This is a topic of numerous discussions across forums and across the web for many years. My considerations when selecting ammunition for a 2" or shorter barrel are enough velocity to allow the bullet to perform properly (not too much or too little penetration), repeatable results, manageable recoil, availability, the round not jumping the crimp, and of course a round safe for the gun. A bullet can over-penetrate if the velocity is too low to allow the bullet to expand. This is problematic also because the lack of expansion means the bullet is not dumping it's energy in the target. One of my peeves is ammo boxes with velocity figures that don't mention what it was shot out of. Useless. While you can find numerous chronograph results on the web, I look to gel testing for comparison of various rounds head to head, and only if they are shot out of a 2" or shorter barrel. I would not look to the performance of ammo in a 3" revolver to compare to a 2" snub (100FPS lower velocity can cause unacceptable results in a particular round). One may start at ballisticsbytheinch.com, but consider that velocity of rounds out of 2" snubs is in some cases more comparable to a 3" unvented barrel (because the revolver chamber is not included in the barrel length). They do have chrono on some loads out of SW snubs, but they are limited. Still, it it interesting to compare speed out of various revolvers. The muzzle energy charts are also interesting. I should note that BBTI results indicate some revolvers of of different manufacturer even with same length barrel have different velocities with same ammo. The info appears to be from around 2008, and does not include many modern loads. I found it insightful to go here for gel testing:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAWFWuY7JafjZNE_dG8BshAThere While I did not see 38/357 tested, there are 39 videos just related to 9mm; the one titled "CorBon Pow'R Ball vs Original 115+P JHP test ", is where he gives some conclusions (video 37 of the 9mm series). Although he was testing 9mm out of sub 3" semi-autos, his testing and observations were insightful as to what we look for out of a gel test, and some of his conclusions may apply to snubs. For example, he was carrying 9mm Critical Duty in his CCW. When he saw the round's poor performance from a short barrel, he immediately stopped carrying it. Apparently that round was not getting up to speed in his gun. This could be the case with certain Critical Duty rounds in a in a snub as well; I don't know. On the other hand, Critical Defense was an acceptable performer in at least one configuration, if I recall correctly. He discovered that certain revered bullets would not perform if not pushed fast enough, but at sufficient velocities they performed well consistently. The trick was getting the round up to speed from a short barrel. This would apply to both short SA and snub guns. Some prominent manufacturers had rounds that fell short in the testing. 100 FPS could make the difference in a particular bullet passing the test. He also tested 380 rounds (from short barreled guns) in a different set of videos and reached some useful and interesting conclusions. Too bad he did no 38/357 testing, but I'm sure it is out there on the web if you look hard enough. If someone knows where, please point me to it; I've not gotten around to tracking it down yet. He calibrated gel for testing and gave very good video on results (speed, expansion, penetration). I have a friend who bought a 9mm revolver. We are going to chrono some of the top-performing loads out of that revolver and a some 38/357 loadings. As for Mas Ayoob, he has probably at some point recommended full wadcutters, semi-wadcutters (at least as preferred to FMJ), and certainly LSWCHP, all for use in a snub at some time or other. So while this testing was all 9mm, I find it insightful as to what may or may not be happening with the ammo from a snub. You won't know until you see it tested from a 2" barrel revolver.
EDIT: Holy smokes! Long post. The truth is out there. Look it up.
