.357 Performance out of a 2" barrel


PDA






BlackSky
February 20, 2011, 06:27 PM
Would you lose enough velocity shooting a .357 with 2" barrel that it would make more sense to just use .38 +P's? I mean if the short barrlelputs the ballistics of the .357 down far enough that a .38 +P is right there with it then I'd think the .38 would be more appropriate as it has less recoil.

If you enjoyed reading about ".357 Performance out of a 2" barrel" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ralph2
February 20, 2011, 07:21 PM
I doubt it. The last 357 mag ammo I shot out of a s&w with a 4 inch barrel clocked in at about 1300fps(158 grain) and my 38spl with 1,875 inch barrel is 700fps on the hotter rounds. I doubt that cutting 2 inches off that 4 inch barrel would cost 600 fps. I am pretty sure I have read reviews putting the velocity from a 2 inch barrel at about 1000fps

JFrame
February 20, 2011, 07:34 PM
I know this isn't a dollars-to-doughnuts comparison, but since getting a NAA Black Widow, I've been doing research into cartridge performance out of the same barrel length (2") between .22LR and .22WMR. With the various loads I've seen chronographed, performance of the .22 magnum seems to exceed that of the long rifle by approximately 30-35 percent. I imagine the increments of performance increase would be even greater as the barrel lengths increase, but at 2 inches, the benefits are already there.

I'm supposing a roughly comparable benefit would be had between the .357 and even the +P .38. Whether the additional benefit of the .357, relative to the greater blast and recoil, is worth it to the shooter is another matter entirely, and totally dependent on that individual.

.

ttraylor
February 20, 2011, 08:45 PM
From the Buffalobore.com website-the only problem is that the +P is a 158gr bullet and the 357 is a 125gr, but it gives you some type of comparison. Velocities can be found at the links below.

38 spec +P
http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=108

357
http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=100

Deaf Smith
February 20, 2011, 09:16 PM
Well Buffalo Bore makes a 125gr JHP for the .357 Magnum.

d. Item 19D/20-125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1476 fps

That's from a 3 inch barrel! I bet 1400 from a 2 inch is not unreasonable.

And that makes that 2 inch snub .357 a TRUE .357 as the 125gr load is known to work quite well at 1400 fps from a 4 inch barrel.

Deaf

BlackSky
February 20, 2011, 09:20 PM
As far as bullet weight for a 2.5" barrel what do you guys think would be most desireable as far as self defense use is concerned? 125g, 158g or some middle size like 130 or 140 or something.

357 Terms
February 20, 2011, 09:26 PM
The only advantage with a 38+p outa a snubby is control. A 357 is waay more powerful no matter the barrel length. If you have a 357 and can handle the recoil than shoot 357's.

W.E.G.
February 20, 2011, 09:27 PM
http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/smileys/cool_small.gif

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/pistol%20pics/357snubflash.jpg

SPW1
February 20, 2011, 09:31 PM
There is no doubt that a 357 out of a 2.5 inch barrel will still have more velocity than a 38 out of the same barrel length. The only question is the bit of velocity you gain really worth the greater muzzle blast, muzzle rise, and recoil the 357 will give you in that size gun. I feel out of a 2.5 inch barrel defensive gun you give up more than you gain with a 357 when compared to a 38 special, but obviously that is a personal decision and not everyone feels that way.

mdauben
February 20, 2011, 09:53 PM
As far as bullet weight for a 2.5" barrel what do you guys think would be most desireable as far as self defense use is concerned? 125g, 158g or some middle size like 130 or 140 or something.
I know Speer makes a special loading of their Gold Dot line for short barrel .357s that uses a 135gr bullet. This is what I was thinking of using in my .357 "snubbie".

nonseven
February 21, 2011, 10:22 AM
No doubt the 357 should always be able to beat the 38s, but look at those first two examples of the Buffalo Bore ballistics:

38 spec +P
Item 20A: 158gr., very soft cast, semi wad cutter, (Keith) hollow cavity, with a gas check.
S&W mod. 60, 2 inch- 1040 fps (379 ft. lbs.)

357
Item 19G/20-125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point bullet

S&W mod. 340PD 1-7/8 inch barrel - 1,109 fps (341 ft. lbs.)



My position is that you lose more of the 357's performance than you do of a 38S performance, in a 2" barrel.

Gary A
February 21, 2011, 10:43 AM
I don't understand why this topic is even argued. Many, many tests have been done over many years and most factory .357 loads will handily outperform similar weight .38 special loads out of a short barrel. It's not even arguable. Buy some, get a chronograph, and shoot, and see. That is not to say one should choose .357 over.38, but arguments that .357 is no more powerful than .38 Special+P out of a two-inch barrel are simply wrong.

Most 158 grain 38+P loads will struggle or barely break 800 fps from a 2 inch barrel. Most 158 grain .357 loads will be over 1050 to just over 1100 fps from the same barrel.

Most 38+P 125 grain loads will struggle to reach 900 fps from a 2 inch barrel, where most full-power 125 grain .357 loads will run in the mid 1200's fps.

It's just not debatable.

My position is that you lose more of the 357's performance than you do of a 38S performance, in a 2" barrel.
Probably true, but you still have so much more left.

nonseven
February 21, 2011, 11:39 AM
What I don't understand is how Buffalo Bore gets their 38S+p 158g load up to 1000 fps out of my Ruger LCR without exceeding SAAMI pressures. Seems to me it would have to be damn close to 357 pressures.

dirtykid
February 21, 2011, 12:09 PM
My everyday PD gun is a SP101 .357 with short barrel,, when at the range i Always use .38+p for shooting heavy-plates,and they drop them pretty fast, however i also be sure and shoot at least 3-cylinder's full of my PD ammo (golden spears) LAST so that i know exactly how that gun is gonna feel in a real situation, and i would have to say the plates just dont "drop" , they are "slammed" down,, without any special equipment i can "hear" the difference , .357 still seems to pack more "punch"

_N4Z_
February 21, 2011, 12:53 PM
I don't understand why this topic is even argued.

A lot of the time it is new people that were not around the last time the topic was discussed.

Same topics, different faces.

gamestalker
February 21, 2011, 07:31 PM
I have a snub 66-5 that delivers hand loaded 125s at 1500 fps and that isn't with a full powder charge. But on the other hand my 4" Taurus spits the same load out almost one hundred fps faster. And my +P 38 loads 125 grain bullet are getting 1250s fps. out of the snub, not bad, and a lot less recoil to deal with.

PO2Hammer
February 21, 2011, 07:37 PM
Even though it doesn't cover the 2" revolvers being discussed, you should be able to glean the info you seek here;
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/results.html

Dill Man
February 21, 2011, 07:49 PM
I only use Buffalo Bore ammunition in my snubbies. I want the most velocity that I can get. Just make sure your revolver can handle Buffalo Bore ammo.

sthomper
May 29, 2011, 06:47 AM
"Most 38+P 125 grain loads will struggle to reach 900 fps from a 2 inch barrel, where most full-power 125 grain .357 loads will run in the mid 1200's fps.

It's just not debatable."

has anyone debated that?? i have seen some posts that stated that for some reason the powder in a 357 doesnt explode to it maximum capabilty thus making a 357 nearly as slow s a different burning 38 from 2" barrels. i guess those may have been lies.

i see a speer website that claims a 100g 327 fedmag (a real cartridge??) leaves a 4" barrel at 1500fps with 500 ftlbs of KE?? is that true?? if it is , is it likely then that the same cartridge could exit a a 2" barrel
http://www.gunsinternational.com/TAURUS-M327-2-BLUE-REVOLVER-327-FED-MAGNUM-NIB-.cfm?gun_id=100166879

a real weapon??? at 1340 fps and get 400 ftlbs of KE....the same as many 9mm bullets coming out of 4" semiauto barrels????

sthomper
May 29, 2011, 06:50 AM
The last 357 mag ammo I shot out of a s&w with a 4 inch barrel clocked in at about 1300fps(158 grain) and my 38spl with 1,875 inch barrel is 700fps...........

is there a 158 gr 357??? is there any adavantage to that over a zipper / higher energy 125g since the entry/exit wounds would be teh same size????

catnphx
May 29, 2011, 10:00 AM
I use GD 38 spl 135gr +P ammo for my S&W 640-1 .357 (2" barrel).

More information from Doctor Roberts: "With few exceptions, such as the Speer 135 gr +P JHP and Barnes XPB, the vast majority of .38 Sp JHP's fail to expand when fired from 2" barrels in the 4 layer denim test. [...] There is no reason to go with .357 mag in a J-frame, as the significantly larger muzzle blast and flash, and harsher recoil of the .357 Magnum does not result in substantially improved terminal performance compared to the more controllable .38 Special bullets when fired from 2” barrels."

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm#9mm

Good luck on your decision ... we all need to make our own.

1911Tuner
May 29, 2011, 10:57 AM
Velocity is overrated. +/- 90-100 fps doesn't mean much in the real world as long as the bullet goes where it needs to go and penetrates far enough to reach what it needs to reach. If it does these things, it'll do. If it doesn't...more speed won't be of much help.

With increased velocity comes increased recoil, making control and accurate followup shots more difficult. Full-power .357 Magnum ammunition in small revolvers makes for a real beast to hang onto in a bad situation. Personally, I wish the ammo makers would offer a .357 round loaded with a 158 grain LSWCHP to an honest 1000 fps from a 3-inch barrel. Ample power for penetration and enough speed to aid expansion that would put it head and shoulders over any .38 +P offering, and much less of a hassle to shoot well.

Ratshooter
May 29, 2011, 12:06 PM
Personally, I wish the ammo makers would offer a .357 round loaded with a 158 grain LSWCHP to an honest 1000 fps from a 3-inch barrel. Ample power for penetration and enough speed to aid expansion that would put it head and shoulders over any .38 +P offering, and much less of a hassle to shoot well.

There you go. Thats just about what I load for my 38 snubbie. I load the Speer 158 LSWCHP with 231 to a velocity of around 930fps and its a romper stomper load to shoot. It blows right through water bottles and slits them from end to end.

I wish remington would offer their 158 lead hollow points as a componant bullet because they are reported to be the softest of all the lead hollow points. The speers seem pretty good though.

1911Tuner
May 29, 2011, 12:37 PM
Quote:

>>I wish Remington would offer their 158 lead hollow points as a componant bullet because they are reported to be the softest of all the lead hollow points. The speers seem pretty good though. <

The Remington lead bullets are softer than the ones that Winchester uses for the LSWCHP +P loading and are probably optimum for .38 Special velocities...while the Winchester and Speer are better suited to speeds at or above 1,000 fps. My bet is that they use something close to the same alloys that were once used for the original .357 and .44 Magnum LSWC offerings. If memory serves me, the ratio was 97:3 lead/antimony. The .44s were gas checked, while the .357s were plain-based. I believe that Remington's bullets are 99:1 lead/antimony, but don't hold me to that.

I've tested them pretty extensively, and the Speer bullet produces about the same expanded diameter at 1000 fps as the Remington does at 830-840...which is about the actual average velocity from a 4-inch barrel. (890 advertised)

The Remington bullet would likely come apart at 1000 fps impact velocity.

wnycollector
May 29, 2011, 12:48 PM
Here is a link to an article on this exact issue http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/38vs357snub.htm

Harley Quinn
May 29, 2011, 01:08 PM
The notion that the .357 is so inefficient in the two-inch guns that it's no more effective than a hot .38 Special just doesn't seem to be true. While neither is at its best in the snub, the magnum is the more potent of the two with most ammo.

True, but the controlling of it, is another thing for many...38 snubbie is as a rule, backup and close encounters, second and third shots are easier to come by :uhoh:

The link is a good read, that wnycollector put up:)

Water-Man
May 29, 2011, 01:17 PM
Double Tap 158gr. JHP 1408-688 4" barrel.

JFrame
May 29, 2011, 02:22 PM
I had an opportunity to somewhat revisit this issue after acquiring my first uber-lightweight .357 a few weeks ago (a S&W 360 PD -- which I believe is the lightest production .357 made).

I find the handgun extremely pleasant to shoot with standard .38's (Remington UMC 130-grain ammo).

I next fired Winchester Supreme Elite .38+P ammo. It was also perfectly fine, and I was able to place 'em where I want 'em.

I then fired one of the recommended .357's for ultra-light revolvers -- Remington Golden Sabers, a "medium-velocity" load. Okay -- I was still putting 'em where I wanted 'em -- but the experience was definitely becoming "hairy." A steady diet of the GS's would be quite a test of my nerves.

I finally went to some relatively full-pressure .357's (in my case, some old yellow-box UMC ammo I happened to have lying around). This was definitely getting into the "holy crap!" category. The recoil was tolerable but considerable, and I was starting to get trigger finger whack. I can imagine a bloody hand after a range session of exclusively these rounds.

This experience has stoked my interest in the new Speer Gold Dot "Short Barrel" magnum load. At a rated 990 FPS for a 135-grain HP slug, it should provide significant oomph over even a 125-grain +P .38 running 150 FPS less, while still providing good control-ability. At least on paper, it would seem to constitute a "sweet spot" between the .38 +P and the Remington Golden Saber...


.

1911Tuner
May 29, 2011, 02:49 PM
Quote:

>>This was definitely getting into the "holy crap!" category.<<

I feel your pain. If you think those Remingtons were rough, you should try a few of the original .357 Magnum loading...those that were offered back when "Magnum" meant something. It was a 158-grain LSWC, and it was a handful in an N-Frame Smith. In my 4-inch Model 13...with the OEM "Magna" grips...it's a downright unpleasant experience.

I wouldn't want to even think about firing it in a J-frame revolver.

It was dropped from the lineup in the mid-70s.

JFrame
May 29, 2011, 02:52 PM
I feel your pain. If you think those Remingtons were rough, you should try a few of the original .357 Magnum loading...those that were offered back when "Magnum" meant something. It was a 158-grain LSWC, and it was a handful in an N-Frame Smith.


Uhm -- no thank you... :uhoh:

I'll pass! :o


.

Ratshooter
May 29, 2011, 04:05 PM
The Remington bullet would likely come apart at 1000 fps impact velocity.

I don't know about that without testing it. Remember one of the great qualities of the dead soft lead bullets used in BP rifles was the abililty of the bullets to hold together. I think the word "cohesive" was what writers like Sam Fadala used to describe how well pure lead bullets stayed together.

The first deer I shot with a 50 cal BP rifle was only 13 yards away. I was reading a book and didn't see him till he was right on top of me. I shot him just slightly quartering away and the bullet went in by the sternum and through the ribs to the off side and stayed under the skin for about 8-9". The impact velocity had to be around 1500-1600fps and the bullet just flattend out and hung together. It still weighed about 170grs from a 175gr starting weight. I still have that bullet too.

In the end I suppose it doesn't matter since the remington bullets aren't available anyway. I do know the speer bullets hold together just fine. I also relube them with Rooster Jacket and have zero problems with leading.

1911Tuner
May 29, 2011, 04:48 PM
Ratshooter...Solid lead bullets do hold together well, even at high impact speeds. Hollowpoints...not so well. In my testing, I did adjust for bullet hardness by bumping up the velocities on the Speer slugs to 1250 fps, fired into ballistic gelatin from a distance of 10 feet...or about the average distance for a defensive shooting involving a private citizen...and the wound channel had lots of lead fragments scattered throughout. Average recovered weight of the bullets was around 95 grains.

MCgunner
May 29, 2011, 04:58 PM
I've chronographed various .357 HOT handloads from various barrel lengths. I like the heavier bullets, 140 for carry, in snubbies because they perform better. The 125 grain stuff seems to accelerate so fast that most of the pressure peak comes with the bullet OUT of the barrel, leads to tremendous muzzle blast and milder recoil, but I was getting only 1102 fps/337 ft lbs from a 125 grain Sierra over 18 grains of 2400 from a 2.25" Ruger SP101. Weigh that against 1332 fps/551 ft lbs for my 140 grain load with the same powder. You might get up to 400 ft lbs out of the 125 grain load using a faster powder, maybe blue dot, but I get 410 ft lbs out of a 3" 9x19 +P 6.4 grains unique/115 grain Hornady JHP/XTP. That's a 14 ounce gun, more compact and pocketable and easier to shoot with less muzzle flash, blast. I don't really care about .357 in anything less than 3", but when I carry a 3" gun, I carry a 140 grain JHP for this reason AND it's very accurate, a Speer bullet.

Regards to whether .38 Special is better, it certainly is easier to shoot and I carry a 17 ounce snubby a lot with +P loads, but I do NOT get over about 275 ft lbs from it using 158+Ps. The .357 has better ballistics, especially with the heavier bullet, if you can shoot it well. Muzzle blast is still pretty fierce. 9x19 seems to be the best answer to ME for a gun this size, but YMMV. It's a far more efficient round, though, in this caliber owing to the pressure limits and the fast powders that work best in its case, and it has less recoil and muzzle flash/bang than the hot magnum loads in short barrels.


125 grain JHP/18.0 grains 2400......1102 fps/337 ft lbs
140 grain JHP/17.0 grains 2400......1332 fps/551 ft lbs
180 grain SWC/13.8 grains AA#9....1306 fps/682 ft lbs

harrygunner
May 29, 2011, 05:27 PM
Good information

Has anyone chronographed Buffalo Bore's 158gr .357 Mag JHC from a 2" snubby? I had to use linear extrapolation since there's little data on 2" guns.

MCgunner
May 29, 2011, 05:39 PM
I can't afford BB. I can buy a lifetime supply of brass for what a hundred rounds of that stuff costs. I handload, therefore I am....:D

Anyway, I would think that for 158 grain stuff, extrapolating might be pretty close. For 125 grain stuff, it's probably not going to be a linear relationship because you are losing too much of the pressure peak in the shorter barrels, which is what I believe is the cause of the 125 grain load's poor performance in my tests. But, for the 158s, I don't think you'd be far off by extrapolation.

Ratshooter
May 29, 2011, 06:17 PM
Ratshooter...Solid lead bullets do hold together well, even at high impact speeds. Hollowpoints...not so well. In my testing, I did adjust for bullet hardness by bumping up the velocities on the Speer slugs to 1250 fps, fired into ballistic gelatin from a distance of 10 feet...or about the average distance for a defensive shooting involving a private citizen...and the wound channel had lots of lead fragments scattered throughout. Average recovered weight of the bullets was around 95 grains.

At 1250fps then yes they may fragment. I haven't shot them that fast. The whole purpose of the soft lead hollow point was to get good expansion from the 38 special loads around 850fps at least thats thats what I got from Ed Lovetts book "the snubby revolver". I do like to push them a little faster as long as they don't lead the bore. Thats where the rooster jacket comes in. Gotta love that stuff.

My load at 930fps is still controlable from my taurus steel framed 85. I did have some hot blue dot loads from the speer #10 that has since been removed for the 158gr jacketed bullets in 357 and shot some of those through a friends 2" sp101 and those suckers were brutal. I pulled the loads when I got home and decided you can pass the point of what needs to be shot in a gun that small. They killed on one end and maimed on the other.

I think I will stick with the 158gr LHP. In the water bottle test I have done I have found no fragments and I haven't stopped any bullets either. Using 2 liter bottles they will go through 3-4 bottles and then exit the side. The exit hole looks like they expand to a large bullet I just don't know how big.

I did try laying the bottles on end and shooting that way. When I fired I was hit with a huge spray of water that soaked me and the gun. The jet of water came straight back and over the top of the gun and hit me on the forehead so hard it felt like someone slapped me. I had a red circle between my eyes the rest of the day. My buddy thought it was friggen' funny. I did not. I guess 6' away wasn't far enough. :eek:

Haycreek
May 29, 2011, 08:03 PM
Unles you just like a lot of muzzel flash, noise and recoil. go with the 38 plus P

bradph
May 29, 2011, 11:12 PM
1911tuner.... I think Buffalo Bore loads a 158 grain LSWCHP at a +p pressure (.38 special) that should hit 1000fps from a 3" barrel.

Sorry if my first post sounds like an advertisement.. I don't work for Buffalo Bore.

I'm new to posting here, but have read dozens of great articles from this awesome site, many thanks.

Brad


edit: sorry, didn't realize Buffalo Bore was already mentioned.... and yep, it is super expensive.

Owen Sparks
May 30, 2011, 01:17 AM
I don't like the excessive muzzle flash these short barrels produce. Most gun fights happen in low light conditions and that bright ball of fire can temporarily destroy your night vision. Ever have someone take your picture with a camera equipped with a flash in dim light? Notice how you can hardly see anything right afterward? What if you were trying to find your front sight somewhere in that big white spot that does not go away until your pupil open back up and your retena readjusts?

1911Tuner
May 30, 2011, 11:29 AM
Yep RatShooter. Remington's bullet seems to be more suited for .38 Special velocities, while Winchester's and Speer's require a bit more in order to open up. Testing indicates that the optimum range is 1000-1050 fps.

Deaf Smith
May 30, 2011, 11:46 AM
Good information

Has anyone chronographed Buffalo Bore's 158gr .357 Mag JHC from a 2" snubby? I had to use linear extrapolation since there's little data on 2" guns.
No but....

I've chronoed the 158gr LSWHP BB ammo (.38 version) from a 2 inch S&W 64 and it does get 1000 fps. And from a Ruger 2 3/4 Speed Six it gets 1100 fps.

Now the 158 gr Gold Dot .357 magnum load BB makes says 1300 from a 3 inch bbl. (and my GP100 has a 3 incher!) One day I'll have to get some of those and chrono them since I do have a chronograph.

Deaf

gvf
May 30, 2011, 01:54 PM
Buffalo Bore is noted for this speed tweaking + particular bullet designs for particular calibers. I use a Colt Detective 38 Spl . Buffalo Bore's got 3 choices to allow the damage of a hollow point and yet only one is HP (38 Spl speeds are on the slow side for HP expansion). I use two, non HP: one is soft lead that's hollow (not HP) and tests show to be wicked in the way it mushrooms on hitting. The other is a hardened wadcutter, like getting hit with a small manhole cover at speeds of about 870 fps from 2" barrel. They both have penetration that's enviable: 14" and 16". All as well as their .357 have low flash as well.

How they tweak speed I don't know but they do.

They are stout when shot but manageable.

PabloJ
May 30, 2011, 02:11 PM
I use Hornady .38 158gr XTPs (Vo=800fps) out of S&W 2" Model 12. I firmly believe that when maker calls one has to check in no matter how well one is prepared and what they carry. Fate can't be altered by type of ammo one uses.

Rexster
May 30, 2011, 04:55 PM
Would you lose enough velocity shooting a .357 with 2" barrel that it would make more sense to just use .38 +P's? I mean if the short barrlelputs the ballistics of the .357 down far enough that a .38 +P is right there with it then I'd think the .38 would be more appropriate as it has less recoil.
Bullet weight for bullet weight, a .357 Magnum never gives up its ballistic edge over .38. Keep in mind that the .38 loses velocity with shorter barrels, too.

The point at which is is not "worth it" to carry magnums is determined by the human factors of tolerance for recoil and muzzle blast. Magnum snubs are wild beasties, but I know that an adversary is getting that sound and fury worse than I am, and will also have to deal with potential hydraulic leakage and other physical symptoms. I am ready for the blast, and flash is mitigated by premium defensive loads that have flash retardant in the powder.

To be clear, if I am going to hunt for bad guys in the dark, on purpose, I will select weapons other than magnum snubbies.

sthomper
May 30, 2011, 04:58 PM
Velocity is overrated. +/- 90-100 fps doesn't mean much in the real world........

does +/- 300 to 400 fps mean much in the real world?? is that roughly the difference between a 38 spl from a 2" barrel and a 357 mag from a 2" barrel???

MCgunner
May 30, 2011, 05:01 PM
Yes, it makes a difference if you can shoot it well. If you can't handle the recoil or flash, well, the .38 never broke. I shoot a medium frame gun very well, pretty well with a Hogue gripped SP101, but I really don't see the .357 as a pocket revolver in light snubbies.

sthomper
May 30, 2011, 05:08 PM
"Yes, it makes a difference if you can shoot it well. If you can't handle the recoil or flash, well, the .38 never broke. I shoot a medium frame gun very well, pretty well with a Hogue gripped SP101, but I really don't see the .357 as a pocket revolver in light snubbies."


well they are out and i guess some are profficient with them. if you distinguish a light snubbie as less that 23 ounces or so. i think that is the weight of most all-steel 357 snubs that i have seen online....if they are true.

what i was mainly trying to find out is is the claim of 1200+ or so fps from a 2" barrel doable with some of the current shelf brands of 357 mag.

1911Tuner
May 30, 2011, 05:11 PM
Quote:

>>does +/- 300 to 400 fps mean much in the real world??<<

In addition to the points that MCgunner made, the answer is...it depends.

Increased velocity serves mainly to flatten trajectory and increase penetration with a given bullet. It's always been my stance that it you need more killing/stopping power...what you need is more bullet rather than more speed.

The .357 Magnum's original niche was as an outdoorsman's revolver...not a duty gun. It was housed in a heavy-framed revolver and was loaded to some truly frightening pressures and velocities. Its intent was for close range defense against large animals if the situation warranted...or for killing medium-sized game animals at moderate distances.

In a K-frame revolver equipped with the standard "Magna" stocks...it borders on uncontrollable.

sthomper
May 30, 2011, 05:12 PM
but I really don't see the .357 as a pocket revolver in light snubbies..........

meaning they dont exist or you just cant see them due to vision problems??

sthomper
May 30, 2011, 06:14 PM
"what i was mainly trying to find out is is the claim of 1200+ or so fps from a 2" barrel doable with some of the current shelf brands of 357 mag."

IS THIS DOABLE???


>>does +/- 300 to 400 fps mean much in the real world??<<

In addition to the points that MCgunner made, the answer is...it depends.

"Increased velocity serves mainly to flatten trajectory and increase penetration with a given bullet."

then it means someting in the real world if 2" 357 snubs exist.

"It's always been my stance that it you need more killing/stopping power...what you need is more bullet rather than more speed. "

that doesn make much sense to me. i would a think a speedy bullet is what one needs.


"The .357 Magnum's original niche was as an outdoorsman's revolver...not a duty gun."

thats swell...but its original niche may have been better suited to begin with as a duty gun. if duty is shooting throuh car doors or sheet rock.


"In a K-frame revolver equipped with the standard "Magna" stocks...it borders on uncontrollable."

well...i see video of people shooting what they claim are 357 snubs...i guess they contiunue to carry them. dont know if a so -called magna shock is different from most shelf brand 357s or not.

sthomper
May 30, 2011, 06:18 PM
do y think a 357 mag is not enough bullet?? if so why??

1911Tuner
May 30, 2011, 06:24 PM
How often does the private citizen have need to shoot through car doors or heavy barricades?

If you're convinced that you need the power of the .357 Magnum for concealed carry, then by all means...carry one. I'm not trying to convince you to do otherwise. Just tryin' to shed some light on a largely misunderstood subject. Too much worry over velocity and energy and "knockdown" power, and not enough over accurate shot placement and fast repeat hits.

As Jeff Cooper responded to the Marshall/Sanow low rating of 65% for .45 hardball.

"Shoot twice."

PabloJ
May 30, 2011, 06:37 PM
Yes. Always shoot twice.

1911Tuner
May 30, 2011, 07:03 PM
I think that the 158-grain .357 bullet is plenty as long as it can reach the vitals. At 850-900 fps, it'll do that easily on a frontal shot, even if the guy is fairly big...as long as it goes where it needs to go. The sniper's triangle is a good target area.

If shot placement is bad, then another 300-400 fps won't increase your odds very much, if at all.

That's why we shoot until the target changes shape or catches fire. More rounds means a greater chance of a vital hit. Faster hits ends the fight sooner. Fast is good. The sooner it's over, the less hurt you get.

I know that there are people who can control heavy recoiling handguns. I used to be able to do pretty well with a 4-inch Model 29 with full-power ammo...and by that, I mean the original 240-grain gas-checked LSWC that gave meaning to .44 magnum.

The problem is that it was on the range. In the real world, we don't always have the option of getting a perfect grip on the gun...or even the option of having a two-hand grip.

In a perfect world, we do...but the world isn't perfect, and in close-range emergencies of the bad breath kind...we often find ourselves fending off an attack from a blunt or edged weapon with one hand, and clawing for the gun with the other...hoping to bring it into play before the guy caves in our skulls or disembowels us.

Situations like this also usually take place under low-light conditions. The flash of a full-house .357 Magnum fired in a 2-inch barrel will blind you as surely as a paparazi's flashbulb in your face. Fighting for your life blind is not the path to survival. We would all do well to consider these things before we settle on a defensive gun/caliber. If we wait until the demon is on us, we may discover too late that it wasn't the best choice.

The Lone Haranguer
May 30, 2011, 07:12 PM
I mean if the short barrlelputs the ballistics of the .357 down far enough that a .38 +P is right there with it ...
It doesn't work that way. The .357 is slowed down by the two-inch barrel compared to a four- or six-inch, but with both from the same length of barrel, as it started out much faster than the .38 to begin with, it exits the barrel much faster as well. (I hope that made sense! :D)

1911Tuner
May 30, 2011, 08:39 PM
Way back in the days before the farmers stood at the bridge on Lexington Green...the British determined that the best slammarms effect was to be had with a simple formula.

"Heavy ball...light charge."

It worked well in 1775 and it'll work just as well today.

sthomper
May 30, 2011, 11:35 PM
How often does the private citizen have need to shoot through car doors or heavy barricades? i dont consider sheet rock a heavy barricade. where do you get that??

"If you're convinced that you need the power of the .357 Magnum for concealed carry,......

"a crazed employee running someone down in a car etc....ive read about it occurring.


you tell me...i dont know. but i didnt necessarily specify private citizen...whatever that means.

i didnt say i was convinced of anything...i was asking if 1200+ or so fps is doable and actually occurring in 2" 357 snub?? can you shed light on that???

sthomper
May 30, 2011, 11:39 PM
I mean if the short barrlelputs the ballistics of the .357 down far enough that a .38 +P is right there with it ...
It doesn't work that way. The .357 is slowed down by the two-inch barrel .....

what do you think ' puts short barrel puts ballistics down to' means?

i have read the claim that a 357 leaving a 2" barrel is nearly at the same speed as a 38spl +p...it seither true or it isnt?? if it leaves the barrel 300 fps or so faster that doesnt sound like near the same speed.

sthomper
May 30, 2011, 11:53 PM
"I mean if the short barrlelputs the ballistics of the .357 down far enough that a .38 +P is right there with it ...

It doesn't work that way."

did that post say anything about the way something worked???

a 2" barrel puts the ballistics....and you get something doesnt work that way????

THplanes
May 31, 2011, 01:53 AM
i didnt say i was convinced of anything...i was asking if 1200+ or so fps is doable and actually occurring in 2" 357 snub?? can you shed light on that???

Look at these pages and compare them:

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/38special.html
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html

Note that he measures barrel length from the breach face for revolvers. A 2" snub plus chamber length will be bit longer than 3". Look at the data for the 3" barrel it will be the closest to a 2" snub. You can also look at the Bond Arms derringer with a 3" barrel. The cylinder gap will cost a little velocity loss. But not enough to drop it under 1200fps.

I have a 340pd, 12 ounce 357 mag, and it chronos over 1200fps with the Federal and Corbon loads. Hand-loading you can get more than this if your hand is up to it. Controllability with these load in such a light gun is not to good. I still haven't decided what round to carry in it.

sthomper
May 31, 2011, 03:35 AM
i am not sure about the truthfulness of your 340 pd. i see some places that say its scandium? and other places that say its aluminum. i have never seen one in the gun store i go to. i dont know if it is a real firearm or not.

i am not concerned about fake ballistics by the inch non measurements.

i am asking about a 2" barrel. not barrel plus anything else making 3". also, if barrel length and velocity isnt necessarily linear that site would do me no good.

its a simple question really..if you cant anwer it with your own truthful experience or say what a taurus 605 with a 2" barrel fires 357 mag at dont answer.

sthomper
May 31, 2011, 03:39 AM
nowhere on the ballisitcs by the inch inch linked site is a common 2" revolver listed...some crap aabout a bond derringer that probably noone carries and is a fake gun.

a barrel is a barrel..a cylinder is a cylinder. any body that calls a cylinder a barrel is a fraud.

the bullet doesnt fire from the back of the cylinder.

sthomper
May 31, 2011, 03:56 AM
why would a website measure barrels in way that the manufactures dont even claim to measure them by and be linked to here??

THplanes
May 31, 2011, 05:29 AM
Even though you called me a liar, I'll try again.

i am not sure about the truthfulness of your 340 pd. i see some places that say its scandium? and other places that say its aluminum. i have never seen one in the gun store i go to. i dont know if it is a real firearm or not..

340pd is made from an alloy that is primarily aluminum. Scandium is a small percentage of the alloy. The cylinder is titanium.

i am not concerned about fake ballistics by the inch non measurements.

what makes you think it's fake.

i am asking about a 2" barrel. not barrel plus anything else making 3". also, if barrel length and velocity isn't necessarily linear that site would do me no good.

Revolvers are traditionally measured by barrel length, not including the chamber. Semi-autos are measured from the breach face and the chamber is included as a part of the barrel length. The site decided to standardize with the semi-auto style measurements. So the site is accurate for a semi-auto. To get a accurate comparison with a revolver, you have to subtract the length of the round from the listed barrel length. If you are unable to understand this, then you can blow off valuable source of information, it's your loss.

its a simple question really..if you cant answer it with your own truthful experience or say what a taurus 605 with a 2" barrel fires 357 mag at dont answer.

I already answered your question. To be more specific for 357 mag 125 gr SJHP in 340pd:

Federal 1222 fps
Corbon 1248 fps
Remington 1241 fps

The Remington velocity is from a very old box of ammo, somewhere around 1975. The others are from recently manufactured ammo.

THplanes
May 31, 2011, 05:40 AM
nowhere on the ballisitcs by the inch inch linked site is a common 2" revolver listed...some crap aabout a bond derringer that probably noone carries and is a fake gun.

a barrel is a barrel..a cylinder is a cylinder. any body that calls a cylinder a barrel is a fraud.

the bullet doesnt fire from the back of the cylinder.

One more time just in case I didn't make it clear. Semi-autos are measured from the back of the chamber. The chamber in a Semi-auto is analogous to the cylinder in a revolver. The site decided to standardize using the semi-auto style of measuring barrel length.

Do you really believe that any gun you haven't seen in the gunshop you go to is fake.

1911Tuner
May 31, 2011, 11:51 AM
Yes. 1200 fps from a 2-inch .357 is doable with 110-125 grain bullets. Easily. You can even make that number with the old .357/158-grain LSWC...but you probably wouldn't care to shoot it in a lightweight 2-inch revolver. It's painful in a 4-inch K-Frame with the OEM Magna stocks. (tm) It's unpleasant in a SP101 with the rubber grips...and that's a fairly heavy revolver for its size. I imagine that it would be awful with a 20-ounce scandium-framed gun.

Sheetrock doesn't require .357 Magnum power to penetrate it. A .22 will go through two sheetrock walls.

Revolver measurements are taken from the face of the barrel...or the forcing cone if you prefer. Autos are taken from the breechface, and include the chamber in the barrel measurement. By that standard, a 2-inch .357 revolver barrel would be about 3.3 inches long. Using revolver measurement standards, a 5-inch 1911 would have a 4.1-inch barrel. Shotgun and rifle barrels are measured to include the chamber.

bestseller92
June 6, 2011, 08:30 PM
Thanks, THPlanes, those are the exact velocity numbers I was looking for....

MCgunner
June 7, 2011, 07:17 AM
I got 1300+ FPS with a 140 grain bullet from a 2.25" SP101 as I recall. Heavies work better out of short barrels. They don't accelerate as fast as the 125s and less and catch more of the pressure peak, at least that's my theory from my chronographing of various handloads from various barrel lengths.

Way back in the days before the farmers stood at the bridge on Lexington Green...the British determined that the best slammarms effect was to be had with a simple formula.

"Heavy ball...light charge."

And, then, Alfred Nobel was born. :rolleyes:

klingy
June 7, 2011, 09:38 AM
I shot the following over my chronograph:

Remington .357 Magnum 125 grain SJHP



From the following guns:

Ruger GP100 4 inch barrel
Ruger SP101 2.25 inch barrel



Here are the results:

.357 / 4"
Average velocity (f.p.s.).....1490
Muzzle energy (ft. lbs.).....616

.357 / 2.25"
Average velocity (f.p.s.).....1332
Muzzle energy (ft. lbs.).....492

Harley Quinn
June 7, 2011, 11:16 AM
Heavier bullets= more recoil...
125 grain out of the 2" (if you have to do it) would be my choice...Below stats not out of a 2":uhoh:


125 gr (8.1 g) Bonded Defense JHP 1,600 ft/s (490 m/s) 710 ft·lbf (960 J)

JerryM
June 7, 2011, 11:47 AM
My own personal chronograph shows that the .357 has slightly over 300 fps more velocity than similar weight .38 Spl loads.

I would not want a light weight .357. anc carry a 642 when I carry a revolver. However, I do find the steel J-frames like my 640 and M60 3" OK for 25 or so rounds at the range.

Regards,
Jerry

Cards81fan
June 7, 2011, 01:41 PM
Heavier bullets= more recoil...

That is not entirely true. Pure measurable recoil is a result of the energy produced by the projectile leaving the gun (momentum, specifically as described in Newton's Third Law). The bullet weight is part of the energy equation, but the velocity is another part.

"Felt" recoil then varies based on the characteristics of the firearm (autoloader vs revolver, alloy vs steel vs polymer, bore axis, etc.), cartridge pressure, grip technique, and a host of other variables.

I can shoot .38 and .357 out of my 3" Rossi steel revolver, and the .357 certainly has more kick than .38. Even with the same or lighter projectile. This seems obvious, but just demonstrates that the equation has more variables to it than the projectile mass.

1911Tuner
June 7, 2011, 02:32 PM
Quote/MCGunner and Cards:

>I got 1300+ FPS with a 140 grain bullet from a 2.25" SP101 as I recall. Heavies work better out of short barrels. They don't accelerate as fast as the 125s and less and catch more of the pressure peak, at least that's my theory from my chronographing of various handloads from various barrel lengths. <

That has a lot of merit, but it's not the peak exactly...since even slow burners in pistol powders usually peak at about a half to 3/4 inch of bullet travel. It's how long the peak is held that makes the difference. Remember that bullet acceleration and the force requirement for a given rate of acceleration is what determines both recoil and velocity.

And:

>>Pure measurable recoil is a result of the energy produced by the projectile leaving the gun (momentum, specifically as described in Newton's Third Law). <<

Let's do a hypothetical gun. ( I love those)

Two revolvers...identical in every way except barrel length. (I know. There's a difference in weight, but we're pretending. Anything is possible in a make-believe world.)

One has a 10-inch barrel and the other is a 2-incher.

Assuming the same bullet, and assuming that pressures are safe...the muzzle velocity is identical in both. Let's say .357 Magnum/158/1200 fps Only the powder type changes in order to produce the same velocity.

Because velocity and bullet mass are the same...momentums will be likewise.

Which gun has the greater force requirement? The one that accelerates its bullet to 1200fps in 10 inches of barrel...or the one that accelerates its bullet to 1200 fps in 2 inches?
In which gun will the recoil be sharper?

So, maybe adjusting the powder burn rate to one better suited to a lighter bullet in a short barrel would be the way to go at this...assuming that one could match it exactly so that the bullet exited just at, or just a millisecond after the peak.

Internal ballistics is a fascinating and multi-faceted study. No?

Cards81fan
June 7, 2011, 03:38 PM
It most certainly is! About the only thing I wished to (and am capable of, frankly) point out with my statements is that there are more variables involved in this than most people realize. It's an "exact science" that, for the most part, is being kicked around by a bunch of unexacting enthusiasts. We can only control so many variables in our experiments.

Heck, even ambient air temperature and pressure would have an affect on bullet velocities, if tried to dissect things to that much detail!

AdamSean
June 7, 2011, 09:29 PM
Yes, the .357 will have a big reduction in velocity from a short barrel. But then again so will the. 38 +P. I stick with the .357 as it is still more powerfull than the .38+P.

GLOOB
June 8, 2011, 01:54 AM
A 40SW semiauto with a 3.5" barrel (same length as a 2" revolver, breechface to muzzle) will give you similar performance with less muzzle blast. Think G27.

Harley Quinn
June 8, 2011, 10:10 AM
AND... It is shootable :D as in, hitting what you are aiming at, plus quicker 2nd and 3rd shots, why it was developed I have a feeling:D

A 40SW semiauto with a 3.5" barrel (same length as a 2" revolver, breechface to muzzle) will give you similar performance with less muzzle blast. Think G27.


This seems obvious, but just demonstrates that the equation has more variables to it than the projectile mass.

True, all things considered...As a rule, the point being, heavier bullet hits harder, and recoil is similar in the one we are discussing...:uhoh: If loaded to similar pressure...I have experienced...

:)

RugerMcMarlin
June 8, 2011, 10:31 AM
Ratshooter, Winchester has the old FBI load, in 38 +P, thats the closest I have found.


I have found .357s from 2-3" to have a "Shock And Awe" value, somewhere between, Flash/Bang stun grenade, and Daisy Cutter. If you're expecting it, and the other guy isn't ,:cool:that sounds like an advantage to me.

JFrame
June 8, 2011, 12:05 PM
Ratshooter, Winchester has the old FBI load, in 38 +P, thats the closest I have found.


I have found .357s from 2-3" to have a "Shock And Awe" value, somewhere between, Flash/Bang stun grenade, and Daisy Cutter. If you're expecting it, and the other guy isn't ,:cool:that sounds like an advantage to me.


That's interesting...Some gun pundit (IIRC, it was Paco Kelly) had the same observation about the .22 mag mini-revolver he packed as the only gun he could carry on an undercover operation. Paco had to let loose a shot at a fleeing felon late at night in a dark alley. by his account, the shot lit up "two city blocks" and sent a shock-wave reverberating through the town. The bad guy promptly collapsed to the pavement with both hands clenched tightly behind the back of his head.

Provided one is conditioned to, and prepared for, the visceral sensations, it could very well provide some nominal tactical benefit.


.

RugerMcMarlin
June 8, 2011, 12:37 PM
110 grain CORBON .357 :cool: or Federal 125 grain SJHP The flashier the better, so its out of a nickle plated Smith!

1911Tuner
June 8, 2011, 12:47 PM
Another advantage of the flash bang .357 is that in the event of a contact wound, it blows a lotta hot, high pressure gas into the wound, multiplying the effect above and beyond that caused by the bullet.

In the dark, fired from point-shoulder height...it'll leave ya as blind as a bat for too long.

RugerMcMarlin
June 8, 2011, 01:46 PM
I don't have that problem. I've been shooting these so long, I close my eyes when I flinch. (That would be the tactical advantage I previously alluded to,)

THplanes
June 8, 2011, 11:46 PM
In the dark, fired from point-shoulder height...it'll leave ya as blind as a bat for too long.

I've shot my 340pd, loaded with Rem 125 gr SJHP, after dark in the creek out back. I found no vision problems at all. Maybe in a completely dark room this would be a problem. But I've found if there is enough light to identify a target I have no problem with flash.

MCgunner
June 9, 2011, 08:02 PM
That's interesting...Some gun pundit (IIRC, it was Paco Kelly) had the same observation about the .22 mag mini-revolver he packed as the only gun he could carry on an undercover operation. Paco had to let loose a shot at a fleeing felon late at night in a dark alley. by his account, the shot lit up "two city blocks" and sent a shock-wave reverberating through the town. The bad guy promptly collapsed to the pavement with both hands clenched tightly behind the back of his head.

From a .22 mag? I own a Black Widow and a 3" .357 and, well, I can tell the difference. LOL! The .22 mag makes a good sized .38 type bang...my judgement on it, anyway. It is quite loud if you're expecting .22 short or something. :rolleyes:

I like the 3" .357s. The 2" just don't have enough umph over a good 9x19+P from a pocket auto to make me want to carry one. And, the .38 ain't broke. But, i've already given this opinion on this thread....I think.

JFrame
June 10, 2011, 02:03 PM
From a .22 mag? I own a Black Widow and a 3" .357 and, well, I can tell the difference. LOL! The .22 mag makes a good sized .38 type bang...my judgement on it, anyway. It is quite loud if you're expecting .22 short or something. :rolleyes:

I like the 3" .357s. The 2" just don't have enough umph over a good 9x19+P from a pocket auto to make me want to carry one. And, the .38 ain't broke. But, i've already given this opinion on this thread....I think.


My sense with the .22 mag is that the sound volume of the round may not be commensurately great, but that the attenuation (or whatever the correct technical term might be) of the sound is incredibly intense and piercing. It is "painful" to the ears, while the .38 special, for instance, produces more of a concussive blast that actually deafens the ears before the sound registers. So this greater attenuation of the .22 mag might have a projecting effect.

I have the idiotic pleasure of having experienced both rounds without hearing protection... :scrutiny:


.

RugerMcMarlin
June 10, 2011, 07:06 PM
At first glance, my answer would be, matched barrel length, to barrel length. The 357mag will always beat the .38 +p or not. Based on increased case capacity.

Bullet Penetration is a function of Inertia. Inertia used to be mass X velocity.

So bullet speed will matter. In the case of snub nose anything, bullet expansion is unreliable specifically because of velocity. With identical bullets the only way to improve expansion is with bullet speed. Because of this any increase in velocity can help.

1911Tuner
June 10, 2011, 08:10 PM
Quote:

>Bullet Penetration is a function of Inertia. Inertia used to be mass X velocity.<

Momentum is Mass X Velocity. Think of inertia as negative momentum.

Newton 1A: An object at rest tends to remain at rest. Inertia.

Newtom 1B: An object in motion tends to remain in motion. Momentum.

RugerMcMarlin
June 10, 2011, 10:11 PM
I hope your happy you forced me to use a search engine.

INERTIA IS THE RESISTANCE OF ANY PHYSICAL OBJECT TO A CHANGE IN ITS STATE OF MOTION OR REST.

See if its in motion it takes an equal opposite force to stop it.

Newton 1A and 1B are two parts of the same law. thus the A and B

Newton 1A, Inertia. Newton 1B still Inertia.

1stmarine
June 10, 2011, 10:23 PM
357 magnum out of a 2" barrel is not very practical. Look for 38 load that is more practical and manageable. This anyone with experience can tell you. But if you go that way do get the .357 revolver vs. the 38spc. Then you can choose whatever you want to shoot.

Remo223
June 10, 2011, 10:36 PM
the question has been answered over and over.

However, I think it is the wrong question. I think the OP is a bit confused. I think the question he MEANT to ask is...

"is a 357 better than a 9mm+P+ in very very short barrels"?

I think the answer to THAT question is NO. In the real world, they are about equal with 9mm+P+ possibly being slightly better but not in a significant measurable amount.

CutMan
June 10, 2011, 10:45 PM
The Speer Gold Dot 135 grain short barrel round.... not that different than a .38special+p, but with better stats. I can control it, so I carry it.

1stmarine
June 10, 2011, 11:00 PM
.357 in a very short barrel is hard to control.
9mm +P+ it has its challenges but some small pistols manage a tad better. never did this in a 2" barrel. It is all about speed and short is against speed so all you are doing is burning money.

Remo223
June 10, 2011, 11:02 PM
short barrels hurt 357mag performance more so than 9mm+P+ performance.

1stmarine
June 10, 2011, 11:22 PM
I am not worry about the performance but about the wrist. It is totally impractical even for the more experienced shooter.

1911Tuner
June 11, 2011, 06:43 AM
*sigh*

Mass X Velocity is Momentum. Always.

Force gets and object moving. Momentum keeps it moving against outside forces that are working to bring it to a halt. (Conservation of Momentum)

Inertia is the quality that causes an object to resist acceleration. Either straight line from a dead standstill...or a change in direction if it's moving.

Thus, the man who is struck by a bullet is fighting its momentum. The Ninja who deflects the bullet, causing it to miss him is fighting its inertial resistance to sideways acceleration.

Inertia is resistance to acceleration. Momentum is resistance to outside forces.

See the difference?

RugerMcMarlin
June 11, 2011, 07:02 AM
Your saying post 88 is wrong, even after I gave you the loose momentum point?

Take the statement in CAPS, and run it thru any search engine. your choice.

Don't confuse the issue with an extraneous force definition, your claim to momentum was an object already moving.

1911Tuner
June 11, 2011, 07:55 AM
Since it's gone a little off track with this momentum/inertia thing...Let's touch on a facet of bullet performance that's not often considered when the discussion turns to velocity.

So much concern is given to a bullet's velocity that few people consider the other side of the equation. Far too much concern, IMO, and there's no such thing as a free lunch. What you gain on one end, you generally lose on the other and vice-versa.

When we consider that a bullet's single most critical requirement s penetrating the target...and penetrating deeply enough to reach the vitals, we have to wonder: "Are we really gaining much of anything by using a lighter bullet at a higher velocity?"

Since the faster a given bullet is moving when it hits resistance, the more rapidly it decelerates...a light bullet at warp speed may not penetrate deeply enough to do what it needs to do. If it's a frangible bullet, it may even fragment and reduce penetration even further. Thus, a bullet of high mass...even at low speed...will penetrate further in a given medium than a low mass bullet at high speed.

Of this, the old timers used to say that "It carries better" when addressing the difference between light/high-speed and heavy/low-speed bullets. Many of them probably never heard of Isaac Newton, but they understood the conservation of momentum.

An increase in velocity serves mainly to flatten trajectory, while an increase in mass serves to retain velocity over a longer time and distance...and in penetrating a resistive target. It's been my observation, and it's always been my contention that if you need more wounding/stopping/killing power...what you need is more bullet rather than more velocity.

It's also been my observation and contention that a gain or loss of 100 fps essentially means nothing in a practical sense, other than decreasing the amount of holdover needed to hit a target that's way out yonder past the breakers.

Since most defensive shootings occur at very close ranges, the loss of 100-125 fps in as .357 magnum revolver due to using a short barrel isn't going to be the deciding factor, and it probably isn't going to be much of a factor at all. What very well may be an important factor is recovery from recoil and hitting your assailant again as quickly as possible...and hitting him in the right place.

Or, as the man said:

"Gunnery! Gunnery! Gunnery! All else is twadle. Hit the target!"

RugerMcMarlin
June 11, 2011, 07:58 AM
See I knew you would look it up. If I wasn't right you wouldn't change the subject again.

1stmarine
June 11, 2011, 09:54 AM
Try following formula with any caliber

Effectiveness of a Caliber/system = G + S + BC + A + F + N + P + TM

G = Grain
S = Speed
BC = Ballistic Coeficient
A= Accuracy Potential
F= Fun factor (how good you feel with that round system)
N=Number of rounds fired with that system every week
P=Placement
TM=Time and money that you are willing to invest in defensive shooting training and practice ideally shooting every week as it is a perishable skill.

When you approach the 100K rounds (lest say 8K rounds/year) that total will tell you how good and potentially deadly you are whatever the pistol and caliber.

LOL!

RugerMcMarlin
June 11, 2011, 10:33 AM
The Data we are concerned with is velocity of bullet. Changing more than one variable at a time, skews the results.

A lighter bullet at higher velocity is a dubious trade off.

An Identical bullet at higher velocity will be more efficient.

If we can limit ourselves to only one, and the original, variable. Velocity.

Barrel lengths same, bullet construction, bullet weight, bullet caliber same. Velocity wins.

Giving up bullet mass is only 1 way to gain velocity, and the least satisfactory of them.

1911Tuner
June 11, 2011, 10:57 AM
I didn't look up anything, Ruger. I didn't have to. I'm not too well versed in Quantum physics...but I've got a solid handle on Newton.

And I changed the subject because the thread was drifting and I wanted to get it back on track with something relevant to the question.

To wit:

What does a hundred feet per second mean at a range of 10 feet?

Not enough to worry about.

We worry too much over velocity as it equates to performance. Factory ammunition can vary as much as 50 fps...and sometimes more...from shot to shot within a given lot of ammunition.

And no...you were wrong. Inertia isn't Mass X Velocity.

RugerMcMarlin
June 11, 2011, 11:50 AM
BlackSky, The best answer to post #1, in the whole thread, is Post #1. IMO It sounds like you understand the problem just fine.

Back on Thread.

AdamSean
June 11, 2011, 10:26 PM
Give Buffalo Bore tactical .357 magnum a look. Out of a 1 7/8 inch barrel a 158gr load clocked 1050 fps. They are also low flash and low recoil. I am going to be ordering some of these.

JFrame
June 12, 2011, 02:47 AM
Give Buffalo Bore tactical .357 magnum a look. Out of a 1 7/8 inch barrel a 158gr load clocked 1050 fps. They are also low flash and low recoil. I am going to be ordering some of these.


Sounds good -- will give them a look-see. :cool:


.

Prosser
June 12, 2011, 05:12 AM
HMMM. Plus P buffalo bore 158s went 1040 fps out of my 360PD.
I settled on Fioochi 148 HP's at 1140 fps. Recoil was the same for both.
Fioochi was a LOT cheaper, and, I like Tim.

Look at beartooth.com for the wound channel calculator. It seems that velocity is REAL important for wound channel, and, expansion should be a plus, not in the process of selection. In other words, worse case, you count on the caliber you pick, with no expansion.

Harley Quinn
June 12, 2011, 11:45 AM
Hard lead is not known for expansion:D Developed the HP with copper jacket for that trick:confused:

Low flash, sure :what: It is a powder moving a piece of lead at over 1000 fps:evil:

JFrame
June 12, 2011, 01:37 PM
HMMM. Plus P buffalo bore 158s went 1040 fps out of my 360PD.
I settled on Fioochi 148 HP's at 1140 fps. Recoil was the same for both.
Fioochi was a LOT cheaper, and, I like Tim.

Look at beartooth.com for the wound channel calculator. It seems that velocity is REAL important for wound channel, and, expansion should be a plus, not in the process of selection. In other words, worse case, you count on the caliber you pick, with no expansion.


Keep those suggestions comin', folks! :)


.

RugerMcMarlin
June 12, 2011, 02:17 PM
"Fiochi is a lot cheaper, and I like Tim" whos Tim? Did he make the bullets or am I gonna have to read all 110 posts to find out?

qcsmitty
June 12, 2011, 03:13 PM
Quote From 1911Tuner: Velocity is overrated. +/- 90-100 fps doesn't mean much in the real world as long as the bullet goes where it needs to go and penetrates far enough to reach what it needs to reach. If it does these things, it'll do. If it doesn't...more speed won't be of much help.

With increased velocity comes increased recoil, making control and accurate followup shots more difficult. Full-power .357 Magnum ammunition in small revolvers makes for a real beast to hang onto in a bad situation. Personally, I wish the ammo makers would offer a .357 round loaded with a 158 grain LSWCHP to an honest 1000 fps from a 3-inch barrel. Ample power for penetration and enough speed to aid expansion that would put it head and shoulders over any .38 +P offering, and much less of a hassle to shoot well.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That pretty much covers it. Well stated.

zxcvbob
June 12, 2011, 03:36 PM
Personally, I wish the ammo makers would offer a .357 round loaded with a 158 grain LSWCHP to an honest 1000 fps from a 3-inch barrel. Ample power for penetration and enough speed to aid expansion that would put it head and shoulders over any .38 +P offering, and much less of a hassle to shoot well.You can load that yourself; Magnus bullets #515 (order from Midsouth) with 6 grains of Universal or 231 or AA#2, or 5.5 of Bullseye. But that opens up that other can or worms ;)

ripp
June 12, 2011, 03:54 PM
Not just in snubbies. :-) Most people's definition of "controlability" is very liberal, and based upon guesses-ignorance. My standard of minimal controlability is reliable repeat hits on the chest, at 15 ft, in .25 second, measured on an electronic shooting timer. Why? Because any cretin can do that with a .22lr autopistol, and he is quite likely to have such a gun, and maybe even have practiced with it a bit, too. Very, very few people can match that minimal standard with full charge .357 ammo, even if they are using the N frame, L frame or Ruger GP1000.

Truly fast repeat hit times are considerably faster, as in .16 second or less, as seen with the 1911 when used by the top IPSC match shooters, or with 9mm's by less serious shottists. Most people take 3x that long to get repeat hits with a 357, especially a k frame, even if it does have a 4"barrel on it. That is why the 357 loads have been continually watered down, with rare exceptions. The full bore load is 160 grs at 1400 fps in a 4" barrel, folks. not 125 grs at 1450 fps. Just try getting .25 second splits with that load, in a 4"gun. You will waste a lot of time and money trying to do so, I guarantee it.

Full charge ammo ruins k-frame 357 guns in short order. That is why Smith started making the L Frame, you know. back in the 70's, HP White labs tested a couple of Smith M19's,and deemed them both unsafe to fire before they made it to 3000 rds of full charge 357 ammo. Now, maybe you think that 3000 rds is a lot of shooting, but I have had a great many days on which I fired over 1000 rds, and so has any top match shooter.

zxcvbob
June 12, 2011, 04:06 PM
Why do you want to shoot doubles (I think they are called "hammers") with a .357? I practice them with a 9mm because that's what it tends to take with a 9 and I have lots more ammo available.

(not a rhetorical question; if there's a reason for it, that's something else I need to practice) When I carry a .357, it's a 4" and usually has 158 grain .38 Special +P's in it, or somewhat-watered-down 148 grain Magnums.

1911Tuner
June 12, 2011, 04:08 PM
I do load it myself, bob. It's just that I'm a little hesitant to carry home-rolled ammo for social situations.

RugerMcMarlin
June 12, 2011, 04:27 PM
Ripp, you need to shoot more stuff than just targets with a 357. You will find repeat hits on target, with a magnum anything are seldom necessary. You can only make something so dead, after that your wasting ammo. Even if it is at an impressive speed.

Shooting matches is impressive, kitchen or book type?

I agree though, shooting full blown magnum rounds, in an attempt to achieve a quarter second split. Does sound incredibly expensive and useless. I would have just guessed that, probably, without actually doing it.

Kleanbore
June 12, 2011, 05:12 PM
Posted by RugerMcMarlin: Ripp, you need to shoot more stuff than just targets with a 357. You will find repeat hits on target, with a magnum anything are seldom necessary.

Most people who carry a revolver with a two inch barrel do so for self defense. The idea that the flash, blast, and recoil of a .357 Magnum somehow translate into markedly superior one shot effectiveness on human targets than that of a .38 Special or 9MM with adequate penetration and the same diameter bullet is a myth, debunked in a lot of places and rather effectively here (http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf).

More penetration is unlikely to help unless one happens to hit the pelvic bone; higher kinetic energy won't help much, either.

So, why are very fast repeat hits necessary? First, a shot through one lung, or two shots through the same lung, is unlikely to stop a determined assailant unless he or she is predisposed to be stopped. Second, if an attacker at close range is moving very fast, very quick shooting is called for, and it is highly likely that not all shots will be well placed. A firearm with excessive recoil will turn out to be a lot less effective than one that can be fired into a torso target five times in less than one second.

So, what was the original raison d'etre for the .357 Magnum? The load started out a a game hunting round, where additional penetration is very helpful. As 1911Tuner stated in Post#48,

The .357 Magnum's original niche was as an outdoorsman's revolver...not a duty gun. It was housed in a heavy-framed revolver and was loaded to some truly frightening pressures and velocities. Its intent was for close range defense against large animals if the situation warranted...or for killing medium-sized game animals at moderate distances.

It was soon adopted by Highway Patrol units, for whom the ability to shoot through automobile bodies was important. That does not make it the best self defense round.

Personally, I load my J-Magnum revolver with .38 Special ammunition. I would not even consider using magnum loads for self defense.

1911Tuner
June 12, 2011, 05:37 PM
There have been more than a few horror stories of the vaunted .357 Magnum's failure to stop a fight. One in particular stands out. If memory serves me, it was an Illinois state trooper who hit an attacker solidly in the torso at 30 feet with all six rounds, and the guy was able to close the distance and kill the trooper with a .22 pistol with a head shot before he collapsed and died.

RugerMcMarlin
June 12, 2011, 05:55 PM
Your right, your right. I was assuming proper bullet placement. I have always wondered why people buy 357s if they dont trust the cartridge, or think its effective. A round originally designed to kill polar bears or grizzlies sounds like it would work ok for defense.I guess the guys that tried it on bears and it didnt work we wont hear from.:)

Back to guns, I agree with Tuner using a hand loaded round for defense is dumb from a legal stand point. Much easier to defend a factory loaded round. An extension of this logic might be to shoot the same round the gun specifies on the barrel. Why carry around the extra weight of a magnum revolver, when the round of your choice is 38?

Unless your talking about a Magnum J Frame. Which I don't get at all. And for the same reasons you guys already mentioned.

Like you pointed out, without bullet placement, whats it matter.

If the illinois trooper story is the same one I'm thinking of. It was the incedent Smith & Wesson used to convince the State Patrol if the Trooper had more rounds than 6, hed still be here. About the time they adopted the 39s and 59s.In 9mm, which no matter how many round you have still require proper bullet placement. My Opinion

ironhead7544
June 12, 2011, 09:22 PM
I think the loss of velocity in the short barrel 357 Magnum comes from the 158 gr lead loads. The original load went 1550 fps from an 8 and 3/4 inch barrel. These were very high pressure loads and were reduced some in a few years. When cheaper chronographs came out it was found the 158 gr lead loads were going about 1400 fps from the 8 incher and 1200 fps from a 4 incher. The 2.5 inch 357 revolvers available then went about 1080 fps with this load.

There werent as many powders available back then. Things have changed and now higher velocities can be done.

If I wanted to carry a little 357 lightweight I would use one of the 110 gr loads, CorBon probably. Will give good velocity with reportedly low flash.

For the guys that want to handload the 158 gr HPGC with a soft lead bullet, Rim Rock Bullets sells the one that Buffalo Bore uses.

Prosser
June 13, 2011, 12:56 AM
Tim Sundles=Buffalobore

My experience:
360PD has a warning to not use any bullet under 124 grains on the barrel, screws up the forcing cone.
I did get 125 grain Corbon to go 1204 fps, and, recoil was the same as BB's 158 grain load, Plus P, and the Fioochi 148's at 1131 fps, IIRC.

I just saw a wonderful Martin Fackler picture that showed how hard cast bullets increase frontal area, as the velocity increases from 700-1500 fps.
At 1500 fps, they look like most HP's at lower velocity, sans copper. From that picture, I would conclude that a couple hundred feet of velocity can
have a huge impact on wound channel. First velocity causes the larger wound channel, second the LFN bullet deforms more the faster it goes, creating
a larger wound channel.

As I sit here musing about it, I really wonder if you can't tailor a hard cast bullet, at high velocity, to both deform/expand, plus create a larger wound channel,
and, limit the overall penetration by lightening the bullet?

I'd probably start at 125 grains, and, cast should go faster out of a 2" then JHP, so maybe 1250 fps? 1350 fps would be ideal, but, I'm not sure I can get
that out of a 1.8" barrel, and, if I can, if I'd want to shoot it much.

Those are my reloading thoughts at the moment. Don't know if they will work...

CutMan
June 13, 2011, 12:16 PM
Speer Gold Dot 135gr. .38special +p Short Barrel Personal Protection - Velocity 860fps, Muzzle Energy 222 ft. lbs.
Speer Gold Dot 135gr. .357magnum Short Barrel Personal Protection - Velocity 990fps, Muzzle Energy 294 ft. lbs.

I can't feel the difference between these two out of my M&P340, and I have been experimenting a lot for the perfect round. I'll go with the ones with the better specs since they cost the same and have no difference in comfort. The test barrel length on all of those specs is two inches.

http://www.speer-ammo.com/ballistics/ammo.aspx

mossberg835
June 15, 2011, 11:48 PM
depends on if you are worried about if it will do the job or pass some kind of test with a chronograph devised by some bean counter type.

RugerMcMarlin
June 16, 2011, 12:07 AM
When you start chasing better expansion, remember soft lead, leads up the barrel faster,
and or strips on the rifling, just shaves the sides of the bullet off , with no spin. Keyhole at 12 feet.

Can get some fudge factor with gas checks.


(heres where I get a Metallurgy lesson)

Harley Quinn
June 17, 2011, 10:57 AM
There have been more than a few horror stories of the vaunted .357 Magnum's failure to stop a fight. One in particular stands out. If memory serves me, it was an Illinois state trooper who hit an attacker solidly in the torso at 30 feet with all six rounds, and the guy was able to close the distance and kill the trooper with a .22 pistol with a head shot before he collapsed and died.

True about 357M, problems in shooting, controling and failure in training:(

The Newhall incident...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newhall_massacre

Above link is just one of many...The 357 M is/was at the heart of the problem...

The 357M for most, is way to much recoil, even in the bigger heavier models:uhoh:

Punching holes in people is important, but accuracy is paramont... Some people are dedicated, in desire to kill LEOs, it seems...

Regards

Seven For Sure
June 17, 2011, 11:15 AM
Keep those suggestions comin', folks! :)


.
Federal 140 gr. Barnes HP's. Perfect for short barreled 357's. The bullet is very long for a 140 due to 100% copper construction. You get a middleweight bullet that's tough yet expands without a ton of blast. I keep these in my 3" 686+ and they are some of the most accurate factory loads I've come across. The box claims 1400 from a 4".

oldfool
June 17, 2011, 07:55 PM
"I have always wondered why people buy 357s if they don't trust the cartridge"

for use in lever action carbines, of course :)

(color me on the side of those who think extra boost is best done with extra barrel length, and absent that, do the very best you can to put 'em where they count most, which happens best with whatever recoil you can run fast double taps with, cause if you get a tad excited, the 1st one fired just might not)

Yahtzee4U
June 18, 2011, 07:17 AM
Interesting thread. I have to agree first off that shot placement and being able to hit your target with multiple shot's is the most important aspect of all, but I am a little surprised that folks are ragging on the 357 mag a bit.
I think we all forget that whether your using a handgun or a rifle, the principle is the same. Velocity is extremely important, that's why a 75-90 Gr. .243 will quite easily take down a deer or black bear. Many of us have seen what a small, light bullet does to the insides of a large animal, it looks like a blender has gone through there, and it does that because of a VIOLENT bullet expansion and fragmentation.
I KNOW what a high velocity round does to the insides of a 200 pound deer (comparable to a man?) whether the bullet is perfectly mushroomed or fragmented, so I guess my point is that I simply use that as a reference. I want a hollow point that travels as fast as whatever gun I am using can shoot it. I use an sp101 2.25 inch, and I find that Corbon 110 Gr. bullets (125 is fine too) are extremely easy to shoot and control, but I do realize that the SP is a heavier carry gun. The corbon 110 Gr. chrono's out of my SP101 at an avg. of 1345fps.
The .357 was originally developed to compete with the 38 super as a round that could penetrate the early vests and cars, it wasn't developed to kill bears.
Sorry to go off on a tangent! Hit your target with something!

Harley Quinn
June 18, 2011, 10:56 AM
True about reason it was developed etc...

But bottom line is, not for most shooters who don't train with it quite a bit:what:
Body reflex is against you big time, and control goes out the window:eek:

Most who buy it to carry are not trying to shoot as explained in quote, for LEO:)

The .357 Magnum was collaboratively developed over a period in the early to mid-1930s by a group of individuals in a direct response to Colt's .38 Super Automatic. At the time, the .38 Super was the only American pistol cartridge capable of defeating automobile cover and the early ballistic vests that were just beginning to emerge in the post-World War I "Gangster Era."[6] Tests at the time revealed that those vests defeated any handgun cartridge traveling at less than about 1000 ft/s. Colt's .38 Super Automatic just edged over that velocity and was able to penetrate car doors and vests that bootleggers and gangsters were employing as cover.[11]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.357_Magnum

Desert Eagle designed their pistol MK 1, around it and the 44 mag...

Very shootable in that pistol, problem is carrying it around:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMI_Desert_Eagle

RugerMcMarlin
June 18, 2011, 12:55 PM
I dont think ANYBODY:scrutiny: said it was developed FOR shooting bears. Someplace there are photos of Col Douglas Wesson, with a grizzly or polar bear and an African Lion, all shot with Nframes 357s. I have seen them, it was part of the advertising for the guns.

My mistake I said it. Damn.

Kleanbore
June 18, 2011, 01:43 PM
The .357 was originally developed to compete with the 38 super as a round that could penetrate the early vests and cars, it wasn't developed to kill bears.

Although it has been repeated in number of places in recent years and particular since the advent of the Internet, I have to take the story that the .357 Magnum was originally invented primarily for law enforcement purposes with a grain of salt. Most of what was written and published at the time does not indicate that at all.

First, the round was first developed by Doug Wesson and Elmer Keith, and both Keith and Wesson were interested primarily in game hunting.

Second, early advertisements that I've seen were aimed primarily at outdoorsmen, and they touted the performance of the cartridge on various large game animals.

Third, until some time after WWII Smith and Wesson produced only very highly finished "Registered Magnum" revolvers in presentation cases; these were not the kind of thing that Highway Patrol organizations could afford.

The usefulness of the round for (some) law enforcement purposes was evident, however. Some Highway Patrol organizations had been using the .38-44 Heavy Duty, and as things developed, a pretty high proportion of the post WWII production of the .357 Magnum reportedly did go to law enforcement agencies, and a new model with a more utilitarian finish was later introduced.

Later on, when S&W was interested in increasing market share in the law enforcement area, they worked with Bill Jordan to come up with the Combat Magnum on the K frame. As Harley Quinn points out, even those are pretty difficult to control in rapid fire. Personally, I have no use for anything smaller in a .357 Magnum chambering.

JFrame
June 18, 2011, 02:16 PM
Federal 140 gr. Barnes HP's. Perfect for short barreled 357's. The bullet is very long for a 140 due to 100% copper construction. You get a middleweight bullet that's tough yet expands without a ton of blast. I keep these in my 3" 686+ and they are some of the most accurate factory loads I've come across. The box claims 1400 from a 4".


Thank you, Seven! :)


.

Yahtzee4U
June 18, 2011, 08:04 PM
Poorly worded on my part, I did not mean for my comment about why the 357 was developed to sound snippy. The othe reason I wanted to mention it was because IMHO I don't think folks back then were as obsessed as we are in today's world with things like hand cannons and whats better apples or oranges exc exc, if you were goin into the wild and might encounter a bear, you grabbed your Winchester Lever action, end of story, but yes it does make sense that Elmer Keith as an avid hunter would be interested in the 357's hunting ability.
Back to the recoil of a 357, it is a tough round to shoot quickly, and I will gladly admit that 38 specials are much more fun, but for those of you who are looking for the full power of a 357 without as much recoil, do try out the corbon 110 gr. noticeably less kick.

Harley Quinn
June 19, 2011, 12:24 PM
I believe it was for the bigger market of LEO, hunting back up was there also...45 acp was side arm of service for some time and made headway into the LEOs also...

Many LEO carried the 44 spl in revolver, guess we could argue this with opinion on and on...Bottom line the 2" in 357 Mag is not user friendly:D

The 357 Mag was touted to shoot through automobiles and the 44 Mag was an engine block killer:evil:

By the way the 44 spl in shorties has made a come back:D

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=596408

oldfool
June 19, 2011, 04:49 PM
"First, the round was first developed by Doug Wesson and Elmer Keith, and both Keith and Wesson were interested primarily in game hunting."

but as I heard it told, Keith never thought all that much of it
44 was more his flavor
Bill Jordan probably is the one "name" who did the most for it's popularity..
and in a DA k-frame.. not a optimal hunting handgun, nor optimal for the 357 cartridge
(but just pert-near-perfect for versatility, balance, and ergonomics)

me, I am just glad somebody did, because 38/357 is my "thing" in centerfires, long or short :)

catnphx
June 19, 2011, 09:38 PM
Speer Gold Dot 135gr. .38special +p Short Barrel Personal Protection - Velocity 860fps, Muzzle Energy 222 ft. lbs.
Speer Gold Dot 135gr. .357magnum Short Barrel Personal Protection - Velocity 990fps, Muzzle Energy 294 ft. lbs.

I can't feel the difference between these two out of my M&P340, and I have been experimenting a lot for the perfect round. I'll go with the ones with the better specs since they cost the same and have no difference in comfort. The test barrel length on all of those specs is two inches.

http://www.speer-ammo.com/ballistics/ammo.aspx
I've been a happy user of GD 38spl 135gr +P Short Barrel rounds for my 2" .357 ( a S&W 640-1) but I've been seriously considering their .357 short barrel rounds too. If the recoil and flash is not much more than the 38 +P then why not go with the better velocity.

I guess I will have to try them myself in a side-by-side test to make sure the .357 round isn't much worse.

RugerMcMarlin
June 19, 2011, 11:03 PM
I think if ya dig into it Elmer Keith, and Phil? Sharpe designed the 357 magnum cartridge. In like 35 or 36.

CutMan
June 19, 2011, 11:13 PM
I've been a happy user of GD 38spl 135gr +P Short Barrel rounds for my 2" .357 ( a S&W 640-1) but I've been seriously considering their .357 short barrel rounds too. If the recoil and flash is not much more than the 38 +P then why not go with the better velocity.

I guess I will have to try them myself in a side-by-side test to make sure the .357 round isn't much worse.
They are just a little snappier, but I think you will find them VERY similar in flash, recoil, etc.....(and my 13oz. wheelgun really shows you the difference) However, the rounds are really hard to find in stock at the moment. I'm wishing I hadn't shot a box the week before last, if they are going to become so scarce or sought-after. But, you gotta practice. My first shot from the M&P was a full-tilt-boogie Hornady XTP .357. That was ridiculous. I'll just keep those on the shelf for now.

Yahtzee4U
June 20, 2011, 02:04 AM
Has anyone tried the 38 special +p 110 gr. dpx that corbon has had out for a while? I don't mind the the full .357 load too much out of the SP, but I have heard good things about the .38 dpx they have. The barnes bullet is supposedly excellent, and the velocities from every source I have seen (published and youtube style) have been over 1000fps from short barrels. If anyone has experience firing please let me know.

catnphx
June 20, 2011, 07:49 PM
They are just a little snappier, but I think you will find them VERY similar in flash, recoil, etc.....(and my 13oz. wheelgun really shows you the difference) However, the rounds are really hard to find in stock at the moment. I'm wishing I hadn't shot a box the week before last, if they are going to become so scarce or sought-after. But, you gotta practice. My first shot from the M&P was a full-tilt-boogie Hornady XTP .357. That was ridiculous. I'll just keep those on the shelf for now.
I just bought 3 boxes of it at Cheaper Than Dirt for $79 delivered ... expensive but if I like it I won't be firing off a bunch of it. As long as the flash and recoil aren't excessive and I can get off some quick shots in succession then I'll be happy. If not then I'm back to my trusty GD 38spl +P (again, which I'm very happy with but I'm always willing to try something with greater power, assuming I can handle such power). Thanks

CutMan
June 29, 2011, 08:25 PM
catnphx, I kinda want to know what you experience. The flash seems to be the same, just a tad more 'bite', but not really more unmanageable. After one box, it became my carry round. :D

catnphx
June 29, 2011, 10:02 PM
catnphx, I kinda want to know what you experience. The flash seems to be the same, just a tad more 'bite', but not really more unmanageable. After one box, it became my carry round. :D
Well, I would have been at the range already but it's so damn hot in Phoenix right now. It's 116 degrees on Saturday so I'm not sure I'll get a chance this weekend either. Soon though and I'll post my experience on this thread.

1stmarine
June 29, 2011, 10:46 PM
It is not practical. It is a wrist bender and hard to manage revolver. I would go with the .357 revolver though but shoot 38. Then you always have the options to run some super blasters.

Thompsoncustom
June 30, 2011, 12:14 AM
I wonder how this would fell out of a two inch?
http://www.swampfoxgunworks.com/swampfox/product.php?productid=17712

zxcvbob
June 30, 2011, 09:52 AM
They should be able to get to 1900 fps with a 5" barrel and keep it within CIP specs (considerably higher than SAAMI) but that's not 1000 ft·lbs of energy. It's still impressive.

1stmarine
June 30, 2011, 10:03 PM
I use .357SIG out of glock full size and get 1525fps with 124gr that is 640ft-lb. This x16 rounds that is devastating.
A 2" revolver is nice but impractical with the .357 magnum loads.
A .357 bullet is all about speed and with a short barrel it totally defeats the original purpose.

catnphx
July 1, 2011, 01:05 AM
I use .357SIG out of glock full size and get 1525fps with 124gr that is 640ft-lb. This x16 rounds that is devastating.
A 2" revolver is nice but impractical with the .357 magnum loads.
A .357 bullet is all about speed and with a short barrel it totally defeats the original purpose.
I would normally agree (which is why I shoot the GD 135gr 38spl 135gr +P Short Barrel) but if GD has created a bullet that is not a full load .357 but gets greater velocity out of a 2" barrel than the 38spl +P I'm currently using ... well, it's worth a look.

From what I hear it's between a full load .357 and a 38spl +P and if the recoil isn't bad and I can fire off shots nearly as fast and accurate then it will be my new carry load in the 2" .357. Gotta keep an open mind ... bullet technology has vastly improved and I'm willing to try things out.

1stmarine
July 1, 2011, 05:29 PM
I agree. Give it a try and see how it feels. If it works and feels good then that is your round. Measure the speed in the chrono, sometimes you get way less than advertised and sometimes more.
In any case I would pay a bit more and go with the .357 revolver vs a .38 because then you have the option.
My point .357 mag, 357 SIG, 9mm Grech +P++ is all about speed and normally that means longer barrel / full size pistol.
but I have no experience with that ammo.

I do know .357 magnum in short pistol is hard on the wrist from experience. ... and I am a big guy.

catnphx
July 1, 2011, 07:26 PM
I do know .357 magnum in short pistol is hard on the wrist from experience. ... and I am a big guy.

Absolutely ... shooting 158gr .357 High Velocity loads in my 2" barrel is downright painful and you become a one shot wonder because you can't get second or third shots off very quickly. This is exactly why I went with the 38spl +P loads but I'm hoping to get a little more punch out of the short barrel GD 135gr .357 load without the pain. Quick follow-ups and accuracy is what I'm looking for ... I've got that with the 38spl +P and would love to have that in these lower .357 loads.

1stmarine
July 1, 2011, 08:56 PM
It looks like you have a plan. It would be nice to know how it goes. I am kind of a glock guy but always loved a well made 357 revolver.
The venerable 357 mag. is one the most versatile rounds ever devised.
I wish a large ported glock on that round would be feasible. For me it would be like milk and chocolate.
I am happy with the 357SIG though. The secret service choice for a reason.

CutMan
October 30, 2011, 01:56 PM
I went to the range (haven't had that kind of time recently) last weekend and tested out ten rounds of the 125gr. Speer Short Barrel .357 versus five rounds of the .38special Speer short barrel. I don't have a chrono, and the range was crazy crowded, but the .357 variant does kick quite a bit more while remaining just as controllable.

They say it has more velocity and energy, and I believe them now. (see, I get real scientific with my tests.....) My buddy that was with me was impressed with my group at 7 yards, semi-rapid fire. He did even better than me on his first try with the little cannon.

I'm not saying that 2"barreled .357's are perfect, there are only a few rounds that make them usable. Plus, there ain't nothing wrong with a .38+p! They all fit. Having the option is nice, and I find ONE ROUND to be usable in .357 for defense. 158 grain Hornady XTP will work great too, if you're Mr. Universe, which I am not. But, at least you have that option.

Oh, and I have been playing around with the idea of round 5 being a full-tilt-boogie .357 round. I don't know if that's a good idea or not....

cut

voicomp
November 29, 2011, 11:38 PM
Point to ponder... I was shooting last w/e with a friend. His is a big guy, firearms savvy (as in former MP), was wearing hearing protection and was standing about 5' to my side (therefore his head was 2' behind the muzzle). The .38 158 gr plinking loads and the 110 gr .38 + P from a snubby were a matter of indifference to him. He thought quite differently (relocated a few feet and commented) when I pulled the trigger on the same snubby with a 125 gr loaded near (but not at) the high end of .357 recs. FWIW, all were made w/ Titegroup (which is fast burning).

So... if someone was a threat, wasn't hearing protected and was in front of the muzzle instead of beside me, at personal protection ranges, I would have to guess the difference in muzzle blast alone might change some important parts of the attitude equation... but I am well aware another persons attitude isn't a final determinant.

jfh
November 30, 2011, 08:49 AM
...more information about 2" barrel loads.

A few years ago a few of us reloaders worked on building loads that would replicate the GD Short Barrel loads--replicate both feel of the factory load and the ballistics as well. At that time, the biggest interest was in 38+P performance for use in the aluminum or scandium lightweights; however, we tested several 357 loads as well. These were fired by at least three different individuals with their respective chronographs--here in MN, out in PA, and over in WA.

FWIW, at that time the GDSB 135-gr. 38+P loads routinely ran about 860 to 890 fps during summer temperatures. The GDSB 357 SB load ran about 970 fps. For penetration performance, see the Brassfetcher gelatin tests.

I also ran a few other factory rounds in 357--but only through my 640 or 60 (3") and up barrels. I haven't pored through my database recently, but out of 2" barrels, 357 mag performance did not typically crack 1150 fps.

It's easy to build reloads to replicate certain factory rounds--or to invent a new one. A really desirable 357 load, for example, would be a 158-gr. LSWC-HP running about 900-915 fps from a 2" barrel. The currently-available swaged bullets (Speer, Hornady) tend to strip out if they run over 1000 fps from a 4" barrel--or about 900-plus from a 2" barrel. That load's recoil was also about what I could handle for ten shots (two cylinders, back-to-back) out of the M&P340 I carry--and that only after my hand was well-conditioned.

The 357 magnum round, in its original incarnation from the Registered Magnum, probably is a round that should not be used for everyday carry. Some of us would carry / shoot it in full-size revolvers, but the majority of us are probably not tough enough.

Jim H.

Prosser
November 30, 2011, 10:13 AM
360 PD using Corbon out of production 125 grain Hp's: 1204 fps
158 grain buffalobore .38 Plus P: 1040 fps
My favorite: 148 grain Fioochi: 1140 fps.

Deaf:

I bought some of the heavy .357 stuff from buffalobore. Loaded 5 rounds. Shot one. Gave the stuff to JRH for testing. Recoil made my .500 Linebaugh feel like a pussy cat. It was moving between 45-55ft-sec, speed wise, into my hand, with around 40 ft-lbs of energy, IIRC. It was the speed and snap of the light snubby that killed me.

REC
November 30, 2011, 05:53 PM
I've always felt the drawbacks to .357 in snubby (particularly J-frames) far outweighed any advantages.

zxcvbob
November 30, 2011, 06:08 PM
Here's a load for ya; I haven't tried it in a snubbie, but it's a fun one to shoot in a 4" revolver and quite controllable:

148 grain DEWC, 7.0 grains of either WSF or Herco, 1.35" overall length, light-to-medium roll crimp. You can use either .357 brass or .38 Special brass (they won't chamber in a .38), but it looks kind of silly with the wadcutter bullet sticking that far out of a .38 Special. Don't try seating it any deeper or the pressure will skyrocket. And don't do that HBWC-loaded-backwards thing for the same reason.

Deaf Smith
December 1, 2011, 09:27 PM
Prosser,

Sorry about that!

I once owned a S&W 340PD, .357, and I fired magnums out of it.

Felt like someone got a ping-pong paddle and slapped my hand every time I fired it!

Sold it cause I could see a 642 was just as good as the 340 with .38s!

Deaf

If you enjoyed reading about ".357 Performance out of a 2" barrel" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!