New Cartridge 357 Ring Of Fire

All

Hey guys,
The pressure question is loose again. Let me ask this?
If 357 magnum maxes out @42,000 psi, and achieves x velocities for a given projo, then why would anyone need to exceed these pressures to equal it?
Powders have different burn rates and pressures for a given load. Yes?
So research the powders with lowest pressures, and you'll see the powders I am concentrating on. Some work better than others of course.
Aren't the pressures for 10mm similar to 357 magnum?
What are the pressures for the 45 super? 460 Rowland?
Just curious if someone has long term use of those last two, and issues with them.
As I understand it, if you handload for the Glock, you've voided the warranty. You handload to get better performance. You should also get heavier recoil springs tuned to your preferred loads to minimize frame wear. If you do not, you will wear the frame faster.
The new barrel will have a comp on it.
Thanks Guys!
Dave
 
If 357 magnum maxes out @42,000 psi, and achieves x velocities for a given projo, then why would anyone need to exceed these pressures to equal it?
Click to expand...
Wow, that's a scary question for two reasons.

First of all, the SAAMI max for the .357Magnum is 35,000psi, not 42,000psi.

Second, the short answer is that they wouldn't need to, in a case with equal or larger capacity.

There is an intertwined relationship between performance, case capacity and pressure--something that a person developing a new cartridge which intended to push performance boundaries needs to be aware of.
I sent out ridiculous info to those questions I deemed equally ridiculous...
Click to expand...
So you're claiming that all the misinformation you have posted on this thread was posted on purpose even though you knew it was inaccurate?

If that's the case, I'm going to have to ask that you immediately stop intentionally posting inaccurate information. Intentionally misinforming people is not consistent with the purpose of this forum.

However, frankly, I don't believe you did it on purpose. All the evidence strongly suggests that you are simply misinformed/uninformed on a number of topics related to cartridge history and development. That prompts you to occasionally post information that you believe is true when it is not.
Some folks understood this...some did not or were on a witch hunt looking for reasons to minimize or ridicule everyone else to make a name for themselves. Small minded, petty, unhappy individuals with their own agenda. I don't care what these folks do. They are evidence of educating an idiot, only gives you an educated idiot who still cannot use their knowledge for anything other than stupidity.

...

Some men wonder what would happen if we do this, while experts proclaim we'll sail off the edge of the earth...
I say let the "experts" stay in the house with the women and children where it's safe, while men do men's work...just have dinner ready for us when we return.
Click to expand...
That's enough of this. You've been given significant leeway, but this is the end of it.

From here on out, you will restrict your participation on this forum in such a way as to refrain from insulting those who disagree with you or point out problems with your facts, or suggest that it might be unwise to ignore common safety practices.

You may refute their points with logic/reason or facts, but if you are unable to do so (or even if you are), it is unacceptable to resort to insults.

If you feel that others are not abiding by the forum rules, please report the offending posts to the staff.
 
If 357 magnum maxes out @42,000 psi, and achieves x velocities for a given projo, then why would anyone need to exceed these pressures to equal it?
Click to expand...

I ("one") can load some .45Colt loads that push a big 300-odd grain out to very fast speeds (one member does this in a 4" Redhawk: 320gr and about 1350fps). It does this with a given pressure

I have a .44Mag. It is known that to equal that performance in my 4" Redhawk .44Mag I would need to do this with significantly higher pressure, simply due to the difference in capacity between the two cases.

Only using velocity as a gauge of pressure is not wise.
 
All

Thank you John.
Does anyone have this pressure guestimate program, and would like to ball park this cartridge, please message me privately. I am curious as to the estimate would be with a volume @77% of 357 magnum, and 77% charges, 75%,etc. Let's say Blue Dot, 296 Lil' Gun, AA#9 and AA#7 powders? Standard pistol primers, magnum and small rifle primers? Let me know if more info is needed to compute.
It seems logical they would be similar, but only if all things being equal.
My parent ctg is good for well over 42,000 psi...but no need to push one's luck but so much.
Thanks Guys!
Dave
 
My parent ctg is good for well over 42,000 psi...
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the pressure is an issue for the chambering, rather than the cartridge.

In a regular cartridge, chambered in a gun for that cartridge, the two are equal and so a non-issue.

But using a given cartridge's max pressure as a guide when used in a chamber designed for a different cartridge (with a lower max pressure) is inviting problems, in much the same way as it is to exceed a given cartridge's max recommended pressure.
 
Last edited:
daveelliot said:
If 357 magnum maxes out @42,000 psi, and achieves x velocities for a given projo, then why would anyone need to exceed these pressures to equal it?
Click to expand...

The fact that you even have to ask that question should be scaring you.

SAAMI specs for pistol and revolver cartridges are here:

http://www.saami.org/specifications_and_information/VelocityPressureData.pdf

357 mag = 35,000
9mm Luger = 35,000
9mm +p = 38,500
357 Sig = 40,000
9x23 Winchester = 55,000

Per your "pressure theory", standard 9mm should equal 357 mag performance, while 9mm+P, 357 Sig, and 9x23 Winchester should all easily exceed 357 mag performance.

The fact that you're claiming to exceed 9x23 Winchester performance should be a warning to you that you are exceeding 55,000 PSI in a gun designed for about 2/3 of that pressure.
 
Yeah, but everyone knows they use 50% safety margins for over pressure.
Click to expand...
So let's push right up to that safety margin in July with a powder like Blue Dot that's reverse temperature sensitive so that December deer hunt ends with a surgeon sewing fingers back on.
 
Davelliott Posted,
Aren't the pressures for 10mm similar to 357 magnum?
Click to expand...

I am sure you could find some loads that have similar pressures with same or close to same weight projectiles but for the most part the answer is no.

The .357 Mag has max load pressures that are much higher than the 10mm max loads of similar weight bullets.

Data from a popular loading manual would be a good source to see this.

An example 357 Mag: 158g JHP, 10.7g Blue Dot, 1158fps, Pressure 39,800.

10mm: 155g JHP, 10.8g Blue Dot, 1303fps, 29,700 pressure.

Over 10k PSI higher!!!!

Maximum pressure for the 45 Super is 28,000 psi.

As you can see there is already a cartridge that covers the 357 Magnum power spectrum in a semiautomatic handgun and does so with lower pressures. Kind of like dehydrating a dried up road apple.

I think many of the more knowledgeable folks on the forum have already pointed out to you that there is some real science involved here and pressure test equipment is a must when developing a "New" cartridge.

Guessing with the pressures is a dangerous game to play and I would not recommend going a step further without real support from those that can do this type of testing.
 
"Yeah, but everyone knows they use 50% safety margins for over pressure."
Once. Proof loads are meant to be fired about once. Design limit loads are meant to be reached never. As in, if you reach them, the gun should be treated as a wall-hanger. I know the person I'm quoting is being facetious, but many don't seem to get it.

I'm not sure why pushing past design limits seems so tempting to people, but I'm just an engineer so what do I know. It's like all the tools on the web blathering about how they should just buff the skin-wrinkles off that AC-130 that flew inverted & exceeded design loads recently, instead of the AF decision to thank their lucky stars the plane managed to land safely & write off the airframe as a total loss. Who makes the call to sign off on the 'repaired' or 'inspected' aircraft that gets sent back into service? What happens when it subsequently has a catastrophic structural failure, for any reason? We saw all sorts of supposition about a previous tail-strike repair being a root-cause on that Egyptian airliner that was apparently taken out with a bomb.

Gun companies, unlike aerospace companies, purposely don't let on exactly what their guns are designed for, specifically because guys like the OP will push right up to the theoretical edge, which is actually beyond what can be predicted (believe it or not, all material properties like strength and fatigue, are statistically derived, so one lot of identical metal will let go sooner than another, and it cannot be accounted for). So the max loads agreed upon for responsible cartridge loadings, are used to generate designs that stay well within the bounds of predictable deflection/stress, for a great many firings (probably the 'infinity' fatigue condition in most cases, I would imagine).

Push beyond them, and you start encroaching on that statistical failure curve, and not only are you on your own warranty-wise, but not even the gun designers will be able to tell you when or if things start letting go.

Now, the way guns are built & lock up in modern designs, as well as the ferrous materials typically used, suggests that overloading incrementally will tend to do no more than progressive wear and break stuff (galling, peening, fatigue-cracking). But what you don't know can hurt you when dealing with tens of thousands of psi (or possibly hundreds, if I understand the load correctly).

Backing out pressures from velocity is impossible without a grid of test data, by the way. It (muzzle energy) is derived from the integral of the pressure vs. bullet displacement curve, so the character of that curve --tall & skinny, or short & wide-- is lost. You can't find a peak P that way; you can only SWAG at it. SWAG doesn't get other people to sign on, least of all companies that understand liability.

Elmer Keith blew up a cylinder while developing 357mag. It supposedly taught him to take a more legitimately scientific approach to the endeavor. Just because you record three variables (bullet, powder, velocity) as you stumble headlong into oblivion, doesn't mean you know where you're going. Pressure is basically The One Variable that tells you where you are. Proceeding without any idea of it is the same as going without a powder scale.

Buy Quickload, build your cartridge in it (or use one similar, which surely exists), and see just how recklessly you've been overloading that poor gun. My money's on at least 60,000psi; Casull territory.

"I've noticed in other cartridges the same thing in short barreled firearms. These pistols do better with powders which burn a bit faster."
How do you think that additional performance is achieved in less distance?

PV=nRT
F=PA
F=ma
W=FL=1/2mV^2

Shorter distance for same velocity & mass, means avg force must increase, which means the pressures must spike accordingly for a bullet of the same diameter. The higher pressures in the same volume will require much higher temperatures or greater mass of gas-products of your propellant (powder grains). This doesn't even touch on the kinetics/time-dependent variables that are way more complicated and hard to predict, which are where your powder-selections come into play.

These are incredibly simplified formula representations of the high-energy event going off in your hand, but they are still useful for understanding the basic relationships between the variables you can measure. DO NOT attempt to use them to 'back out' a pressure for us, since it will be a much lower "average" pressure (possibly less than 1/10th the actual peak value), and give you false security.

"Maximum pressure for the 45 Super is 28,000 psi."
Likewise, behold the magic of a larger starting volume; it allows you to throw the same mass at the same velocity with less pressure (and more efficiently, too). It's why the 50 Alaskan can do what the 45-70 can do and more from the same guns/actions, and why 7.5x55 is less taxing on an action than 30-06 for the same ballistic effect. It's also why a 5.7x28 pushed to near rifle-pressures can only attain 1/3rd the velocity of a 5.56 shooting the same Vmax 40gr bullets.

TCB
 
I sure hope nobody tells the OP about the S&W .460 mag operating up to almost 65k pressure. He might want to raise the bar.
 
Excellent post, barnbwt! Hopefully the OP will take some of it to heart.

barnbwt said:
It (muzzle energy) is derived from the integral of the pressure vs. bullet displacement curve, so the character of that curve --tall & skinny, or short & wide-- is lost. You can't find a peak P that way; you can only SWAG at it. SWAG doesn't get other people to sign on, least of all companies that understand liability.
Click to expand...

Trying to simplify barnebwt's statement (I would bet that the OP doesn't know what an integral is), the performance of a cartridge is determined by the area under the pressure vs distance curve. This area is typically called "Work" (Work = Force x Distance). The more area (work), the faster the bullet will go.

Modern cartridges are designed to maximize the area under the curve while being limited by the height of the curve (pressure) due to material limitations. This is why you typically use smaller amounts of faster burning powders in shorter barrels and larger amounts of slower burning powders in longer barrels. Max pressure remains the same, but the distance that the max pressure acts on the base of the bullet is greater in the longer barrel. The height (max pressure) of the curve is the same, but the curve is wider (longer distance) in the longer barrel, therefore more area under the curve = more work = higher velocity.

What the OP is doing is increasing the area under the pressure vs distance curve by significantly increasing the height of the curve. He has no earthly clue how far he's increasing that height (max pressure). But based on his claims and the performance of similar cartridges, it's well above 9x23 pressures.

He'll probably get away with it for awhile because standard engineering design practice includes a "safety factor" based on those statistical analyses of materials that barnbwt described. However, sooner or later he's going to be on the wrong end of the bell curve. That's the way statistics works and what keeps casinos in business. His pistol will turn into a bomb 3 feet in front of his face.

But hey, I'm in the same boat as Barnbwt. I'm just an engineer who's been designing and testing high pressure systems for almost 30 years and reloading for about 40 years. What do I know?
 
Last edited:
Barnbwt and 45_auto thank you for the excellent posts. Your insights have turned this string into something genuinely useful. I almost wrote off this string several times because of the foolishness of some things asserted here. I'm glad I stayed in.
 
All

Hey guys,
I figure the remark on 50% being more satire than fact. I never considered such a thing as viable.
I do know Mr. Kieth destroyed a pistol trying to find the limits of his design, as many others before him likely did the same. I do not intend to go there, but I also was curious and likely went a bit over the top.
This brings a question...are there any 9x23 shooters with Glock frames finding wear or fatigue issues? Is the life of these pistols shorter than intended?
What about the guys shooting 38 super +p?
Are these ctgs also hard on 1911 style frames?
Yes, I am very aware of the venerable 10mm capabilities. The only advantage my ctg may offer over the 10, is higher magazine capacity.
This is why testing will continue...I may not be able to safely offer this current configuration. I may be able to safely encroach the lower to mid range 357 performance with the heavier bullets. This was my original intentions for this ctg...but during testing, the pistol shooting was very mild, and I attempted to push the envelope a bit, as I equated low impulse to low pressure in the ctg.
I will look into this Quikload program and see what is predicted is being felt in recoil compared with the 357 mag, 40, etc...
These last few posts did have some very good info!
Thanks Guys!
Dave
 
I have read of 9x23 conversions on Glock 10mms but the magazines do not work well enough for anybody to build up enough of a round count to test durability.
The most pounded guns I know of were 1980s IPSC "raceguns" in 9x21 loaded to Major power factor. CZ75s held up pretty well but tended to break slide stops. I saw one guy replace one out of a baggie of spares between match stages. He just used a straight pin, no need for a slide stop because shooting the gun empty is the kiss of death to fast shooting.
Power factor is lower, powders are better, and 2011 actions allow .38 Super or long loaded 9mm P, so the guns are not as badly overloaded now.

Don't put too much stock in Quickload on a straight case, it works better with bottlenecks. I have read here of people fudging the figures to make a known load come out right on the computer, then using those constants to try to predict a new load. Tricky.

Elmer Keith was hard on guns, no doubt about it, although I never heard of him blowing up a gun while "developing the .357 Mag." Overloaded .45 Colt, sure; overloaded .44 Special, maybe.

Bear in mind that an automatic has a different failure mode than a revolver. The sixgun's top strap and cylinder fragments tend to fly up and away.
A blown Glocked casehead releases high pressure gas into a thin plastic magazine well... in your hand.

Y'all be careful, now, you hear?
 
All

Hey guys!
Stag: Hopefully I'll never need another one...but you've seen what people do during great duress, New Orleans, during the Hurricane. Other times when people riot for whatever reason, drag people out of their vehicle and beaten to death because they had no way to protect themselves. If this situation occurs, would you think 15 rounds is enough? Who knows if anyone could ever have enough...but I'd like to take as many as I can while I can...hopefully round 17 or 18 would get the ring leader and cause dispersal...hopefully they wouldn't want to hang around to see when you do run out. Worst case?

Jim Watson:
Yes, I noticed this issue also...yet I've heard others praising the 10mm as the perfect platform for the 9x23.
I'm surprised to see Glock has never made a 38 super or 9x23.
I'm also surprised to see no after market mags in these calibers...what are the guys using when they convert? Are they modifying 10mm mags?
I am very familiar with the racegun issues in the 80's. This is why I tested early off line with lower charges that wouldn't even cycle the slide, then worked up slowly...and the difference in the way the two types of pistols give is also great concern to me. I started with very heavy gloves...
Thanks Guys!
Dave
 
15 rounds is enough?
Click to expand...
That is in one magazine. Lots of people around here keep 40-60 rounds on them daily, just in 3-4 magazines, not one. On the rare occasion I fill up my mag carriers and pockets with extras for my 9mm baby Glock, I still usuallycarry carry a 10 or 12 rounder in the gun. Even if I am open carrying. 10 or 12 rounds in a pistol magazine is quite a bit.

On my 50% comment, it was in jest. 100 years ago it seems that was a standard for military contract guns almost the world over. Proof testing, not design limitations as was pointed etc, etc. Heat treating by sight, no computer modeling, lack of control quality on steel, no calculators that could integrate in seconds, etc. AND they were dealing with lower pressures in general. I don't think that was true of non-military arms, even then. Hard to believe it would be with some of the small revolvers of the period. It certainly doesn't mean they were designed for repeated firing. Some of the old military conversions to 7.62X51 show what repeated firings of even 10-20% over the original round can do. I would be surprised if the same margins are used today.
 
"Elmer Keith was hard on guns, no doubt about it, although I never heard of him blowing up a gun while "developing the .357 Mag." Overloaded .45 Colt, sure; overloaded .44 Special, maybe."
44mag would make more sense, chronologically :o
https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=3t5X8f__vpk

Maybe he eventually got more thorough, but if Keith's "method" of development was blowing up guns with blind loads, I can see why it took so long for his ideas to catch on.

TCB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top