Adventures In Wildcatting

[DonVoigt]

Sorry,
I only went back as far as "yesterday"; amazing how the old threads get resurrected and then bite me in the derriere' .

[Rick W.]

The 357 Bain & Davis is like an old friend. It has been around a long time. I suspect that the B&D shop in California still will rechamber a N frame cylinder. Of course, Thompson Contenders were done in the day as well.

I too used a Smith Wesson 27, with a extra cylinder off ebay. I only have a lathe, so I used a poor man's version of an English bell chuck to center the chamber to the reamer/tailstock. I used a test indicator to zero the chambers. More work than your jig, but one uses what one has or can make. I can only dream of a nice mill and attachments.

My S&W 27 in B&D version is a pinto, blue cylinder in a nickeled revolver, like yours a 8 3/8". Been pondering doing the 3 1/2" spare 27 revolver, but times change I guess, never done it yet.

I believe the B&D or the 357/44mag wildcat versions will equal the newer, longer 357 maximum without the longer cylinder of say the V40 Dan Wesson. The V40 is a nice revolver, but really large one might say. I saw a picture once of a Dan Wesson revolver in 7mm-08 if my memory still serves some, a prototype only.

Thanks for reviving the wildcat versions, made my day.........

[sheepherder]

For those two of you out there wondering what the 44/357 B&D looks like here is a pic of one...

The site I got this from says the longer taper was because B&D thought there would be problems with 'setback' so they elongated the neck-to-body transition...

I've been reloading since the mid '70's and have never heard of 'setback'...I may very well know it by another term, but 'setback' is a new term to me...

[Rick W.]

Thinking back, I believe I remember two versions of the 357 B&D. I think the basic difference was in the shoulder angle. One was much sharper than the other later one?

I have the gentle sloped version reamer. Bought off PTG's clearance rack. Not experienced any setback in my conversion so far; ie no locking up of the cylinder. Have lost some cases on fireforming, but relearned what heat is for in that process(annealing), solved that and a proper load.

My S&W 53 in 22Jet will lock up the cylinder with a middle load and an oily chamber. Locks up the cylinder dead tight. So now, I have learned to lighten up some on the load and clean the cylinder's chambers with a oil removing solvent before shooting.

always heard that the lockup in the jet was due to its long sloping shoulder. Not heard that with the 22 superjets though with the more conventional shape/shoulder in a revolver. The 224 Harvey Kay-Chuk does well in a K frame as well. Looking for a K frame to mount the K22 barrel and cylinder on, have the old Harvey reamer now; but no gumption due to our heat here. even considered the 22 Long Snapper in a K frame but no reamer yet. Just fun stuff..........

[sheepherder]

Originally Posted by Rick W.

Thinking back, I believe I remember two versions of the 357 B&D. I think the basic difference was in the shoulder angle. One was much sharper than the other later one?

Those would be the two I posted in the last two days. Both are said in the articles as being developed in 1964 by Davis (the sharp shoulder) and Bain & Davis (the sloped shoulder).

I never experienced 'setback' with my loads, and I don't recall Jim saying anything about his hot loads binding. Looking at my reloading notebook, I see that I used 13.0grs of Blue Dot with a 158gr JSP bullet. That was the 'sweet spot' for that bullet & powder in that barrel. Speer's Reloading Manual #10 shows that to also be the recommended max for that bullet/powder for the .357 Magnum. My notes don't show any mention of flat primers and I don't recall any. I know Jim's hot loads did, but I don't remember what we loaded his to. His model 29 had the 6" barrel; mine had the 8 3/8" barrel.

They both shot very nicely, low recoil, minimal flash, seemingly flat shooting.

I do recall that Winchester used a harder alloy brass that sometimes cracked when forming. The articles mention that annealing may be required. I found that Remington brass was much more ductile and did not need annealing. Looking through my old boxes of fired brass (not re-used) I see 13 'Frontier' cases. I don't recall those or where I got them. They look good.

When I was forming the 357AMP cases, I found that 7.62mm military cartridges had a thicker case wall than .308" commercial cases. I've seen references that this is to minimize deformation when feeding in machine guns. For the Auto mag, I had to inside neck ream the military brass after forming because the wall was too thick. Then size it again. Too much work. I stuck to commercial brass.

That was not a problem with the 357/44 for the revolver, as that used .44 Magnum brass necked down. But I stuck with Remington (or anything other than Winchester) for my 357/44 wildcat revolver cartridges.