I need advice on old model Blackhawk 357 magnum revolvers

[parallaxbill]

As the owner and happy shooter of a 1956 flattop and two later old model 357s, are the later 357 frames suitable for hotter loads? One of mine is a convertible 357/9mm (1970) and the other just a plain 357 (1969). Is there a difference between the older 1956 and the later old model 357s in terms of strength of frames?

Thanks, in advance.

[taffin]

WHY WOULD YOU EXPECT THEM TO BE?

[parallaxbill]

Just asking.

[taffin]

The cylinders are the same and it is the cylinders that go first. I'm an artist not a scientist but I cannot see how that little bit of extra steel around the rear sight would have any practical strength affect at all.

[contender]

Your OM Rugers from 1969 & 1970 will handle the "Ruger Only" loads listed in manuals.

[x101airborne]

I am a farm boy and dont know an owl's hoot about metallurgy or heat treatment but I would suspect no difference unless cylinder or frame size was different. The "ears" as I understand were there to protect the rear sight. Now others who have lived through it, I would take their advice much more seriously. If Mr. Bradshaw or Mr. Taffin weigh in, then definitely go with what they say.

[Encore64]

To my knowledge, there's no difference in the guns other than the ears on the topstrap.

The Gun in question is a 357 Magnum, so Ruger Only Loads isn't applicable.

Any reputable load data should be just fine in all three of your guns.

[hombre]

I shoot a 1957 BlackHawk with factory JHP 158 gr. magnum loads as well as hot reloads using jacketed 140 grain Speer hollow points and 296.

[2 Dogs]

Jan 12, 2023 15:36:24 GMT -5 parallaxbill said:

As the owner and happy shooter of a 1956 flattop and two later old model 357s, are the later 357 frames suitable for hotter loads? One of mine is a convertible 357/9mm (1970) and the other just a plain 357 (1969). Is there a difference between the older 1956 and the later old model 357s in terms of strength of frames?

Thanks, in advance.

Yes they work fine with hotter loads. I prefer and shoot top end loads in my Blackhawks. Just do your due diligence and work up carefully. Every sixgun is different and a load that is fine in one might be sticky in another. All that said, while primer and powder prices are inflated I’m fixing to load some plain base powder coated cast slugs at 38-44 level loads in 38 Special cases. I shoot such in my Colt Troopers and Smiths.

[bradshaw]

Jan 12, 2023 15:36:24 GMT -5 parallaxbill said:

As the owner and happy shooter of a 1956 flattop and two later old model 357s, are the later 357 frames suitable for hotter loads? One of mine is a convertible 357/9mm (1970) and the other just a plain 357 (1969). Is there a difference between the older 1956 and the later old model 357s in terms of strength of frames?

Thanks, in advance.

******

Some of the early .357 Magnum ammo with swaged 158 SWC GC bullets was HOT (just as similar factory .44 Mag was HOT). Thirty rounds out off a 50 round box could solder a .30 caliber hole down a Blackhawk barrel. In the process doing no harm to the gun. Ruger heat treated the chrome moly steel for strength, with artillery meat around each chamber. Heat treatment of the frame includes through-hardening, also, although treatment may differ. No sensible load will hurt that gun.

The Smith & Wesson Model 19 cylinder incorporates excellent steel with superb heat treatment, yet the K-frame limits cylinder wall thickness, which illustrates the value of meat around the chamber to contain high pressure. Very high pressure without detonation behavior can spring an M-19 chamber without cracking. The same load doesn’t do diddly to a Blackhawk chamber.

When we talk “hotter loads,” it is important to define our terms. Too much fast powder, or too much medium burn rate powder, may step without warning into the detonation zone. In a self-contained cartridge, the case is the head gasket; the bullet is the pressure relief valve. The bullet moves to cushion pressure rise. if the bullet doesn’t move fast enough, pressure spikes. Pounds Per Square Inch or Copper Units alone does not explain pressure. TTP (Time to Pressure)----rise or acceleration----can determine whether the gun is damaged.

The term “hot load” is an abstraction
Smokeless powder is called a PROPELLANT because of its progression from a solid to a gas (gas occupying thousands of times the volume of the solid). Explosives, on the other hand, skip the progressive part, utterly without patience for the bullet to move.
David Bradshaw

[Encore64]

While many will argue, the loading of the 357 Magnum has been throttled back since it came out.

I've read this is due to lawyers. I've also read this is due to some of the very small guns that's been chambered in it not holding up.

If either is true or something else, it's typical of the world we live in.

However, with Magnum Rounds, I never exceed published data. Usually start low and watch the chronograph as I inch up.

I know 2400 Powder has changed thru the years. But still, loads have changed...

[contender]

"While many will argue, the loading of the 357 Magnum has been throttled back since it came out.

I've read this is due to lawyers. I've also read this is due to some of the very small guns that's been chambered in it not holding up.

If either is true or something else, it's typical of the world we live in."

One thing I've heard is that the method of pressure testing loads has changed,, to a more accurate type of testing. That caused many publishers of data to throttle back their published data.

[jeffh]

Jan 14, 2023 21:06:57 GMT -5 contender said:

One thing I've heard is that the method of pressure testing loads has changed,, to a more accurate type of testing. That caused many publishers of data to throttle back their published data.

I've read the same, but if the new equipment revealed higher pressures than previously thought, so what?  That did not make the guns less able to handle the pressure. 

It would be nice to get the whole, real, true story on this some day.  I don't know who changed it or why.  If there was a good reason, I'm fine with it, but what's the big secret?

I do not typically load the 357 magnum to even today's limits myself, mostly because of it's obnoxious report in a handgun.  I'd simply use a handgun with a bigger bore/heavier bullet.  Since I find it incredibly useful in a carbine, I also keep revolvers for it.  I likely wouldn't load to the old levels even if I knew why they had been reduced, but I'd like to know why from an official source.

[bradshaw]

jeff’s.... the .357 Mag was introduced in 1935 in S&W’s meaty-bone .44 N-frame. James from Jersey recently posted an early S&W add trusting the .357 Mangle’em to kill the engine in the bank robber’s getaway car, if not cut the car in half.

Twenty years later, S&W chambering sonic boom .357 its .38 K-frame (“with special heat treatment”). Hot loads can push the gas ring out of the front of a Model 19 cylinder, binding rotation. Or, spring a chamber. Or otherwise beat the revolver. Matters got worse as doctrinaire firearms instructors insisted you had to do all your shooting with full house “service” loads under pain of death and run qualification only with mangle’ems. Our late Lee Jurras upped the ante with his Super Vel. It impossible that Smith & Wesson, as the major supplier of law enforcement sidearms, put the arm on SAAMI and the big ammo companies to tone it down a bit.

A different school of thought informed my modest attempts to inculcate marksmanship in the less experienced, and that is to tone mind & muscle through more shooting, at less power.

My centerfire revolver education began with an old model Blackhawk .357 and it was as immune to full house ammo as a tombstone is to poison ivy.
David Bradshaw

[savit260]

Jan 15, 2023 0:18:36 GMT -5 bradshaw said:

My centerfire revolver education began with an old model Blackhawk .357 and it was as immune to full house ammo as a field stone is to poison ivy.
David Bradshaw

This line made my morning. Thank you Mr. Bradshaw.