Pushing .357 cast above max load data

O

Omegaspeedy

Inactive
CAUTION: The following post (or a page linked to) includes or discusses loading data not covered by currently published sources of tested data for this cartridge (QuickLOAD or Gordon's Reloading Tool data is not professionally tested). USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assumes any liability for any damage or injury resulting from the use of this information.



Good evening guys. The knowledge base in here is impressive to say the least hence I have come here to look for advice and also hear your experience on this somewhat unique scenario.

First off, I normally would never load above max book.

I cast Lee bullets (TL358-158 Tumble lube 158g bullets) and have found a great load using ADI 2205 powder which on the equivalency tables burns around the same speed as W296/H110 but yields slightly less velocity.

ADI's website has data for both 158XTP's and SWC cast.

The XTP's range from 14.5g-16g 1578-1668fps 42600CUP at max.

The Cast range from 10.5g-11.5g 1288-1382fps 17800CUP at max.

Take note of the CUP at max for the cast bullet.

I want to test my cast bullets at higher velocities while avoiding leading and developing an accurate plinking round that is less susceptible to wind and shoots a bit flatter out to 100m.

My question is how would ADI come to an 11.5g limit at 17800CUP when the XTP's can be loaded up to higher levels? I have triple powder coated and Aloxed some 13BHN projectiles and want to shoot them under 13g-13.5g-14g which should result in 1600fps max. I'll them for leading and see if the three layers of PC held up. That upper level of 14g will still be below the start load for XTP's.

Has anyone here tried to push powder coated cast bullets above max when there has been 'room for movement' with regard to max pressures?

I've loaded these bullets but yet to shoot them as I want to get advice from you guys first. At worst am I just going to get lead and a big fireball from this slower burning unburnt powder or worse?

I accept this is a bit of a stupid idea so tell me so if you reckon it is.

Gun is Marlin Dark 1894.

Thanks for your help
 
My understanding was, going above 1200fps with cast you have to have your ducks in a row. Good BHN, good coating, possibly gas checks. My guess would be they are trying to limit velocity and pressure to prevent lead-ing. Work the loads up. Check for lead-ing in the barrel frequently.
 
Thanks Shadow9mm, I was wondering if that could have been one of the reasons for the limit. I've been doing a whole lot of research about PC and max velocities. If I can believe what is being reported, I'm quite hopeful of higher velocities with my PC'ed castings without leading and it opens up some load developments which were quite limited with the narrow range given.
 
I load full power loads with powder coat over bullets cast from range lead (~10 BHN).

I started trying out full power cast bullet loads with the goal of knocking down IHMSA rams at 200 meters. I found that a single pass shake & bake is all it takes for me to get zero leading from all my standard loads. This includes bottle neck rounds (30 Herrett, 7 TCU in the TC Contender) or a 357 Max revolver.

At first I was worried that your powder may have the potential for reduced load problems like H110. Then I found info that this is a short kernal extruded powder more similar to 4227. I used 4227 for a while with my 357 max with 200 gr bullets. It is probably slower and bulkier than optimum for a 357 mag and a 158 bullet. I would expect less than complete burning. The more you reduce the load, the dirtier I would expect the load will be.

Seating depth is an important thing to consider when you are using load data but are substituting a different bullet. To figure out seating depth, you need bullet length. Here is some info that may help.

If your Lee bullet is the TL358-158-SWC, Quickload lists the bullet length as 0.665". If it is the TL358-158-2R, Quickload lists the bullet length as 0.702".

The Hornady 158 XTP HP is listed as 0.605" and the 158 XTP FP is listed as 0.664" long.

I did try to plug in the ADI load data into Quickload. At their max charge, I got a very compressed powder charge and higher pressures and velocities than I expected. I am betting that their tested max load was less compressed than Quickload calculated it to be.

Given the similarity to 4227, I am betting you will get good performance with close to 100% case fill or just a little compression.
 
Great info P Flados and thanks for putting in the time to look at those numbers. My understanding is AR2205 is 4227 and ADI make it for them. Again this really excites me hearing your findings with full loads and the lack of lead issues. My next step based on what you've said is to use my standard method of PCing of just one shake and bake. I get good coverage and sit them on their bases on a silicon mat. My best load of AR2205, 11.5g (1350fps) seems to burn clean and there is zero signs of lead. This load is my most accurate but I was hoping to extract more velocity and find another accuracy node equal to it. Good research finding that this powder doesn't suffer the undesirable trait of under loaded W296. This is why I really like this powder with cast because of the potential useful range of 10.5 all the way up to 16g. Thanks again.
 
A couple of considerations. One is that cast bullets generally have lube grooves (not so much an issue with TL designs) that makes them longer for their weight than same-shape jacketed bullets. If your bullet seats deeper than the XTP, that will raise the pressure, so don't count on an exact match.

People successfully shooting soft bullets without leading generally have bores in very smooth condition and, in revolvers, chamber throats that are larger than the groove diameter of the bore by one to two thousandths and shoot bullets sized to the diameter of the chamber throats.

If you can't meet those conditions, the chances of leading increase substantially, and if you are unlucky enough to have chamber throats smaller than groove diameter, you will likely always have a leading problem as gas bypassing the undersized bullet. That said, those rules are developed for regular cast bullets and not for powder-coated bullets and I can't say how they compare. I expect, in the case of an undersized bullet, the bypass gas will tear up the powder coat and you'll still have a mess on your hands.

Richard Lee did some good work on cast bullets for rifle accuracy and found the BHN had to be about equal to the pressure in psi divided by 1280. You can use 1400 to put it right on the edge. This is the pressure at which base deformation begins. This puts a limit of 30,000 psi to a bullet with a BHN of 21. But this is for rifle accuracy and in handguns, we do well to remember that Elmer Keith was running about BHN 13 when he developed the initial loads for 357 and 44 magnums by overloading in large frame revolvers designed for the Special versions of those cartridges.
 
ADI 2205 powder which on the equivalency tables burns around the same speed as W296/H110 but yields slightly less velocity.
Click to expand...


From ADIs website, they claim it's burn rate is closer to IMR4227 than W296/H110.

ADI's website has data for both 158XTP's and SWC cast.
Click to expand...

The ADI website I went to only has jacketed bullet info for 2205.

Velocities given are for 10" barrels. Your Marlin Carbine will probably give you substantially more....and thus increase the chances of leading, even at listed powder charges.

Like others I assume the data is slanted because of the fear of leading at higher pressures and velocities. If the powder is indeed like IMR4227, odds are you cannot get enough of it in a .357 case and under a bullet to damage your carbine.
 
buck460XVR said:
From ADIs website, they claim it's burn rate is closer to IMR4227 than W296/H110.



The ADI website I went to only has jacketed bullet info for 2205.

Velocities given are for 10" barrels. Your Marlin Carbine will probably give you substantially more....and thus increase the chances of leading, even at listed powder charges.

Like others I assume the data is slanted because of the fear of leading at higher pressures and velocities. If the powder is indeed like IMR4227, odds are you cannot get enough of it in a .357 case and under a bullet to damage your carbine.
Click to expand...
Check out the 'Powder equivalents' table from ADI. The 2205 is in the same row as 4227 and W296/H110. The W296 and H110 results in higher velocities at max than 2205.

Having shot both with jacketed bullets, the W296 seems more energetic. My understanding is ADI make 4227 for Hodgdon and it is 2205. The reason I'm more interested in 2205 is it doesn't have the reputation to potentially destroy your rifle with reduced loads (even if that is highly unlikely, I don't want to risk it).

Check out the 'Rifle' data on the ADI website, that's where the SWC Cast data is given.
heres a cut and paste.....
158 GR. Lead Semi-Wadcutter AR2205 .358" 1.610" 10.5 grain 1288 fps 15400 cup 11.5 grain 1382 fps 17800 cup

Thanks for verifying the thoughts that this data is slanted to reduce leading. This is good news as it opens up scope to test at higher loads to find the true lead point without exceeding pressure. I won't be hunting with this bullet so the extra velocity is just to help with better plink groups out to 100m in wind as my suppressed subsonic loads don't like any wind at all before they open up.
 
Unclenick said:
A couple of considerations. One is that cast bullets generally have lube grooves (not so much an issue with TL designs) that makes them longer for their weight than same-shape jacketed bullets. If your bullet seats deeper than the XTP, that will raise the pressure, so don't count on an exact match.

People successfully shooting soft bullets without leading generally have bores in very smooth condition and, in revolvers, chamber throats that are larger than the groove diameter of the bore by one to two thousandths and shoot bullets sized to the diameter of the chamber throats.

If you can't meet those conditions, the chances of leading increase substantially, and if you are unlucky enough to have chamber throats smaller than groove diameter, you will likely always have a leading problem as gas bypassing the undersized bullet. That said, those rules are developed for regular cast bullets and not for powder-coated bullets and I can't say how they compare. I expect, in the case of an undersized bullet, the bypass gas will tear up the powder coat and you'll still have a mess on your hands.

Richard Lee did some good work on cast bullets for rifle accuracy and found the BHN had to be about equal to the pressure in psi divided by 1280. You can use 1400 to put it right on the edge. This is the pressure at which base deformation begins. This puts a limit of 30,000 psi to a bullet with a BHN of 21. But this is for rifle accuracy and in handguns, we do well to remember that Elmer Keith was running about BHN 13 when he developed the initial loads for 357 and 44 magnums by overloading in large frame revolvers designed for the Special versions of those cartridges.
Click to expand...
Thanks Unclenick, really valid points re the revolvers and my Marlin is likely not going to fall into that category. 1400fps so far has been working out with zero leading so moving up to 1600-1700 will be the real test. I'll certainly report back my findings.

I haven't slugged my barrel yet but I have opened my sizing die to .358.5 to increase my chances of a good fit as the reputation of Remington made Marlins is the bores are generally oversized. Hopefully this will reduce some gas blow by.

I've looked at the work that Lee carried out regarding pressure and bullet hardness and was hoping that because this was carried out before the powder coating fad, it applied only to plain lubed lead bullets and somehow powder coating might make a small difference in lead resistance performance. I'm only after a few 100 more fps without leading so hopefully that will be the case.

I guess the Elmer Keith bullets could be run hot at 13BHN because they had generous lube grooves full of lube? Back then also manufacturing was likely carried out with care and barrels were lovingly made unlike some of the mass produced units today which are lead collectors.

Thanks again for your excellent input.
 
I have not done any powder coating. You mention multiple coats

1) What sort of PC thickness per side.or what sort of diameter increase can be expected?

2) Suppose your groove depth is .003 per side. (A wild guess on my part)

If your paint thickness is .0015 per side.maybe the rifling is only getting .0015 bite on the lead.and .0015 bite on paint.

I have no idea how that goes at higher velocity/pressure
 
I pushed the Penn leaded hard and saw no issues in two 9mm (Sig and HK)

As long as you did not remove the grease on 357 like my brother did in a fit of cleanliness, we had no leading issues in 357 and 44 magnum.

The key is to check after a couple of rounds. As Shadow 9mm found, one mfg had zero quality control with their coating system.

If I do any lead its going to be stick with the grease system. Penn uses a synthetic grease though they are also coating bullets since the rage hit.
 
Each time I powder coated them, they increased to .363 and I resized them back to .3585. Looking at the Pan lube grooves, they are much more flat. I'm not sure if the lead is being displaced during sizing or if PC is being displaced. I'm looking forward to trying these and inspecting the barrel. I'll certainly report back.
 
I'm trying to understand the motivation for this statement - "I want to test my cast bullets at higher velocities while avoiding leading and developing an accurate plinking round that is less susceptible to wind and shoots a bit flatter out to 100m."

In my experience, pistol marksmen don't use cast rounds. Too many variables at play for consistent accuracy.

As for using a pistol for 100m shots - extremely rare, why not go for the rifle at that range?

Now I make my own JHP's out of spent 9mm brass for the "craft" of it - that I get.

But why would you try to push a cast round to an overpressure point to 100M with accuracy in mind? - that I don't get. That's not "plinking" any more. We're talking the distance of a football field here.
 
"...ADI. The 2205 is in the same row as 4227 and W296/H110...."
Click to expand...
Please, do not take the "ADI Equivalent" chart at face value.
The powders are not the same, and may produce wildly
different results/pressures depending on circumstance/use.
.
 
Last edited:
Grey_Lion said:
I'm trying to understand the motivation for this statement - "I want to test my cast bullets at higher velocities while avoiding leading and developing an accurate plinking round that is less susceptible to wind and shoots a bit flatter out to 100m."

In my experience, pistol marksmen don't use cast rounds. Too many variables at play for consistent accuracy.

As for using a pistol for 100m shots - extremely rare, why not go for the rifle at that range?

Now I make my own JHP's out of spent 9mm brass for the "craft" of it - that I get.

But why would you try to push a cast round to an overpressure point to 100M with accuracy in mind? - that I don't get. That's not "plinking" any more. We're talking the distance of a football field here.
Click to expand...

I shoot cast bullets in competition.

To the OP,

Why would anyone push max loads? Because big boom is cool? I shoot light loads; it saves on powder and wear and tear.

Less susceptible to wind? Learn windage adjustments or dope the wind.
 
Last edited:
Powder "equivalent" is not good enough to go on, but if you happen to look at specific load data from ADI and Hodgdon, you will see that pressure and velocity values for ADI 2205 and H4227 are EXACTLY the same, down to the last CUP and fps. For that matter, Hodgdon shows IMR 4227 giving EXACTLY the same results. Which I take as adequate proof that they are the same stuff and everybody is going off the same ballistics lab work.

I wonder who is running the tests, the manufacturer or the importer. You see the same thing from same powder/different label with some of the Ball/Spherical powders made in Florida; W231-HP38, W296-H110.

A brave loader might look in the Lyman manual and see some stouter charges with cast bullets. They used the IMR flavor for the 49th edition, so you do have to wonder if they were using Canadian or Australian made powder when the book was printed. Jacketed bullet loads are very close to H/ADI, though.
 
While specific powders might be the same, reading across one of those ADI "equivalent"
lines to substitute one of the other powders w/o knowing which ones are the same, is
prescription for disaster

Some that literally are the same powder:
H414 and W760.
H110 and W296.
HP-38 and W231

But reading across some of those ADI lines would make the casual reader think there
are 6-7 powders that are the same.
Please don't assume that.
 
Last edited:
Some that literally are the same powder:

And ADI 2205 = H4227, the sole subject of the OP.

Looking at another suspect, ADI 2207 = H4198 but Hodgdon is still showing different loads for IMR 4198.

And ADI 2206H = H4895. Note the "H".
ADI fudged the burn rate of 2206 to match previous sources of H4895 and appended the "H". They still make the original 2206.
Same cartridge and bullet e.g. .308 + 155 SMK, 2206 calls for a grain and a half less powder than 2206H.
 
Last edited:
OP said:
I cast Lee bullets (TL358-158 Tumble lube 158g bullets) and have found a great load using ADI 2205 powder which on the equivalency tables burns around the same speed as W296/H110 but yields slightly less velocity.
Click to expand...
JW said:
And ADI 2205 = H4227, the sole subject of the OP.
Click to expand...
Did I miss something in the OP's input ?]
 
I shoot home cast WW bullets in .38 spl, .357 mag, .44 mag and .45 Colt. The last three are the only calibers loaded with powder charges in the magnum range. My S&W M28-2 gets 1450 fps with a 160 GCSWC and 15 grns of 2400. My revolver handles .44 mag 265 grn plain base AND GC SWC home cast bullets very well with 18 grns of 2400 for 1200 fps. The .45 Colt is a perennial pleaser with a 265 grn plain base SWC and 18 grns of 2400. That combo yields 1260 fps. Each gun's an individual and YMMV. Leading with any of these loads is a non-issue in my wheel guns..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top