Trying some new powders for .357 Magnum

M

Mauser69

New member
My go-to powders for .357 Magnum loads have always been 2400 and 296/H110, but I'm out of 2400 and thought I'd try to find a decent alternative. HS-7 used to be a pretty good alternative, but it is no longer made, so even though I still have a few pounds of it, I want to find a more current option. I think HS-6 sucks, and 4227 is about the worst powder ever made in my opinion. Zip, Accurate #5 and #7 all work OK, but for real magnum loads, they do not really impress me.

Studying the various load data, Hodgdon showed some pretty impressive numbers for Longshot in both .37 Mag and .44 Mag, so I grabbed some of that when I recently found some BE-86 and 800-X at the same place. I got the BE-86 primarily for .40 S&W, but the 2014 Alliant load data looked darned good for it with .357 Magnum too - turns out that data was a lie! Although they still show the same loads in the current data, the velocities have dropped from 1,600+ to the 1,200 range (and my initial testing shows that 1,200 is realistic).

I had high hopes for Longshot, but my first test loads are disappointing. Hodgdon shows a max load of 9.7g with the 125g Hdy XTP generates over 1,600 fps, but I cannot even get 1,400 out of it in my 7 1/2" Blackhawk. Hoping it will do better with heavier bullets or maybe in the .44 - we'll see. At this point I kinda wish I had bought some Accurate #9 instead of the Longshot.

Haven't tried the 800-X yet - all the old DuPont data showed good loads for it in .357 Magnum, but current Hodgdon data does not list it at all for that caliber. I have a query in to them to find out why. I'll still probably try some of the older DuPont loads, but I'd still like to know why they have removed it from the new data.
 
Last edited:
I like AA#7 for my SP101 and AA#9 for the longer barrels.

AA#7 works quite well with 125 gr. loads.

800-X works alright but meters like corn flakes. Might as well just use scoops.


As far as velocities go.. did you note their test barrel lengths? Bet they weren't 4" vented. Longshot was from a 10" barrel. Details count! :rolleyes:
 
Longshot from my experience likes heavier bullets and pressure. In .357, I like 7.0g under 158g SWC (1114fps) although 7.5g and 8.0g (1217fps) were good too. I don't go for 'max' loads in the peanut cartridge (whats the point?) or jacketed bullets so YMMV. My test gun is a BH 6 1/2".
 
and 4227 is about the worst powder ever made in my opinion
Click to expand...

Not trying to change your mind, but what exactly makes it 'the worst' in your opinion...

Many of us have very good luck with 4227 in various applications...
 
In 357 Mag 4227 is my most accurate loading.
For years the only powder I used for 357 was 2400 until one day they were out of 2400 and I tried 4227 and it excelled in 357.
Did not care for it in 44 mag but 357 was a real winner.

AA#7 and #9 work OK for me and HS 6 and 7 just were not consistent burning.
 
It's unlikely that you'll find other powders better than 2400 and 296/H110 with regard to 357 Mag velocity in revolver length barrels. If you are interested in trading off some velocity for less muzzle blast/flash, less recoil, less residue, or possibly better accuracy, then other powders may be worth a try.
 
Absolutely HATE 4227

4227 is a nasty and worthless powder in .357 to me because its absolute best performance is only mediocre, and accuracy and consistency varies wildly with any minor change in bullet or primer or brass. For example, one of my best early test loads with it used a Sierra 150g JHP. I thought it had pretty good possibilities, so I worked up a short ladder and also tried some Hornady 158g JHP. The exact same load that had possibilities with the Sierra barely hit the paper at 25 yards with the Hornady! This was back in the late 80s, and for contrast, those two bullets did not have significantly different performance with test loads using Unique, 2400 and 296; only 4227 produced such horrible results.

Since I still have most of that original pound of 4227 on the shelf, I periodically feel compelled to test it with some new bullet I may be trying. In recent testing with both 125g JHP and 158g JSP bullets, 4227 couldn't even push the bullets faster than Zip or Acc#5 (topped out at a measured 1,314 fps on the 125g JHP), and even at those moderate speeds I was getting pierced primers that I have NEVER gotten with any other loads. Same day testing with some H110, pushing the same bullet to 1,549 fps, I had absolutely no problems with primers or any other pressure signs.

And to top it all off, that nasty powder not only leaves my brass filthy, but it is one of the most expensive to load - it cost more per pound, and you have to use a lot of it. Not a big deal if it would perform, but pretty stupid to only get mid-range results. I have tested lots of other powders that didn't particularly impress me, but 4227 is the only one that I absolutely hate!
 
If loads that are supposed to be OK are piercing primers, that may be a sign that container is getting too old. Breakdown can act on the deterrent coating on the outside of the grain before it acts on the nitrocellulose appreciably, leaving you with a faster burning powder.
 
Reply on 800-X

I did get a very quick reply from Hodgdon on my question about 800-X load data, but I thought it was kinda pointless and not particularly helpful:

Our lab manager feels that there are other powders that will do better in performance, metering and flow since it has very large flakes and we have never done data for it in this cartridge.
Click to expand...
Clearly DuPont/IMR did do testing with this powder in .357, since I have that data, and in most cases they even show it out-performing the hated 4227! Heck, they even have a .38 Spl load with a 125g JHP that comes within spitting distance of 1,000 fps in a 6" revolver barrel. And unlike Hodgdon's current bogus data, I actually believe the stuff from DuPont - my measured speeds from my Blackhawk with 700-X and 4227 loads actually match what they publish.

At least their reply didn't say there was any reason NOT to use it, so I will proceed with the old load data and see how it works.
 
It's unlikely that you'll find other powders better than 2400 and 296/H110 with regard to 357 Mag velocity in revolver length barrels.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's kinda what I thought long ago, but not being able to find 2400 got me thinking about looking for another option. I was gonna try Accurate #9, but at the last minute Hodgdon seduced me with their lies about Longshot performance - I used to think pretty highly of them, but now I am just pissed. I'd like to give Li'lGun a try, but I'm not inclined to waste any more money on new Hodgdon powders after my disappointment with Longshot.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Longshot is a bad powder - it seems to work pretty good (but I have only just started testing it). My disappointment is that it is nothing like Hodgdon's load data seems to imply, and it doesn't seem to offer me anything I wasn't already getting from Accurate #7. And that is why I think #9 would have been a much better choice.

Anybody have experience with Alliant Power-Pro 300-MP? Just based on the publish velocities and charge weights, that looks more like a 296/H110 option than 2400. But maybe it is worth a try since I am down to only about 1 lb of H110?
 
I think you could probably match 2400 with Unique or Blue Dot. They are just a little under 296/110 velocities for me. They both work well in 44 magnum also, but not quite as well as 296/110. Just have to be wary of the Blue Dot warning against using is with 125gr bullets (for some reason that's never been outlined.)

I'd be interested in trying 300-MP as well. I too get the impression that it's Alliant's version of 296/110.
 
Unique is an excellent powder. I use quite a bit of it, but it is no 2400. I am ambivalent about Blue Dot - not sure why. Just always had the impression there were better powders out there for what it does. Don't have any; don't want any.
 
Cabela's has 2400

Right now, Cabela's has 2400 available. I'm not sure if you want to go the hazmat route - which usually entails buying at least four #'s to make it worth your while. Anyway, it's out there.

W296 has been my go-to for full-strength mag loads for decades; but when my current # is exhausted, I probably won't get more. I understand 2400 to be a little more revolver friendly, due to its slightly faster burn rate being better suited for shorter barrels. It has a long-standing reputation for being fairly versatile and a solid performer. So much so, that I'm willing to make that decision to switch to it without ever having tried it.

I have two 8 3/8" revolvers - 686 & 629 - and a Marlin 1894 that love W296; but I don't shoot any of them often. The two "Dirty Harry" revolvers used to see the range almost weekly. But these days, I much prefer my shorter tubed wheel guns. Most of my magnum shooting now-a-days is with a 5" 629, and 3" 686. W296 is just too much for those barrel lengths. For me, the move to 2400 seems logical. I'm not going to get any from Cabela's because I only need a #, and that would probably last me two or three years. I still have a year+ worth of W296 to use up anyway. So I'm in no hurry to grab any 2400. When I find it at a LGS, I'll grab a #.

I think HS-6 sucks
Click to expand...

Here I go again: defending HS-6 :p

Actually, for the application, it kinda does suck. I agree. HS-6 is better suited for semi-autos. And although you can make good consistent shooting magnum (357/44) rounds with it; they'll fall far short of "full-throttle." Two different animals.

A few mentioned AA#9; and I've seen it around lately (including my LGS). And if I needed a mag powder replacement right now, I wouldn't hesitate reaching for it. I use AA#2, #5, & #7 quite a bit; and their performance is excellent when chosen for the correct application. In fact, through my 3" 686 and 125gn JHP's, AA#7 is the velocity champ, over W296. And does so with far less flash, noise, and thrust recoil - it's not even close.
 
Herco and Unique for the mid-range loads.. Bullseye and 231 or HP38 for light tgt loads and 2400, #9, or 296 for the full house types. Herco was the new surprise...a half grain under max works wonders with any 158 gr LSWC in .357 brass that I've tried. Rod
 
Last edited:
I've mentioned HERCO and lead bullets many times.. but SOOooo many have drank the Unique KoolAid.

I'm guessing Mauser is strictly after velocity considering his posts.
 
I used Herco a lot back in the 70s (back then, I really liked the name!). It was a very good powder. Not sure why I got away from it, but I have no concept now of how it fits within the other powders I like.

I shoot a lot of lead pills, but I never try to push them over mid range; therefore, any average powder is more than satisfactory for that stuff. In my book, lead is for cheap shooting, but not serious shooting (hunting and over 100 yards). I use 2400 for near-max magnum loads because I like the way it performs better than 296/H110 - not quite as hot, but better behaved all around. I'm getting to the point where I want to just say "to hell with it; I'll stick with 296 for the real magnums, and fall back to Unique for the next level down." I don't really need a duplicate for the overall performance of 2400; I just thought it would be nice if I could find one. But I have accumulated enough powders that I can load for years and probably never notice the lack of 2400 - it is better than the alternatives, but not that much better.
 
Here's another little tidbit about Herco...it meters better through my Dillon 550B powder measures than Unique...a real head scratcher for me, since the powder flakes look larger to my eyes...Unique, just doesn't meter worth a tinker's dam in the Dillons nor in my Uniflow with pistol chamber installed. YMMV, Rod
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top