Which is easier on my guns? .357 Mag 125 grain or 158 grain?

[KyJim]

And, just to clarify, the current Model 19s from S&W have some design changes to address the forcing cone issue. So, don't pass those up out of concern of forcing cone issues with 125 gr. magnum loads.

 

[JERRYS.]

the K frame 357s had a weak spot at the 6 o'clock position of their forcing cone. a portion of the cone was cut away so the yoke/crane could close in the frame, this is where the cone cracking occurred. the larger frame L frame guns have a full forcing cone making this a non-issue for them.

 

[idek]

Not to sidetrack the topic, but regarding ammo being hard on guns (specifically M19 & M66), I've also heard people say that factory .357 ammo was originally loaded much hotter than typical stuff today.

For example, the original .357 loading was something like a 158gr bullet going around 1500fps. That's like Buffalo Bore offerings, but while we consider that more of a specialty load today, it was considered the norm decades ago. I don't know specifically what the first 125 grain offering were, but I'd heard that those were also significantly hotter than most modern ammo.

Some people have claimed that concerns about damage to guns originated back when factory ammo was typically much hotter, and even with the 19/66, one needn't worry that much nowadays. Can anyone confirm or deny whether there's any validity to this school of thought?

 

[44 AMP]

Not to sidetrack the topic, but regarding ammo being hard on guns (specifically M19 & M66), I've also heard people say that factory .357 ammo was originally loaded much hotter that typical stuff today.

The OP asked about .357 ammo, and it being hard on guns, so I'd say its still on topic. The info about the M19 and the 125gr load was background on why some people think the ammo is hard on guns, because in THAT gun, that load was.

You've heard people say that the .357 was originally loaded hotter than it is today because it is absolutely TRUE. (and I'm not talking about the modern "boutique" loads that actually do return the .357 to its former abilities, but the general run of factory ammo common today)

The original .357 Magnum load, introduced with the S&W Registered Magnum was advertised as a 158gr bullet (a lead SWC) at 1550fps from the 8 3/4" barrel of the Registered Magnum.

Chronographs in private hands were extremely rare in those days, but ammo from that era has been tested and found to do about that. Some sources say 1500 some 1550fps and that could just be the difference between individual test guns. Also note it was an 8 and 3/4" barrel. Some years later S&W shortened their "long" barrel length to the current 8 and 3/8".

Those original loads were "hell for stout" and period advertisements recommended the .357 Magnum "only for men of exceptional physique".

It wasn't entirely advertising hype back then though that certainly was a part of it.

The Registered Magnum and its descendants, the model 27 (and 28) are big heavy frame guns with large strong cylinders. People use the phrase "bank vault" about their strength. My personal experience agrees.

Since the 1950s the market has been wanting lighter .357s. Eventually it got them, and we now have .357s all the way down to the J frame pocket guns.

However, in order to make this happen, the general run of ammo has been downloaded. Not only because the original heavy load batters the shooter in lighter guns but it batters the guns, as well. AND, the smaller guns simply cannot take the same levels as N frame guns, and some of the other larger .357s.

So, today "regular" .357, including the "hot" 125s are all loaded so they will work in any of the common guns, from the light snubnoses on up. AND the modern loading manual reflect this as well.

DO remember that the original .357 load was developed before SAAMI, before modern pressure measuring methods. and amazingly it worked pretty well, in guns made to handle it.

Today, if you want to get close to the original .357 load (other than the specialty stuff like Buffalo Bore) you need to handload to do it.

AND, NOT ALL .357 GUNS CAN DO IT!!!!!

(grab your popcorn, for now comes the tale of 4 guns, some hot 125gr handloads and the then new "Chrony" chronograph, its from a couple decades ago, dang, more I think now, but its actual personal experience and I think in general still valid)

I had gotten a Chrony, and a friend came over with his 6" M19 S&W, his Marlin 1894 .357 carbine and a box of 125gr handloads. The load was straight out of the Speer manual of the day, and while hot, not the listed max.

I added my 6" S&W model 28 and the new Desert Eagle .357 (6" barrel)

We set up and my friend went first, putting 6 rounds in his M19 to shoot over the chronograph.

BA-BANG!! His "first" shot was two rounds!

Now, either he pulled the trigger a second time in the fastest DA I've ever seen, or somehow the gun doubled. Two rounds were fired. The Chrony showed the last one at 1620fps.

125gr JHP, stiff load of 2400, 1620fps from a 6" model 19

At that point we decided to suspend further firing of that ammo in that gun. Gun was opened, 4 unfired rounds fell out. (normal) The two fired cases could not be removed with hand pressure on the ejector rod. They had to be driven out of the cylinder with a rod and a small hammer.

CLEARLY that ammo was too hot for that gun.

Same ammo, loaded into the M 28. Stout recoil and large blast, but normal operation, including hand ejection of all six cases. Avg vel 1670fps!

Same ammo loaded into the Desert Eagle. Full mag (9 rounds). Flawless function, feed and ejection all shots. Avg vel: 1720fps

Same ammo from the Marlin carbine right on 2200fps. flawless function all rounds.

I tell this to illustrate that some guns simply will not handle loads as heavy as some others.

I don't have an L frame and have never personally tested any with max level loads but I fully expect their frame and cylinder size would put them closer to the N frame level than the K frame.

I should make clear the ammo used was NOT worked up in any of the guns it was fired in that day. It was a load picked out from a book and used. The results we got is also a good example of why one should NOT DO THAT!, either.


Generally speaking modern factory ammo from FedREmChester or other major maker is made so as to not batter a J frame to bits in short order and so that the fired cases will all come out. it is not up to the level of the original 1935 ammo and if it was you couldn't shoot it in the small light guns (which to me includes some K frame size guns).

 

[J.G. Terry]

Personal Opinion of K frame 357's.

Personal Opinion: The 38/44 rounds in the old N frame 38 Special duplicates the performance of some factory 357 Magnum rounds today. This N frame 38 Special was introduced several years before the 357 Magnum. The Registered Magnums ran $75.00 when the minimum wage was $.25 cents an hour. Phil Sharp was apprehensive about heavy loads in the 357 Magnum ("Complete Guide to Reloading pp.406-3rd Edition).

For me, it is reckless to shoot a steady diet of heavy 357 loads in my Model 19. Smith&Wesson rep was quick to point cylinders and barrels were no longer available was a wake up call of sorts to me. Why run the the risk of excessive wear or damage to irreplaceable parts to prove a point? I back off on my handloads and still have plenty of horse power. With one L frame and one N in 357 why take a risk. I have bought enough police turn-in to be skeptical about how many times these guns were fired. Colt original 357's were made on New Service and Single Action actions. Yes, I know about the new J frames in 357. Those guns, as I do not have one, are excluded from my personal opinion.

Added: I wonder if there were split forcing cones on 19's all along before common use of 125gr. loads. There are probably no reliable figures for Model 19 failure rate with either round. What ever it was, there is no desire to be one of the numbers-no crap shoot here.

 

[44 AMP]

The 38/44 rounds in the old N frame 38 Special duplicates the performance of some factory 357 Magnum rounds today.

pretty much.

This N frame 38 Special was introduced several years before the 357 Magnum

The .357 was developed from the .38/44. The .357 loading was worked up those 44 frame .38 special guns and in .38 Special cases. Once testing showed it could be done, the decision was made to lengthen the .38 Special case (0.135") to prevent the new hot round being chambered in .38 Special guns not made to take it. And the Registered Magnum pistol was created for the .357 Magnum by "upgrading" from the .38/44 guns then in production.

The Registered Magnum was a premium piece, absolute top of the line and possibly the finest revolver made at the time, anywhere. And it was priced accordingly. The "Registered" in the name had nothing to do with gun control, it was a pride of ownership thing. Every buyer was "registered" with Smith & Wesson as the owner of one of their premium guns. And, the Registered Magnum was very frequently made to the buyers specifications, about any combination of features S&W had could be ordered on one. Different barrel lengths and other options per the customer's request.

I think there was even a certificate of ownership issued by S&W with each gun. (though memory is a little foggy on that point)

I wonder if there were split forcing cones on 19's all along before common use of 125gr. loads. There are probably no reliable figures for Model 19 failure rate with either round.

My guess would be "yes".

However I suspect the number was very low. There is a calculated statistical failure rate for everything, forcing cones included. I'm sure that data is somewhere in S&W's tech dept. I'm also sure S&W has (or had) records on how many M19s came back for repair and what repair. Don't think you or I could get that info, though.

There were no published accounts of any unusually high rate of M19 forcing cone failure BEFORE the 125gr loads became common use, and therefore I suspect there were none above the relatively rare events that can happen with any gun. An awful lot of M19s shot an awful lot of 158s without issues before the 125s were used.

I have heard it suggested that the high rate of forcing cone failure came from police not cleaning their guns well enough, and it was lead buildup in the forcing cone causing the cracks, and this was not noticed until the hot 125s, which were the "straw that broke the camel's back".

This is certainly theoretically possible, but I don't put any great faith in it as the root cause. There is no data to prove or disprove it, I just think it unlikely to be the sole cause or a general reason for what happened.