.38+P vs. .357mag, both with SWC Ammo

[peacebutready]

If we compare the above with 158gr semi-wadcutter ammo, with the .38 traveling at 850 fps and the .357 traveling at 1250 fps is there a difference in the rounds' ability to end a threat against a bad guy, assuming the BG is of average size and one shot is fired? Assume identical torso shot placement.

 

[suemarkp]

Given two identical non-expanding bullets, the faster one makes a slightly larger permanent crush cavity than the slower one. So it should be slightly more effective. Velocity also gives more potential for expansion if that bullet is a SWC HP. But that opens a can of worms -- a SWC HP that is very soft and made for the 38 special will expand too much, come apart, and not penetrate well if driven too fast. LIkewise, a bullet designed for 1200 fps most likely won't expand at 800 fps.

 

[MartinS]

I think the 357 would more dramatic hitting bone.

 

[Panzerschwein]

The .357 will be more effective.

It will be able to penetrate light cover/automobile covers with far more authority and will defeat heavy winter clothing and be able to punch clean to the vitals even through bone.

 

[BearBrimstone]

The extra speed will always add more energy which will cause more damage. I don't know the numbers to tell how big of a difference that energy would make, but more energy is more energy.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Since there are few places where you can be hit where there is no bone (stomach being about it) then the .357 would be more effective.

Course a SWC might shoot through and hit something behind the target....

I normally, in my Ruger Security Six 2 3/4 inch bbl. pistol use a 158 gr copper coated SWC at about 1050 fps for most work in the field (Glocks being my CCW piece.) Even at 1050 fps it shoots through quite a bit.

Deaf

 

[grouselips1]

The grand idea for one shot effectiveness if for the round to expend all of it's energy inside of the target, with an adequate wound channel and secondary damage as a result of hydrostatic shock. Over penetration is why FMJ and heavy rounds (44 mag.) are really not the best defensive loads.

Deaf, you make a good case for over penetration from the swc profile. I have seen that on the range, on scrap pieces of lumber that I would never have imagined a soft, cast bullet would have penetrated or even passed through. In my case, it was 4.0 grains of 231 and 158 gr. swc whizzing through two pieces of two by four nailed together.

Statistically, the .357 125 jhp is the most effective one shot stopper, so it gets my vote and happens to be my carry choice 90% of the time.

The comment on heavy winter clothing is a good point. Light cover or auto sheet metal, maybe. That would depend on your application. If you are LE, sure. As a civilian CCW, that sounds strikingly like a scenario you could retreat from.

 

[murf]

the 357 load will cause a larger hole on the off-side with that bullet causing more blood loss than the 38 special round. both rounds will probably be through-and-through shots.

murf

 

[peacebutready]

the 357 load will cause a larger hole on the off-side with that bullet causing more blood loss than the 38 special round. both rounds will probably be through-and-through shots.

Interesting point about the larger exit hole. A little larger or a lot larger?

 

[CraigC]

Folks that hunt with these guns have pretty much concluded that 1200-1300fps is the sweet spot for cast bullets. Less produces smaller wound channels and any more just overtaxes the bullet.

The grand idea for one shot effectiveness if for the round to expend all of it's energy inside of the target, with an adequate wound channel and secondary damage as a result of hydrostatic shock.

The notion of a bullet "expending all its energy inside the target" is pure myth. And handguns don't produce enough velocity for hydrostatic shock.

 

[Barry the Bear]

Folks that hunt with these guns have pretty much concluded that 1200-1300fps is the sweet spot for cast bullets. Less produces smaller wound channels and any more just overtaxes the bullet.



The notion of a bullet "expending all its energy inside the target" is pure myth. And handguns don't produce enough velocity for hydrostatic shock.

Does this apply to hardcast Keith or LFN bullets? For hunting not HD purposes.

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

The faster one would theoretically do the work. However, the slower one might hit the target more accurately and would be less likely to deafen you in the process.

There is an in between... the Buffalo Bore .38 + P Outdoorsman which has a 158 grain keith style projectile clocking 1050 ft/s out of a 2.5" model 19.

 

[Mackay Sagebrush]

I would consider the platform it is being launched with, and the ability of the shooter. An extra 300 FPS is outstanding, but if the shooter cannot make multiple fast, accurate hits, then it may be advantageous to use the lesser recoiling load, that allows better shooter performance. The classic example being .357 chambered J Frames.

Personally, if I need more than what +p .38s offer, I generally carry handgun with a larger bore, as I find mid level .44s/.45s to be far more pleasant than .357s.

 

[CraigC]

Does this apply to hardcast Keith or LFN bullets? For hunting not HD purposes.

Yes. Hunting or self defense, premise is the same.

 

[peacebutready]

Personally, if I need more than what +p .38s offer, I generally carry handgun with a larger bore, as I find mid level .44s/.45s to be far more pleasant than .357s.

I wish .44s ammo wasn't so expensive. It feels aesthetically wrong to me to run .45 ACP in a revolver but that's just me.

 

[roscoe]

One thing is for certain - the .357 will be LOUD! I wouldn't want to have to touch one off in my house. I keep 158 grain hardcast .38s in my Speed Six.

 

[grouselips1]

Folks that hunt with these guns have pretty much concluded that 1200-1300fps is the sweet spot for cast bullets. Less produces smaller wound channels and any more just overtaxes the bullet.



The notion of a bullet "expending all its energy inside the target" is pure myth. And handguns don't produce enough velocity for hydrostatic shock.

Craig,
I respectfully disagree. There are those much more knowledgable me and you, who have proven otherwise. Please reference Marshall and Sanow for a complete run down, with documented evidence.

However, think of it this way. If the bullet comes to a stop within a target chest cavity (let's say white tailed deer to be PC), then all of the energy from that projectile has been expended within the target. If the round passed through, then it was not.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I'm wondering why some posts are talking about recoil and accurate follow-up shots when the OP clearly said "one shot is fired" in his first post?

 

[murf]

pbr,

we are talking about 150 to 250 pound thin-skinned animals here (think white tail or mule deer). the semi wadcutter bullet has a flat meplat that cuts the skin on entry and cuts the skin on exit (as opposed to an fmj, or round nosed bullet that just pushes the skin aside). the size of the exit hole depends on the size of the meplat and the remaining velocity of the bullet. craigc can probably better answer your question on exit hole size as he has shot large game through-and-through with a revolver. there are more examples of this on the hunting forum, too.

murf

 

[CraigC]

Craig,
I respectfully disagree. There are those much more knowledgable me and you, who have proven otherwise. Please reference Marshall and Sanow for a complete run down, with documented evidence.

However, think of it this way. If the bullet comes to a stop within a target chest cavity (let's say white tailed deer to be PC), then all of the energy from that projectile has been expended within the target. If the round passed through, then it was not.

Especially as it pertains to handguns, energy shouldn't even enter the equation and the dependence on that meaningless figure hamstrings any discussion of terminal ballistics. Energy doesn't kill critters or incapacitate perpetrators. Tissue damage does that. A bullet that exits has produced more tissue damage than one that has not. It may also break structural bones (as opposed to ribs) on the way out. The energy expended in the process is completely irrelevant. Do you think a bullet that stops at the heart and "expends all its energy within the target" is more effective than one that penetrates a few inches deeper, breaks the spine and exits to "waste its energy outside the target"? Of course not. In a serious, reality-based discussion on terminal ballistics, wound channels and the factors affecting the width and breadth of them are what matter. Energy is for the theorists.

 

[grouselips1]

At its most basic level, energy is what is propelling the bullet. That is physics. Tissue damage and blood loss are what address the kill. Aside from damage to the central nervous system, damage to organs to prevent the flow or cause the loss of blood cause the kill. I think most here understand that. The basis of the article question seemed to be about defensive shooting though. In which case you must be absolutely cognizant of bystanders and the round must not pass through with the potential to strike an innocent bystander. The OP said one shot as well. That is where I made the suggestion to reference Marshall and Sanows' work (Man Stoppers). These were all documented shootings, with autopsy reports. Additionally, the barrel length, caliber and load were all known.In reference to your statement sir, nobody expects the bullet to stop prior to the heart and be more effective. You are talking about total penetration. I should have been more clear on noting that i was referencing the 125 gr JHP from a 357 and it's high effective one shot stop percentage. As I recall, it was 97%. I have a basis of reality on terminal performance from personal experience, that includes a bit more than game.
On game, would prefer my 45 colt to be pushing a 300 grain WFGC over 1200 FPS, yes. If it whistled through the chest cavity of a deer ,elk or black bear, that would be grand. If it broke a shoulder on the way, splendid. Do I want to utilize the same load on an adversary in a life threatening situation? With a crowd around? In my home with children in the next room? No sir. That would be a fools folly. I would want a round that penetrates 8-12 inches, expands and wastes itself within the target. The theory is sound and proven in that situation.

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

" I think most here understand that. The basis of the article question seemed to be about defensive shooting though. In which case you must be absolutely cognizant of bystanders and the round must not pass through with the potential to strike an innocent bystander. "

I think it is reasonable to be aware of what is behind your target. However, failure to stop a threat through under-penetration would be the primary concern. I don't think the above concern is of relevance to bullet selection. If it happens at all, it would be extremely rare. However, even a round that penetrates at the FBI minimum could blow through an arm, leg, or neck and come out the other side. Consider your shot first and then hope it does the work. Angle your shot if necessary. Take a different shot. More penetration is better in these calibers. It is my understanding that stray bullets missing their target is more of an issue for bystanders.

 

[grouselips1]

Tony good points here. Under a stressful situation, 99% of highly trained and those without training are not going to have the frame of mind or the time to angle a shot. Center mass, light it up.