[jodum]

I just opened a new bag of Remington 357 magnum brass to reload. I could not insert the brass in the shell holder due to the rim seemed to large. I thought I had the wrong shell holder but verified I was using a number one. I tried three different number one shell holders and the new Remington brass would not fit any of them. All other makes of 357 brass fit the holders perfectly. I ended up having to do some dremel grinding on one shell holder to make it work with the new Remington brass. Has anyone else run into this problem?

 

[Skull13]

I ran into the opposite problem a few years back. I was using differant brass for differant guns of the same calibre. I was using Win brass nickle plated for my .357 contender and I ordered 500 brass cases with the midway headstamp for my S&W 586 ,mainly for ease of sorting and tracking.I started to have problems with misfires in the S&W after a little research I found the rims on the midway brass was a few thousands thinner causing a headspace issue.You may want to make sure if you are using that brass in a revolver that the rim thickness doesn't lockup on the recoil plate.

 

[41 Mag]

If I opened a bag of new cases, and they wouldn't fit the shell holder they were supposed to, I would be contacting the manufacturer. I wold also contact whom ever I purchased them from to let them know the issue. At the least you should be able to be supplied cases of the right dimensions.

 

[unclenick]

I believe most Remington stuff is contracted out overseas now. One fellow complained of getting bullets .001" different diameter in two identical boxes with the same part number. I think it was .355" and .356"? He called Remington and was told they couldn't be expected to stock two different boxes for otherwise identical bullets. I guess not all their contractors know how to do an English to metric conversion?

Stick with Starline and Top brass. I haven't heard anything against Winchester or Federal pistol brass, so far, either.

By the way, do be aware, if you aren't already, that shell holder numbering is not consistent between manufacturers. .357 is a #1 holder for Lee and Lyman holders, a #6 for RCBS and Hornady, and a #12 for Redding and C-H. A fairly complete table is here.

 

[recoil junky]

Seems like it's Remington's turn inn the barrel. Every manufacturer gets ripped on evry few years and now it's their turn.

I've got some old Norma 7 mag brass that won't fit anybody's shell holder, some Midway head stamp 44 mag brass that if you trimmed the "crooked" off the mouth would almost be to short for 44 special, some WW .223 brass that was short enough to be .222 and a few other fubars over the years.

I just sent them back and it was made good by who ever I bought the stuff from.

RJ

 

[mikld]

Measure them and check against standard. Are the rims too large in diameter? Are they too thick? http://stevespages.com/jpg/cd357remingtonmaximum.jpg

 

[TMan]

I believe most Remington stuff is contracted out overseas now.

That's too bad. Any idea of where?

 

[bobbo]

Part of the undersized bullet issues is coming from unscrupulous suppliers that are using 9mm equipment to produce ".357" bullets. 9MM are in the .355 range.

 

[mikld]

Wow, I hope he got his answer in the 5 years since he started tis thread! Besides I think he was talking about brass, aka cases...

 

[bobbo]

Yes I hope Jodum is still here. I've had some problems also with new unprimed brass in 357. Yes he was talking about new brass and comment was made about overseas suppliers and possibly wrong sized components. A bit more expensive solution would be to purchase factory loaded ammo that you know fits the equipment, and then reload your own once fired brass. Bobbo

 

[Humpy]

Skull13, FWIW has your L frame been retrofitted with the smaller striker nose? There was a recall on L Frames circa 1984 and they retrofitted L Frames with smaller diameter on striker noses and small hole size recoil shields. This led to a large number of misfires that I witnessed in the proofing at S&W.(44 misfires in 1200 rounds) I sent the misfired rounds to primer engineers at Picatinny who did a failure analysis and they determined off center striker indents were the cause.

There was a multi million primer study at Frankford Arsenal back in 50s. It was determined that if a primer is struck less that .020" off center with sufficient energy it will go but if the offset is more than .020" offset the incidence of misfires goes up the further off center they are struck even if the striker energy is within range.

Revolvers by their design don't deliver a large amount of striker energy. For instance (working from memory here) the 38 special revolver spec called for .009" indent on coppers and the magnums called for .011" indent. Large rifle now calls for .016" indent and some manufacturers still have a internal requirement of .020" which is what I strive for.

Thus one might correlate the term "center fire" with if it hits dead center or within 020" it should go and the further out it hits the chances of a misfire go up. The industry offset standard is (last I looked) half the diameter of the striker indent and center fire rifle strikers I have measured run .060 +/- a thou so the ones that follow the recommendations could be putting out fires with .030" offset.