.357 B&D in the Rossi 92 clone

[Hobie]

Over at SingleAction forum there is a discussion of an EXISTING rifle chambered in .357 B&D (a conversion). Thought some here might be interested.

[20cows]

My ignorance is showing. What is a .357 B&D?

[awp101]

My ignorance is showing. What is a .357 B&D?

.44 Mag necked down to .357 IIRC.

[Hobie]

My ignorance is showing. What is a .357 B&D?

.44 Mag necked down to .357 IIRC.

Sorry, that is correct.

[Dave James]

Must be some'n in the water thats the second time this week I have seen 357 B&D come up, one of the auction sites has a Ruger Blackhawk with 3 cylinders one being in the B&D caliber, sure was tempted

[AJMD429]

Thanks Hobie.

I think of the .357 B&D as a "357 Maximum" only short enough for a carbine style gun. Ballistics seem about the same (Hobie feel free to correct me on that), although load development for the B&D seems more centered on the 158 grain loads vs many shooters using the 180 and even 200 grain bullets in the Maximum, since it is usually in a break-open gun where OAL is sort of a non-issue if the throat is deep. The .38 B&D is sort of a modernized high-pressure manifestation of the .38-40.

To have to use a long-action 336 type gun for the .357 Max makes little sense, when you can step up to a .35 Remington in a factory offering; shorter lever throw maybe would be the only difference if you turned it into the .357 Maximum.

To have a short-action 1894 or 1892 type gun in .357 Max really stretches the limits, and although I've heard of a few custom jobs, I don't get the impression they feed well, and they ARE pricey.

Now another option is the ".38 Special Magnum" - but I've seen very little data on that round, which is essentially a shorter-trimmed .357 Max (so it would fit a deep-throated .357 Mag Contender, or MAYBE a custom levergun?).

On the other hand, you should [?] be able to just replace the barrel on a .44 Mag 1894 or 1892, and be ready to go. Being a bottleneck, it might feed even better than the regular .44 Mags.

Here's a link to some comparisons of the cartridges ('Visual' may not work unless you're an Ammoguide subscriber):

Ballistics- http://ammoguide.com/?tool=bcompare&it= ... %7c63%7c53

Visual - http://ammoguide.com/cgi-bin/aicompare. ... l=1&xxa=53

[Lefty Dude]

A 44-40 92 Rossi with a 200 gr. JHP is one bad round when handloaded properly. It is a bottle neck case, seals well in the chamber and is a stock item with out all the ho-rah. Even a 38-40 with a 180 gr. 40 cal. JHP is no slouch.

I'am sorry, I just can't get excited about the B&D.

I agree with the Doc.

[Hobie]

Thanks Hobie.

I think of the .357 B&D as a "357 Maximum" only short enough for a carbine style gun. Ballistics seem about the same (Hobie feel free to correct me on that), although load development for the B&D seems more centered on the 158 grain loads vs many shooters using the 180 and even 200 grain bullets in the Maximum, since it is usually in a break-open gun where OAL is sort of a non-issue if the throat is deep. The .38 B&D is sort of a modernized high-pressure manifestation of the .38-40.

To have to use a long-action 336 type gun for the .357 Max makes little sense, when you can step up to a .35 Remington in a factory offering; shorter lever throw maybe would be the only difference if you turned it into the .357 Maximum.

To have a short-action 1894 or 1892 type gun in .357 Max really stretches the limits, and although I've heard of a few custom jobs, I don't get the impression they feed well, and they ARE pricey.

Now another option is the ".38 Special Magnum" - but I've seen very little data on that round, which is essentially a shorter-trimmed .357 Max (so it would fit a deep-throated .357 Mag Contender, or MAYBE a custom levergun?).

On the other hand, you should [?] be able to just replace the barrel on a .44 Mag 1894 or 1892, and be ready to go. Being a bottleneck, it might feed even better than the regular .44 Mags.

Here's a link to some comparisons of the cartridges ('Visual' may not work unless you're an Ammoguide subscriber):

Ballistics- http://ammoguide.com/?tool=bcompare&it= ... %7c63%7c53

Visual - http://ammoguide.com/cgi-bin/aicompare. ... l=1&xxa=53

Those are pretty much my thoughts on the subject.

[Griff]

I thought about getting one of Winchester 94's converted t the .357Max back some 25 years ago. But, one of the negatives I heard 'bout it was throat erosion was severe, those rumors and the cost of the conversion ended that thought.

Then I became infatuated with cowboy action and BP cartridges. I've not heard of throat erosion as an issue with the .357B&D, but... the .38WCF has more powder capacity (sorta important with BP AND uses a .40+ boolit! Makes the newcomer sorta redundant!

[awp101]

Then I became infatuated with cowboy action and BP cartridges. I've not heard of throat erosion as an issue with the .357B&D, but... the .38WCF has more powder capacity (sorta important with BP AND uses a .40+ boolit! Makes the newcomer sorta redundant!

Sounds like most, not all, of the cartridges brought out in the last 40 years...

[Old Ironsights]

I wouldn't call the B&D a "newcommer"... unless you think somthing from the 70's is "new".

I think it would be a hoot to re-tool a .44 with a .357/.44 B&D...