.357 Magnum self defence ammo - unfullfilled potential?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The fact that no ammo company is doing that at the moment tells me either some ammo maker has a real opportunity to make money, or all this theorizing about heavy bullets for SD doesn't pan out in practice.
Click to expand...

I don't know, even in the lucrative self defense market now days, auto pistol calibers rule the market. Revolvers, even the magnums, are passe. Would have to look at what market share .357 magnum has first, then see whether tooling up for a new load to pacify the few who might want it is worth the time and money. :D Now, if it were 9mm, all bets are off, but .357 is chambered in those old, worthless revolvers, ya know.

</sarcasm>
 
That kind of misses the point of how capitalism works. If I have a better product (say a heavy bullet .357) and data to prove it, then I trumpet that product to the sky and out-compete my rivals.
Click to expand...

This is what happened in those decades when 158 gr. bullets from the .357 were the norm for self defense. The 158 gr. bullets were used in both the 38 Spl. and 357 Magnum. A few fellas here seem to believe that 158 gr. bullets are odd or new for the 357. That is not the case and never has been. It is a standard weight for the .357 and the 38 Spl. It was with those weight bullets that the 357 made it's reputation.

The fact that no ammo company is doing that at the moment tells me either some ammo maker has a real opportunity to make money, or all this theorizing about heavy bullets for SD doesn't pan out in practice.
Click to expand...

Several ammo manufacturers do use that bullet weight with jhp bullets and offer them for sale. They do well enough and are popular. That some don't know that is interesting. That some don't know that 158 gr. bullets in both the 38 Spl. and 357 mag. were reliable and proven for decades is also interesting. It's also interesting that some think the weight of the bullet, rather than it's construction, is a decisive factor in whether it does it's job or not.

Drop by here and browse through the variety of 158 gr. loads and others offered for sale by a number of major companies...

http://www.midwayusa.com/find?sortby=1&itemsperpage=24&newcategorydimensionid=15454

Lee Jurras is a good guy and back when he had the Super Vel company in the 1970s he introduced what was the first mostly reliable jhp for commercial sale. He loaded them in the .357 at 110 and 125 gr. bullets at high velocities with a good deal of muzzle blast and noise. The jhp bullets expanded more often than not for the first time and mostly didn't break to pieces. This was such a step forward that all manufacturers followed suit. "Overnight" it became famous.

But you don't need a 125 gr. bullet to get a round to expand. It will expand with a heavier bullet at lower velocities. In a smaller framed gun they work very well. They sell.

tipoc
 
Last edited:
@Vern Humphrey:
at the moment the bullet effectiveness is mostly proven via... online tests and anecdotal evidence because there's not enough statistical data to draw any conclusions anyway, especially after LEOs stopped using revolvers.. So even if heavy .357 SD load is released there's really no sure way to tell IF such ammo is more or less effective.
Click to expand...
Which is a point I made earlier, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

But this particular response was along the lines of, "IF there is evidence the heavy bullet is better for SD, some ammo manufacturer would be trumpeting that to the world and out-competing the other companies . . . IF there is evidence."

As you point out, there isn't any evidence, only supposition.
 
From Vern...

Which is a point I made earlier, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

But this particular response was along the lines of, "IF there is evidence the heavy bullet is better for SD, some ammo manufacturer would be trumpeting that to the world and out-competing the other companies . . . IF there is evidence."

As you point out, there isn't any evidence, only supposition.
Click to expand...

I pointed out that the "If it ain't broke don't fix it" line makes little sense as the .357 made it's rep with 158 gr. bullets and that these are selling well enough nowdays that most makers, if not all, offer them in self defense loadings.

Most ammo makers don't trumpet their 125 gr. bullets and loads "these days". Those are common and have been for decades. Mostly they trumpet their reduced recoil loads for snubbys with less muzzle flash with 130, 148 and 158 gr. bullets. That's what they trumpet lately.

So the circular reasoning employed here makes no headway.

Look the old 158 gr. loads that Bill Jordan used from the Model 19 work very well. So do the Super-Vel inspired loads of a light bullet moving fast. As do the modern 158 gr. JHP bullets at 1000-1200 fps from a 2-3" barrel. Take the pick from what you use best from your gun.

tipoc
 
I pointed out that the "If it ain't broke don't fix it" line makes little sense as the .357 made it's rep with 158 gr. bullets and that these are selling well enough nowdays that most makers, if not all, offer them in self defense loadings.
Click to expand...
No, in modern times, the .357 made its rep with 125 grain bullets. That's why police departments and other persons who carry the .357 moved away from 158 grain bullets and adopted 125 grain bullets.

But if anyone has any evidence from actual combat that the heavy bullet is more effective, I'd like to see it.
 
But if anyone has any evidence from actual combat that the heavy bullet is more effective, I'd like to see it.
Click to expand...

I don't know that it's even provable one way or another. All we have to go on as far as actual data is Marshal and Sanow, and there are too many variables and flaws in their data to nail it down.

They provide a lot of examples with the 125...and far fewer with the 158. If the 158 had been used twice and achieved 2 one-shot stops...would it have been rated as 100% effective. Or how about vice-versa...and it failed both times?

Who's to say that a percentage of the results from the 125s...or possibly even all of them...wouldn't have been exactly the same if the same people were shot in exactly the same spot on the same day under the same conditions and under the same circumstances?

This is one of those questions that can never be definitively answered because there can't be any do-overs.

People have been known to drop like a sack of wet laundry when hit in a non-vital spot with a .22 and others have killed their antagonists after absorbing a chest full of .357s...of all weights and bullet constructions.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've never been completely comfortable with any handgun round that depends on expansion to be effective because some fail to do that. Some expand too early and fail to penetrate. Too many variables involved. I'd rather trust penetration and placement, and I'm way yonder more concerned with an outright miss than any worry about over penetration.
 
IMO the bulk of advances in bullet technology happened in the late 80's and 90's in the wake of the Miami FBI shooting, and the calibers that benefitted most and most immediately from that were .40 S&W and 9mm. That was also around the time that the FBI and LEAs transitioned away from revolvers.

I just don't think the .357 has received the full benefit of those technology gains.

Yes - I think there is unfulfilled potential.
 
From Vern:

But if anyone has any evidence from actual combat that the heavy bullet is more effective, I'd like to see it.
Click to expand...

You don't have that evidence from either one, a lighter bullet or the heavier. That is that one is more "effective" than the other. There is no evidence one way or the other for what you are looking for. No evidence that the lighter is better.

As I mentioned, about 40 years ago the first mostly reliable jhp bullets were introduced, that bullet was likely better than others available at the time and quickly became popular. But that was some time back and improvements in bullet construction have made a difference.

The weight of the bullet can effect shootability. But in terms of effectiveness velocity and bullet construction play a heavier role. Notice I worked that "heavier" in there :)

For me and for many others shooting a 158 gr. jhp or lswc bullet at 1000-1100 fps from a snubby J, K frame or L frame makes for more controlable shot placement and faster follow ups. That makes it more effective for those in the know.

Also may be why so many ammo manufacturers offer those type loads.

tipoc
 
Penetration

With the same bullet construction and caliber, heavy bullets penetrate better. You need a bullet to do three things in priority order: 1. It has to hit where it is aimed, 2. It must penetrate deep enough to hit vital areas and more is better, 3. Expansion is desirable but less important than number 1 or 2.

As far as over penetration, I think the FBI explains it very well: (snip) The fear of over penetration is a misconception, which was created back when law enforcement was trying to overcome misinformed public resistance to the use of hollow point ammunition. In the process we began to believe it ourselves. First, our lawyers are unaware of any successful legal action resulting from the injury of a bystander due to a round over-penetrating the subject. We are aware of numerous instances of Agents/officers being killed because their round did not penetrate enough (Grogan and Dove, for example). Further if you examine shooting statistics you will see that officers hit the subject somewhere around 20-30% of the time. Thus 70-80% of the shots fired never hit their intended target and nobody ever worries about them-only the ones that might “over penetrate” the bad guy... SSA Urey W. Patrick, FBI Firearms Training Unit.
 
There is no evidence if you ignore Marshal/Sanow, but I don't.
Click to expand...


Who's to say that a percentage of the results from the 125s...or possibly even all of them...wouldn't have been exactly the same if the same people were shot in exactly the same spot on the same day under the same conditions and under the same circumstances?


This is one of those questions that can never be definitively answered because there can't be any do-overs.

You need a bullet to do three things in priority order: 1. It has to hit where it is aimed, 2. It must penetrate deep enough to hit vital areas and more is better, 3. Expansion is desirable but less important than number 1 or 2
Click to expand...

This.
 
There is no evidence if you ignore Marshal/Sanow, but I don't.
Click to expand...

I don't ignore them. There is a lot of interesting information contained in their books. It's the case though that what many, maybe most, of what their supporters or defenders believe that they said is not always what they were trying to say. It's also that the information was flawed.

But M&S have been debated out many times over the years and it's an old debate. Folks who are interested can use the search function.

It's a mistake to think that bullet weight, over any other factor and independent of other factors, makes a significant difference in the outcome of a defensive shooting.

tipoc
 
Who's to say that a percentage of the results from the 125s...or possibly even all of them...wouldn't have been exactly the same if the same people were shot in exactly the same spot on the same day under the same conditions and under the same circumstances?


This is one of those questions that can never be definitively answered because there can't be any do-overs.
Click to expand...

The larger the sample size, the more accurate the data set. And, generally, there are calculations in statistics like "goodness of fit" or "confidence intervals" that can indicate the accuracy of the data set. The .357 data set is massive and accurate in their studies. I don't believe M/S studies to be biased in any way. They simply report successful stops vs not so much. They toss out some shootings that don't fit their study parameters, must be one shot to the torso way I understand it. I don't take it literally when I see "97 percent once shot stops", but use the chart to compare that load to another, say vs. .38 or 9x19.

But. the guns themselves must be apples vs apples. When a 125 grain .357 works fantastic in a 4" barrel, don't mean squat when it's fired from a 2" barrel, not in THIS caliber which burns slow powder for best results and is barrel length sensitive.
 
The larger the sample size, the more accurate the data set. And, generally, there are calculations in statistics like "goodness of fit" or "confidence intervals" that can indicate the accuracy of the data set. The .357 data set is massive and accurate in their studies. I don't believe M/S studies to be biased in any way. They simply report successful stops vs not so much. They toss out some shootings that don't fit their study parameters, must be one shot to the torso way I understand it. I don't take it literally when I see "97 percent once shot stops", but use the chart to compare that load to another, say vs. .38 or 9x19.
Click to expand...

You can see the problem when you read what they have to say. They say that doing what you are doing here is exactly what not to do with their figures. The intent of their figures was to try to show which type bullet worked best. That is they looked at particular bullets from a given manufacturer and said, for example:

that a Federal 125 gr. JHP showed a 96.96% of one shot stops (OSS),

while a Winchester 125 gr. JHP showed only 87.95% OSS

and a CCI 125 gr. JHP only a 71.43% OSS

All 125 gr. JHP bullets at about the same velocity with different OSS percentages. The difference, they figured was bullet construction. Well they also allowed that maybe small sample size effected their figures some. Trying to draw conclusions from 20 shootings might be a bit questionable...but they did it anyway.

They showed a 158gr. Rem. SJHP with a 81.48 OSS% in excess of some of the 125 gr. loads

They also showed 45 acp 230 gr. Hydra-Shok bullet at 819 fps with a OSS rating of 90.56%

(Figures taken from pages 212-213 of "Handgun Stopping Power" 1992)

The more you look at what they actually wrote the less useful it is in practical application. The more the old rules applied

...select the best bullet you can find that matches for the job. Get the most powerful round that you can shoot well for the job in front of you. Get a gun that you can shoot well and match it for the task. For close to 200 years thems been the rules. If the heavier bullet works well use it, if the lighter use that. It's the shooter and the gun. The Indian and not the arrow or bow. If the 125 gr. at 1400 fps slows you down and throws your shots off then try a heavier bullet without the extra muzzle flash and felt recoil.

tipoc
 
Posted by 1911Tuner: Who's to say that a percentage of the results from the 125s...or possibly even all of them...wouldn't have been exactly the same if the same people were shot in exactly the same spot on the same day under the same conditions and under the same circumstances?
Click to expand...
Or, to put it another way: there is an extremely large number of possibilities for important variation in each of the following important factors:
  • precisely where the bullets struck each of the targets
  • the angle at which the bulltets entered each of the targets
  • the position and posture of each of the targets
  • the physical condition of each of the targets before being shot
  • the psychological condition of each of the targets before being shot
  • the presence of depressants or stimulants, or lack of same...

None of the above are known. Nor is much known about the immediate effects of the shots, or the second shots, or the third.

Considering both the large number of available combinations of the above and the ways in which bullets stop assailants or fail to do so, it would take an enormous data sample--far greater than that which has ever been compiled--to draw any really meaningful conclusions.

Simply categorizing "torso" hits won't cut it. The human body is an extremely complicated biological system, and it does not constitute a homogenous mass.

I would put far more stock into computer simulations conducted by persons knowledgeable of the immediate effects of injuries to different parts of the musculo-skeletal system, the CNS, the rest of the nervous system, and the cardiovascular system than into some limited data compiled from an inadequate number of observations with little granularity among the different aspects of each data point.

That has never been attempted.

And one more time, we need to remind ourselves that terminal ballistics is but a small element of the picture. Where and at what angle how many bullets strike an attacker will depend upon things like skill, controllability, rate of fire, distance, speed and direction of a moving target, how quickly the defender is able to get his gun into action, and luck.
 
Question

I'm old enough to remember when the old 158 grain lead round nosed .38 Special bullets were criticized by the gun writers, and the blunt 200 grain load was considered more effective. I remember buying them. That was around fifty years ago.

I also remember when 158 grain semi-wadcutters were the standard for the .357 Magnum.

And Elmer himself wrote (in Sixguns) that with loads of the day, that the blast and flash of the 3 1/2 inch Magnum had proved too much even for seasoned FBI shooters at an indoor range.

I fired a 6 1/2 inch Smith (one of the first without counter-sunk chambers) one handed at an outdoor range years ago. I liked it and wished I could afford one.

Fast forward a bit: we know have numerous 125 grain loads on the shelves.

Here's the question: when did that load come about, and why?
 
It was in the 1970s, maybe a tad earlier, that Lee Jurras started a company called Super-Vel. As the name implies stout fast loads.

Jurras was a competitive shooter and one of the proponents of Silhouette shooting and the ISMSA. He was a reloader and experimenter. He developed a line of light weight jacketed hollow point bullets of his design for the .357 in 110 gr. and 125 gr. weights that expanded more reliably than any thing on the market up till them. It was a revolution in bullet design and concept for the .357 and defensive handgunning. The Super-Vel ammo was marketed for that.

Load with a lot of muzzle flash the rounds got attention. The ammo became popular. This is where and how the 125 load became famous. All other ammo manufacturers followed suit.

http://www.americanrifleman.org/blogs/super-vel-ammo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Jurras

The ammo tended to cause the K frame S&W M13 and 19 to shoot loose after a few thousand rounds and need tune ups. S&W eventually developed the L frame guns with their heavier frames in response.

If you google Super Vel and Lee Jurras you can follow the tracks.

tipoc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Brass Fetcher
  • Locked
Ballistic gelatin test results : .357 Magnum 158gr Speer Gold Dot JHP
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
19-3Ben
1
D
  • Locked
.357 Magnum day at the range
Replies
6
Views
990
SAWBONES
S
J
  • Locked
.357 magnum questions
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Brian Williams
Brian Williams
Brass Fetcher
  • Locked
.357 Magnum 158gr Federal Hydra-Shok (from a Derringer)
Replies
3
Views
813
Jim March
J
Loyalist Dave
  • Locked
SP 101 and Federal 180 Grain .357 Magnum Ammo
2
Replies
25
Views
5K
paul105
P
Back
Top