.357 mag delivers a powerful demonstration

[Old School]

A few years back a few friends and I were entertaining ourselves by shooting my glock 23 into a column of cardboard slices. It started out as a makeshift backdrop so we could have some target practice in one of my company warehouses. I did not measure it, but I remember the stack of cardboard being about 6 to 7 foot thick.

After the first shot, we fished through the cardboard slices to see if we had enough depth to avoid any overpenetration. We found that the .40 cal hollow point defence rounds were coming to a stop about halfway to 2/3 through the stack.

We were using the old black talon and hydroshocks which were both popular at the time. The hollow point cavities were filling with cardboard and the rounds were not expanding. Deformation ranges from slight to nearly none.

As we were enjoying the fun, a guy in one of the neighboring warehouses stopped by to see what was up. After watching for a bit, he walked out to his truck and brought back blackhawk s/a revolver in .357 mag. After my employees were done picking on him about how his gun looked like something from old west movie, he stepped up and fired his blackhawk into the target.

His shot was noticeably louder than ours and was followed by a loud metalic ring as if someone had struck a bell. A little startled by the bell sound. We did not fire another shot and decided to have a look at the penetration of the .357.

We were startled to find that the mangum had gone through all of the cardboard slices and into the 55 gallon drum located directly behind them. At the time, the gun mags couldn't say enough about how impressive the .40 s&w ballistics were. So we were shocked to see how much more powerful the .357 was. We were in awe of the power of that six shooter.

 

[Jenrick]

Nice One of the things I've always enjoyed is showing folks what a .357 mag does to a watermelon or cantaloupe (any hard skinned fruit). A .357 just has some pop to it that most other pistol cartridges lack

-Jenrick

 

[Mainsail]

What? You mean new isn't always better?

 

[cslinger]

.357 Magnum never was and still is no joke. Most versatile cartridge in terms of cost, performance, platforms etc. imo. The .38 special angle makes this even better.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Did he shoot at the same target on the cardboard pile where the 40s already struck?

 

[mes228]

.357

Every big game animal on earth has been taken with a .357 Magnum. Including grizzily,elephant and water buffalo. I looked this up quite some time ago as I did not believe it when someone told me. I also know two people that have killed large black bear with a .357 One was with a snub nose about, a 2 1/2" barrel Smith. People greatly underestimate a .357 magnum, especially in the old loadings before they reduced them to hot .38 specials.

 

[Hook686]

The terminal effects forum folks (jello punchers) came to the conclusion that the service rounds (9mm, .40 & .45acp) were essentially similar in their terminal ballistics performance. The .357 magnum and the .44 magnumn were each on a level above those, as far as depth of penetration, wound channel and muzzle flash/loudness factor.

An 8 shot S&W 627 revolver is my choice over an 8 shot .45acp every day.

 

[BikerRN]

People wonder why I prefer the .357 Magnum as a "defensive round".

I think this story illustrates why very well.

BikerRN

 

[skywarp_]

Wonder what the 10 would have done. Prolly punched a vortex through space and time.

 

[machinisttx]

Every big game animal on earth has been taken with a .357 Magnum. Including grizzily,elephant and water buffalo. I looked this up quite some time ago as I did not believe it when someone told me.

D.B. Wesson(one of the owners of S&W at the time) took game up to the size of moose with an 8 3/4" barreled Registered Magnum in the mid to late 1930's when the .357 magnum was introduced(1935). It still amazes me that people claim it's unsuitable for use on deer.

I also know two people that have killed large black bear with a .357 One was with a snub nose about, a 2 1/2" barrel Smith.

I would not want to have been in his shoes....

People greatly underestimate a .357 magnum

,

Agreed.

especially in the old loadings before they reduced them to hot .38 specials

Some of the original loadings were well over safe pressures---and they were also tested using 10" sealed barrels---not the 4" vented test barrel used today. Loads today generate the same velocities as they did then, IF the testing method is identical.

 

[Jenrick]

One thing I enjoy quiet a bit:

At work we can carry a backup. Well one of the options on the list is a 686 w/ a 2.5" barrel. Nothing about having to have it DAO only, ground off hammer spur etc. Also nothing about it having to be in .38 spc. Lots of people chuckle at how big my backup is, and how heavy. They then wonder who brought a cannon on the line when we start shooting 125gr Gold Dot out of a 2.5" barrel isn't anything to laugh at. Being able to shoot it SA if I need the extra accuracy means even more utility.

I honestly wish I could carry a 4" 686+, in high polish. Thugs respect something big and shiny. And if they don't 7 rounds of .357 mag is going to settle things just as effectively as anything else I can carry in a hip holster.

-Jenrick

 

[sacp81170a]

People wonder why I prefer the .357 Magnum as a "defensive round".

I keep a S&W Model 66 in a holster mounted on my side of the bed. It's the one I grab first for bumps in the night. I figure if someone's in the bedroom with me before I'm aware of it, I've probably got one shot to put him down. .357 Mag works for me.

 

[ZeSpectre]

I honestly wish I could carry a 4" 686+, in high polish. Thugs respect something big and shiny. And if they don't 7 rounds of .357 mag is going to settle things just as effectively as anything else I can carry in a hip holster.

Amen brother! Early in my LEO days we could carry almost anything we wanted. I had a blued 4" S&W 686 and a polished stainless 4" 66.

Interestingly enough the smaller and lighter 66 looked positively ENORMOUS when viewed on it's own and I decided it was an effect of all that shiny stainless steel whereas the larger 686 just didn't look nearly as impressive. So you can guess which one rode on my hip the most.

I would get comments/questions on the 66 and rarely did anyone say squat about the bigger 686.

 

[Jenrick]

Considering that 99/100 (actually a much higher percentage then that) of the time a duty weapon is a tool of intimidation to the yahoo on the other end, the more eye catching the better. If the department would let me stick rhinestones and a flashing light on my weapon I'd do it. I want the guy on the other end to be thinking about all the dirty harry movies as he stares down a barrel that appears about 16" across.

Black is tactical, and a compact is handy, but neither of them makes the idiot with the sharpened screwdriver start thinking if he feels lucky. If he does feel lucky 6+ rounds of .357 mag is going to do the same job as 17 rounds of 9mm, 15 rounds of .40, or 13 or .45.

-Jenrick

 

[1911Tuner]

Loads today generate the same velocities as they did then, IF the testing method is identical.

Sorry. No, they don't. I have some of that old ammunition...158-grain LSWC...and the chronograph tells the tale when fired back to back with the last of the .357 LSWC ammo that was available...the Federal 158-grain
Nyclad HP. Fired in a 4-inch 681 Smith...the old loading clocked in the high 1300 fps range. The Nyclad did about 1190-1200.

I've nearly duplicated the original loading with an old Lyman manual recommended charge of 2400 and cast lead 155-160 grain bullets. It's plenty hot, and should be approached with care...and it's hard on the guns...but it's doable. This is the one that was responsible for shooting the early Model 19 Smiths apart, so proceed with caution.

The same applies to the .44 Magnum. The old gas-checked LSWC was rambunctious, and outclasses anything commercially available today. It can also be closely duplicated with Elmer Keith's recipe and 240-250 grain cast bullets. I won't print it here, but it can be researched.

The vent in the vented test barrel is supposed to provide the gas and velocity loss of the barrel-cylinder gap...but I've found that the gap means almost nothing. Velocity loss between two identical guns seems to be more closely related to the depth and angle that the forcing cone is reamed. The shorter and/or sharper the cone, the higher the velocity, all else being equal. A .003 inch barrel to cylinder gap variation is nearly meaningless. You might see 15 fps difference. How do I know? I just replaced the cylinder in a Model 19 that wound up with .004 inch less barrel to cylinder gap than it had with the old cylinder. Test-firing it across a chronograph with identical ammunition resulted in a whopping 12 fps gain for a 10-shot average.

 

[freakshow10mm]

Yup, the 357 Magnum is a great cartridge.

 

[AirForceShooter]

my Ruger Blackhawk used to "ring" also.
It was strange to hear.

AFS

 

[jad0110]

I honestly wish I could carry a 4" 686+, in high polish. Thugs respect something big and shiny. And if they don't 7 rounds of .357 mag is going to settle things just as effectively as anything else I can carry in a hip holster.

I see you live in TX. Sucks that they don't allow open carry . I'm giving open carry serious consideration just so I can pack this :

(note the gun was empty and I used a time delay on my camera)





Although, with a good IWB holster on my 1.5" gunbelt, the 686+ is probably not impossible to conceal. But that would kinda defeat the purpose of carrying sucy a beast .

 

[Zoogster]

Not really an accurate test of effectiveness or power of the round, even though the .357 Magnum is more powerful.


The .357 has similar energy to the 10mm auto (though the 10mm auto can have a good deal more in some loadings.) When you consider the 10mm Auto is essentialy a .40S&W magnum (even though the 10 came first), and the .357 Magnum is close to the 10mm Auto it is obvious the .357 is more powerful.

Then you have the diameter of the rounds. The additional diameter of the .40 caliber projectile means it would require even more energy to penetrate the same distance as a .357 diameter projectile.
The smaller the frontal surface area of the round the smaller the area all the energy is being applied to.
That means for a given weight and velocity, the smaller caliber the round the better the penetration.
A 10mm Auto round loaded to the exact same velocity and with the exact same weight projectile as a .357 would penetrate less than the .357 because of that. (Though the 10mm can be loaded hotter.)

(Now if you used a 9x25 dillon, which is a .357 projectile fired from a 10mm case it would b the same, loaded to the same specs, though the 9x25 dillon is normaly loaded significantly hotter and as a result would perform even better.)

Of course heavier 10mm rounds the .357 magnum could not use would penetrate better, resulting in both the 10mm Auto and .357 Magnum having similar penetration, but the 10mm Auto having more energy, a wider projectile and more recoil to achieve that same level of penetration.
The wounding of the 10mm would be greater, but the penetration of both is about the same, because it takes more energy to penetrate the same depth with a wider caliber.


So it goes without saying that the .357 Magnum, which is closer to the 10mm Auto, and has a smaller diameter bullet than the .40S&W , is going to have significantly better penetration.
The .357 Sig which is a necked down .40S&W would give a more accurate comparison with the same bullet diameter. It would penetrate less than the .357 Magnum, but the results would not be as dramatic in the cardboard.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

357 is a good round. I take a lot of ribbing from guys who don't understand what the round is about, mainly because they're more into pistols.
"Hey, you going to rob a stagecoach?"

But, when you can put all the rounds on target, and they do what the 357 does, nothing else really matters.
When I pull the trigger, I can pretty much count on penetration and energy transfer. No excuses. No physics debates. No reliance on having a stack of additional lead to throw at the target. No do-overs. No whining.

 

[Zoogster]

Keep in mind the .357 Magnum was originaly developed at the end of prohibition, in the middle of the depression, to penetrate the makeshift body armor of thugs at the time, which often included dozens of layers of clothing and other padding. (Only criminals used body armor at the time.)
Automobiles were another major concern.
So it is designed for penetration.

Ironic considering over 50 years later the FBI's Miami shootout in 1986 would lead to the exact same conclusion, that a round with about the same level of penetration as the .357 Magnum was needed for shootouts around automobiles. In that case the 10mm Auto since they wanted an auto.

It took over 50 years to reach the conclusion that scaling back from the penetration levels of the .357 Magnum was not such a great idea for LEO work, which often takes place around automobiles.

The .357 Magnum is a fine round, and one that will do its part if the shooter does thiers.

For your average human though it penetrates a little more than needed. So wider calibers that penetrate less with the same energy create more actual wounding in the target as long as they do not have to go through anything more to reach the target.
That is why a .45 Colt operating at similar energy levels should actualy have more effective stopping power against standard humans.

 

[1911Tuner]

Keep in mind the .357 Magnum was originaly developed at the end of prohibition, in the middle of the depression, to penetrate the makeshift body armor of thugs at the time, etc, etc.

No...That would have been the .38 Super that entered the scene in 1929.

The original .38 Super loading has also been attenuated a bit, but Cor-Bon has taken the baton and run with it...and they're loading it back up to the original levels.

The .357 Magnum came along in 1934 at the behest of Elmer Keith and in conjunction with Phil Sharpe...and other than Uncle Elmer's penchant for overloading revolver cartridges...the main reason was that people were blowing the small-framed .38 Special revolvers...later to become known as "Smith & Wesson K-Frames"...with ammunition intended for the large-framed Colt and Smith & Wesson .38 Special revolvers. That ammunition was headstamped 38/44 and the buyer was cautioned not to fire it in any small-framed .38 Special revolver...which many ignored, and paid the price within a few dozen rounds...or less.

 

[Zoogster]

No...That would have been the .38 Super that entered the scene in 1929.

The .357 Magnum came along in 1934 at the behest of Elmer Keith and in conjunction with Phil Sharpe...and other than Uncle Elmer's penchant for overloading revolver cartridges...the main reason was that people were blowing the small-framed .38 Special revolvers...later to become known as "Smith & Wesson K-Frames"...with ammunition intended for the large-framed Colt and Smith & Wesson .38 Special revolvers.

Exactly, the loadings and performance of the .357 Magnum were developed from needs during prohibition and the great depression. That prohibition technicaly ended a year before the .357 Magnum was commercialy chambered does not take away from that.
At the time it was really powerful .38 special rounds in specific guns. Those rounds worked just fine for the extra necessary performance namely penetration, but they wanted to insure they could not be chambered in the wrong firearms so they lengthened the cartridge. That officialy created the .357 Magnum.

The purpose and development though stems from the needs of prohibition and the depression period's criminals. When organized crime and criminal glamorization became common. When makeshift body armor became common and a lot of LEO were dealing with criminals around vehicles.

I did not feel a detailed technical history was necessary. The bottom line is the .357 Magnum was designed for extra penetration. That it was technicaly powerful .38 specials before they were lengthened for safety reasons and called something different but had the exact same performance does not change the purpose for which they were developed.
That purpose was extra penetration, which is how it relates to the OP's post.

 

[zinj]

Sorry. No, they don't. I have some of that old ammunition...158-grain LSWC...and the chronograph tells the tale when fired back to back with the last of the .357 LSWC ammo that was available...the Federal 158-grain
Nyclad HP. Fired in a 4-inch 681 Smith...the old loading clocked in the high 1300 fps range. The Nyclad did about 1190-1200.

Both Fiocchi and S&B sell 145-158 grain .357 ammo quoted to to hit near 1400fps.

 

[Zoogster]

The round was designed at a time when you didn't factor in reliably expansion because reliable JHP rounds were not available and widespread.
A round was designed that at its operating velocity went as deep as you needed without expansion.

Today we can compensate for rounds with excess penetration and add to thier stopping power with more or less rapid expansion as necessary.
At the time though the .357 Magnum with non expanding ammunition was meant to have excessive penetration for the desired roles.
A lot of that intentional excessive penetration (which was adequate penetration when parts of vehicles and makeshift body armor was between the target) goes away with modern expanding ammunition.

So comparing the old .357 magnum uses with modern use must be viewed with that perspective. Modern expanding ammo penetrates less than the ammunition used standard at the time.