Load check for new guy

[Guest sneakboxer]

Well I'm working on a log and load plan for my new 357mag 1894.

intended load= new win brass, Winchester WSPM primer, H-110 powder, Hornady FP-XTP 125gr, COL 1.590in.

But three different sources are telling me different things.

LEE= 21.0Cgr to MAX 22.0Cgr

Nosler= NO DATA

Hornady= RIFLE 10.4gr to MAX 19.4gr

Hornady= PISTOL 17.4gr to MAX 19.9gr

Hodgdon= 21.0gr to MAX 22.0gr

I'm very new (never loaded pistol ammo). I don't want too light of a charge to cause detonation and i surely don't want to exceed max. What gives?

I'm thinking about starting at 17.5gr and working up at 0.5gr intervals to 21.5gr.

What do you think? Any help would be appreciated.

[timcalhoun]

There are always huge discrepancies between reloading manuals. Mainly because they use different methods/materials to calculate max pressure. As you stated, start low and work up while looking for high pressure signs. A chronograph is a huge help when evaluating load performance too.

[glockster157]

Hodgdon's online data lists 22.0 grains as max in the 357 mag with 125 XTP bullets. In my experience you can (but don't do this) cram the case full of H110/W296 (same powder) and stick a bullet on top. About the worst you will do is flatten a primer or pucker it good. After saying that, follow the book data and drop the load 10% and work up. Most older loading manual would not even list reduced loads for H110 but went straight to max. So I wouldn't worry about reducing the load too much. 17.5 is more like 20% and that is a bit much to back off, Hodgon lists 21.0 as a starting load on their online data.

Again just an FYI. I once did a big load development trial with a friend back in the 80's after he had bought a then new Oehler 33 Chrono. We tried many different powders including H110. Several things became apparent. Mag primers were not nearly as consistent as standard primers in the pistol loads. H110 needed mag primers and velocities were still quite erratic in the 4" revolvers. They should be fine in a rifle as you have much more barrel in which to burn all that powder. But if you plan to pick up a 357 revolver, I highly recommend a little faster powder with standard pistol primers. Alliant 2400, Accurate #9, Blue Dot being three that are fairly versatile in the magnum range, Unique, W231, Accurate #7 , Titegroup being faster for the service loads. Service loads being in the mid range of about 1000 to 1200 FPS depending on bullet weight. Then you would have a better load to share between the pistol and rifle, which is one of the big advantages of a rifle in 357. Also, pick you up a bunch of 38 spl cases, a lot cheaper to load, shoot and a heck of a lot of fun.

[I_Like_Pie]

See if 19 grains shoots good. If so - that is an easy number to remember. If not try .5 increments up to 20.5 grains and use the most accurate of the four loads. Willing to bet that one of these will suit you fine.

Out of a long barrel that load will really be zipping along pretty fast. The absolute performance difference between 19 and 21.5 grains will be minimal so err with the more conservative loads first.

I am also with glockster....I do not really like H110 powder because it gets a bit wiggy at the load limits....outside temperature is often enough to measurably affect pressure. Am much happier with 2400....more discretion with loading because of a wider range of possible charge weights and much more forgiving.

[Guest sneakboxer]

Thanks guys! That what i was looking for. I did not want to "just wing it". I was worried that using a mag primer and too light of a load could cause more pressure than a listed max charge. I think that i should figure out what powder is on the shelf at my local shop before going too crazy.

Accur #5 and #7 might work good for me too. I should not have to compress the charge either. I plan on loading 125gr, 140gr and 158gr in the near future.

I guess those high velocity numbers altered my thought pattern.

Thanks again,

[ftncityfatboy]

158 grain LSWC for target practice, any mag primer, accurate #9 powder (i've been told with #9 powder you don't have to use a mag primer and you can get by with the spp). Load 12.2 grains powder and you will bet a big bang.....very accurate, nice clean punch......

[LngRngShtr]

the 1894 is a rifle correct ?

this may explain the load data differences,.. I know they list different loads for a TC Contender in the Lyman manuals (due to their long barrels and no cyl. gap etc.) check to see if they list rifle loadings in your manuals I haven't used H-110 so I am not sure how it handles..

I have a 6" S&W 586 I load 17.0 gr. 2400 with a Small Rifle Primer and a 125 gr. plated TC bullet taper crimped .. I picked up on using the Small Rifle Primers from my .38Super IPSC gun.... I worked this load up in MY gun,.. our mileage may vary

John

[glockster157]

the 1894 is a rifle correct ?

this may explain the load data differences,.. I know they list different loads for a TC Contender in the Lyman manuals (due to their long barrels and no cyl. gap etc.) check to see if they list rifle loadings in your manuals I haven't used H-110 so I am not sure how it handles..

I have a 6" S&W 586 I load 17.0 gr. 2400 with a Small Rifle Primer and a 125 gr. plated TC bullet taper crimped .. I picked up on using the Small Rifle Primers from my .38Super IPSC gun.... I worked this load up in MY gun,.. our mileage may vary

John

There should be no real difference in a Marlin 1894 in 357 and a revolver. That being said, Rugers a dang strong. I have shot insane loads in them in my youth that should not have been tried. I am not that confident that a Marlin is any stronger than a S&W revolver. I am sure it is not as strong as a Thompson Center Contender. As to using small rifle primers in the pistol, I am not sure exactly what you are trying to accomplish, as 2400 is not hard to ignite and does well with standard pistol primers. I have used small rifle primers before just to experiment and I found some revolvers would not set them off with more than one strike. Also, most plated bullets are not rated for velocities over 1000 fps and Alliant lists 17.5 grains of 2400 as max with a 125 grain bullet for 1409 FPS. Could be a problem for that thin plating. But...each to his own.

[LngRngShtr]

The reason for asking about the rifle is that longer barrels of rifles sometimes can be loaded with powders other than a handgun would be able to use in 4 or 6 "

I was referencing the Contender load data which in Lymans 49th. Handbook they had some different loads due to the Contenders longer barrel working better with slower powders..

The Only reason I have to justify SRPs is using the .38 Super at the old IPSC Power Factor loadings to make the 175 MAJOR listing,.. SAMMI was out the window these are the Top Fuel Dragsters of the Handgun world... and I found through experimentation that all my revolvers will set off the SRPs no problem so I standardized my inventory my G23 in .40 will also work just fine..

I have also found that if you Taper Crimp instead of roll crimp,Plated bullets will run fine at higher velocities,.. another IPSC experience...those 125's ran out of my Super for a season or 2 on top top of HS6 powder,.. at around 1425 to 1450 FPS then I went Limited Division with a 10mm These loads should never find their way into a standard off the shelf gun...casings are marked and that ammo never goes to a "fun day" events,to matches only where I can control their whereabouts

Sometimes I need to remember IPSC reloading isn't "standard" and some folks are uncomfortable with the numbers these guns run at...

Regular ammo for regular guns like the 586 or his rifle should stick to manuals,.... but for the .357 I will stick to 2400

John

Edited November 19, 2010 by LngRngShtr

[Guest sneakboxer]

Follow up

I went with Accurate #9 and CCI non-mag primers. Everything worked and i did not break anything. 15.5gr and 14.0gr shot within 1in at 50yds with open sights. I experimented up to 16.0gr with no signs of excess pressure. But the warmer loads did not print well.

The loads above are over Hornady's max (but under other load book references). Work up to them with caution.

Thanks again,