What makes the .357 Mag 125gr unquestionably the best manstopper?

[tipoc]

From Swamp Fox...

If you like the bullets but don't want max power we
can load them to your spec's, Just let me know.
max overall length 1.250" to 1.253"
Over 25 years experience loading ammo

My Lee reloading manual gives the Min. OAL for it's listed loads for 125 gr. bullets from the .357 as between 1.535" to 1.580" Usually the Max OAL for the .357 is 1.590 or so. I'm a bit suspicious of that claimed 1900 fps.

By the way I'll repeat it...not even M&S claim the 125 gr. bullet from the .357 Magnum is the "best manstopper". No one who has done any serious study on handgun ammo claims that.

tipoc

 

[Mr.454]

One argument for the .357 is that it is considered a hunting round, while 9mm and .45 are not. If you can't reliably bring down a fuzzy little deer with your gun, how would you feel against a 250 pound guy with a gun. But since I live in a ccw area and not oc I have to balance weight and size issues hence the 9mm. But given the opportunity I will always bring too much gun rather than just enough. And this brings us to the futility of these caliber discussions, we all have to make compromises. If your a peace officer you have department issued weapons you are stuck with. For our poor soldiers they are bound by international agreements and government penny pinching. And as for ccw holders we have to work hard to keep those guns covered and comfortable. I'm sure if all of us had our way we would just carry FALs loaded with hollow points.

 

[jojo200517]

So you guys are telling me I shouldn't be shooting 158 grain .357 magnums? I like my big heavy bullets. For the same reason I like my 230 grain +p .45acp. I'm not sure they are either one "unquestionably the best man stopper". I'm thinking a howitzer somewhere has that title. But for pocket size power i'm sure any of them would do fine if they are put into the target at the proper place.

Bullets, apply liberally to target, reload and repeat if necessary. Warning may contain chemicals known to cause cancer in the state of california.

 

[basicblur]

I view the Marshall-Sanow thing as good as it gets, without spending thousands of hours and way-too-much money for marginally more effective notetaking.

And I thought I was the only one leaning towards this conclusion...

I've read Fackler? etc 'til I thought my eyes were going to bleed-seemed a bit of a cat fight to me. I also have a study from other PhDs that dispute Fackler. I've read a number of respected folks in the industry that seem to come down on the M&S side. I've also seen a lot of folks whine 'bout M&S, but the very talking points they complain about M&S acknowledge in their books (maybe they didn't actually read a M&S book?).

Who's right-heck if I know, but assuming M&S ain't lying (I can live with a bookeeping/documentation mistake here and there), I'd tend to believe their reports.

Anywho-while Fackler etc. discount hydrostatic shock, I was recently listening to a ProArms podcast on the 357 SIG-seems a number of the ProArms folks have started carrying 'em, and with a recent outbreak of water moccasins, they reported they noticed they killed more than a few simply by hitting near 'em in the water.

Hmmmmm....

 

[GCBurner]

"Best" defensive round is open to endless armchair debate, but "highly effective" in the right load and barrel length is beyond doubt.

 

[NM Mountainman]

I agree that the M&S stopping power studies do not constitute scientific, statistically valid, measurements of the effectiveness of handgun ammo. I also agree with the posters who said that the data in the studies is of some value and may be as good as as any we are ever likely to get. If (big if) the M&S studies were valid, there would still be a margin of error in measurement which would imply that all loads whose ratings differed by less than 5% or 6% would be essentially equivalent for all practical purposes. The M&S ratings of loads in the range of 90% and above do NOT imply that a LEO can expect a one shot stop (with a torso hit) 90% of the time. The M&S studies simply are not statistically valid enough to have that kind of predictive power. But it would probably be reasonable to expect that a load with a rating above 90% would usually be more effective (on the average) than one rated 70 or 75%.

The use of JHP ammo in .357 mag by LEO's was most common during the period of time ranging from the mid 1970's to the late 1980's (early 1990's?) The most commonly used weights were 125 gr. and 158 gr. During most of this era before Gold Dots, XTP's, and other improved designs became widely used, the commonly available JHP bullets were simple "cup and core" bullets which often didn't expand reliably. The common wisdom I frequently heard repeated during that era (including statements by Marshall in a magazine article) was that JHP bullets typically required an impact velocity of about 1200 fps (or more) to expand reliably and adequately. The .357 Mag. 125 gr. JHP was one of the few available loads in common use by LEO's which could consistently deliver that kind of velocity at 25 yd from a 4" barrel revolver.
Among the LEO's I shot, reloaded, hunted, and talked with, the load had a reputation as an effective man stopper. But the load was not revered, and there were quite a few reports of "failures to stop" with the load. It had a reputation of sometimes fragmenting and failing to penetrate deeply enough. I saw several coyotes who kept on running after one or two hits in the chest with the load. One of my LEO friends fired three 125 gr. JHP loads at close range into the chest of a German Shepherd which then required a 4th shot through the head to stop it. I knew of one state trooper who was fatally wounded after he emptied his revolver into the door of a pickup, and none of the 125 gr slugs penetrated through the door to hit the felon in the truck. But overall, the load usually worked as good or better than anything else available. It and the 110 grain loads were probably the only JHP loads which could often give pretty good expansion from .357 snubs.

During that era, Speer and Hornady (as well as a few other makers) offered .357 JHP bullets in 140 or 145 grains. Speer offered Lawman ammo loaded with this (pre Gold Dot) bullet. A lot of shooters and LEO's who tried the load claimed that it delivered most of the penetration of a 158 gr bullet and most of the expansion of a 125 gr. bullet when fired from a 4" barrel. A lot of shooters and authors at that time claimed that it was also the most accurate bullet weight in many .357 revolvers, and that it didn't have the tendency to cause flame cutting in the frames of S&W M19 revolvers to the extent that the 125 gr bullets did. I used the Speer 140 gr load in my S&W Model 19 (with 4" barrel) to drop a nice mule deer buck at a range of a little over 50 yards. The bullet entered the lungs, expanded, stayed intact, and penetrated almost all of the way through the animal. The buck walked less than 15 feet and fell. This and other 140 grain loads may have been the most accurate and most effective .357 mag loads available at that time, but they were not used widely enough by enough LEO's to gain as big of a reputation as the 125 gr load did.

So the .357 mag 125 gr JHP load was and is an effective load which usually performed well for LEO and self defense use. But there is no evidence (except for the M&S studies) to support the claim that it is or was the most effective handgun load. And if you look at FBI protocol gelatin test results of the modern Gold Dot, Golden Sabre, XTP, and HST 125 grain .357 mag loads (fired from 2.5" and 4" barrels) , you will find the results are approximately equal or only slightly superior to several loads in the common semi-auto service cartridges.

 

[Shanghai Dan]

@ThompsonCustom:

Its tested out of a 5 inch revolver.

That must be one special load! Commercial loads don't get close to that, even the hot Cor-Bon loads.

 

[MachIVshooter]

As has been said repeatedly, while the .357 125 gr. JHP is a pretty good load, it's not significantly more effective than any other good HP load in common service calibers. Heck, when much of the M&S data was gathered, .40 S&W didn't even exist yet, let alone some of the modern JHP's and stout loads that have made lesser cartridges real performers.

With the right load, you'll get effective performance with anything 9mm and up. The 10mm auto is about the most power that is useful on a Human target for defense, though. Anything more potent (such as .44 mag) won't incapacitate any faster and poses too much risk to bystanders.

Any cartridge producing between 350 and 800 ft/lbs is going to be effective enough without being excessively powerful (overpenetrating). What I mean is, over 350 they should expand a bullet and drive it deep enough, under 800 they aren't likely to push an expanded bullet out the back of the target with enough energy to kill another person.

In summary, with the proper bullet selection, any of the following cartridges (or similar unlisted ones) is an effective SD handgun round:

7.62x25mm
.327 Mag
9x19mm
9x21mm
.38 Super
.38 Spl +P
.357 Mag
.357 Sig
.40 S&W
.400 Cor-Bon
10mm Auto
.44 Spl.
.45 ACP
.45 Super
.460 Rowland
.45 Colt

All of these, with modern bullets, are capable of nearly doubling thier original diameter and penetrating at least 12" in calibrated gelatin. .32 H&R Mag, .380 ACP and standard pressure .38 Spl. teeter on the bottom end. I do regularly carry a .380, but with the understanding that it's not going to be as effective as a larger cartridge. This is offset by the extremely diminutive and light weight gun (P3AT) being able to be carried when larger guns are inconvenient or impossible.

I personally feel that anything smaller than .30 caliber or less (handguns) or that makes less power than the .380 is insufficient for SD. This includes .22 Rimfire, 5.7x28, .25 ACP, .32 ACP and a nuumber of other, less common cartridges.

On the other end, I feel that anything more potent than 10mm is too much of a liability. This includes .44 mag, .45 Win Mag, .454 Casull, .460 S&W, .480 Ruger, .50 AE, .500 S&W, etc. These powerhouses are best left for taking game or enjoying recoil and muzzle blast at the range.

YMMV

SwampFox Premium - Max Velocity Ammo
1 each 50 round box
357 Magnum
125gr Speer Gold Dot Bullets
New Starline Brass or Top Brass
Winchester or Remington large Pistol Primers
Hodgdon and/or Winchester Powder, Hand Weighed
1900fps 1000 ft/lbs energy@ Muzzle. From a S&W 5 inch barrel.

If you like the bullets but don't want max power we
can load them to your spec's, Just let me know.
max overall length 1.250" to 1.253"
Over 25 years experience loading ammo

Hahaha. 25 years experience loading ammo, and he list a max COAL that is less than the CASE LENGTH (1.29")???

And sorry, but those numbers are pushing it from a carbine, let alone a revolver.

The only thing that guy has to sell is BS.

 

[GCBurner]

Don't forget the 9x23 Largo and 9mm Winchester Magnum. My Super Star 9mm Largo, with CCI Blazer 124 grain Gold Dot Hollowpoints, hits with considerable authority. These loads, and the .38 Superautomatic, are the closest auto pistol loads to the .357 Magnum with similar bullet weights.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Don't forget the 9x23 Largo and 9mm Winchester Magnum. My Super Star 9mm Largo, with CCI Blazer 124 grain Gold Dot Hollowpoints, hits with considerable authority. These loads, and the .38 Superautomatic, are the closest auto pistol loads to the .357 Magnum with similar bullet weights.

Hence "or similar unlisted ones"

Although top 9mm Largo loads are only equal to light .357 mag loads. I've tried to push the envelope a bit, but the Star just isn't that strong, so I won't stoke them the way I do 9x19 loads fired from my 5906. 9x23 Winchester can be truned up a bit more than 9x23 Largo. Rather uncommon, though. 9x21 and .38 Super dominate the upper end of the 9mm caliber spectrum.

9mm Win Mag, of course, is more potent. It's also a rare critter; AFAIK, only AMT and LAR ever chambered guns for it, and they were monsters.

 

[Chief_Cabioch]

I'll put my Ballistics of my Model #57 S&W .41 Mag up against the .357 anyday.......just sayin....using nothing but 175 grain Winchester Silver tip ammo....

175 gr (11.3 g) STHP: 1,250 ft/s (380 m/s) 607 ft lb

 

[Rexster]

Among peace officers who used it, and saw, or heard firsthand the results of colleague's shootings, the .357 Mag did not need M&S to know it tends to change a bad guy's channel. We can argue all day long about hydrostatic shock, and whether the .357 is fast enough to cause it, but one sure thing is that the .357 Mag tends to chop an impressive wound channel. I have seen plenty of bullet holes cause by handgun bullets, but the hole left by a Federal 125-grain .357 Magnum, launched from my GP100, was a sight to behold, a gruesome, gaping hole.

My wife as a forensic investigator for a very populous county's M.E., so she sees more bullet holes than I do, by far. Se was very excited to tell me about the wound caused by a Speer 135-grain .357 Magnum Short Barrel, and how it had produced an instant stop, and instant death; the deceased hardly even bled.

FWIW, it doesn't have to wear the "Magnum" label; another impressive wound channel described by my wife was caused by a detective's 357 SIG, that instantly stopped a violent sex offender. I do think there is something extra that happens when the impact velocity reaches a certain level, just a bit above that typical of .38 +P and 9mm +P. Of course, just how much this really matters is certainly open to debate, and recoil tolerance must be considered.

These are just some rambling thoughts from my fatigued brain, as I wind down from a long night shift. I haven't had more a brief nap since Sunday; I am typing this Tuesday morning.

 

[Rexster]

I'll put my Ballistics of my Model #57 S&W .41 Mag up against the .357 anyday.......just sayin....using nothing but 175 grain Winchester Silver tip ammo....

175 gr (11.3 g) STHP: 1,250 ft/s (380 m/s) 607 ft lb

I liked this load for the Model 58 I carried for most of the last half of the 1980s; very confidence-inspiring, but with amazingly reasonable recoil. I retired the gun when it got too loose for me to feel comfortable firing it rapidly DA.

 

[goon]

What makes the .357 Mag 125gr unquestionably the best manstopper?

Delivering it to a CNS component... Same as any other decent handgun cartridge.
After shooting real rifles at steel targets, and seeing that rather than being blown back by several feet they just fell down, I realized that things stop doing what they're doing because a hole is delivered to the right place. Best way is to shut down the CNS. Alternatively, interrupt the flow of blood by stopping the heart or introducing a leak.

The idea of "knock-down" power in most handgun rounds is laughable.

 

[Fishslayer]

I think "unquestionably" is overdoing it.

So which dog do you have in the fight?

 

[golden]

Experience

The 125 grain .357 magnum load made its reputation with several large law enforcement agencies which had good results with it.

This was before MARSHALL & SANOW started writing about it.

When the I&NS decided to adopt a semi-auto to replace the .357 magnum, they wanted a gun that fired a round that was as effective as the 125 grain load used by the BORDER PATROL.
The PATROL has shot a lot of people and has not had any complaints when using the 125 grain load.

That was the impetus behind the development of the 155 grain .40 S&W load they adopted.

The round was also popular with state police and highway patrol for the same reasons.

While there are now a lot of effective loads now, back in the day when the 125 grain load was supreme, you had many NOT EFFECTIVE loads like the .38 Special round nose which was frequently called the widowmaker for its spectacular failures.

Jim

 

[tipoc]

On the ammo of the Border Patrol:
The information I'm passing on here is taken from an excellent article by John Jacobs (a former Border Patrol Agent who was involved in the selection of ammo for the agency) and is printed in Marshal and Sanows 2001 book "Stopping Power".

For many decades the Border patrol issued a .38 Spl. load though many agents were authorized to carry other arms. The .357 Magnum in various 158 gr. loads was a favorite but so was the 45 Colt and 45acp for some and the .38 Super.

In the early 1970's they standardized on the .357 magnum (though some agents carried other guns and ammo) and began to issue 158gr. semi-jacketed soft point ammo to the agents as the approved load. The agents were happy with the round and it's ability to incapacitate but it did have a tendency to over-penetrate and not expand.

In 1980 the BP adopted as standard issue ammo the .38 Spl. 110 gr. JHP +P+ "T load" or "Treasury Round" as it was called. Jacobs says they were happy to finally have a proven JHP round. After a few years doubts arose over the round.

In 1984 the Border Patrol officially assigned several agents to perform testing on handgun ammo and make official recommendations. The ammo was not only for revolvers but also to be for semis. In the article Jacobs tells the story of the testing and the results.

To make that story short;
1)they adopted the 357 Mag load in a 110 gr. JHP to replace the 110 gr. 38 Spl. load as the standard approved load.
2)Agents could also carry in the .357 the Federal 125 gr. load or the Winchester 145 gr. STHP but only if they spent their own money on the ammo and would have to requalify with that ammo. According to Jacobs the latter 145 gr. load was the favorite choice among agents who bought their own ammo.
3)Agents were also authorized to carry da/sa autos in .45acp or .38 Super.
4)They also approved a 9mm+P+ load but that load was hard for them to come by for various reasons at the time so in 1987 they adopted the 9mm +P+ 115 gr. Federal load. This was as agents moved to hi capacity 9mm pistols with 15 to 20 rounds on tap.

The common denominator was that they were looking for rounds jhp rounds that produced at or close to 400 ft. pds. of energy at the muzzle. And bullets that did not break apart and penetrated to where they wanted.

The above lasted till 1994 where the agency transitioned to the 40S&W and a 155 gr. bullet.

So the U.S. Border Patrol approved several calibers and ammo for it's agents which all did the job and allowed a variety of firearms to choose from. They did this until they were compelled to standardize on one type of handgun and the 40S&W.

tipoc

 

[Sean Smith]

M&S "One Shop Stop" numbers aren't unreliable because of some stuffy ivory tower academic has semantic quibbles about them, they're unreliable because their entire methodology is pants-crappingly retarded even to a layperson if you think about it for 30 seconds.

First, it excludes most of the times a bullet in fact fails to stop someone. If I hit you once and it doesn't work, I'm going to shoot you again, but this doesn't count as an OSS fail in their system. Think about that: if I have to put 15 bullets in you to stop you, it doesn't count as a failure to stop. If anybody can explain how that doesn't flunk basic common sense I'm all ears.

Second, it treats all torso hits as equal. Being shot in the shoulder is counted identically to being drilled straight through the heart. Common sense dictates that bullets don't, in fact, work that way. If this is too airy-fairy intellectual for you there is really no point in discussing it further.

That .357 Magnum load became popular in an era when hollow points often didn't expand reliably unless they were driven to the highest velocity possible. 125gr @ 1,400+ FPS fit that bill as well as anything in existence back then. With modern hollowpoint designs those conditions no longer exist, and you can get reliable penetration & expansion from heavy and slow 9x19, .40 S&W and .45 ACP loads as well as .357 Magnum or anything else (within reason.)

Last I checked no reputable agency that actually uses its guns for a living ever gave a crap about M&S numbers. That's what you call "a hint."

 

[357 Terms]

Times change. In the 70's nothing beat the 357 jhp 125grn load, nothing. Today with bullet tech and more calibers ( ex; the .355 er sorry the 357 Sig and the .40 S@W especially the 155grn load and even +p 9mm) the playing field has leveled. My 357 is still my EDC ( 2.25 DAO sp101 with 125grn Barnes XPB) only because I shoot it good and i know that it will function EVERY time. Personal choice.

One thing; the 357 Sig was desingned and implemented to mimic the 125 grn 357 load. A whole new auto caliber designed to replecate the ballistics of ONE load in another caliber, says something.
There is nothing really different between most calibers nowadays. I still use my 357 to hunt deer, although with much heavier bullets, no "practical" auto, not even the venerable 10mm, will match the power, acuracy and penetration of my handloads in my 6.5in Blackhawk.

 

[Kleanbore]

According to the FBI report cited above, unless the diameter of the permanent wound channel is larger, the advantage that the higher energy projectile would not accrue from higher "stopping power." A 9MM +P load generally has enough penetration to impair the functioning of whatever internal pert of the human anatomy that it hits.

For law enforcement, the advantage that a .357 SIG or a .357 SIG has over a 9MM load is the ability to penetrate a plate glass window or a car body--something that the sworn officer may have the need to do, but not something that most civilians will likely be justified in doing.

Back in revolver days, officers whose "beats" included the highway and rural areas could take advantage of the additional penetration. In urban areas, however, that attribute could present a liability, and many departments carried .38 Special ammunition.

Repasting the above excerpt from the FBI report may help refocus here:

Few, if any, shooting incidents will present the officer with an opportunity to take a careful, precisely aimed shot at the subject’s head. Rather, shootings are characterized by their sudden, unexpected occurrence; by rapid and unpredictable movement of both officer and adversary; by limited and partial target opportunities; by poor light and unforeseen obstacles; and by the life or death stress of sudden, close, personal violence.

The practical meaning of that is that a handgun that can be kept on target during more rapid firing has an advantage over one that cannot.

Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth.

Essentially, what that means is that with the same bullet diameter, more energy is not necessarily better--enough is enough. Elsewhere in the report, it is stated that given the same penetration, the advantage goes to the larger bullet.

The greater penetration of the Magnum load is, of course, advantageous in game hunting, and the higher velocity results in a flatter trajectory.

 

[Thompsoncustom]

so your saying that a .357 bullet traveling at 900fps is going to the same damage as a .357 traveling 3000fps minus the penetration?

 

[Sean Smith]

so your saying that a .357 bullet traveling at 900fps is going to the same damage as a .357 traveling 3000fps minus the penetration?

What happens at 3,000 FPS is irrelevant because no handgun bullet - you know, the actual topic of conversation here - is going to sniff that kind of velocity. Or 2,000 FPS. Hell, even hot 125gr .357 Magnums don't typically hit the mythical 1,500 FPS in real life, because those velocities are typically from long test barrels. Reality is more like 1,350 FPS from a 4" barrel, where 124gr 9mm +P and 155gr .40 S&W are pushing 1,200+.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Way back in the Stone Age, I took a Colt M357 with me on my first tour in Viet Nam. Back in those days, modern bullets were not yet on the market. I loaded 148-grain hollow-based wadcutters backward, over all the Unique I dared.

I used this load twice, and the results were dramatic, to say the least.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

That's one of the hinges of the whole 357 debate. Is your carry gun able to get the bullet up to the vaunted speed?
Probably not, unless you carry something with a long barrel. And most people don't.

 

[9-ball]

Nothing, makes a bullet the ideal manstopper. As man stopping bullets don't exist.