I recently acquired a Kimber K6s snub nose (2 inch) revolver chambered in 357 Magnum. I had the opportunity this weekend to fire a couple of different defensive loads from it into a block of fabric covered (4 layers cotton t-shirt) ballistic gel. I was trying to determine if firing 357 Magnum loads would provide a significant ballistic advantage over 38 Special +P. The two loads fired were Federal 38 Special +P HST 130 grain and Winchester PDX1 357 Magnum 125 grain.
In the all steel revolver, the PDX1 357 was manageable but definitely stout. The +P 38s felt almost like a 22 in comparison. I shot the 357s ok but grouped the 38s much better.
In gel, expansion for both rounds was nearly identical as was penetration. (38 +P - 13.5 inches, 357 Mag - 13.75 inches).
My question is this - With nearly identical expansion and penetration, why would I choose the harder recoiling larger blast 357 over the easier to control 38 for defensive carry?
I'm not necessarily advocating one round over the other, just genuinely curious.
38 +P HST on Left -- 357 PDX1 on Right
In the all steel revolver, the PDX1 357 was manageable but definitely stout. The +P 38s felt almost like a 22 in comparison. I shot the 357s ok but grouped the 38s much better.
In gel, expansion for both rounds was nearly identical as was penetration. (38 +P - 13.5 inches, 357 Mag - 13.75 inches).
My question is this - With nearly identical expansion and penetration, why would I choose the harder recoiling larger blast 357 over the easier to control 38 for defensive carry?
I'm not necessarily advocating one round over the other, just genuinely curious.
38 +P HST on Left -- 357 PDX1 on Right