357 Magnum vs 5.56x45 in carbines

[westernrover]

What do you think? I was reading the Henry 357 rifle thread and realized that in spite of being heavily invested in 357 with lots of components on hand, I don't have a rifle or carbine in it but instead bought a 223/5.56 carbine this year. Because of components I bought in 2019, I can load 357 for about half the current cost of 5.56x45 or 223 Rem. I still wanted a semi-automatic carbine, so I have no regrets about that.
I stocked some 5.56 when LC dipped below 40 cents this summer. With prices rising and no end to that in sight, I don't have plans to burn up thousands of rounds of it. So obviously there are differences in action types, magazine styles, and cartridge prices, but how do they differ in ballistics and terminal effect?

357 Magnum is reported to have a case capacity of 26.2 grains of H2O whereas 5.56x45 is supposed to have 28.5. 5.56 has more, but only a little bit more. 357 Magnum bullets are almost always heavier and have more drag. 90 grains would be very light, whereas 200 grains is on the heavy end. 5.56 bullets can be as little as 30-something grains and as much as what 90 grains? Because all the .357" bullets are short, only one twist rate is needed to stabilize them all. With 5.56, suitable twist rates can double from the light to heavy bullets and there is not one that is really compatible with all. So this could be a three-way comparison between 357, 556 with a 1:7 twist and heavyweight bullets, and some less radical twist with middle or lightweights. 556 also seems to be more dependent on barrel length. A 16" barrel gets most everything out of a 357. To be sure, I think the data continues to show small gains up to 20". The 556 post much more substantial gains between those same lengths and it suffers a great deal more in pistol-length barrels than does 357.

At what length would you say 357 from a rifle maintains a practical trajectory? 150 yards? 556 is certainly flatter and since it is both faster and lower drag, it's going to maintain effectiveness out to longer ranges. Within 100 yards, wouldn't heavy 357 have more momentum? I can remember Fackler writing that within this sort of range, 45 ACP didn't have as much disadvantage to steel core 7.62x39 as some people perceived, because of the latter's poor terminal performance. 357 typically has some kind of hollow-point, SP, or SWC, whereas the most popular FMJ 556 is yaw-dependent.

If my targets were at 300 yards, there is no doubt the 556 is better than 357, but at that range and beyond, I'd really want a full-size rifle cartridge. Despite effective range that extends considerably farther, the proposition for intermediate cartridges is at intermediate ranges. When closer, like 50 to 150 yards, the semi-automatic action and 30-round detachable box magazines are going to be compelling for some uses, but not everything. Lever actions can be quick and for hunting I don't need more than a bolt-action or single-shot. What about a deer or antelope-sized target at 100 yards? (assuming regulations allow the .22 caliber and a suitable bullet can be chosen.) What do you think is better for farm and ranch protection? For a "truck gun"? Assuming a person chooses a carbine for home defense, 357 or 556?

 

[Gun-Reck]

They both have about 1,200 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle, and will dump most of it into a 10" thick target at close range.

The 5.56 NATO, however, has an impact velocity in excess of the elastic capacity of tissue, and will cause a massive permanent wound cavity.

At 200 yards, the 5.56 NATO has a 50% advantage in energy, but may not tumble, and instead, pencil, where as the .357 will probably expand and core a nice crush cavity.

The .357 carbine is also a lot friendlier to shoot in confined spaces.

 

[Pudge]

Do not forget that the .357 projectiles are engineered to perform within an expected velocity range. Likely a .357 carbine will be significantly faster than a handgun. Hornady makes XTPs in a hollow point that the jacket wraps over the edge of the hollow, and are designed to hold together at higher velocities than the standard XTPs.

 

[CraigC]

The 5.56 will obviously have more range but the .357 will be more consistently effective, with the right bullet. The larger and heavier a bullet is, the less dependent it has to be on velocity and textbook bullet performance.

 

[d2wing]

Witha proper expanding bullet a .223 will outperform a .357 at any range. I have hunted deer with both. I would ignore anything Fackler said. He claimed that every scientist and military in the world were wrong except him, he wasn't a scientist or military expert, and the gun companies conspired to fool you. Really.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

The 5.56 NATO, however, has an impact velocity in excess of the elastic capacity of tissue, and will cause a massive permanent wound cavity.

Velocity has little to do with it.

A shotgun slug produces a larger diameter temporary cavity than 5.56.

Soft tissues are damaged by the temporary cavity when the temporary cavity stretches soft tissues beyond their ability to absorb the strain, causing these tissues to tear.

5.56 produces a temporary cavity about 6 inches in diameter. This can cause elastic tissues to tear. However, 5.56 also fragments, and these fragments increase wounding effectiveness by cutting small holes in soft tissues which are then torn open by the subsequent stretch of the temporary cavity.

The cannelure on M193 and M855 5.56 bullets are the reason why they produce the wounding effects that they do. The cannelure weakens the jacket, allowing the bullet to fracture and fragment at the cannelure as it yaws through 90-degrees when penetration resistance is highest.

Whereas the Russian 5.45x39 bullet doesn't fragment when it yaws, and it produces relatively mild wounding effects. It gained the reputation as the "poison bullet" because its mild wounding effects caused Afghan mujahideen to die not from tissue damage, but to die from infection days later.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Witha proper expanding bullet a .223 will outperform a .357 at any range. I have hunted deer with both. I would ignore anything Fackler said. He claimed that every scientist and military in the world were wrong except him, he wasn't a scientist or military expert, and the gun companies conspired to fool you. Really.

Facker understood the terminal performance of 5.56. It's too small and light for reliable wounding peformance against an adult human in combat.

The 1986 FBI-Miami shootout is an example. One 5.56 bullet hit FBI agent Mireles in the forearm, disabling it. The bullet stopped in his forearm, but it didn't stop Mireles. He was the one who shot and finally stopped both Platt and Matix.

Also, reports about poor 5.56 performance in combat led to development and fielding of the M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round, and upcoming 6.8 cartridge to replace 5.56.

 

[tommy.duncan]

So... 5.56X357 Mag for what purpose?

Punching paper? Hunting?

 

[BlueHeelerFl]

Do not forget that the .357 projectiles are engineered to perform within an expected velocity range. Likely a .357 carbine will be significantly faster than a handgun. Hornady makes XTPs in a hollow point that the jacket wraps over the edge of the hollow, and are designed to hold together at higher velocities than the standard XTPs.

JSP's would be a good choice

 

[Armored farmer]

For farm and ranch?
The ONLY advantage that the 357 has is its ability to also chamber in your revolver.
I have both the 1894c in 357/38 and the 556 carbine. If you live in a state where an AR is legal, there is no doubt which I would choose:
An AR with 30rd mag
A good scope
Offset iron sights
Mounted weapon light
Sling.
Your bases are covered. Imho
An AR is Rugged and made to bounce around in the back of a truck,tractor or sxs atv.

 

[valnar]

For any critter that needs disposed of on a ranch, up to coyote in size, I'd say the 5.56 would do a better job. At all distances you mentioned, no holdover needed. Just aim and shoot.

 

[Pudge]

JSP's would be a good choice

Probably, I haven't used any on game, but I bought some with that in mind. Just need to be aware that most .357 components are designed to work in revolvers typically giving you 1400fps, but carbines can get you up 1900-2100fps. Bullets that expand reliably out of a 2" LCR, might hold up fine in a 16" 92, but they weren't designed to, and you may well experience jacket separation, fragmentation, and poor penetration.

 

[Gun-Reck]

Velocity has little to do with it...

Actually, Velocity has everything to do with it, regarding most projectiles and the OP in particular.

Impact velocity - determines whether an expansion wound cavity is either temporary, or exceeds the elasticity of the tissue and becomes permanent.

That impact velocity threshold has been determined to be ~2,200 fps.

 

[d2wing]

Velocity has little to do with it.

A shotgun slug produces a larger diameter temporary cavity than 5.56.

Soft tissues are damaged by the temporary cavity when the temporary cavity stretches soft tissues beyond their ability to absorb the strain, causing these tissues to tear.

5.56 produces a temporary cavity about 6 inches in diameter. This can cause elastic tissues to tear. However, 5.56 also fragments, and these fragments increase wounding effectiveness by cutting small holes in soft tissues which are then torn open by the subsequent stretch of the temporary cavity.

The cannelure on M193 and M855 5.56 bullets are the reason why they produce the wounding effects that they do. The cannelure weakens the jacket, allowing the bullet to fracture and fragment at the cannelure as it yaws through 90-degrees when penetration resistance is highest.

Whereas the Russian 5.45x39 bullet doesn't fragment when it yaws, and it produces relatively mild wounding effects. It gained the reputation as the "poison bullet" because its mild wounding effects caused Afghan mujahideen to die not from tissue damage, but to die from infection days later.

I am not sure where you get that information but much of it is wrong.

 

[Pudge]

For farm and ranch?
The ONLY advantage that the 357 has is its ability to also chamber in your revolver.
I have both the 1894c in 357/38 and the 556 carbine. If you live in a state where an AR is legal, there is no doubt which I would choose:
An AR with 30rd mag
A good scope
Offset iron sights
Mounted weapon light
Sling.
Your bases are covered. Imho
An AR is Rugged and made to bounce around in the back of a truck,tractor or sxs atv.

Not the only advantage. Heavier bullets can be an advantage. If I had to choose between a .357 carbine and a .223 to hunt whitetails and black bear, I'd lean towards the .357 carbine shooting 180grain Buffalo Bore hard cast at 1800fps.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

I am not sure where you get that information but much of it is wrong.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Actually, Velocity has everything to do with it, regarding most projectiles and the OP in particular.

Impact velocity - determines whether an expansion wound cavity is either temporary, or exceeds the elasticity of the tissue and becomes permanent.

That impact velocity threshold has been determined to be ~2,200 fps.

Nope. See image above.

 

[Rodfac]

What do you think is better for farm and ranch protection? For a "truck gun"? Assuming a person chooses a carbine for home defense, 357 or 556?

Strictly for "Protection"....I'd have to agree with Armored Farmer. A 5.56 will give you standoff range if that's ever going to happen, but maybe more importantly, it allows you to pick tailored ammunition that's OK for use inside a dwelling without over penetration. As to effectiveness, either will do if you keep the ranges below 100 yds, IMHO.

As to versatility, a carbine in .357, a Marlin lever for instance, offers the option of using full house SP's for deer out to 100 yds, or JHP's for woodchucks closer in. With .38 Spl, which my Marlin 1894 feeds at near 100% reliability, you've got a FUN plinking round that the whole family can handle, and at noise levels that won't deafen your dog.

We can argue the merits and liabilities of a 5.56 for deer, but I'm in the camp that encourages a bigger round. Neither caliber, IMHO, is suitable beyond 100 yds. Opinions vary with some who value the 5.56's speed, and trust it with modern heavy for caliber, specialty bullets.

Lastly, both will do the job...protection that is....but I think that if you go the 5.56 route, you may be the only one shooting the rifle on sunny Saturdays. A .357, lever gun, will allow the rest of the family to join in....all of these comments BTW, assume you reload and can find the necessary bullet types. Below, four of my Marlins. Top to bottom: .30-30 Texan, .41 Mag 1894, 336 .44 Mag, and my 1894 .347. HTH's Rod & YMMv

​

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Same velocities, different wounding effects:

5.56x45 M193 fragments:


5.45x39 doesn't fragment (aka "Poison Bullet"):

 

[Shawn Dodson]

5.56x45 M855 terminal performance:

M855 versus Ballistic Gelatin

M855 fired from a AR-15 with 16.0" barrel and 1/9" twist.

www.youtube.com

 

[Shawn Dodson]

.357 Magnum 125gr Jacketed Softpoint at 1400 fps:

 

[westernrover]

Facker understood the terminal performance of 5.56. It's too small and light for reliable wounding peformance against an adult human in combat.

The 1986 FBI-Miami shootout is an example. One 5.56 bullet hit FBI agent Mireles in the forearm, disabling it. The bullet stopped in his forearm, but it didn't stop Mireles. He was the one who shot and finally stopped both Platt and Matix.

Also, reports about poor 5.56 performance in combat led to development and fielding of the M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round, and upcoming 6.8 cartridge to replace 5.56.

Actually, the examiner ruled that Dove's 9mm shot through Platt's right arm was the one primarily responsible for Platt's death. Mireles did kill Matix with his 357 revolver and he did fire the last shot at Platt from his 686 which was loaded with 38 Special +P (none of the agents had 357 Magnum cartridges).

On the other hand, Platt killed Grogan and Dove with 223. Not only had he disabled Mireles, but he had also taken out McNeil and Hanlon with 223, and they could no longer fight. Additionally, he wounded Orrantia and Manuzzi. Matix did not accomplish anything in that fight, so it is pretty hard to come to the conclusion that Platt was ineffective because he was armed with 223. I don't intend to glorify his evil deeds. I just don't see how it can be concluded from those events, that 223 failed. The fight was effectively eight against one, and Platt if anything was too effective. One agent involved in that shootout remarked about how he heard from a distance that 223 above all the handgun fire. It was fearful.

I don't mean to magnify the 223's terminal performance. Its shortcomings are well-known. We know it was conceived as a mere varmint cartridge, that it has been widely regarded as inadequate for deer, and that it has demonstrated failures for the US military. I still don't think it can be written-off as ineffective in combat. The M855A1 was the latest solution to a string of changes that messed with the cartridge's performance.

Originally, a high-velocity 223 out of a long barrel proved to have outstanding effectiveness. Then it was realized that the cartridges being evaluated were being hand-picked. DuPont couldn't deliver them in high volumes and withdrew their bid to do so. It was understood that the performance was velocity-dependent, and the IMR powder could not deliver the velocity. The DoD picked a double-base ball powder that they believed could. I'm going to skip the other dramas involved here. They went on to raise the pressure well over 223 in order to get the velocity they needed. Some people mistakenly believe the rifle's 1:14 twist was essential to destabilize the bullet and induce yaw in terminal ballistics, but that doesn't make sense. The effectiveness was due to velocity. The spitzer-shaped bullet will yaw with enough velocity and then a FMJ with crimp-groove will fragment. NO velocity, no yaw, no fragmentation. Then they cut the barrels down for the M4 and lost the velocity. The M855's steel penetrator was an effort to improve barrier penetration. It's improved BC was supposed to help at longer ranges where the velocity of a higher-drag bullet out of a short barrel would be lagging, but they also resulted in a much longer corresponding tracer round that demanded a 1:7 twist rate to stabilize. That twist rate worked better with 77 grain Mk262 but there is no compatible tracer round. Tracers are more important for machine guns than for infantry rifles. That continues to be a bad trade-off for ballistics, but almost certainly sensible for logistics.

The new 6.8 cartridge is a machine gun cartridge. It appears to be a shift from making light machine-gunners use rifle rounds to making infantry use light machine-gun rounds. The ballistics are certainly more effective, but it's not clear that it will make combatants more effective. The most damning criticism is that it has proven ineffective against armor without tungsten penetrators. The cartridges with non-AP bullets are not restricted and so there has been no trouble in determining this publicly. The greater terminal ballistics this cartridge offers would be justified if it penetrated armor better than existing rounds. It does not. It requires tungsten which the US does not have enough of. Without tungsten, how is it any different than 270? How is it any better than 30-06? There are certainly circumstances where it will be more desirable than 5.56, but the converse is equally true.

 

[Gun-Reck]

Nope. See image above.

Actually, your image(s) above prove that projectiles with an impact velocity in excess of 2,200 fps have permanent expansive wound and crush cavities.

... while projectiles with impact velocity less than 2,200 fps have only temporary and crush cavities.

 

[Hookeye]

Just split the diff and go with an AR in .350 Legend

 

[westernrover]

Actually, your image(s) above prove that projectiles with an impact velocity in excess of 2,200 fps have permanent expansive wound and crush cavities.

... while projectiles with impact velocity less than 2,200 fps have only temporary and crush cavities.

At least they prove that's how Fackler and his followers draw them. Your claims do match the currently prevailing wound ballistics, which were as much a result of Buford Boone (sp?) at the FBI. Basically, that guy believed this theory and a lot of LEO agencies subscribed and so the ammo companies came on-board with it because they wanted the sales.

It's not quite proven "fact." It depends a lot on how much faith one has in 10% gelatin and Boone's interpretation of Fackler's wounding theories. I don't subscribe to a particular competing theory, but I do have some doubts.