.38 Snubby vs .357 Mag Snubby

[usnavymasterchief]

One of my fishing buddies is a retired LEO and formerly was one of the armorers for his agency. He is as close to a quasi handgun expert that I personally know. And by the way, the owner of a used gun gunshop here in town agrees with most of what my friend claims to be true.
The topic is 2" snubby .38spl+P and 2" snubby .357 mag. My buddy claims that in two inch length barrels and at a close in, self defense,combat distance of inside 10 feet the .38spl+P is equally effective as a man stopper as is the .357mag. He claims that if you are carrying a snubby for CCW self defense that the .357Mag in a 2" barrel is a waste of money for the average person. He is quick to point out that things change dramatically when the barrel length is 4 or 6 inches which is when the .357mag comes into it's own. He further insists that a .357mag in 2" with a ported barrel is an even larger waste of money as all the propellant is waisted in a huge ball of fire and a loud bang.
Personally I don't know but I'd really like to know what you folks think. Is the retired LEO right or is he drinking his bath water?
Thanks Y'all, John

 

[tiberius]

He's probably right in the fact that at very close range, .38 special +p is equally effective as .357 from a snubby.

.357 is certainly more powerful (even from a snubby), but there is a point of diminishing returns and much of the extra powder in the .357 goes unburned in a snubby.


However, *** is he talking about when he says "waste of money"? How is an .357 any more expensive than a .38, Isn't the exellent M60 only availble in .357 now?

 

[10-Ring]

He's prolly right, considering the energy loss from the short barrel.

 

[usnavymasterchief]

HI TIBERIUS, Let me clarify "waste of money" that was my mistake. The point he was making was the cost to the individual buying .357Mag ammo to practice with. .38spl is a lot cheaper here than .357mag. I should have made that more clear, sorry. John

 

[444]

The difference is very small. For all practical purposes I would say the two cartridges are probably equally effective. However, to me, if I was buying a small revolver and had the choice between .357 and .38 and everything else was equal, I would buy the .357 just for the versitility of being able to fire either caliber. If you were convinced that .38 was the way to go, you could do that. If you thought the .357 round would make a difference, you could do that also. If someone, somewhere came up with a load in .357 that provided a better option, you would be capable of trying it. With the .38, you are stuck with one caliber.
Now, if there was a difference in size, weight, or whatever, I wouldn't hesitate to go with the .38 based on some factor other than caliber.
I own a few 2" revolvers in .38 Special, and one in .357. The .38s I have are much smaller and lighter than the .357. But if the same gun was available in both calibers, I would go .357.

 

[sgt127]

Im pretty sure this has been discussed a bunch at the old (moment of silence please)...Firing Line forum. I seem to recall guys with chronograghs showed that even out of a short barrel, the .357 has a considerable edge on the .38. Personal taste and recoil tolerance being real consideration..Without being too gore-ish...with a conact shot, the .357 would sure get the upper hand...thats ALOT of expanding gas...

 

[Blueduck]

Guess it depends on what you consider a significant difference to be

Some guys choose a load because it chrono's 15 FPS faster than another one, some folks think a 357 having an extra 200 FPS with the same weight bullet will make no difference.

Arguing "Stopping power" is like arguing religion, nothings ever gonna be settled

 

[BigG]

I have two comments, for whatever they are worth:

1. If you handload with Bullseye or another quick powder you may get better results than factory 357 ammo in a shorty;

2. Your target will get a severe infection from the powder blast (assuming he/she survives) if you have the muzzle pressed up against his body with either caliber, however moreso with the maggie.

 

[WebHobbit]

.357 has a HUGE velocity/energy advantage over .38+p across all barrel lengths and all bullet weights.

This has been proven over and over in various tests.

All calibers lose some velocity as the barrel length is decreased. When you have precious little to spare to begin with as in the case of .38+p you will often drop below the threshhold of reliable expansion.

For the record when I say huge I mean 100+FPS difference.

 

[Standing Wolf]

As far as I'm concerned, the .357 magnum round is more versatile than the old .38 special.

 

[Nick96]

As stated previously, there have been numerous chrono test done on .38's & .357's out of short barrels - and the .357's are always significantly faster (like 300 + fps). That means typical factory .38's will run in the 800's (rarely over 1,000) where the .357's consistantly run in the 1,100's. And, the sort of "magic" number for reliable hollow point bullet expansion is over 1,000. Granted, a .38 from a 6" barrel will likely perform on par with a .357 from a 2" barrel. Both cartridges we originally designed for use in longer barrels - so both perform best from longer barrels. But ignition pressures are significantly higher in .357's than .38's, which means they get a faster start - regardless of barrel length.

I don't think there is really any serious doubt that a .357 will out perform a .38 in equal barrel lengths. The real question is that of tollerance for the increased flash, blast and recoil from the .357. Especially when fired from light, small frame revolvers.

 

[Preacherman]

As Webhobbit points out, there is a very significant velocity advantage with the .357 Magnum versus the .38 Special, even out of a 2" barrel. Most snubbies will show better than 200 fps difference between the calibers. However, there's another factor to consider - controlling your weapon for rapid, aimed shots. I find the small J-frame .357 Magnum snubbies (particularly the ultra-light jobs) to be very inadequate in rapid aimed fire - I just can't control the gun well enough to get back to my point of aim fast enough. This is why my only full-house .357 Magnum snubbies are now Ruger SP101's, with enough weight and heft to make controllable rapid fire a reality. All my other snubs are .38 Special, carrying the LSWCHP 158gr. +P load. They still kick hard, but are at least controllable: and the "FBI Load" is rated very well for defensive use. YMMV...

 

[Archie]

Okay.....

we are past the ballistic equivilent myth.

The 357 Magnum runs rings around the 38 Special (including plus P).

I never carried a 357 Magnum smaller than a 2.5" M19. Even with heavy loads, that gun is concealable and controllable. But you have to work at it. Yes, theyh do give more blast and flame than a 38 Special. They also give more horsepower.

If I'm going to carry a small 38 Special (and I have) it would be a Chief Special. Loaded with either the 158 HPSWC Federal load (I have some left) or my own handloads in the same configuration. By the way, my serious handloads present a pretty impressive flamecone.

By the way, contrary to intuitive thought, the slower powders still give more velocity in short barrels. Find and read a copy of Speer Loading Manual #8 or 9; there is a section on short barreled snubbies. Which, by the by, has never been re-printed. Still good scoop.

Oh.... another thing about pronouncements by any "organizational" witness.
I've been in government service for over 25 years now. I've seen many, many cases where the boss or other brass hat has made a determination and issued a statement that on it's own made sense, but after dissemination was a trifle removed from it's original meaning.

F'rinstance:
The Chief decided: "On the basis of procurement costs, ammo costs, training time required and longevity of the weapons; issuing .38 Special revolvers is more cost effective than issuing 357 Magnum revolvers."

By the time this gets to the troops, it's now: "A 38 is more efficient than a 357."

And that gets told to "civilians" who know less than the cops about guns... except for a few of us webbies who hold high conclave here.

 

[44]

I get 1180 fps with the Fed 125gr .357 round from my 340PD titanium snub.

I use the grips S&W shows on the 640 (but shortened 1/2") to handle the recoil. Not the little Bantams that came with the gun.

If I stand there getting all ready to shoot, getting my grip just right for the recoil that's coming, I almost dread shooting it. That's because I'm focused on the gun instead of the menacing target.

If I get hyped up and attack the target in a rapid-fire self-defense drill, firing all five shots, even one-handed, I hardly feel the recoil.

I bought the 357 for the added power and will never go back to the 38.
------------

 

[DBR]

Ruger SP101 2 1/4" barrel. Federal 158gr +P LSWCHP 790fps. Remington 158gr SJHP 1200fps. These are actual chrono results. Approx twice the energy, noise and recoil from the 357. You pay for what you get. If you value the energy and power factor there is no comparison. Either one will cause some degree of permanent damage to your hearing in a confined space. The 357 has a calculated muzzle pressure of about 12,000psi. The 38spl +P is about 5,000psi. Yes, Snubbies are VERY loud. A 5" 45ACP is about 4,000psi.

 

[Mastrogiacomo]

I've debated which to get for myself -- .38 or .357, and in the end, I'm going with the S&W 686P and shoot .38s out of it... Even if I was lucky enough to find an inexpensive used colt 6" barrel in SS -- same thing -- .38 ammo. Whether I shoot .357 or .38's -- at close range, I hardly think it matters.

 

[Mastrogiacomo]

By the way....

For those of you that own this gun, how does the 686P snubbie fare in recoil and noise?

 

[Coltdriver]

This is exactly the reason that I sought out a 9mm j frame. After I did my homework the .38 turns out to be fairly anemic in the fps category. There is a lot to be said for the 158 grain wad cutters, but there is more to be said for a round that is traveling well over 1000 fps.

With the 9mm round (which is not subject to much improvement with a longer barrel) and the very concealable 2 inch barrel you get 95+ percent of .357 ballistics without the recoil. I don't mind the recoil as much as I do the controllability of the pistol for a second shot follow up.

I like the .357 but I think that it is better in a larger frame where the length of the barrel will let you get the most out of the round. Just my opinion of course

 

[DBR]

According to my calculated and subjective observations, the 9mm snubby has about the same muzzle blast as a 38spl +P and about 2/3 the recoil with similar energy of the 357 with bullets up to about 125gr. With heavier bullets the 357 wins compared to the 9mm even with short barrels. You also get to enjoy about twice the noise and maybe 50% more recoil with the 357 vs the 9mm. I think is a shame that Federal dropped the 9mm rimmed cartridge. IMHO it is ideal for all snubbies especially the light weight versions.

 

[tiberius]

With the 9mm round (which is not subject to much improvement with a longer barrel) and the very concealable 2 inch barrel you get 95+ percent of .357 ballistics without the recoil.

Colt Driver, Could you please explain the physics that supports this statement. It seems to me that it violates the conservation of momentum principle.

 

[tiberius]

Also for those who ask about perceived recoiil of the 686 snubby. I have never fired a 686 shorter than 4", but I have a model 60 (j-frame) with a 2" barrel and while recoil is sharp and noticeable, it is not painful. I have the Crimson Trace Laser grips on it which are hard plastic and mimic the shape of the Uncle Mike's Boot Grip - exposed rear grip frame. I admit that about 50 full power 125 grainers is about the limit for me in a single a session before I start to weaken, but it is not painful at that point.

There is a tremendous amout of muzzle flash, however, and a controlled pair is somewhat slower than with .38's.

I carry Corbon 125 grain .357s as my defense load for this gun, but I really hope that I never have to fire it indoors becasue I'll probably severly degrade my hearing.....of course it will get the bad guys attention, that's for sure

 

[Coltdriver]

Tiberius,

I am not a ballistics guru so this may well be a flawed explaination.

The (rimless) 9mm round is a fairly high pressure round. I think it falls somewhere between the .38 and the .357. It is designed to develop full pressure quicker than a .357 round in order to facilitate the movement of the slide in the automatic's it was designed for.

The .357 round was designed in an earlier period when the type of powder used allowed for more volume versus quicker burn.

Consequently, with the .357 you have a longer burn of a greater mass of powder (and the attendant fire ball you see with a short barrel when the unburned powder continues to blow out of the weapon).

So, the .357 benefits from a longer barrel because the powder is still burning off. I think if you used a large volume of very fast burning powder that the .357 could physically hold that you would blow it up. The 9mm does not benefit as much from a long barrel because it essentially spends all of its available energy quicker. In fact you can verify with the carbine versions of the 9mm that at rifle barrel lengths it looses velocity by comparison to a pistol.

The ballistics in a 2 inch barrel are available to see and the 9mm is very close to the .357 when using a 125 grain round.

Having fired both from a j frame it is my highly subjective opinion that the 9mm is a relative piece of cake by comparison. In fact, I have also got a .38 (model 38) and the recoil from it shooting 158 grain wad cutters is very similar to the 9mm shooting 125 grain standard pressure rounds. The .38 is not quite as "sharp" but the overall feel is very close.

Hopefully some of our more ammo knowledgable brethren can chime in and help with the comparison of the .357 to 9mm rounds and powder types etc.

 

[tiberius]

Colt Driver, Thanks for your comments. They seem to be what passes for common knowedge among the 9mm wheel gun advocates, but I'm not so sure it makes sense. I could be wrong and if so seek enlightenment, but I'll exand on a couple points for discussion.

The (rimless) 9mm round is a fairly high pressure round. I think it falls somewhere between the .38 and the .357. It is designed to develop full pressure quicker than a .357 round in order to facilitate the movement of the slide in the automatic's it was designed for.The .357 round was designed in an earlier period when the type of powder used allowed for more volume versus quicker burn.

You are correct regarding pressures (.357 - 46,000 cup, 9mm - 35,700 cup) but not history. The .357 Magnum round was design around 30 years AFTER the the 9mm. 9mm is older than .45 ACP even FYI. Further, I can load either round with any powder I choose so burn rates have no need to be different.

The ballistics in a 2 inch barrel are available to see and the 9mm is very close to the .357 when using a 125 grain round.

I would appreciate a source for this because I cannot find one off hand. I am not claiming that the 9mm is not ballistically similar to the .357 in short barrels, (if you have the numbers, I certainly believe you) only that if this is true then recoil must be similar as well.

I agree that perceived recoil is VERY subjective. I think we can agree that actual recoil is created by the rearward movement of the gun caused by the forward movement of the bullet and powder/gasses. Therefore, given identical guns, bulltets launched at the same speed will produce the same recoil. Do you disagree with this? There may be differnces in PERCEIVED reoil, I'll admit. Some of the reasons that I can think of are:

- If one round produces less flash and report, then perhaps it would be perceived has having lower recoil.
- It is possible for different accelleration rates of bullets to produce different perceived recoils, however if both bulltets are the same weight, both starting at rest and both reach the the same speed after the same 2" of travel, than their acelleration rates are probably VERY close.

If someone reports here that they have fired identical guns (S&W, Ruger and Taurus all do make or have made such weapons) that have the same size bullet (125gr vs. 124gr is close enough) with the same muzzle velocity and they report that there IS a difference of recoil, then I will certainly belive them. I will however, want to learn WHY this is the case because I do not understand the physics that would make it possible.

 

[WebHobbit]

For starters lets make sure we compare "apples to apples":

The following data is from Remington's web-site:


9mm

124 JHP 1120 FPS (4 inch test barrel)
Golden Saberâ„¢ 124 BJHP +P 1180 FPS (4 inch test barrel)


.357 Magnum

125 SJHP 1450 FPS (4 inch test barrel)
Golden Saberâ„¢ 125 BJHP 1220 FPS (4 inch test barrel)


So you see the .357 STILL enjoys a pretty big FPS/energy advantage over the 9mm. The 9mm may not lose AS MUCH velocity from a two inch barrel but it will still lose SOME.


You have to go to something in +p+ or the Corbon for the 9mm to start to really approach .357 ballistics....but even then if one compares apples to apples the 9mm is still the loser here:

Data from Corbon's site:


9MM+P 125gr JHP 1250fps/434ftlbs

357MAG 125gr JHP 1450fps/584ftlbs

9mm clearly outclasses the .38+p but is itself outclassed by the .357 Magnum even from a snub.

It falls between the two.

Now if we could only get all of the above specs measured from a snub gun!


If you compare any of the data you will see that the poor old .38+p really is an "obsolete weakling" compared to 9mm or .357. I am glad I switched all my SD/HD guns/ammo over to .357.

 

[WebHobbit]

Whoops! Left out the .38 data:

Remington's site again:

.38 Special

125 SJHP +P 945

Golden Saberâ„¢ 125 BJHP +P 975

UGGHH!!!!!! This is from a 4 inch test barrel! Imagine snub results!

From Corbon's site:

38SPEC +P 125gr JHP 1125fps/351ftlbs

Now the above is pretty respectable ballistics but me and my buddies have fired some .38 Corbons that were CLEARLY way over-loaded. I'm talking exceeding what the case could safely handle. The fired case's primers were awful looking. And if I remember right there were tinly splits at the case mouth. +P loads? I seriously doubt it...I think they are fudging that a bit and they are really +P+ level.