K Frame & Warm 357

Status
Not open for further replies.
wild cat mccane said:
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" ammo don't need high velocity anymore, as Federal as claimed themselves, and since even weak commercial is 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.
Click to expand...
Buuuuuut....

Generally Hollow point bullets start to perform well in handguns above 1200 feet per second. Every increment of velocity above that is increasing effectiveness at a certain distance, or maintaining effectiveness at an increasing distance, for a given bullet and design system.



A Ruger Blackhawk is a much more comfortable delivery method for this pressure and velocity level of ammunition than a Smith & Wesson model 65, whereas the model 65 can be much more comfortably concealed carried, for example.

When I camp in the mountains I'm going to have what I decide is the most effective ammunition within reason in the cylinder. That decision lays holstered next to me in the sleeping bag. There are all types of different ways we can make decisions to affect different outcomes.

Sometimes what seems like a clear-cut decision can have compromises or even hidden choices that may not be immediately apparent.

Sometimes it's not so much a justification for a decision, so much as a admission of what's at stake.
 
That's not true any longer.

HST doesn't need that. Bonded Golden Saber doesn't need it. Ranger never needed it. Even boring FBI Hornady Duty is barely clocking in 1000FPS with 4" barrel.
 
wild cat mccane said:
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.
Click to expand...

At what point did the OP say the desire was to produce a 357 Mag load with rifle-like hydrostatic shock? Please point to the post that says this.

You seem to have pulled this subject right out of the sky, and gone on a detached-from-reality rant about it when it is completely irrelevant to this thread.
 
I think this video should put the "magic number" argument to bed.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HFxaJ0m6yI0&pp=ygUic2hvb3RpbmcgdGhlIGJ1bGwgNDEwIGJsYWNrIG1hZ2ljIA%3D%3D

1455 fps is well within the velocity window one can get with a magnum handgun, and several hundred fps lower than any mach 2 "magic number" yet that still looked awfully destructive to me. No, the reason that shotgun slug was so destructive is because despite its moderate velocity, it still had far more energy than common handguns due to its much greater weight.

Rifles are generally more effective than handguns because they usually have much more energy. High velocity is the most efficient way to achieve greater energy, but not the only way. This is why cartridges like 45-70 can be so effective despite running at magnum handgun velocities.

Also, since 9mm Federal HST is so fantastic at less than 1000 fps, why did Federal think the .357 Magnum version should go over 1300 fps?

https://www.federalpremium.com/handgun/premium-personal-defense/personal-defense-hst/11-P357HST1S.html

Or for that matter, why does Hornady think their Critical Duty .357 Magnum should go over 1200 fps?

https://www.hornady.com/ammunition/handgun/357-mag-135-gr-critical-duty#!/

Or for that matter why is Speer loading Gold Dots over 1400 fps?

ammunition/gold_dot/gold_dot_handgun_personal_protection/19-23920GD.html

Finally, remember that not everything revolves around personal defense. For a hunting load, moderate expansion and deeper penetration are desirable so a more controlled expansion bullet like a Nosler Partition or Hornady XTP at high velocity would be a sensible choice. For protection from dangerous animals, a cast bullet at high velocity is sensible.
 
Last edited:
Folks, I think that a discussion of required velocity and caliber for ballistic hydrostatic shock requires its own thread.

Why wild cat maccane thought it had anything to do with this thread, which discusses the durability of S&W k frame revolvers and warm 357 magnum loads with 158 grain bullets, defies rational explanation.
 
So far I believe I am the only person to answer the question of the OP that no current K frame S&W appear to have re-suffered old style K frames.

I then followed up with, "but why are you loading it, no bullet currently requires that velocity for these reasons, including directly from the largest manufacturer of ammunition that owns nearly all US produced ammo"
 
Last edited:
74A95, you've continued to move the goal line on why response to "why?" would some load it that hot.

Again, no 357mag in 4" is every getting close to your minimum set 2,000FPS. None. Even uber hot 1,600fps ultra light 357 is 20% away from your defined minimum.

The purpose of bringing this up is to help the OP understand that you might wear out or out of time your revolver faster, but the end purpose isn't all that worth it in the end unless that's the goal or you just want to shoot those.
 
wild cat mccane said:
Again, no 357mag in 4" is every getting close to your minimum set 2,000FPS. None. Even uber hot 1,600fps ultra light 357 is 20% away from your defined minimum.
Click to expand...

And this is an example of your crazy idea of what you think is the only thing that matters when loading 357 Magnum. This crazy criteria of requiring the 357 to reach a speed that produces rifle-like hydrostatic shock or it's not worth loading to nominal 357 ballistics is completely irrelevant. What's wrong with you that you don't see that? Do you think there is no other purpose for the 357?

By all means, contact all the ammo makers who load the 357 and tell them to stop loading it so fast because it does not meet your criteria. That's what you're saying. If handloaders shouldn't do it, then either should factories.
 
Last edited:
I listed all reason velocity is required in a bullet. I'll do it again.

Velocity affects expansion, trajectory, time in flight, accuracy, and hydrostatic shock.

Not a single one of those is important in a 4" revolver given on shelf ammunition velocities.

You can keep name calling, but you've only do that and not proven me wrong.
 
wild cat mccane said:
So far I believe I am the only person to answer the question of the OP that no current K frame S&W appear to have re-suffered old style K frames.

I then followed up with, "but why are you loading it, no bullet currently requires that velocity for these reasons, including directly from the largest manufacturer of ammunition that owns nearly all US produced ammo"
Click to expand...
The OP’s 65-6 has the old style barrel and forcing cone with the flat bottom. Not sure if this had been mentioned. I have a bought new 66-1 that has never had a 125 down it’s bore. The value of these guns would never allow me to come close to abusing it, plus I really like the old gun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top