thoughts on a .357 hunting load for deer

[CraigC]

When I read statements like this:

You need to go back to Physics 101.

I know the person making it doesn't understand enough about terminal ballistics to KNOW that it isn't "Physics 101". It's much more complicated than that. Kinetic energy might be "Physics 101" but it's "Terminal Ballistics for Dummies".

Energy is a worthless number. What matters is "what does bullet A do when it strikes target B at impact velocity C?" It doesn't matter how much energy is produced. It matters how the bullet behaves, how much destruction it produces and how deeply it penetrates. Bullet weight, construction and impact velocity are what matter. Take three bullets of the same diameter and weight. Let's say 250gr .45cal and a muzzle velocity of 1300fps. One bullet a roundnose full metal jacket, one a wide cavity jacketed hollowpoint, one a cast LBT style WFN. Driven at the same velocity they all produce the same amount of kinetic energy. Yet all three will behave very differently when they impact a live animal. The FMJ will zip through causing minimal damage. The JHP will expand, producing a broad, yet shallow(er) wound channel. The LBT will produce a wide wound channel, break every bone in its path and exit the other side. You can intelligently debate the merits of each and kinetic energy need not be mentioned the first time. We're not saying that kinetic energy doesn't exist or that it is not in play here, only that the calculated amount is not a useful number. It doesn't tell us what a given bullet will do when it impacts a critter at a given velocity. Testing, manufacturer specifications and experience tell us that. Not "Physics 101".

Now please explain to this idiot how calculated kinetic energy helps us determine which bullet does what and which is suitable for what game.

 

[Steve2md]

2 things:
First, this thread has gotten WAAYYYY off of the original question of a good (read tried and true) .357 deer load. Let's try and bring that back on track and move the rest of the energy talk to the energy thread.

in that spirit, Try a 158 gn bullet around 1400 fps. Either cast or jsp, your call. Either will get the job done nicely.

Second, The wasted energy thing is all fun for theoretical stuffs, but in the end, a good hit to the vitals will kill whether or not the bullet passes through or stays in the critter. Having said that, there is a reason a .338 lm, .700nitro, and .50bmg are considered too much for deer hunting, you simply don't NEED that much power/lead (read ENERGY) to take a deer and you'll do more damage to the meat in the process by using them.

A pass through shot MAY be easier for some to track, but damages good meat on BOTH sides of the animal, whereas a bullet that stays in the vitals and kills the beast JUST AS DEAD only damages meat on 1 side.

The "wasted energy" is a moot point, as either shot will kill. The meat damage might not bother those that need 2 bleeding wounds to track, and that's fine. But IN THEORY, since both types kill just as efficiently, a person COULD develop loads that, on average, stop in the vitals, potentially saving powder, lead, and meat in the process.
Before you loose your mind about how 1 gn of powder isn't much of a savings, remember that you SHOULD be practicing with the loads you'll hunt with. That 1 gn of powder adds up, and in this economy, every little savings helps.

 

[Steve2md]

Driven at the same velocity they all produce the same amount of kinetic energy. Yet all three will behave very differently when they impact a live animal. The FMJ will zip through causing minimal damage. The JHP will expand, producing a broad, yet shallow(er) wound channel. The LBT will produce a wide wound channel, break every bone in its path and exit the other side.

Yes, but they TRANSFER said energy to the target differently. I believe that this is where the energy debate got off track. I don't believe it was ever about muzzle energy, or impact energy, but how that energy was transferred to the animal, namely, the fmj that zips through causing little damage would "waste" lots of its energy, rather than transferring it to the intended target, vs the other 2 you show in your example, which do far more damage due to their design.

 

[Armored farmer]

I have always enjoyed handgun shooting and was thrilled when Illinois introduced it's Handgun season many years ago. Over the following years I took maybe 10 or 12 does with my .357mag. I don't want to take part in the continuing arguments, however I can tell youi that I had poor results with the .357 on deer. I never lost one, but I had to do lots of long tracks to find them. A few times I had to shoot them again to finish it. I once had a big doe run into the back yard of the only house within a mile before it died. That was nice.
I gave up on my .357s as hunting guns, and lost respect for them as SD guns too. I went to a .45colt Blackhawk to hunt with, and .45acp for SD.
Besides the .357 is an ear splitter anyway...esp my ported ones.

 

[35 Whelen]

I have always enjoyed handgun shooting and was thrilled when Illinois introduced it's Handgun season many years ago. Over the following years I took maybe 10 or 12 does with my .357mag. I don't want to take part in the continuing arguments, however I can tell youi that I had poor results with the .357 on deer. I never lost one, but I had to do lots of long tracks to find them. A few times I had to shoot them again to finish it. I once had a big doe run into the back yard of the only house within a mile before it died. That was nice.
I gave up on my .357s as hunting guns, and lost respect for them as SD guns too. I went to a .45colt Blackhawk to hunt with, and .45acp for SD.
Besides the .357 is an ear splitter anyway...esp my ported ones.

Thanks so much for this post. This is the kind relevant information I enjoy seeing. Sot the 357 didn't work out for you, but kudos to you for being man enough to admit it.

35W

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I think you would rethink not liking the .357 Magnum for deer if you use a 140gr bullet @ an AV of 1976 fps or a 170gr bullet @ an AV of 1795 fps. (from a levergun that is)

 

[Scimmia]

Great Scimmia! Okay, to answer your questions: all of the bullet exited the animal, and the velocity doesn't matter since the bullet did it's job by providing a hole clean through the animal. Of course, if you want to plug in a exit speed in fps, then use 200fps, but then, I may not be a math genius (I am just a lowly programmer/analyst), wouldn't you also need the speed that the bullet started at?

You didn't tell me how much of the bullet exits ("all of it" doesn't work in calculations), so let's just assume it's a 150gr bullet. In that case:

.5 * ((150 / 7000) / 2.20462 lb per kg ) * (200 / 3.28084 feet per meter)^2 = 18.0600675052 joules, or 13.320422206 ft lb

Simple, isn't it? That is the force that the bullet still has after exiting that could have been used inside the animal if a different bullet design was used. Larger caliber, more expansion, something. Of course, if you're only exiting at 200 fps, you chose the load pretty well for your game.

I must warn you, you are going to have a tough time selling us that a bullet that continues on, providing additional tissue destruction and blood flow well past the bullet that stopped inside an animal actually used less "energy" in doing so.

Can you really not see how a bullet that creates a 4 inch permanent wound channel 12 inches deep does more damage than one that creates a 1 inch wound channel all the way through the animal? The bullet that stops always uses a higher percentage of it's energy inside the animal, but nobody has once said that a bullet that stops inside the animal always uses more total energy. Again, please stop arguing against things people haven't said.

Maybe less energy is good? I look forward to seeing your mathematical equation showing how less energy is more destructive to said animal.

Actually, yes, less energy is good in a lot of cases. You need enough energy to get the job done, anything more just destroys meat. There are people up in Montana that use a 50 BMG on ground squirrels (not kidding), they're pretty much just pink mist. Way too much energy transferred into the animal.

Bullet weight, construction and impact velocity are what matter.

Thank you for at least coming this far. Now all I have to to is get you to understand that impact velocity and bullet weight IS kinetic energy.

Take three bullets of the same diameter and weight. Let's say 250gr .45cal and a muzzle velocity of 1300fps. One bullet a roundnose full metal jacket, one a wide cavity jacketed hollowpoint, one a cast LBT style WFN. Driven at the same velocity they all produce the same amount of kinetic energy. Yet all three will behave very differently when they impact a live animal.

Yep, which is why I have said over and over that the design of the bullet determines how that energy is applied to the animal.

The FMJ will zip through causing minimal damage. The JHP will expand, producing a broad, yet shallow(er) wound channel. The LBT will produce a wide wound channel, break every bone in its path and exit the other side.

Which just proves my point. The FMJ round zips through causing minimal damage because it can't effectively use it's energy inside the animal. It retains that energy on the other side.

You can intelligently debate the merits of each and kinetic energy need not be mentioned the first time. We're not saying that kinetic energy doesn't exist or that it is not in play here, only that the calculated amount is not a useful number.

Ah, but multiple people have said exactly that. Quotes like "Energy does NOT initiate bullet exapansion. Energy does NOT create hydrostatic shock. Math. Math. Math. That's all energy is. Period." Really make you wonder. My entire point here is that energy is what the bullet uses to do it's damage, so it is a critical part of what's happening.

 

[Macchina]

OK: This has fallen off the tracks! I think the problem here is that we are arguing without setting up the exact scenario. I see a lot of people comparing two totally different scenarios (FMJ for passthrough and JHP for the bullet that stops). Both sides will argue their point when the problem is not perfectly defined because BOTH SIDES CAN BE RIGHT IF YOU CHANGE THE VARIABLES WITHIN THE PROBLEM. If you're not going to define the problem using real world numbers, then what's the point of continuing to argue?

CraigC seems to be all over the place and I think the problem is he is arguing both real world and theory at the same time but without defining every variable. He has attacked my life experience instead of my answers with every one of his replies so I am leaving this one. I don't throw poop.

 

[blarby]

OOOOOOO

Popcorn.

I love popcorn.

Terminal ballistics always brings out the best in people.

 

[41 Mag]

OK: This has fallen off the tracks!

No kidding, maybe the OP should have been something less controversial, maybe related to religion or politics...

Sheesh why can't you just give the fella a bit of encouragement, something he can use like possibly a powder or bullet recommendation, and I guess I missed the spot where he mentioned wanting an argument on energy,

Lets see here,

My barrel is only 6", so I know the velocity will be a bit lower, but does anyone have feedback on these particular bullets, their performance, or the idea of a .357 for hunting medium-sized NC deer?

Nope nothing I see there even comes close...

if ya want to argue start your own thread....:banghead:

 

[Walkalong]

This has fallen off the tracks!

Yea, .357 for deer tends to de-rail for some reason.