|
Post by magnumwheelman on Apr 15, 2019 11:11:58 GMT -5
357 Max was one of FIL's guns... he reportedly dropped a Wisconsin 8 point "back in the day" just as the gun sits here... not positive of the load, either 158's or 180's... I've not really played with this gun much... maybe a fancy new copper bullet would get me fired up???
|
|
|
Post by bula on Apr 15, 2019 11:27:26 GMT -5
N'yup. Wouldn't recommend a solid copper non-expanding bullet for broadside lung shots on deer/hogs. That "controlled fracturing" offering..a thought beyond my experience but likely..
|
|
|
Post by bula on Apr 15, 2019 11:33:47 GMT -5
On my puter at least, the GSCustom site looks good until you click handguns, then nada.. U ?
|
|
|
Post by silcott on Apr 16, 2019 9:42:33 GMT -5
It's hard to beat a Lyman 358627 out of 357 maximum revolver.
|
|
|
Post by magnumwheelman on Apr 16, 2019 15:30:19 GMT -5
Some Load data for 357 Magnum from Cutting Edge Bullets...
|
|
|
Post by bigbrowndog on Apr 16, 2019 17:49:06 GMT -5
I wonder what kind of penetration you’d get from 1500-1600fps, the 165gr CEB and a 357Max. Maybe something to look at during the bovine bash???
Trapr
|
|
|
Post by bradshaw on Apr 16, 2019 19:19:58 GMT -5
I wonder what kind of penetration you’d get from 1500-1600fps, the 165gr CEB and a 357Max. Maybe something to look at during the bovine bash??? Trapr I know the stories of the .220 Swift and .22-250 killing deer like they were hit by lightning. I also know of hunters who are damn good shots who lost deer to these rounds. The will to live soaked in adrenalin is an amazing force. Were I to hunt some monster bovine with the .357 Maximum, I’d take brass or copper at 180 to 200 grains and drive it hard. And I would call on my best TUNNEL VISION to plant the bullet between ear & eye, or about two vertebrae below the skull. Or embrace a similar very restrictive plan to eliminate prayer from penetration. As a footnote, I was introduced to a bull moose that took three 158 JHP’s in the neck, none of which knocked the bull down, all three having stopped without damaging the neck bone. Of course these weren’t the right slugs for the job, but the shooter was a two-fisted logger equally skilled with revolver, rifle, and fists. Well, maybe he was slightly more adept with his fists. Every time I hear some animal is “easy to kill,” and the shooter performs difficult shots “on demand,” I marvel at skill so refined the shooter needn’t pay attention. David Bradshaw
|
|
|
Post by bigbrowndog on Apr 16, 2019 19:33:54 GMT -5
Dave I wasn’t trying to say go kill a live critter with a caliber as small as 357 and an unproven bullet, but after it’s been dropped and test the bullet for penetration. Just to see what kind of penetration is capable with solid copper bullets, a small diameter, and good velocity. The 220swift/22-250 stories I’ve always heard, always used expanding bullets, I used to guide for a fellow that swore by his Swift for putting down wounded deer, after a couple of “failures” both bullet and user variety. He switched to a shotgun and slugs.
Trapr
|
|
|
Post by whiterabbit on Apr 16, 2019 22:43:02 GMT -5
I've gone up to 250 gr spitzers in the 357 max and would normally consider a barnes bullet for this case, designed for a 35 cal rifle.
Unfortunately, my work was in a handi-rifle, I don't think they will fit in a Dan Wesson.
But check out barnes anyways. They make a 200 grain TTSX that is 1.296 inches long. if you pull the tip off, you can probably reduce it to 1.15" long. If you have a lathe you can cut the tips off and make a somewhat lighter slug of copper. But that gets fairly prohibitive for shooting.
I suspect you can make it work by taking the tip off and driving it to 357 mag velocities.
On the other hand, I expect the price of barnes to be fairly comparable to the cutting edge bullets, since my 7mm barnes cost $35 per 50. A 35 has to be closer to $44.
|
|
|
Post by whiterabbit on Apr 16, 2019 22:45:22 GMT -5
By the way, if you are willing to spend good money on bullets, but want it designed for 357 max AND be lead free, have you considered buying bismuth alloy from rotometals and casting from a mold you KNOW already shoots well from the 375 max, with good meplat to get the job you want done?
That might be the most efficient route to a lead free 357 max hammer.
|
|
|
Post by bradshaw on Apr 17, 2019 6:21:23 GMT -5
Dave I wasn’t trying to say go kill a live critter with a caliber as small as 357 and an unproven bullet, but after it’s been dropped and test the bullet for penetration. Just to see what kind of penetration is capable with solid copper bullets, a small diameter, and good velocity. The 220swift/22-250 stories I’ve always heard, always used expanding bullets, I used to guide for a fellow that swore by his Swift for putting down wounded deer, after a couple of “failures” both bullet and user variety. He switched to a shotgun and slugs. Trapr ***** Trapr.... shooting into a carcass, especially fresh and warm, is an excellent way to compare a bunch of bullets fast. Provides the opportunity to see resilience and elasticity of various sections of hide and the incredible capacity of strong skin to soak up shock. A bled out animal does not provide the same hydrostatic response as infused tissue. A carcass will show the radical decomposition of a fragile bullet. A steer with hair may be analogous to clothing in plugging some hollow points, while other HP’s expand pretty reliably after hitting hair or clothing. David Bradshaw
|
|
|
Post by gemihur on Apr 27, 2019 8:26:26 GMT -5
I'd prefer to use a bullet that light in my contender gassed up with the 357/44 Bain & Davis chamber. With 24 gr. of 296 I'd expect to get over 1900 FPS. The 1:14" twist should stabilize nicely.
|
|
|
Post by boolitdesigner on Apr 27, 2019 8:56:42 GMT -5
Were I to hunt some monster bovine with the .357 Maximum, I’d take brass or copper at 180 to 200 grains and drive it hard. And I would call on my best TUNNEL VISION to plant the bullet between ear & eye, or about two vertebrae below the skull. Or embrace a similar very restrictive plan to eliminate prayer from penetration. As a footnote, I was introduced to a bull moose that took three 158 JHP’s in the neck, none of which knocked the bull down, all three having stopped without damaging the neck bone. Of course these weren’t the right slugs for the job, but the shooter was a two-fisted logger equally skilled with revolver, rifle, and fists. Well, maybe he was slightly more adept with his fists. Every time I hear some animal is “easy to kill,” and the shooter performs difficult shots “on demand,” I marvel at skill so refined the shooter needn’t pay attention.Trapr.... shooting into a carcass, especially fresh and warm, is an excellent way to compare a bunch of bullets fast. Provides the opportunity to see resilience and elasticity of various sections of hide and the incredible capacity of strong skin to soak up shock. A bled out animal does not provide the same hydrostatic response as infused tissue. A carcass will show the radical decomposition of a fragile bullet. A steer with hair may be analogous to clothing in plugging some hollow points, while other HP’s expand pretty reliably after hitting hair or clothing. David Bradshaw Bravo.......Mr Bradshaw for putting that up. Why in the world would someone go after a large animal with frangible bullets unless he knew exactly where to put them to do the job? As the operator of the handgun or rifle, one should have brain engaged to put proper ammunition for the species hunted in the gun so results happen as they are supposed to. As an aside, Ross Seyfried investigated cast solids that didn't expand on some very big African game....... you can make the same also.
|
|
|
Post by whitworth on Apr 29, 2019 16:41:10 GMT -5
As an aside, Ross Seyfried investigated cast solids that didn't expand on some very big African game....... you can make the same also. That he did, but eventually he sought a better mousetrap when he modified Trophy Bonded Sledgehammer solids to work in his .475. Unfortunately he never solved the poor crimp purchase. The Punch bullet and the various monolithic solids are merely a progression on the them IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by bigbrowndog on Apr 29, 2019 17:20:42 GMT -5
I have to agree that had Ross stayed with writing up the big guns and using them routinely. His natural progression would have taken him to stronger bullets, he definitely preferred the jacketed solid over his cast load due to its remarkable performance. He ventured into jacketed bullets and declared that from the current lot that was available, the Swift was one of the better ones out there. Swift has simply improved over the years, as other makers stepped up to contribute also. The super solids, seem to be the most consistent performers given the velocities we can push bullets at these days. My mention of using a super solid to see what kind of penetration was possible was merely to see if complete or nearly complete penetration could be achieved with a 357 max, and what would happen when it ran into big bones,.....simple curiousness nothing more.
BTW, what was the reason Ross stopped using and shooting the big handguns anyway???.......I don’t recall, but I seem to recall a reason given.
Trapr
|
|