When is a barrel too short for a .357 magnum?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I asked myself this question some years ago. The answer I came to was this:

A 3" barrel is my own personal minimum for .357 mag.

Whilst that may be too simplistic for some, I feel that based on the information I could find, even 3" is a compromise and returns quickly diminish as the barrel length decreases from there.

I agree 100% on the 3". Its about as easy to conceal as a 2 or 2.5" and does give slightly better velocity. Since I'm a 3" freak and have about a dozen, I have done a lot of testing with SD rounds. While not as scientific as luckygunner, etc. I have come to basically the same conclusions. The ammo available today for the short barrel revolver performs mostly as advertised.
I see no reason to use full bore .357 rounds for SD. The +P .38 does just as good in most cases and with a whole lot less recoil which would make follow up shots much quicker and more accurate. While barrel length does play a part in the velocity and performance, the bullet weight and type of powder is just as important. I spent several months testing the most popular short barrel loads and also loaded a lot of different bullets and powders just for my own satisfaction. Using water jugs and soaked newspaper I found that there is a critical balance in SD ammo. You sacrifice penetration for expansion or expansion for penetration. It is almost impossible to improve on the factory loadings for self defense. You can get plenty of velocity out of a 2.5" or 3" barrel to make many different bullets perform for self defense and even a bear if needed.
 
To barrow a line from my favorite movie, "A Man For All Seasons":

WOLSEY: "I don't like plodding, Thomas, don't make me plod longer than I have to- Well?"

So let me plod along a little further, when would you use True Blue (or powders of its ilk, i.e., fast burners) in a .357 load?

I wouldn't. Unless I wanted for some reason an almost, but not quite full powered load.

In 44mag I load quite alot of almost, but not quite full power loads but use Unique for that purpose as shooting only full bore 44mag takes it out of me. In 357 out of my 686 which I shoot mostly I can handle hot 357's all day. If I need less, I'll usually just go down to 38's.
 
So let me plod along a little further, when would you use True Blue (or powders of its ilk, i.e., fast burners) in a .357 load?
I wouldn't. Unless I wanted for some reason an almost, but not quite full powered load.

I go along with gotboostvr here, jski - "I wouldn't. Unless I wanted for some reason an almost, but not quite full powered load."
I suspect part of the problem we're having is due to the rather vague descriptions of "fast burning" or "slow burning" powders we are using. You yourself wrote, "True Blue (or powders of its ilk, i.e., fast burners)." Yet according to the burn rate charts I'm looking at, True Blue is almost (but not quite) as slow as 2400. And 2400 is my favorite "slow burning" handgun powder. Notice the emphasis on "handgun" - 2400 is way "fast" compared to most rifle powders.
Furthermore, also according to the charts, True Blue is not as "fast" as Unique - my favorite "medium" burning handgun powder. And it's a long ways from being as "fast" as Bullseye, or even TITEGROUP - two of my favorite "fast" burning handgun powders.
Therefore, like gotboostvr, I wouldn't use True Blue for 357 loads. If I want full power 357 loads, I use either 2400 or 296. If I want medium 357 loads, I use Unique. And if I wanted (which I never have) powder-puff 357 loads, I would use either Bullseye or TITEGROUP. For me personally, buying a can of True Blue for 357 loads would be like trying to fill a niche that doesn't exist.:)
 
Yet according to the burn rate charts I'm looking at, True Blue is almost (but not quite) as slow as 2400. And 2400 is my favorite "slow burning" handgun powder. Notice the emphasis on "handgun" - 2400 is way "fast" compared to most rifle powders.
Furthermore, also according to the charts, True Blue is not as "fast" as Unique - my favorite "medium" burning handgun powder. And it's a long ways from being as "fast" as Bullseye, or even TITEGROUP - two of my favorite "fast" burning handgun powders.

I like 2400 and have plenty, but my trifecta is 4227, Unique and Bullseye.
 
I go along with gotboostvr here, jski - "I wouldn't. Unless I wanted for some reason an almost, but not quite full powered load."
I suspect part of the problem we're having is due to the rather vague descriptions of "fast burning" or "slow burning" powders we are using. You yourself wrote, "True Blue (or powders of its ilk, i.e., fast burners)." Yet according to the burn rate charts I'm looking at, True Blue is almost (but not quite) as slow as 2400. And 2400 is my favorite "slow burning" handgun powder. Notice the emphasis on "handgun" - 2400 is way "fast" compared to most rifle powders.
Furthermore, also according to the charts, True Blue is not as "fast" as Unique - my favorite "medium" burning handgun powder. And it's a long ways from being as "fast" as Bullseye, or even TITEGROUP - two of my favorite "fast" burning handgun powders.
Therefore, like gotboostvr, I wouldn't use True Blue for 357 loads. If I want full power 357 loads, I use either 2400 or 296. If I want medium 357 loads, I use Unique. And if I wanted (which I never have) powder-puff 357 loads, I would use either Bullseye or TITEGROUP. For me personally, buying a can of True Blue for 357 loads would be like trying to fill a niche that doesn't exist.:)
Question: If I want "full power 357 loads" shouldn't I go with Hodgdon's H110? "Whatever is fastest in a longer barrel will be faster in a shorter barrel." Wouldn't that lead me to H110, which appears to have been the powder developed by Winchester for the .30 Carbine round at the start of WWII.
 
Question: If I want "full power 357 loads" shouldn't I go with Hodgdon's H110? "Whatever is fastest in a longer barrel will be faster in a shorter barrel." Wouldn't that lead me to H110, which appears to have been the powder developed by Winchester for the .30 Carbine round at the start of WWII.

Correct, H110 will give you high velocity fire belching full bore mangel-em's.

I also highly recommend 2400, or my favorite IMR 4227. 4227 won't give the absolute highest velocity, but will get close and gives superb accuracy in my guns as well as being a very safe powder. It's almost too voluminous to over charge.
 
Question: If I want "full power 357 loads" shouldn't I go with Hodgdon's H110? "Whatever is fastest in a longer barrel will be faster in a shorter barrel." Wouldn't that lead me to H110, which appears to have been the powder developed by Winchester for the .30 Carbine round at the start of WWII.
Yes, and I think, at least I've heard and read that H110 is the same powder as WW296.
Like gotboostvr, I too highly recommend 2400 for full power loads in a 357 Magnum, or a 44 Magnum for that matter. I've never tried IMR4427, but gotboostvr makes it sound good - it might be worth a try.:)
 
I've tried 4227, it was my first powder and
.357 mag was my first cartridge. I never got it up to compressed levels, but I also never liked it that much. It did seem quite accurate at mid levels though (as far as I could tell). But at mid levels and below it left unburnt kernels and was pretty sooty. I think 15.5gr under a 158gr LSWC was the highest I got. I also didn't like how it metered, or the smell when shooting.

Now I stick to 2400. But everyone has their preferences.
 
While I have owned both a 3" 66 [sold :( ] and a 3" 65 [stolen] I rarely shot .357 out of either. I personally think 4" is short enough.
 
I personally think 4" is short enough.
Yeah, me too. In fact, when it comes most any revolver that I'm not going to try to carry concealed, I prefer a 6" barrel. Although, I do have an old Model 63 4", as well as an old Model 15 4" that are both real sweet.
 
I've tried 4227, it was my first powder and
.357 mag was my first cartridge. I never got it up to compressed levels, but I also never liked it that much. It did seem quite accurate at mid levels though (as far as I could tell). But at mid levels and below it left unburnt kernels and was pretty sooty. I think 15.5gr under a 158gr LSWC was the highest I got. I also didn't like how it metered, or the smell when shooting.

Now I stick to 2400. But everyone has their preferences.

4227 seems to do better the harder you push it. It "works" when reduced but without a heavy crimp and high pressure it's real dirty.

I don't have a sense of smell really, but yeah it's got a distinct uh, aroma.
 
I will not use a .357 magnum with less than a 4 inch barrel. I was issued a 3 inch S&W model 13 when I first started in law enforcement. It was a great carry gun, but muzzle blast was worse than a 4 inch and you loose to much of the velocity that makes the .357 magnum so effective, in my experience. I want at least a 4 inch barrel on any revolver that I use. Snubbies have their place, but only when you cannot conceal anything larger.

Jim
 
Another approach would be to ask what the minimum GRIP size is for shooting 357. For me, a thick, rubber Pachmayr pistol grip makes a Model 60 a .357 revolver. But my 649 uses a much smaller DeSantis Clip Grip, and it is a 38 Special gun. I've fired 357 out of it and suspect 357 would work fine for it in a self defense situation, but the bigger rubber grip makes a huge difference in control.

Ballistically, the results I've read about indicate a 357 fired from a 2" barrel will expand more reliably and still penetrate well. Better than the same in 38 Special. Does it matter? Probably not. Might provide a slight edge. I think a realistic self-defense scenario for where and how I live would include using my weapon as a belly gun. If nothing else, the 357 ammo might burn the BG to death. Or burn his clothes and leave him naked...

Just kidding.
 
bsms, grips (and fitment) and frame materials (steel vs alloy) are huge considerations certainly!

I know for me the smallest grips I can shoot are factory magnas, preferably with a T-grip.
I find they're thicker across the back than many boot grip options which help asorb and spread out the recoil.

An all steel pistol helps considerably too. Shooting my snub nosed M19 is a walk in the park compared to a thin gripped airweight.
 
I will not use a .357 magnum with less than a 4 inch barrel. I was issued a 3 inch S&W model 13 when I first started in law enforcement. It was a great carry gun, but muzzle blast was worse than a 4 inch and you loose to much of the velocity that makes the .357 magnum so effective, in my experience. I want at least a 4 inch barrel on any revolver that I use. Snubbies have their place, but only when you cannot conceal anything larger.

Jim
This data is from Buffalo Bore's website. It seems to clearly show the 3" barrel is the sweet spot.
1,258 fps -- S&W model 66-4, 2.5-inch
1,351 fps -- S&W model 65-5, 3-inch
1,356 fps -- S&W Mt. Gun, 4-inch
1,501 fps -- Ruger GP 100, 6-inch
1,840 fps -- Marlin 1894, 18-inch
 
This data is from Buffalo Bore's website. It seems to clearly show the 3" barrel is the sweet spot.

No it doesn't. Those rounds were fired in different guns, and different guns (barrels) produce different velocities that might not reflect barrel length speeds except in those specific barrels.

The best way is to conduct all tests from the same barrel, and cut if off as you test different barrel lengths. This is how ballistics by the inch does it, and their data does not show a sweet spot at 3".

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html
 
No it doesn't. Those rounds were fired in different guns, and different guns (barrels) produce different velocities that might not reflect barrel length speeds except in those specific barrels.

The best way is to conduct all tests from the same barrel, and cut if off as you test different barrel lengths. This is how ballistics by the inch does it, and their data does not show a sweet spot at 3".

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

BBTI also measures barrel length from breech face to muzzle, not forcing cone to muzzle. So subtract about an inch and some change to get a "revolver" barrel length
They also do not account for velocity lost due to cylinder gap. So it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.
 
BBTI also measures barrel length from breech face to muzzle, not forcing cone to muzzle. So subtract about an inch and some change to get a "revolver" barrel length
They also do not account for velocity lost due to cylinder gap. So it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.
Cyclinder gap can play a good role in velocity loss. Hence how some folks get better velocities out of a 4" than a 6" barrel on the rare occasion. Only true way is to lop inches of the same barrel and compare the results,need a constant control to test against.
 
After all that's been written here, I'm not quite sure there's any conclusion. But this from Buffalo Bore is an interesting take on:
VELOCITY VERSUS BARREL LENGTH

VELOCITY VERSUS BARREL LENGTH

Barrel length is not a stand-alone determiner of velocities and therefore energies. Factors such as barrel/cylinder gap, (in revolvers) chamber dimensions, chamber throats, (in revolvers) barrel throats, rifling depth and dimensions, rifling style or type, barrel material, bullet material and powder burn rate, etc., all have an impact on velocity achieved.

The above factors may far supersede the effects that barrel length alone has on velocity developed when firing any given load from any given firearm. Barrel length can only be meaningful in determining velocities if all else is always equal and the truth is “all else” is seldom, if ever equal.

As a few real world examples; I have two Marlin rifles chambered in 35 Remington. One has an 18 inch barrel and the other has a 22 inch barrel and yes the 18 inch barrel gives higher velocities with every type of ammo I’ve tested. I have two Marlin rifles chambered in 45 Colt. One has a 20 inch barrel and the other has a 24 inch barrel…………the 20 incher shoots faster with every type of ammo tested. Colt used to make the famed Python model, chambered in 357 Remington Magnum, but every Python I ever tested, produced substantially slower velocities than most other makes and models of revolvers, with like barrel lengths! Why? Colt made the python with a choked barrel to enhance accuracy. What I mean by choked is that the bore of the barrel was tapered, starting at the rifled end of the forcing cone/throat and was .001 inch smaller at the muzzle. Yes this typically enhanced accuracy, but caused the Python to generate roughly 100 to 150 fps less velocity, with a 6 inch barrel, than most other makes of revolvers, if all (or most) else was equal……. This “Python” situation is a perfect example of how barrel internals can determine velocity to a greater degree than barrel length.

Often, customers want to know “what velocity” they will get with one of our loads out of their 24 inch wiz bang (insert any brand of rifle or handgun). I am not comfortable with giving meaningless answers to satisfy a customer, based on assumptions, as I truly desire to be helpful to our customers. Hence, this short article to explain the dynamics of how unknown barrel internals affect velocity generated from all barrels. This may also be a good time to read my article entitled “HOW WILL THIS AMMO FEED AND FUNCTION IN MY GUN”.

In short, the only way to really know what velocity a given load will develop in a given firearm is to fire that load, from that firearm, through a chronograph that is properly working and properly set-up…….Oh yes, I have seen lot of improperly set-up chronographs, which results in folks getting misleading numbers.

Far too often, we humans are using generalizations in dealing with firearms. If we want exacting results, in any endeavor, we have to use exacting means. It takes time, knowledge and money to do things correctly in any pursuit. Exacting firearms usage is no different. If you want to know what velocities your firearm is generating with any given ammo badly enough, you’ll end up going to the expense of investing in a quality chronograph. I have three Oehler chronographs. I bought my first one in 1985. I’m certain the various Oehler models are not the only good chronograph on the market, but my results with Oehler have been very good, so I’ve never seen a reason to change. Hopefully this short article can be of some usefulness to our customers. Good shooting and God bless.
 
Every revolver is a law unto itself but there are generalizations that can be made. It doesn't at all alter the slow vs fast powder debate.
 
As far as grip sizes/styles go, I don't notice much. I actually prefer a more streamlined grip for carry over a large chunk of rubber.

However, the caveat of that is that I only carry all steel, full size guns if I am packing .357. I could not find a grip comfortable enough that didn't over shadow the designed use of a 642, and that's just shooting .38 +p. No reason for me carry a fist full of rubber if it's on a air weight pocket revolver and makes print like a brick. I put boot grips on my lcrs as well. However I really only tolerate shooting the steel frames versions over the aluminum .38.

I've just made friends with the fact that if I'm carrying a cartridge that is designed to perform better out of a longer barrel, I should just carry a longer barrel gun with a heavier weight. I could shoot rip-snort 125grs through my Blackhawk all day with it's simple slab grips. It just rolls in my grip like a SAA. 50 rounds of +p .38 out of a 642 and I'm ready to call it a day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top