warm .357 load for 125gr XTP
- Thread starter 148HBWC
- Start date
Marco Califo
New member
While not my favorite format, I do find Sierra's data very useful. Specifically, I use it as a data source for powder selection. Fictional example: 308 W bullet A can reach 2650 fps with HXXX, but you can do 2700 fps safely with VarXXX or an expensive powder from Finland. Sierra makes that obvious. The Western Powders data has the same info type, but you have to look at fps at max load for each powder separately. I found it more quickly clearer by keying in the data for each caliber (rifle and pistol), bullet weight, and powder I have available (or want) into an Excel file, and add columns when I get another powder.
buck460XVR
New member
Is this something new? My last Hornady manual shows the data created for .357 was done using a 8" Colt Python/Rossi M92 with a 16" barrel and the data for .44 was done using a Ruger Redhawk with a 7 1/2" barrel/Ruger carbine with a 18" barrel.
Despite what is used for testing, whether an actual firearm or universal receiver/test barrel, all are within SAAMI specs for the cartridge....as are most quality modern firearms from reputable manufacturers. This is why published loads are deemed safe in modern firearms. Max loads are deemed safe by pressure and by a degree of error established by the publisher of said recipes. If one looks at those published recipes giving test pressures, you seldom see their max loads creating max SAAMI pressures. Sometimes, the max charge(as with some magnum type powders) is because no more powder will safely fit in the case. Different manuals display their info in different ways because people are particular about format(as displayed in this thread). I tend to ignore the format and look at the numbers. I also tend to always use three or more sources when developing new loads to even out any extreme differences in loads.
Also displayed in this thread is the fact that many times, because of space, those who create reloading manuals do not include every possible powder/bullet combos. They give the best performing powder/projectile combinations that worked well for them. When I see no published loads in a variety of manuals for a particular caliber/bullet/powder I have on hand, it is generally a clear indication that it does not perform very well and I should move on to something else.
Hi all,
Picked-up a can of H110 at gun show,
(Also a bag of reload .45 auto rim and a sweet model 99 takedown in 22 Savage Hi-Power; need to leave my wallet at home next gunshow).
Anyhoo, since the 125gr appears to BE more appropriate for gunfights than deer harvesting, I'll pick up a more suitable projectile.
On the other hand I have a box 147gr XTP .355'' for the 38 Super; my N-frame chambers, fires and ejects the empties, (yay semi-rim). Naw, do not want to get everyone wound up, ill get some .357 boolits.
What about going old school, Keith style SWC, any suggestions?
Haven't used cast with gas checks in many decades, rather not have to deal with leading.
Have any recommendations for a jacketed with similar characteristics as Keith SWC?
Picked-up a can of H110 at gun show,
(Also a bag of reload .45 auto rim and a sweet model 99 takedown in 22 Savage Hi-Power; need to leave my wallet at home next gunshow).
Anyhoo, since the 125gr appears to BE more appropriate for gunfights than deer harvesting, I'll pick up a more suitable projectile.
On the other hand I have a box 147gr XTP .355'' for the 38 Super; my N-frame chambers, fires and ejects the empties, (yay semi-rim). Naw, do not want to get everyone wound up, ill get some .357 boolits.
What about going old school, Keith style SWC, any suggestions?
Haven't used cast with gas checks in many decades, rather not have to deal with leading.
Have any recommendations for a jacketed with similar characteristics as Keith SWC?
Lee info is Hodgdon's data. Lee tests nothing themselves.
Anyway, you do not require bullet specific data. The 125 grain GDHP Power Pistol data on Alliant's site will be just fine with a 125 grain XTP. Velocities will be different since for some daft reason, Alliant used a 10" barrel in their tests. Just remember that an XTP isn't made for deer sized game. It's for varmints.
Anyway, you do not require bullet specific data. The 125 grain GDHP Power Pistol data on Alliant's site will be just fine with a 125 grain XTP. Velocities will be different since for some daft reason, Alliant used a 10" barrel in their tests. Just remember that an XTP isn't made for deer sized game. It's for varmints.
Good stuff. Originally sold as Winchester 296 (and still is) - which I've used a lot of. Best suited for heavy bullets. It tends to get flashy and with inconsistent results with lighter bullets. It's not well suited for short barrels, however. But you'll be fine with your 5". Smells really good burning - it's my favorite propellant to shoot when there's a slight headwind
Don't forget magnum primers. H-110 is ignited most consistently with magnum primers. I recommend CCI 550's - cuz that's all I've ever used.
I totally agree. Although, when I carry my 3" 686, I have 158 GDHP's in the charge holes. But that's just my choice - I like heavy bullets. Make no mistake, 125's/357 has been more than proven effective in SD situations.
Yes, get some 158's. Just about any quality HP will be a good choice. With H110 under 158's, in a 5" bbl, you'll easily get 1250 f/s (likely more) - which is plenty for reliable terminal performance.
You are headed in the right direction now.
P.S. I still think putting Power Pistol under those 125's is a great way to go - not for deer, but as otherwise quality ammo.
Marco Califo
New member
Say what OHeir? The XTP hollow point expanding handgun bullets are police, armed guard, DIY ballistics tester, and self-defense nirvana.
https://www.hornady.com/bullets/xtp#!/
"Designed for hunting, self-defense and law enforcement applications, the XTP® bullet demonstrates the kind of accuracy that led many competitive shooters to adopt it. Reliable performance makes the XTP® the most popular handgun bullet for both target shooters and hunters. But it's the stopping power of the XTP® bullet that has truly built its world-class reputation. From the onset, XTP® bullets were specifically designed to expand reliably at a wide range of handgun velocities to deliver deep penetration with every shot."
You have a proclivity to state your opinions, without any supporting evidence, as if they were facts, when quite often, as here, you are just wrong.
NoSecondBest
New member
O'Heir is correct, he said "deer sized game". XTP bullets are great for hunting....as long as you use the right one for the right game. The 125g is just too light for deer. Will it kill a deer? Yes, but so will a .22lr if the bullet hits something vital. The 125g is way too light for deer size game. It will expand too soon and will penetrate poorly. I've shot over 50 deer with just the revolver using a .357mag and from what I consider somewhat extensive experience doing this I've found a bullet that light to be unsuitable. I have quite a few recovered bullets and depending on distance of the shot it requires a minimum of 158g up to a 180g. Past 180 you start to lose expansion, and even with the 158g you start to lose expansion past 70-75 yards. The lighter 125g bullet simply expands too rapidly at closer distances and has very poor penetration at anything beyond 25-30 yards. There's a reason Hornday makes so many different weight bullets in the XTP line.
Marco Califo
New member
NSB, try again.
The Hornady info I posted was about XTP bullets, and does not mention deer nor varmints.
Furthermore, a 357 magnum scoped revolver or lever gun would be quite effective on deer and
are legal for their take where I live. But, Hornady did not design the bullet for deer. It is designed
for expanding in flesh (including deer flesh): eXtreme Terminal Performance.
If you are going varminting with with a revolver, keep your eyes open for varminters with rifles.
The Hornady info I posted was about XTP bullets, and does not mention deer nor varmints.
Furthermore, a 357 magnum scoped revolver or lever gun would be quite effective on deer and
are legal for their take where I live. But, Hornady did not design the bullet for deer. It is designed
for expanding in flesh (including deer flesh): eXtreme Terminal Performance.
Last edited:
I believe what I described is a standard practice for Hornady, and probably others as well. Pressure testing is done with pressure guns that are equipped with interchangeable barrels and strain gauges. The firearms listed in the data are those used to measure the published velocities.
The only recent Hornady manual I have is the 9th edition, but their process for load development is described in the section titled Hornady Reloading Research on pages 70 and 71.
I believe much the same process is followed by other bullet manufacturers as well as the powder companies.
NoSecondBest
New member
Sorry pal, but deer (at least all the ones I've shot...and that's a lot, are made up of flesh. I've shot over 50 with the .357mag and almost all were shot with Hornady XTP bullets. Are you aware of the fact that they make XTP bullets up to 300g ? The 250g XTP is probably the most used ML bullet in the country. Your keyboard expertise is falling short.
https://www.hornady.com/bullets/xtp#!/ Go to the link. They even show what applications each bullet is designed for. Even at that, it's not a law or anything. You can do as you choose.
Last edited:
As far as use of the .357 diameter 125gr. Hornady XTP for hunting, we should consider what Hornady themselves recommend. According to their bullet recommendation chart (Bullet Guide) in the 9th edition manual (pages 83- 113), the 125gr. XTP is recommended for small game. The 140gr., 158gr., and 108gr. XTPs are recommended for medium game.
This thread is becoming an illustration on how much important information is contained in reloading manuals beyond the loading data charts.
This thread is becoming an illustration on how much important information is contained in reloading manuals beyond the loading data charts.
Last edited:
buck460XVR
New member
I think you need to go to Hornady's website. If you look here, you see they show all XTPs in .38 cal., 140gr and above, as appropriate for deer.
https://www.hornady.com/bullets/handgun/#!/
While XTP does stand for Xtreme Terminal Performance, it pertains to hunting, as well as SD/HD. Hornady also makes a XTP-FP in 125 and 158gr, which does not as readily expand as their standard XTP-HPs
Marco Califo
New member
My post was intended to correct OHeir's "statement" about them being Varmint bullets. THEY ARE NOT VARMINT BULLETS.
I personally love the bullets. They are on the short list of bullets I want in my Glocks when armed and on duty. The are legal for deer, and effective. I am NOT of the opinion that they should not be used for deer. OHEIR said that. I only posted to correct OHEIR.
I personally love the bullets. They are on the short list of bullets I want in my Glocks when armed and on duty. The are legal for deer, and effective. I am NOT of the opinion that they should not be used for deer. OHEIR said that. I only posted to correct OHEIR.
Last edited:
148HBWC,
Glad you got it sorted out.
Buck and BBarn,
I did state explicitly that I was not talking about SAAMI standard loads. The example of the 45-70, which is spelled out in some load manuals, shows the underlying rationale that over-SAAMI hot load creators often use in any chambering, and that is that action strength affects their load choices. I seem to have caused confusion with that example, so here is an example in which loading for the Winchester Model 92 design resulted in some .357 loads up to 45,000 psi, according to the author.
There are other examples out there. The hotter rifle loads the OP might run into appear in various non-manual sources like that one. I am merely suggesting that if he runs into them he should avoid the temptation to use them in his hard-to-find pre-27 revolver, no matter how badly he wants a hot load. (They should also be avoided in any of the K-frame S&W .357's produced for law enforcement and which have a reputation for shooting loose even with SAAMI standard compliant loads.)
It is important to remember SAAMI is a manufacturing standards organization, not a handloading standards organization. A manufacturer loads test ammunition to a reference recipe for the powder that is an estimate based on the powder’s past lot history. It is tested in a pressure gun and adjusted so the average pressure produced does not exceed the SAAMI Maximum Average Pressure number (MAP), when the desired velocity window is met by the load. If it does go over MAP producing that velocity, they change to a different powder. There is also a number called the Maximum Extreme Variation (MEV) that limits the extreme spread of pressures forming the average. For .357 magnum this spread is just over 9,000 psi. So, theoretically, a manufacturer developing a .357 load fires 10 rounds with a high of 40,000 psi and a low of 31,000 and the rest scattered in between such that the average is 35,000, that meets the SAAMI standard.
But because handloaders depend on a book of recipes instead of actual pressure measurements, and because they buy powders that vary a little from lot-to-lot and don’t always use the same primer or the same case or sometimes even the same bullet, the load manual authors are more conservative than SAAMI to allow for component and powder lot variation. Hodgdon spells this out in their print manual. They use the MAP as an absolute limit instead of as an average. If Hodgdon measures that same 9,000 psi spread, they lower the charge until the highest end of the spread doesn’t go over 35,000 psi. This is one reason handloaders sometimes complain they can get more velocity from some commercial loads. The commercial loads, having been controlled by measuring, can be warmer by some portion of the MEV, so they sometimes average higher.
There's another reason the load manuals load below SAAMI standard at times (and so, BTW, do manufacturers when they get adequate velocity from a powder at a lower peak pressure). The array of powders you see in a manual for each cartridge includes some powders that are not the best choices for the bullet and expansion ratios involved. This is because many handloaders want to use a powder they have on hand and not have to buy new ones every time they change bullet weight or get a gun chambered in something they didn't already have. This means some powders listed can’t be trusted to stay within the MEV if loaded all the way to MAP. So, as you run through pressure data from Hodgdon (or from Lyman or anyone else) you will find the maximum load pressure varies by powder for each bullet weight. Hodgdon says the powders they list with the lowest maximum load pressures are down there because they had the most pressure variation in testing. The ones with the highest maximum load pressure listed produced the least velocity variation. That's useful to know when selecting powders, especially if you are working up long range loads.
You can see, from the above that a lot of loads that are just a little over book are probably not actually over the level to which a manufacturer would wind up loading that same powder if he needed to get the velocity up a little.
Glad you got it sorted out.
Buck and BBarn,
I did state explicitly that I was not talking about SAAMI standard loads. The example of the 45-70, which is spelled out in some load manuals, shows the underlying rationale that over-SAAMI hot load creators often use in any chambering, and that is that action strength affects their load choices. I seem to have caused confusion with that example, so here is an example in which loading for the Winchester Model 92 design resulted in some .357 loads up to 45,000 psi, according to the author.
There are other examples out there. The hotter rifle loads the OP might run into appear in various non-manual sources like that one. I am merely suggesting that if he runs into them he should avoid the temptation to use them in his hard-to-find pre-27 revolver, no matter how badly he wants a hot load. (They should also be avoided in any of the K-frame S&W .357's produced for law enforcement and which have a reputation for shooting loose even with SAAMI standard compliant loads.)
It is important to remember SAAMI is a manufacturing standards organization, not a handloading standards organization. A manufacturer loads test ammunition to a reference recipe for the powder that is an estimate based on the powder’s past lot history. It is tested in a pressure gun and adjusted so the average pressure produced does not exceed the SAAMI Maximum Average Pressure number (MAP), when the desired velocity window is met by the load. If it does go over MAP producing that velocity, they change to a different powder. There is also a number called the Maximum Extreme Variation (MEV) that limits the extreme spread of pressures forming the average. For .357 magnum this spread is just over 9,000 psi. So, theoretically, a manufacturer developing a .357 load fires 10 rounds with a high of 40,000 psi and a low of 31,000 and the rest scattered in between such that the average is 35,000, that meets the SAAMI standard.
But because handloaders depend on a book of recipes instead of actual pressure measurements, and because they buy powders that vary a little from lot-to-lot and don’t always use the same primer or the same case or sometimes even the same bullet, the load manual authors are more conservative than SAAMI to allow for component and powder lot variation. Hodgdon spells this out in their print manual. They use the MAP as an absolute limit instead of as an average. If Hodgdon measures that same 9,000 psi spread, they lower the charge until the highest end of the spread doesn’t go over 35,000 psi. This is one reason handloaders sometimes complain they can get more velocity from some commercial loads. The commercial loads, having been controlled by measuring, can be warmer by some portion of the MEV, so they sometimes average higher.
There's another reason the load manuals load below SAAMI standard at times (and so, BTW, do manufacturers when they get adequate velocity from a powder at a lower peak pressure). The array of powders you see in a manual for each cartridge includes some powders that are not the best choices for the bullet and expansion ratios involved. This is because many handloaders want to use a powder they have on hand and not have to buy new ones every time they change bullet weight or get a gun chambered in something they didn't already have. This means some powders listed can’t be trusted to stay within the MEV if loaded all the way to MAP. So, as you run through pressure data from Hodgdon (or from Lyman or anyone else) you will find the maximum load pressure varies by powder for each bullet weight. Hodgdon says the powders they list with the lowest maximum load pressures are down there because they had the most pressure variation in testing. The ones with the highest maximum load pressure listed produced the least velocity variation. That's useful to know when selecting powders, especially if you are working up long range loads.
You can see, from the above that a lot of loads that are just a little over book are probably not actually over the level to which a manufacturer would wind up loading that same powder if he needed to get the velocity up a little.
Your clarification was helpful. I didn't realize in your earlier post that you were referring to data from sources outside today's recommendations by the major bullet and powder companies.
BTW, the link above doesn't work. This one should:
http://www.leverguns.com/articles/paco/357_magnum_and_the_literature.htm
BTW, the link above doesn't work. This one should:
http://www.leverguns.com/articles/paco/357_magnum_and_the_literature.htm
buck460XVR
New member
UncleNick, I was not confused with your previous post, only trying to make the point that Folks that would use those 'hot, non-manaul sources" are one of two types. Either they are very experienced Handloaders that do not need to come to a Reloading sub forum to ask for a load recipe or they are complete fools with no regard for their gun, their eyes or their fingers. I doubt if the OP is either. The majority of folks should avoid any non-published load recipe unless and until, they can verify it with a published load.
What I see so many times when a simple question is asked like "a warm load for a 125XTP" is that we tend to want to complicate the answer as if we are taking a physics test. Many times these folk that ask simple questions are doing so because they have little experience or knowledge and just want a simple reply. They want a yes or no, or a simple suggestion. Not a book on how to reload for other niche calibers and platforms. I sometimes am as guilty as the rest. Seems the OP has his simple answer as to why he is not finding published recipes for the combo he has.......and that is, for what he wants to accomplish, it's just a poor combo to start with. He has also got some other suggestions to point him in the right direction. He also asked for a warm load, and not a hot one. He's already heading in the right direction.
BBarn,
Thanks. I somehow got a duplicate URL tag in front of it. It's fixed.
Buck460VXR,
Actually, they are published; just not always in manuals. The current Lyman manual has separate .357 Magnum TC loads, though the differences in it are few and too slight to matter, IMHO. Hornady has separate .357 Mag rifle loads, though they are actually downloaded for the 125 grain XTP to prevent muzzle velocity from getting so high the bullet blows up on impact. But up or down, the general point is, inappropriate information is out there and the sources can be reputable and therein lies the concern: Even an intelligent beginning handloader may not realize the questionable applicability of some published information for his purposes. My thinking was:
That's it. My first post on this was not complicated or scientific in nature. That didn’t come until your comments made examples and other clarification on the subject necessary.
The forum threads do periodically discuss warm, over-book loads of the sort more typically left to advanced handloaders. That’s why there is a sticky for the required warning that needs to be included when data for such loads are posted. I would not recommend them to the OP in this thread with an uncommon gun, that, in excellent condition, I understand can fetch upwards of $5-6K at auction. No point in beating it loose with over-book loads. It seems to me that you and I agree on this point, and that’s what matters most.
Thanks. I somehow got a duplicate URL tag in front of it. It's fixed.
Buck460VXR,
Actually, they are published; just not always in manuals. The current Lyman manual has separate .357 Magnum TC loads, though the differences in it are few and too slight to matter, IMHO. Hornady has separate .357 Mag rifle loads, though they are actually downloaded for the 125 grain XTP to prevent muzzle velocity from getting so high the bullet blows up on impact. But up or down, the general point is, inappropriate information is out there and the sources can be reputable and therein lies the concern: Even an intelligent beginning handloader may not realize the questionable applicability of some published information for his purposes. My thinking was:
A: The OP asked for hot loads, already a concern if his experience level is not high.
B: Inapplicable information exists from several sources.
C: He should be alerted that this inapplicable information is out there and to avoid it.
B: Inapplicable information exists from several sources.
C: He should be alerted that this inapplicable information is out there and to avoid it.
That's it. My first post on this was not complicated or scientific in nature. That didn’t come until your comments made examples and other clarification on the subject necessary.
The forum threads do periodically discuss warm, over-book loads of the sort more typically left to advanced handloaders. That’s why there is a sticky for the required warning that needs to be included when data for such loads are posted. I would not recommend them to the OP in this thread with an uncommon gun, that, in excellent condition, I understand can fetch upwards of $5-6K at auction. No point in beating it loose with over-book loads. It seems to me that you and I agree on this point, and that’s what matters most.