.357 mag w/ 4" barrel

[teekay]

Have spent some time trying to track this info down through google and various boards.

Given modern bullet design and a 4" or longer barrel, what are the better/best factory loads for self defense a) assuming no barrier other than heavy clothing and b) assuming penetration of significant barrier such as auto glass or car door prior to bad guy?

Really hoping to find a source with real data involving FBI style testing with gelatin or equivalent. Most data I can track down is either old enough that modern design bullets were not tested, or else involve enthusiastic hobbyists shooting phone books or water jugs.

I think I agree with the info for shooting from 2"-3" barrels, ie the barrel is too short to express the improved ballistics of the .357 round, and that the excessive flash and perceived recoil/delayed return to target outweigh any real benefit of the .357 round and favors a high end .38+p such as the Speer Gold Dot 135gr for short barrel. Even in an N frame snubby, the flash can be pretty intense in low light with .357 rounds although the recoil certainly seems more easily controlled than in a smaller frame.

But the 4" barrel should be long enough for complete powder ignition etc.

Is there a published guide on this that I've overlooked with testing of specific brands/bullets released within the last 5-10 years?

I get the feeling that there is and everyone but me knows about it, but I haven't found it so far.

Thanks for the help

 

[ColColt]

I think I agree with the info for shooting from 2"-3" barrels, ie the barrel is too short to express the improved ballistics of the .357 round, and that the excessive flash and perceived recoil/delayed return to target outweigh any real benefit of the .357 round and favors a high end .38+p such as the Speer Gold Dot 135gr for short barrel.

Where did you see that info about a 2-3" barrel being too short? Reason asked, I'm looking into getting a 686 with a 3 inch barrel and wondered about that as well but, I assumed the powder must burn efficiently in a 3 inch at any rate as there's a lot of folks with that size barrel.

 

[Iggy]

You might find this article written by Stephen A. Camp on snubbies an interesting read.

New Page 1

 

[ArchAngelCD]

From what I've read a 5" barrel is required to completely burn "magnum" powders before the bullet leaves the barrel.

 

[ColColt]

I'm sure a 2-2 1/2 inch barreled 357 is more difficult to control in rapid fire and no doubt throws a wild looking flame from the barrel and sides of the cylinder, especially in low light situations, but; they're around in large number both the 357 and 44 Mag as well with short barrels.

Published figures for 357 velocities are either taken in a pressure barrel or an 8 inch Python. Not many have either of these. I have no use for a 8 or 8 1/2 inch barrel. I don't hunt so...so much for that. According to Buffalo Bore's website, they claim a velocity of 1476 fps from their 125 gr JHP load with a J-frame 3 inch S&W. That's quite impressive. I don't know about Remington or Federal's claim or what they use to test velocities.

 

[amd6547]

I shoot magnum factory loads in my Model 19-4 2.5' and dont see much flame...and find it easy to control. But I read the opposite on the net all the time.

 

[cz93x62]

FWIW.....I carry W-W 158 grain JHP in my 686 x 4", and these chronograph 1225-1235 FPS. While these use some form of Ball powder, I wouldn't characterize their muzzle signature as being egregiously flashy.

I've fired several hundred of these rounds at dusky to completely dark range sites, and they are NOTHING like handloaded/canister Ball powder signatures. A lot of factory-loaded service rounds have flash inhibitors as a part of the powder formulation, and canister-grade handloader powders generally do not.

 

[amd6547]

I have noticed an increasing trend on firearms websites to pass along "conventional wisdom"...people read someones opinion on one site, that keep passing it along as if they know it is true.
"I'm sure a 2-2 1/2 inch barreled 357 is more difficult to control in rapid fire and no doubt throws a wild looking flame from the barrel and sides of the cylinder"
How are you "sure"? "no doubt"...why not?
I see the same thing happen when the subject of airweight J-frames and +P ammo comes up..."oh, the recoil is SO bad"

 

[handgunner356]

It can be debated all day long, but it really pretty simple. .357s' are more powerful than any .38s'. Longer barrels have more velocity than shorter barrels. Unburnt powder makes a big flash. The main thing is, what is going to be available, what shoots best as to POA/POI? A good hit is a good hit with whatever .357 round you use.

 

[teekay]

And so, back to the original question.

Any sources for performance of various factory load .357 ammo with modern bullets fired from 4" barrel into ballistic gelatin or recognized equivalent with and without intervening barrier greatly appreciated.

If someone can suggest a better existing measure of modern bullet performance than slug expansion/wound channel/penetration in 10% ballistic gelatin, please point me in a direction to look and help me learn.

The recommendations from Dr. Roberts regarding 2" barrel snubs initially surprised me given the increased slug velocity and delivered energy from .357 (see ballisticsbytheinch.com). But the slight difference in slug performance in the ballistic gelatin vs modern .38+p being outweighed for most shooters by the increased in return time to target from increased recoil makes sense for me. Your mileage may vary. What I'm trying to track down is info on various factory loads from 4" barrel. Especially from an N frame, for me the recoil does not seem to be as big a potential issue. But I do want to find out which bullets and factory loads perform the best in gelatin or equivalent. Yes, shot placement is more critical than ammo/caliber, we all recognize that. But ammo selection surely makes a potential difference.

 

[fiasconva]

I don't know if this will help or not. If you go to the ammo co.'s sites, most of the info you get on fps, muzzle vel, etc. will usually show that it's from a 4" barrel. I think a 4" barrel is about standard for their chrono testing .Check out their charts and see if that is what you need.

 

[OKFC05]

But the 4" barrel should be long enough for complete powder ignition etc.

From 30 years loading and chronographing .357 loads, suggest any assumptions depend entirely on the powder/bullet used, and most generalizations are worthless. The Speer SB .357 and Rem Golden Sabre .357 use medium powders and are efficient in 3 and 4 inch barrels.

Hunting .357 and other loads with slow powders work better in 6" barrels or even 8".

One local shooter bought a 4" .357 and shot nothing but .357 Cowboy Action reloads in it, and thus had the impression all this talk about .357 muzzle flash and recoil were just hooey.
I let him shoot my 158gr hunting loads in it, and he almost dropped the gun. It was near sunset, and it produced about a 2 foot dia fireball that blinded him, plus his hand went numb. (Helps to know how to hold the gun)

For personal defense in a 3" to 4" .357 I prefer 125gr to 135gr Rem or Speer expanding bullets at 1000 to 1100 fps.

If I were worried about shooting into a car, I'd use 158gr Speer or Remington bullets at around 1200fps.

There are other good brands of bullets, but Speer and Remington and I go back several decades, and I'm used to them.

As far as published tests, I don't think the published tests on the Speer and Remington bullets done when they first came out are out of date. You see a lot more on 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP now than .357 for the obvious reason that these are popular LEO calibers.

Don't know exactly what you have in mind, but if you're wanting to collect "definitive" data to prove which particular load is " perfect" or "best," well, good luck. Personally, I'd go buy a case of ammo and try to wear that .357 out learning to put the bullet into the vitals rather than shooting around the edges.

 

[teekay]

So consensus then seems that although chrono data is readily available, there is no publicly available terminal ballistic data comparing modern design factory loads for this caliber.

 

[NE450No2]

In the 4" 357, back in "Revolver Days, the 125gr HP loads seemed to have the best track record.

Some agencies that wanted more enetration used bulklets like the 147gr Silvertip.

With todays choices, since you want some glass and car door penetration I would take a look at the Cor Bon DPX, or maybe the Hornady 140gr loads.

 

[cp1969]

From 30 years loading and chronographing .357 loads, suggest any assumptions depend entirely on the powder/bullet used, and most generalizations are worthless.

Amen.

Don't know exactly what you have in mind, but if you're wanting to collect "definitive" data to prove which particular load is " perfect" or "best," well, good luck. Personally, I'd go buy a case of ammo and try to wear that .357 out learning to put the bullet into the vitals rather than shooting around the edges.

That is excellent advice that, unfortunately, not many people want to hear.