Who agrees on a 2700 fps minimum? I certainly don't. You know it's funny, I keep seeing what I call "the magic number" thrown about as the minimum speed for hydrostatic shock, but the number keeps going up. I've heard 2000 fps, 2200 fps, and now 2700 fps. If the so-called "experts" keep this up we'll only be able to get hydrostatic shock with a .22-250 before long.
K Frame & Warm 357
- Thread starter 1972RedNeck
- Start date
- Status
Who agrees on a 2700 fps minimum? I certainly don't. You know it's funny, I keep seeing what I call "the magic number" thrown about as the minimum speed for hydrostatic shock, but the number keeps going up. I've heard 2000 fps, 2200 fps, and now 2700 fps. If the so-called "experts" keep this up we'll only be able to get hydrostatic shock with a .22-250 before long.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"You might not find the answer of the longer case being made to prevent it from being shot in 38 Special guns adequate, but you're only one person."
Good lord, try reading my initial post on this again.
I never said adequate. I never even alluded to it being "adequate."
I said I doubted that it was the primary reason.
If you're fine with "OMG, we need to make the case longer because we might hurt someone!!!!" then fine.
Again, as I said, I sincerely doubt that DB Wesson, Phil Sharpe, and the Winchester development team were running around wringing their hands crying about how people were going to hurt themselves with the new ammo.
As for Elmer Keith, Keith actually wasn't there. I've never seen any indication that he was involved in the development of the cartridge to the depth that Sharpe was. Keith didn't consult with either Smith & Wesson or Winchester on the project that resulted in final development of the cartridge in 1935.
Good lord, try reading my initial post on this again.
I never said adequate. I never even alluded to it being "adequate."
I said I doubted that it was the primary reason.
If you're fine with "OMG, we need to make the case longer because we might hurt someone!!!!" then fine.
Again, as I said, I sincerely doubt that DB Wesson, Phil Sharpe, and the Winchester development team were running around wringing their hands crying about how people were going to hurt themselves with the new ammo.
As for Elmer Keith, Keith actually wasn't there. I've never seen any indication that he was involved in the development of the cartridge to the depth that Sharpe was. Keith didn't consult with either Smith & Wesson or Winchester on the project that resulted in final development of the cartridge in 1935.
On the different length,
I think the 357’s difference in length could also be attributed to it being a new, more powerful cartridge. It just looked more powerful and marketing was important. Wasn’t it the most powerful handgun cartridge of the day?
I remember as a boy the first time I ever saw a 44 magnum, no wonder Dirty Harry was so awesome! Growing older and losing this magical outlook on things was a little sad.
Curb appeal means a lot, hell, look at the box art on some ammunition today, embossed foil like finish, dramatic pictures….. I will say though, I have some really old (40’s, 50’s?) boxes that had some nice art work. I remember my uncle in England showing me his shotguns and two boxes of ammo. Plain white boxes that said Winchester 16 bore and Winchester 12 bore. There was some specs on the boxes also but absolutely nothing special, very, very plain. I remember thinking, this stuff would just sit on the gun store self back in Texas. This was around 1990 when we still had the more traditional looking boxes, REM Green & Yellow, Super-X, Red box Federal, etc.
I think the 357’s difference in length could also be attributed to it being a new, more powerful cartridge. It just looked more powerful and marketing was important. Wasn’t it the most powerful handgun cartridge of the day?
I remember as a boy the first time I ever saw a 44 magnum, no wonder Dirty Harry was so awesome! Growing older and losing this magical outlook on things was a little sad.
Curb appeal means a lot, hell, look at the box art on some ammunition today, embossed foil like finish, dramatic pictures….. I will say though, I have some really old (40’s, 50’s?) boxes that had some nice art work. I remember my uncle in England showing me his shotguns and two boxes of ammo. Plain white boxes that said Winchester 16 bore and Winchester 12 bore. There was some specs on the boxes also but absolutely nothing special, very, very plain. I remember thinking, this stuff would just sit on the gun store self back in Texas. This was around 1990 when we still had the more traditional looking boxes, REM Green & Yellow, Super-X, Red box Federal, etc.
wild cat mccane
New member
It's pretty much what Federal stated not that long ago that people have incorrectly overstated handgun velocity and energy as important when bullet design has so greatly moved passed the need of velocity.
Velocity affects expansion, trajectory, time in flight, accuracy, and hydrostatic shock.
Not one of those matters in handgun ammunition where even super magnum loads aren't half of rifle level velocity and not one commercial load in FMJ or quality JHP is under powered for even it's range junk use.
Velocity affects expansion, trajectory, time in flight, accuracy, and hydrostatic shock.
Not one of those matters in handgun ammunition where even super magnum loads aren't half of rifle level velocity and not one commercial load in FMJ or quality JHP is under powered for even it's range junk use.
A couple of points to consider, first, our modern outlook on almost everything, and second, the fact that all the players have pass on and we cannot ask them for explanations, only look at what they wrote, and decide if we believe it, or not.
Today, when we hear that they made the case longer so it wouldn't fit (and be dangerous) in other guns, we instantly think they did it to keep from being sued. But, was that REALLY the case, 90ish years ago??
Back then, as mentioned, companies were not really worried about being sued by stupid people. In general, at the time, society didn't believe that someone being hurt because they did something stupid was worth money, nor did they feel that it should come from the "deep pockets" of manufacturers.
ALSO this was not an era when the courts (in general) believed everyone deserves their day in court and you can sue anyone for any thing. Back then, judges were more likely to throw out cases they considered without merit, than to allow them to proceed. i can easily see something like this, "Councilor, your client injured himself because he foolishly ignored both manufacturer's instructions and common sense, and you admit to that. Case dismissed, stop wasting the court's time....."
I think that, if the people creating the .357 were "afraid" of anything it would not have been lawsuits from injured idiots, but getting a bad reputation and losing sales as a result. Remember that back then, rumor traveled on swift wings, but fact checking moved at a snail's pace, if, at all.
Suppose they had not lengthened the case, and a few people did suffer harm, DESPITE the warnings and instructions. Pretty quick the rumor mill starts telling the whole world, "don't by one of them S&W magnums, they blow up!
My cousin's sister's brother's uncle's nephew lost two fingers cause one of dem S&Ws blew the heck up on him!!!"
Doesn't matter what the facts were, doesn't matter much if the incident actually happened, once the rumors get started, they are devilishly difficult to stop, and back then, just as today, false/mistaken belief can be just as powerful, if not more powerful than facts, across the buying public.
So, I think lengthening the magnum case was a smart marketing move, more than an intentional safety move. Also extremely likely that because it ALSO was a safety move that the safety aspect was the one promoted and so became the "official" reason, because it showed how S&W "cared" about its customers, while the actual (and unstated) reason was that while S&W did care about its customers, it also cared about S&W's bottom line, and making the magnum case longer so it was difficult/impossible to put in .38s didn't hurt S&W in any way.
IF you really want to know the real reason, ask the people who did it, the next time you see them. Otherwise, go by what they wrote as the reason they did what they did.
Today, when we hear that they made the case longer so it wouldn't fit (and be dangerous) in other guns, we instantly think they did it to keep from being sued. But, was that REALLY the case, 90ish years ago??
Back then, as mentioned, companies were not really worried about being sued by stupid people. In general, at the time, society didn't believe that someone being hurt because they did something stupid was worth money, nor did they feel that it should come from the "deep pockets" of manufacturers.
ALSO this was not an era when the courts (in general) believed everyone deserves their day in court and you can sue anyone for any thing. Back then, judges were more likely to throw out cases they considered without merit, than to allow them to proceed. i can easily see something like this, "Councilor, your client injured himself because he foolishly ignored both manufacturer's instructions and common sense, and you admit to that. Case dismissed, stop wasting the court's time....."
I think that, if the people creating the .357 were "afraid" of anything it would not have been lawsuits from injured idiots, but getting a bad reputation and losing sales as a result. Remember that back then, rumor traveled on swift wings, but fact checking moved at a snail's pace, if, at all.
Suppose they had not lengthened the case, and a few people did suffer harm, DESPITE the warnings and instructions. Pretty quick the rumor mill starts telling the whole world, "don't by one of them S&W magnums, they blow up!
My cousin's sister's brother's uncle's nephew lost two fingers cause one of dem S&Ws blew the heck up on him!!!"
Doesn't matter what the facts were, doesn't matter much if the incident actually happened, once the rumors get started, they are devilishly difficult to stop, and back then, just as today, false/mistaken belief can be just as powerful, if not more powerful than facts, across the buying public.
So, I think lengthening the magnum case was a smart marketing move, more than an intentional safety move. Also extremely likely that because it ALSO was a safety move that the safety aspect was the one promoted and so became the "official" reason, because it showed how S&W "cared" about its customers, while the actual (and unstated) reason was that while S&W did care about its customers, it also cared about S&W's bottom line, and making the magnum case longer so it was difficult/impossible to put in .38s didn't hurt S&W in any way.
IF you really want to know the real reason, ask the people who did it, the next time you see them. Otherwise, go by what they wrote as the reason they did what they did.
Sadly, they are all long passed, so we can’t ask them directly. But I think it’s presumptuous to think that folks knew what they were, or were not, concerned about with regard to the design of the 357 Magnum.
Doug Wesson and Mert Robinson told Keith they lengthened the case for safety reasons.
The quote in my post #65 reads, "They designed the case one-tenth inch longer than the .38 Special, to, they said, prevent it's use in .38 Special guns, . . . ."
Preceding that quote in the same paragraph Keith* writes, “When Doug Wesson and Mert Robinson of Winchester redesigned my bullet for use in this cartridge, . . . “ The "they” he is referring to in that paragraph are Doug Wesson and Mert Robinson. They are the ones who told him.
So, according to Keith, Doug Wesson and Mert Robinson told him the reason for lengthening the case.
If anyone has documented evidence specific to the design of the 357 Magnum to support their speculation, such as statements from other people who worked on the development of the 357 Magnum, please share them. We’re all ready to learn.
*Page 279, Sixguns. The Standard reference work, Elmer Keith, 1955. My copy is a 2012 reprint by Martino Publishing.
Doug Wesson and Mert Robinson told Keith they lengthened the case for safety reasons.
The quote in my post #65 reads, "They designed the case one-tenth inch longer than the .38 Special, to, they said, prevent it's use in .38 Special guns, . . . ."
Preceding that quote in the same paragraph Keith* writes, “When Doug Wesson and Mert Robinson of Winchester redesigned my bullet for use in this cartridge, . . . “ The "they” he is referring to in that paragraph are Doug Wesson and Mert Robinson. They are the ones who told him.
So, according to Keith, Doug Wesson and Mert Robinson told him the reason for lengthening the case.
If anyone has documented evidence specific to the design of the 357 Magnum to support their speculation, such as statements from other people who worked on the development of the 357 Magnum, please share them. We’re all ready to learn.
*Page 279, Sixguns. The Standard reference work, Elmer Keith, 1955. My copy is a 2012 reprint by Martino Publishing.
You wouldn't be referring to Johann Boden's comments in this video from Luck Gunner would you? Because he clearly states 2200 fps, not 2700 fps
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T6kUvi72s0Y
Regardless, the "magic number" idea is still pretty easily disproven as there are handguns like 5.7x28 and .22 TCM that approach or equal rifle velocity yet still perform like handguns while there are rifle cartridges like 45-70, .458 SOCOM, and .50 Beowulf that don't routinely crack 2000 fps yet still behave very much like rifles.
Jim Watson
New member
Elmer hisself told me that while the short nosed SWC .357 was ok for short cylindered guns like M27, his bullet in Special brass was better.
I would just shoot 358311 roundnose for anything but hunting. Too bad none of the bulk commercial cast bullets are that shape.
The Swedish game commission came up with a velocity of 2650 fps for effective "pulsatile cavern" wounding on game. About what a 6.5x55 does, what a coinkydinky.
I would just shoot 358311 roundnose for anything but hunting. Too bad none of the bulk commercial cast bullets are that shape.
The Swedish game commission came up with a velocity of 2650 fps for effective "pulsatile cavern" wounding on game. About what a 6.5x55 does, what a coinkydinky.
But they can be had from smaller companies. Matt's bullets sells them;
https://www.mattsbullets.com/165-Grain-Round-Nose-359_p_57.html
Jim Watson
New member
I know but I am cheap, bulk coated bullets cost considerably less.
My next to last .38 lot was an ungrooved coated bullet taper crimped.
My last lot was cast and lubed SWCs with roll crimp in the crimp groove. But that was a one time deal, I swapped wadcutters for them.
My next to last .38 lot was an ungrooved coated bullet taper crimped.
My last lot was cast and lubed SWCs with roll crimp in the crimp groove. But that was a one time deal, I swapped wadcutters for them.
Jim Watson
New member
He has 358477 and 358429, too. If I could lay hands on a Ransom Rest it would be fun to compare roundnose and semiwadcutter.
Recycled bullet
New member
He also sells cast hollow points. Does anyone know if he is casting these bullets manually/hand casting?
Jim Watson
New member
Right, Phil Sharpe goes on at length about HIS bullets superiority.
His have only 5/6 the bearing length and does not cast much oversize to have to be sized down to suit.
Well, they are shorter because they are lighter 146 HP, 156 solid vs 160, 173. As cast diameter was likely the difference in policy between H&G and Lyman.
He said Winchester came up with their own design... but closer to his than Keith's.
I just wonder what the barrel looked like after a box of 1500 fps swaged bullets.
His have only 5/6 the bearing length and does not cast much oversize to have to be sized down to suit.
Well, they are shorter because they are lighter 146 HP, 156 solid vs 160, 173. As cast diameter was likely the difference in policy between H&G and Lyman.
He said Winchester came up with their own design... but closer to his than Keith's.
I just wonder what the barrel looked like after a box of 1500 fps swaged bullets.
wild cat mccane
New member
If you search on this website, there are a few large threads on it.
But...
Let's say it is 2,000fps mininum, which I don't see it anywhere it's that low, but let's go with that.
Is hot 357 going 2000FPS? Absolutely not. 1/4 off at the hottest.
But...
Let's say it is 2,000fps mininum, which I don't see it anywhere it's that low, but let's go with that.
Is hot 357 going 2000FPS? Absolutely not. 1/4 off at the hottest.
From a 6" (nominal) barrel handgun, I have hit 1720fps with hot .357 loads and 2200fps from an 18" carbine.
Waaay back in the dark ages, one of the selling points of the "high velocity" .30-30 round (2200fps) was its hydrostatic shock power, something slower rounds didn't have.
I don't know if this actually is something that matters, only that it is an effect observed with "high speed" rifle bullets and not seen with the common handgun rounds moving much, much slower.
wild cat mccane
New member
Let's be reasonable.
The topic at hand is a 65, a 4" revolver. Will hard but within spec ammo destroy a new k frame from S&W. The answer appears to be no one has a recent example of issues. Since force cone destruction or erosion never was mathematical, the answer appears to be "no, so far."
But on the why.
No one is getting hydrostatic rifle damage from any round that is going through that gun. That I can say with zero equivocation. Anyone saying otherwise is 100% wrong.
Since the "good" JHP ammo don't need high velocity anymore, as Federal as claimed themselves, and since even weak commercial FMJ/JSP s going to do everything on target even uber hardcast claims to do because FMJ doesn't deflect or deform... this is getting a bit out of there.
There exists almost no real world case for extreme FPS 357 revolver ammo today, other than trying to wear/destroy your gun. Other than fun. If there were one, it would have been presented not after 5 pages.
The topic at hand is a 65, a 4" revolver. Will hard but within spec ammo destroy a new k frame from S&W. The answer appears to be no one has a recent example of issues. Since force cone destruction or erosion never was mathematical, the answer appears to be "no, so far."
But on the why.
No one is getting hydrostatic rifle damage from any round that is going through that gun. That I can say with zero equivocation. Anyone saying otherwise is 100% wrong.
Since the "good" JHP ammo don't need high velocity anymore, as Federal as claimed themselves, and since even weak commercial FMJ/JSP s going to do everything on target even uber hardcast claims to do because FMJ doesn't deflect or deform... this is getting a bit out of there.
There exists almost no real world case for extreme FPS 357 revolver ammo today, other than trying to wear/destroy your gun. Other than fun. If there were one, it would have been presented not after 5 pages.
Last edited:
- Status