were the first ones to develop the 200-gr. bullet in the .380-200, which used the standard .38 S&W case.
That was adopted in the 1920s to replace the .455 Webley.
However, in the 1930s the British began to become concerned that the 200-gr. lead bullet (the .380 Mk I) could be seen to be a violation of the Hague Accords, so they introduced the jacketed Mk 2 bullet, which reduced the bullet's weight to about 170-gr. It was to replace the 200-gr. load entirely.
But, given the exceptionally low priority that the British put on handguns, and armament in general in the lead up to WW II, by the time war broke out many British who were issued handguns went to France with the older 200-gr. lead bullet loads.
During the war American companies, first under Cash & Carry then Lend/Lease, provided .38 S&W ammunition to the British. Apparently it was a mix between classic 146-gr. and 200-gr. loads.
Yes and no.
The British apparently were the first ones to develop the 200-gr. bullet in the .380-200, which used the standard .38 S&W case.
That was adopted in the 1920s to replace the .455 Webley.
However, in the 1930s the British began to become concerned that the 200-gr. lead bullet (the .380 Mk I) could be seen to be a violation of the Hague Accords, so they introduced the jacketed Mk 2 bullet, which reduced the bullet's weight to about 170-gr. It was to replace the 200-gr. load entirely.
But, given the exceptionally low priority that the British put on handguns, and armament in general in the lead up to WW II, by the time war broke out many British who were issued handguns went to France with the older 200-gr. lead bullet loads.
During the war American companies, first under Cash & Carry then Lend/Lease, provided .38 S&W ammunition to the British. Apparently it was a mix between classic 146-gr. and 200-gr. loads.
Jim Watson
New member
Elmer Keith told me personally that if I just must load .357s, the 150 gr SWC was OK. He said and wrote that he still preferred the 173, either in Special brass or crimped over the shoulder in Magnum cases.
The M19, M686, and Rugers have longer cylinders than the M27 and bullet choice is wider.
Elmer didn't like gas checks but Skeeter Skelton did.
Phil Sharpe made a lot of distinction between the Sharpe SWC and the Keith SWC and how his design could be shot at higher velocity. Although the 158 was standardized, he really seemed to like a 146.
M. Ayoob touted the 125 gr JHP .357 as the ultimate anti-personnel revolver until people got to thinking it was "standard."
The British managed to convince themselves that the .38 S&W Super Police 200 grain was as good as the 265 grain .455. They listened to German whining about the Hague and went to a 178 grain FMJ by WWII.
This has been a most interesting thread veer. 
I still prefer 158 grain RNFP or WFN (wide flat nose) cast bullets in both .357 and .38. 148 grain DEWC's are nice too.
I bought a Lee .358 bullet mold (don't remember which one) and it dropped bullets way out of spec -- they were about .363". I kick myself now for sending it back; I should have kept it for .38 S&W bullets. And if they were light enough maybe 9mm Mak.
I still prefer 158 grain RNFP or WFN (wide flat nose) cast bullets in both .357 and .38. 148 grain DEWC's are nice too.I bought a Lee .358 bullet mold (don't remember which one) and it dropped bullets way out of spec -- they were about .363". I kick myself now for sending it back; I should have kept it for .38 S&W bullets. And if they were light enough maybe 9mm Mak.
I like a mold that casts to .360"-.361" and size them to .359". Works just fine in My .38 Spl. and .357 Mag. guns. My preferred weight is 158 gr. Personally, I've never really seen the need for a jacketed bullet in my handguns, Revolver or semi-auto. Works for me. YMMV.
Paul B.
Paul B.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"This has been a most interesting thread veer."
I've been reading through a number of old ammunition catalogs I've downloaded in the past couple of days and holy crap have I found some really interesting stuff...
I've been reading through a number of old ammunition catalogs I've downloaded in the past couple of days and holy crap have I found some really interesting stuff...
My information was from a gunsmith/forum owner that I misquoted. The 140 gr. bullet is the "optimum weight" for the 357 Magnum, as per Remington's testing to "re-engineer" 357 ammo. Given the +/- 15% "rule" for optimum bullet performance and the availability (and the bullet's designer) 158 bullets were used/loaded in the beginning. Given the popularity of a 158 gr. bullet for 38 Special, and the progression to 38/44 to 357 Mag, the 158 gr bullet was retained. This is just gleaned from my research and I admit to not being a "357 Magnum" historian...
Great post and pics too, USSR. I'd add the following...
For the past 60 years I've used a pair of Lyman 358156 GC bullet molds and straight wheel weight alloy and had great results in both Ruger and S&W revolvers. With or without the GC, velocities up to 1000 fps have given me sub-2" groups in all my .38's and .357's providing I sized them correctly (they must fill the cylinder throats, which, ideally are 0.001" larger than the groove diameter of the barrel).
If you do that, and the gun's not a complete mess, you'll have accuracy and no leading. The GC will allow you to push the bullet >1200 fps with no real need to harden the melt with tin or antimony. Done this way, you get shooting that's cheaper than a .22 LR, and with all the accuracy you could hope for. Best Regards, and good luck. Rod
For the past 60 years I've used a pair of Lyman 358156 GC bullet molds and straight wheel weight alloy and had great results in both Ruger and S&W revolvers. With or without the GC, velocities up to 1000 fps have given me sub-2" groups in all my .38's and .357's providing I sized them correctly (they must fill the cylinder throats, which, ideally are 0.001" larger than the groove diameter of the barrel).
If you do that, and the gun's not a complete mess, you'll have accuracy and no leading. The GC will allow you to push the bullet >1200 fps with no real need to harden the melt with tin or antimony. Done this way, you get shooting that's cheaper than a .22 LR, and with all the accuracy you could hope for. Best Regards, and good luck. Rod