Ballistics of .38/.357 & Reconsideration of .45 Colt

labnoti said:

The Lucky Gunner ballistics tests show a couple of notable things. First, they do show how .38 Special +P is frequently challenged to provide both good expansion and sufficient penetration to meet the standard being tested. This is due to the low pressure limit put on that cartridge. Factory .357 does not have any issues with that protocol. It has the same pressure as 9mm and higher powder and bullet capacity in the case. If anything, it can over-penetrate in protocols where that is even a concern and as long as the bullet construction is good, it will expand reliably. .357 Magnum can both expand and penetrate more than sufficiently to exceed the demands of that protocol, but it often does so with excess recoil. Good wisdom chooses a 357 gun with more than the shortest barrel and starts with adequate 38 Special +P ammo (some people have mentioned specific loads already). If you want to step up to hotter ammo from there, shoot "100%" on qualifications with the .38+P first.

Lucky Gunner did not test .45 Long Colt, but the ballistics of standard pressure ammo is very similar to .45 ACP (that was originally the very intention of .45 ACP, to duplicate the ballistics of black powder 45 LC with a smokeless powder). What we notice about .45 is that when it expands well, it often penetrates sufficiently (per that test's criteria) but not deeply. The bullets that penetrated beyond 18" are mostly the ones that did not expand. There is no question 45 performs outstanding on that test, but its lack of deeper penetration with expanding bullets makes it a poor choice for large game or animal defense. At standard pressures with expanding bullets, .357 Magnum is a better penetrator. It's not because the expanded diameter is smaller, it's often not. It mostly has to do with the higher pressure that 357 allows. Now if we go above the very low standard pressure of .45, and use a "Ruger Only" .45 LC load, it can certainly be made to penetrate better than .357 Magnum. The heavier bullets carry momentum to a longer range and they're just going to go deeper, as would .44 Magnum provided heavy-for-caliber bullets with high sectional density.

I know the big bore guys will decry the performance of 357 for big cattle and bug bears. I won't argue with them. If you really have those kind of problems to solve, knock yourself out. The only inherent disadvantage of .44 or .45 in a revolver is the wider cartridge requires either lower capacity (5-shot Model 69 L frame) or a higher bore axis (6 shot Model 29 or 25/625 N frame). Eight 357's fit into the cylinder of an N frame, 7 in an L frame, and 6 fit into a K frame. The taller frames for the larger cylinders and higher bore axis result in more torque under recoil for a given load. The smaller frames have less of this, but lower capacity. If you really need 44 Magnum, it's the only way to go, but if you're shooting 44 Special or .45 ACP, I'm not sure the tradeoff for the tall frame or lower capacity is worth it.

Your bias against S&W is irrational. The locks don't have to mean that much to you if you simply choose to not let them bother you. There is no evidence that Rugers can handle anything more than a S&W unless you're comparing radically different models like a Model 25 vs a Super Redhawk. Smith has the 460 for that. I have more than one of each (S&W and Ruger) and there is really no cause for prejudice. S&W has long offered DA features that Ruger is only starting to with their Super GP100. Ruger offers single actions that I don't think S&W ever has. If you really need a first and only handgun for a while, it's not wise to choose from irrational bias or to make a choice in extremes from what most people find work well for them. You've admitted to not knowing much about revolvers, but you're trying to out-think everyone who knows a lot about them. If you convince yourself that you've gained enough understanding to go against all their advice, you will probably regret it.

Click to expand...

sequins said:

I think considering the lock is perfectly rational. After all it's there on the gun, ugly as can be and undesirable at that. It would be irrational not to consider the features if anything... after all isn't that the most rational of factors? I care most about size, weight, durability, and... features.

That said Ruger has plenty of bad history of management and copies too. The LCP is just as bad a rip of the KELTEC P3AT as that Glock clone of Smith's. Let's not forget Ban 'em Bill Ruger either for advocating for AWB and magazine restrictions. Also Ruger QC has slipped very badly in recent years. Still good service but the quality stinks.

In the end I prefer the durability and features of Ruger over Smith. I like Stainless not blues. I hate the lock. I shim my triggers and suddenly they're just as good as S&W. For a modern revolver buyer who is interested in performance rather than nostalgia of blue & walnut I think Ruger makes the better gun.

And back to the matter at hand: When you say "do all revolver" does that include hunting deer? If so I guess you do want a 44/45, but if not imo you would be best served by 357 in a 4.2" GP100 which you can IWB/OWB carry and also enjoy immensely at the range.

Click to expand...

mcb said:

It depends on what you want/use.

If you want to push 45 Colt to 44 Mag pressures and beyond then you want a Ruger. The Redhawk has a bigger, heavier, and stronger frame and has a larger diameter cylinder to support the big bore chamberings.

That said a Ruger double action trigger is never going to be a smooth or as light as can be achieved with a S&W N-frame design.

Look at USPSA where you have competitive revolver shooter putting thousands if not 10,000+ rounds in a single season through their revolvers. Yes they are not firing 1000+ ft-lbs rounds but they are putting huge volumes of lighter loads (9mm, 38 Short Colt loaded hot, 40S&W, 45ACP) through their revolvers while shooting fast double action. These revolvers last many seasons before needing to be re-time or other wear related repairs. You can count the number of Rugers that have shown up at the USPSA Revolver National Match on one hand, for the past four years combined.

Both have their uses, only the end user can determine which will meet his demands.

Click to expand...

sequins said:

I think considering the lock is perfectly rational. After all it's there on the gun, ugly as can be and undesirable at that. It would be irrational not to consider the features if anything... after all isn't that the most rational of factors? I care most about size, weight, durability, and... features.

That said Ruger has plenty of bad history of management and copies too. The LCP is just as bad a rip of the KELTEC P3AT as that Glock clone of Smith's. Let's not forget Ban 'em Bill Ruger either for advocating for AWB and magazine restrictions. Also Ruger QC has slipped very badly in recent years. Still good service but the quality stinks.

In the end I prefer the durability and features of Ruger over Smith. I like Stainless not blues. I hate the lock. I shim my triggers and suddenly they're just as good as S&W. For a modern revolver buyer who is interested in performance rather than nostalgia of blue & walnut I think Ruger makes the better gun.

And back to the matter at hand: When you say "do all revolver" does that include hunting deer? If so I guess you do want a 44/45, but if not imo you would be best served by 357 in a 4.2" GP100 which you can IWB/OWB carry and also enjoy immensely at the range.

Click to expand...

mcb said:

Sorry, USPSA is United State Practical Pistol Association. It is one of the reasonably popular Practical Pistol Sports where you shoot semi-realistic stages that simulate combat/self-defense with a handgun. The are timed events and the time directly effects your score so speed and accuracy and your ability to reload quickly is required. Its not "real world" training but a sport that spun out of it. It's a lot of fun and if you get serious about it consumes a lot of time, money and ammunition. At my peak I was shooting my body weight in 40S&W bullet each summer, a lot of that through a S&W 610 N-frame revolver.

Click to expand...

labnoti said:

The Ruger only loads are simply a result of a wider cylinder with thicker chamber walls on the Redhawk and the Super Redhawk. S&W will handle "Ruger only" loads also but not in their lighter, thinner models. The X frame 460 will handle "Ruger only" 45 Colt, 454 Casull and 460 Magnum. If you choose a bigger revolver, you can shoot bigger loads. But so what? I'm pretty sure you have no frame of reference for how well you can control those guns with those loads. You may get a kick in the pants touching off a handful of them, but what's convincing you that you won't be done after that? If you had enough money to buy them all and make up your own mind, why ask for the advice of people on the internet? It seems more likely that you'd rather not buy several $800 revolvers, and that makes it unlikely that you'd shoot more than a box or two of Ruger Only or Super Magnums. Because you admitted to having no revolver skills, wouldn't it be more sensible and more rational to shoot cartridges that are more practical to skill development? Standard pressure 45 Colt is fine. 45ACP is fine. Most people realize they can accomplish the same thing with 38 Special or even 9mm. What's the point of starting with what amounts to 454 Casull? If you're really serious about carrying a revolver, wouldn't it make sense to train with professional instructors in revolver skills? If you show up to their class ready to start from square one with a monster revolver and Ruger Only loads, do you really think that will impress them the best way? Buford Boone used to describe people like that as if they were driving their Daddy's Corvette but stalling at the traffic light cause they really don't know how to work a clutch.

It's obvious you're concerned that your revolver is not "uncool." You're convinced that S&W's are uncool because of the lock and .38/357 is uncool because it's wimpy. Your reasoning is irrational and absurd but even so, there are numerous options that would be good choices that don't even require you to betray your unreasonable convictions. You can get a Ruger GP-100 in .44 Special or 10mm. I recommend the 10mm version because it holds 6 instead of 5 and the ammo is widely available at reasonable prices, especially if you use .40 S&W for most of your practice, and it uses wonderful thick moonclips that are much better than speedloaders. You can get a Match Champion version, but I like the regular one better. With the 3" barrel, it could even replace the .38 snubby you wrote about for concealed carry.

Click to expand...

mcb said:

Sorry again, The S&W N-frame is by far and away an overwhelming first choice and other than the odd one or two Ruger Redhawks (8-shot 357 Mag) it's all N-frames . The S&W 929 (8-shot 9mm) is now a majority of the revolver that show up. The S&W 627/327/R8 (8-shot 357 Mag) is a fading second place. I don't think a 6-shot revolver has shown up the last two years. Even before the rule change that allowed the 7&8 shooters to play in 2014, the sport was dominated by S&W 625's and S&W 610 (both 6-shot S&W N-frames).

Click to expand...

MidRoad said:

IMO if you don't live in big brown bear territory get a 4" 357 for now and shoot as much as you can. Especially if you don't reload. 38's have almost no recoil and are soooooo much cheaper than factory 45 colt. More shooting will develope your skills faster and make big boomers much more controllable. If you're going to hunt with a pistol you need to be able to put all the rounds in a pie plate at your given range from feild positions. If you can't do that , than you gotta take it close ,work your way out and practice,practice ,practice. And the only way to do that is to shoot alot. Most factory 45 colt is nearly a dollar a round. You can 38's for 50 cents or less per round.

Again the 45 colt may be a better all around round. But the 357 is very sufficient and is going to let you get alot more range time which is key, especially if it's your first handgun.

Click to expand...