110gr 357
- Thread starter CCantu357
- Start date
- Status
gwnorth
Member
If you are going to load .357's for SD, why would you want a lighter bullet anyway? I'd be looking at 145gr and up JHP's for SD loads in .357.
And yes, I would stay away from them in a K-frame. The problems with the K-frame forcing cone damage are most likely to happen if firing light weight (125gr or less) .357 loads - light weight (and hence shorter) bullet, fast powders are the thing to steer clear of in a k-frame.
And yes, I would stay away from them in a K-frame. The problems with the K-frame forcing cone damage are most likely to happen if firing light weight (125gr or less) .357 loads - light weight (and hence shorter) bullet, fast powders are the thing to steer clear of in a k-frame.
MachIVshooter
Member
110's are about worthless for .357, IMO. Yeah, they can be pushed fast and develop impressive energy (I've pushed them at over 1,700 FPS from a 4" barrel), but they just about explode on impact, which makes them a lowsy defensive or hunting bullet. Even the 125's are a bit light, IMO. Fine for .38+P velocities, but for .357, you're better off with 158's.
Actually, large charges of slower powders behind light bullets are what does the most damage to top straps and forcing cones.
Actually, large charges of slower powders behind light bullets are what does the most damage to top straps and forcing cones.
the .38 spl 110gr +P+ Treasury Load was developed for the K-frame to avoid the stigma of carrying Magnums at that time...while still having magnum class stopping power. they are very hard on the frames of the light guns, but are very good on light targets (like people)...they needed to go to a ligter bullet to get up to magnum speeds
the 125gr Magnum loading is much easier on your gun and my personal favorite is the Speer 140gr JHP.
i've carried all these loading in duty guns over the years
the 125gr Magnum loading is much easier on your gun and my personal favorite is the Speer 140gr JHP.
i've carried all these loading in duty guns over the years
MCgunner
Member
Ditto. I prefer 140 or heavier, carry a 140 Speer JHP. The 158s penetrate a bit much, but they sure will stop a fight. If I want less recoil, nothing wrong with a 158 +P HP load in .38 special. Benefit, easier on the eyes and ears, especially in a dark room.
Than how does a 110 grain .30 caliber carbine bullet work fired from a GI carbine at 1950 fps or a 71 grain bullet at 3200 fps from an AR15? I highly doubt a 110 grain .357 at a mere 1500 to 1700 fps would just "explode" on impact without effect.
MCgunner
Member
All depends on the construction of the bullet, but I doubt it, too.
Because a .30 Carbine has more sectional density with a 110 grain than a 110 grain .357, and probably more sectional density than a 125 grain .357 too. A 70+ grain .223 has much more sectional density than either of those, and more speed as well.
MachIVshooter
Member
I never said without effect. Obviously, they're gonna cause a wound, and a pretty nasty one at that. But whether or not that wound is deep enough to reach vitals is another matter altogether.
My testing in ballistic clay at the aforementioned 1,700 FPS was with 110 gr. Gold Dots. It blew the front of the 6x6x12" block to smitherines, but not one piece of the slug made it to 7". Results were similar to some loads I tested with 90 grainers in 9x19mm guns, running 1,640 FPS.
By comparison, a 102 gr. Golden Sabre fired from my P3AT completely penetrated the block end to end, and stopped in the denim on the back side. 158 gr. XTP .357 loads @ 1,350 and 180 gr. Golden Sabre 10mm loads @ 1,400 fully penetrated the block, all the denim, and stopped in the phone books behind it.
As NG VI pointed out to you, the construction and sectional density of a .308" 110 gr. FMJ or SP for the .30 carbine is quite different from a 110 gr. .357" JHP, with it's thin jacket and massive cavity.
Feel free to question what I'm telling you, and by all means, carry that load if you want to. Doesn't change the fact that the 110's don't perform well at .357 velocities, and accelerate wear on the guns.
Just as soon as I posted I realized that I have never seen a jhp or sjhp .30 carbine load and the 110 grain .357's are just that so you are correct. I carry 125 grain in .38+p for ccw and tend to shoot at least 125grain if not more in .357. The 110's are interesting. I have seen 95 grainers out their to.
MachIVshooter
Member
Depends on shot placement. In the peanut, probably not. COM on somebody with some "insulation"? I'm betting so.
A 110 that'd hold together is a different story, but the copper jacketed lead hollow points we're dealing with don't.
Velocity/energy aren't everything. My .17 Rem. pushes a 20 grain bullet at 4,245 FPS for 800 FPE. Doesn't mean it'd be a good choice for defense.
Oh, it expanded plenty.
Core and jacket were together when recovered, separated when I was digging the clay out while washing.
Last edited:
Buck Snort
Member
If i was pack'n 110gr. bullets in a .357 mag. I'd DEFINITELY be concerned about penetration!!
MCgunner
Member
May not be everything, but shooting pigs and deer has convinced me that the .357 magnum's energy does matter. The last pig I shot was with a 3" .357 revolver with my 140 grain JHP carry load, head shot. The ballistic pressure wave blew one of his eyeballs out of its socket. That was pretty impressive. I've seen tissue damage in deer 3" in circumference around the actual path of the bullet, this with a 165 grain SWC. I've not shot a pig with a .380, but have with .38s in the trap, head shots and body just to check its ability. It works. But, I never blew and eyeball out of its socket like that. That was pretty amazing.
Another rifle analogy, .257 Roberts, 100 grain .25 caliber bullet at 3150 fps and about 2200 ft lbs energy. This one is quite deadly on deer/hog. I would pick it over every handgun caliber extant for self defense, 'cept I can't fit it in my pocket. The only time a deer, in the couple dozen I've shot with it, ever went a step is when a 117 grain Hornady Interlock failed to expand in the chest cavity. The bullet zipped through the lungs without expansion or much energy dump. Still, I recovered the deer about 75 yards from where he was shot.
That 17 remington, I wouldn't wanna get hit with that. At 800 ft lbs, it's on the weak side, sure, and there's not much bullet there, designed for expansion in woodchucks and prairie dogs. I bet the wound would be nasty.
I am certain that I will betray my own ignorance here, but I will ask the question I've asked countless times (without receiving a conclusive answer): I don't understand how a factory-loaded 110 grain .357 at a nominal velocity of 1295 fps from a 4 inch barrel can be anywhere as near as hard on a revolver as a 125 grain .357 at a nominal velocity of 1450 fps from a 4 inch barrel. I also don't see how it can be harder on a revolver than a 115 grain 9mm at a similar velocity from a 4 inch barrel and I have never heard about them being particularly hard on the various 9mm revolvers that have been offered over the years. Also, regarding length, the 9mm is certainly even shorter. A 110 grain .357 at 1500 fps and up, yes. Most factory loads at under 1300 fps, I have a hard time seeing them as being particularly troublesome. I'll admit, I prefer the 158s myself but that's another issue. I'd certainly like to understand the mechanics of this.
110 are great
My agency used to issue 110 grain JHP load. We used REMINGTON and FEDERAL.
The 110 grain load is a very useful one and my personal first choice for self defense. Its big advantage is that it will not rip up the S&W K-frame guns the way the 125 grain loads did.
The 110 grain has the kick of a heavy .38 Special load with about 85% of the stopping power of the 125 grain jhp. The main difference is in the velocity. The 125 grain loads go from 1,400 to 1,500 fps in a 4 inch barrel, while the 110 grain loads only hit about 1,300 fps.
We used them for about 10 years and found they worked better than the previous .38 +P loads.
The 125 grain loads are loaded to a higher pressure and in fact, did crack the forcing cone of a model 13 when we were sent a load of ammo that was meant for BORDER PATROL. I used it in my model 681 and much preferred the milder kicking and easier to control 110 grain loads. They are still my first choice for a self defense revolver.
When the 110 grains loads first came out in the late 1960's and early 1970's, they were loaded hotter than they are now. They have since been tamed back quit a bit.
I have read that this was due to ignition problems in extreme weather conditions and when I fire off some of my old SPEER Lawman 110 grain ammo in a .357 magnum, you can really see, feel and hear the difference.
The 110 grain jhp act pretty much like the 9m.m.+P+ loads with the same velocity and effect.
Jim
My agency used to issue 110 grain JHP load. We used REMINGTON and FEDERAL.
The 110 grain load is a very useful one and my personal first choice for self defense. Its big advantage is that it will not rip up the S&W K-frame guns the way the 125 grain loads did.
The 110 grain has the kick of a heavy .38 Special load with about 85% of the stopping power of the 125 grain jhp. The main difference is in the velocity. The 125 grain loads go from 1,400 to 1,500 fps in a 4 inch barrel, while the 110 grain loads only hit about 1,300 fps.
We used them for about 10 years and found they worked better than the previous .38 +P loads.
The 125 grain loads are loaded to a higher pressure and in fact, did crack the forcing cone of a model 13 when we were sent a load of ammo that was meant for BORDER PATROL. I used it in my model 681 and much preferred the milder kicking and easier to control 110 grain loads. They are still my first choice for a self defense revolver.
When the 110 grains loads first came out in the late 1960's and early 1970's, they were loaded hotter than they are now. They have since been tamed back quit a bit.
I have read that this was due to ignition problems in extreme weather conditions and when I fire off some of my old SPEER Lawman 110 grain ammo in a .357 magnum, you can really see, feel and hear the difference.
The 110 grain jhp act pretty much like the 9m.m.+P+ loads with the same velocity and effect.
Jim
gwnorth
Member
There is a good write up about it on GunBlast's web site
http://www.gunblast.com/Butch_MagnumLoads.htm
The most pertenant sections is this:
The bottom line is that the reports of forcing cone problems in both S&W k-frame and even some Ruger Six series pistols all seem to be associated with shooting light weight bullets. Shoot them if you want, but I'll keep avoiding them in mine (although I do use 125gr semi-jacketed HP sometimes in my 6" GP100, but otherwise it's all 145gr and up in my .357 revolvers).
gwnorth - thank you for that. I have read that explanation before and it makes a lot of sense but still leaves a couple of questions in my mind. First, as golden points out, there is a considerable difference in pressure and velocity between the full-power 125s and the lesser-powered 110s. This should, at least to some extent, lessen the effect mentioned in the article. With 1500+ fps 110s, no question the flame cutting could be severe. With 1300 fps, I think less so. Also, why have we not heard about the same phenomenon in 9mm revolvers shooting +P and +P+ 9mm loadings? The problem of a short cartridge in a long cylinder is even more extreme in this case and the pressures are at least equal or more (38,500 psi for +P). Again, I also prefer the heavier loadings in .357 but certainly see the value of the 110s, especially in smaller, lighter personal defense weapons. As a case in point, back when Corbon loaded a 115 grain .38 Special +P+ (prior to going to their 110 grain +P), someone at Corbon told me that those loads produced on average 27,000 psi (certainly too hot for J-frame .38s at the time, IMO). Their performance was on par with 110 grain .357s. Now, assuming that 110 grain factory .357s at 1295 fps are producing somewhat similar pressures, that is a far cry from 35,000 psi of full-power .357s or even standard pressure 9mm. I could be all wet on this but I still can't wrap my brain around why they would be anywhere near as hard on a gun as the full-power 125s.
gwnorth
Member
This is pure conjecture on my part, but given how relatively few 9mm revolvers are around relative to .357 weapons, maybe it just hasn't made the web's radar as any kind of systematic issue with 9mm?
Also, it seems to me that many 9mm revolvers have been built on .357 platforms (thinking of Ruger's Six series weapons in 9mm, and the SP101 9mm), which were in turn already beefed up over previous generations of revolvers to handle a lifetime of full load .357 shooting. So these weapons may effectively already be overbuilt for the rounds being shot in them?
And even in the infamous k-frame cracked forcing cones, it is an issue of likelihood. Many a k-frame digested more then a few 125gr loads without reported issues. The use of those loads clearly increases the chance of a problem, but it does not seem to guarantee one.
I'd wager that it would take a lot of light weight loads in a GP100, or a 686 or even a model 28, to produce a problem. But just seems prudent to not go looking for trouble, when there are plenty of arguable better and more effective loads available anyway. Especially in .357 magnum - from either a SD or a hunting perspective, I just do not see the point of light weight bullets in the caliber.
Also, it seems to me that many 9mm revolvers have been built on .357 platforms (thinking of Ruger's Six series weapons in 9mm, and the SP101 9mm), which were in turn already beefed up over previous generations of revolvers to handle a lifetime of full load .357 shooting. So these weapons may effectively already be overbuilt for the rounds being shot in them?
And even in the infamous k-frame cracked forcing cones, it is an issue of likelihood. Many a k-frame digested more then a few 125gr loads without reported issues. The use of those loads clearly increases the chance of a problem, but it does not seem to guarantee one.
I'd wager that it would take a lot of light weight loads in a GP100, or a 686 or even a model 28, to produce a problem. But just seems prudent to not go looking for trouble, when there are plenty of arguable better and more effective loads available anyway. Especially in .357 magnum - from either a SD or a hunting perspective, I just do not see the point of light weight bullets in the caliber.
The Border Patrol used the 110 gr .357 for several years and had excellent results with it. The load beat up M-19s pretty fast if they were used a lot, but didn't bother the N-Frame guns.
There's a story about a BP officer who shot a BG. The 110 gr JHP went through the heavy leather belt the BG was wearing and into his guts. The BG went right down.
The officer complained that the bullet hadn't expanded (not too suprising since it had been used as a leather punch), but couldn't really complain about the effect in the BG.
There's a story about a BP officer who shot a BG. The 110 gr JHP went through the heavy leather belt the BG was wearing and into his guts. The BG went right down.
The officer complained that the bullet hadn't expanded (not too suprising since it had been used as a leather punch), but couldn't really complain about the effect in the BG.
You've been listening to strange broadcasts from aliens in Alpha Centauri, then.
158gr. in the .357 is how it was designed; it's the lighter ones that penetrate more and cause damage to the gun.
My advice is to make a note of the sources of that info and then ignore whatever they say in the future. The clearly don't understand the K-frame and the .357.
If you want a lighter round, put .38 special rounds in it. They work well, recoil less, and are common and cheap. I mostly carry my K, L, and N frame .357's with stout .38 special loads.
- Status
