Penetration test: 357 mag vs 44 mag

[a__l__a__n]

I finally decided to find out for myself how 357 mag and 44 mag compare for penetration. For my test, I selected two Underwood rounds that I have on hand.

357 mag: 180 gr LFN-GC (item 720) advertised 1400 fps
44 mag: 255 gr Keith-type (Item 722) advertised 1350 fps

I didn't have a chrono with me for the test. But I had previously chrono tested this ammo (from the same box as used in this test)
357: 1342 fps (GP100 6")
44: 1350 fps (Redhawk 5.5")

The sectional density on these two rounds is nearly identical: 0.202 for the 357 and 0.198 for the 44. With the velocities and the sectional densities very close on these two rounds, it seemed like a pretty fair comparison for my purposes.

For the penetration test I used the following two guns, selected because they are much easier to carry for a day in the woods, than those used in the prior chrono test:

357: Ruger Speed Six 2.75"
44: Taurus Tracker 4" (ported, so effectively a 3" barrel)

For the penetration medium, I filled a 15" long cardboard box with dry Georgia red clay, pressing it down until the cardboard box wouldn't withstand more pressure. I then placed a second box on top of the clay and filled it with clay to maintain the compaction of the clay in the bottom box. I placed a third box filled with clay behind the bottom box.

The 357 mag round went completely through the 15" of clay and stopped at the boundary between the two boxes, leaving a dent in the second box but not entering it.

The 44 mag round did almost exactly the same thing. It exited the bottom of the first box within a half-inch of the end (14.5" penetration) and was found barely sticking out under the box at the 15" mark. The two bullets were slightly deformed but essentially performed as one would expect a hard cast bullet to perform.

I'm sure there are various ways to improve the test. (more shots of expensive ammo...) But for my purposes, this confirmed what I suspected. Based on my limited test it seems sectional density and velocity are the determiners of penetration. Penetration seems to be a tossup.

Weight is also a tossup. These two guns are virtually identical weight unloaded, and not much different when loaded (5 rounds in the Taurus, 6 rounds in the Ruger).

I find the Speed Six much easier for second shots than the Tracker. OTOH the 44 makes a bigger hole.

First shots might be more accurate in the Tracker due to longer sight radius - if I have time to use the sights. OTOH draw time might be quicker with a shorter barrel.

All things considered, I haven't resolved which round is better for me to carry in the woods. But at least I've satisfied myself that penetration is not an important distinguishing factor - contrary to what some people insist.

Anyway I thought someone might find this interesting.

 

[skeeterfogger]

Well it just depends on what you might need it for. 357 good round. Going to make an impression on just about anything. If it be bear it would be my preference for the 44mag for its added impact energy particularly at better than striking distance.

 

[Barry loyd]

Since you’re in Georgia (as am I) there is nothing on four or two legs either of those rounds won’t stop.

 

[357smallbore]

My opinion (for what it's worth) I'd go 357. I have a Speed Six in 2.75. It is i my ccw rotation. In GA I believe you are over gunned if carrying the 44. Out West where I am from, then it would be my 5.5 Redhawk in 44 for the forest/woods. I love both calibers. I am really hard pressed to say which one I would leave behind if I could only have one caliber.

 

[Varminterror]

I've satisfied myself that penetration is not an important distinguishing factor - contrary to what some people insist.

Your test may have stacked the cards to give you a rather biased result. A 357mag load pushing a 180 at 1350fps is about as hot as a 357mag can get from a 6” tube, while a 255 at 1350 from a Redhawk is only a touch over milquetoast. The 44mag case will push a 300grn pill to 1350 without even seating long or exceeding book powder charges (both well documented in load information around), pushing >15% more momentum and a .233SD.

So without any consideration whether the penetration test is valid as a method, the samples chosen were not really an apt comparison of the capabilities of the two rounds. Kinda like saying an open throat V6 is as powerful as a governed V8, simply because they both had the same top speed. Open the throttle and let your 44mag run a bit, you’ll likely come to the same conclusion as all of us who have walked that road for decades before.

 

[MaxP]

Yeah, that is pretty much a top weight bullet for a .357 and the velocity is right up there, whereas the .44 Mag is just getting started.

 

[a__l__a__n]

A 300 grain bullet is too long for the Taurus Tracker. OTOH I can go as high as 200 grains in the Speed Six. IOW the test may have been closer to the top end of the Tracker than it was to the Speed Six. Comparing those two 32 ounce revolvers for all day woods carry, those choices were reasonable.

 

[buck460XVR]

I'm sure there are various ways to improve the test. (more shots of expensive ammo...) But for my purposes, this confirmed what I suspected. Based on my limited test it seems sectional density and velocity are the determiners of penetration. Penetration seems to be a tossup.

All things considered, I haven't resolved which round is better for me to carry in the woods. But at least I've satisfied myself that penetration is not an important distinguishing factor - contrary to what some people insist.

Penetration is a very important distinguishing factor and is very dependent upon what you are carrying for, as is the size of the hole and the amount of energy produced. Shooting a box of dirt, while you may get an vague idea of penetration, is not the ultimate test of what a bullet will do against flesh and bone, much less wound channel. Performance of bullets against the dirt in the berm at my range is totally different than terminal performance of bullets on the game I use them on. Hard cast and monolithic projectiles give much different results than jacketed, generally more penetration and little to no expansion.

IMHO, Against most creatures most of us face in the woods, other than Grizzlies or other dangerous game, penetration of 15 inches or more in a box of dirt is irrelevant. So is using a heavy for caliber bullet. Without knowing what you are expecting to encounter in the woods, it's hard to determine whether or not your test is relevant at all, even to you. It is interesting and sounds like you had fun doing it, so nuttin' lost. As for the expensive ammo thing, cost of ammo is also irrelevant when it comes down to taking an animal humanely, protecting your life or becoming proficient/accurate with your handgun. Punching paper, not so much.

 

[a__l__a__n]

Kinda hard to get a bear to stand still for a penetration test.

 

[MaxP]

Most media testing while interesting, doesn’t tell us much.

And precisely why we developed the Bovine Bash as there is no substitute for flesh and bone.

 

[a__l__a__n]

I agree my test was quite limited. I'd love to see results from your Bovine Bash with these rounds.