.38 vs .357 for stopping power...

[DonD]

Wow. Are those measured in your gun Don ? That 125 at 1450 fps in a 2.5 barrel has to be scorching ! I am just curious. Thanks for your info.

No, but the BB 158 gr clocks 1320 fps out of my 3" Ruger SP101. That's 611 ft lbs. Don

 

[DonD]

It seems to me that given appropriate bullet terminal performance, "stopping power" depends on three things: bullet diameter and weight, bullet velocity, and (most importantly) bullet placement. I think a 38 spl "FBI load" has enough of #1 & #2 if the shooter provides #3. I think that a 357 will proably kill someone deader than will a 38 spl, but just plain dead is good enough.

Well....there is so much more of bullet velocity than with the 38, there HAS to be an advantage for the .357. 50-70% more energy has to result in more tissue disruption. If energy didn't matter, we'd still be hunting elk with lever action 44-40s and no one in their right mind would suggest that. Don

 

[Edmo]

From what I understand, the wounding effect of a bullet as it produces the temporary wound cavity really increases significantly at impact velocities of over 2,000 fps. This is why, as the velocities increase above 2,000 fps, a rifle bullet impact is so much more dramatic than slower handgun rounds. Why 2,000 fps? It is related to the elasticity of flesh and the inability to cope with the rapid expansion caused by the higher velocities. Below 2,000 fps, flesh can somewhat accommodate the stretching rates as to not produce as much bruising, tearing, and general tissue damage in the temporary wound cavity as would be imparted by a higher velocity round.

This means that a slower velocity round has to rely much more on the damage of the permanent wound channel to stop or incapacitate a person. So one could say with a handgun round you have a smaller tunnel of damage than a rifle round and therefore need to have more accurate placement to achieve effectiveness.

Now to 38 Special vs 357 Magnum. Although the 357 does generate more velocity and energy, both rounds are well below 2,000 fps. Shot placement is key and the biggest difference, in my opinion, is how much increased diameter can be achieved from mushrooming at the slightly higher impact velocities of the 357. Beyond that, you are only increasing recoil and blast.

Is the impact of a round at 357 velocities going to do more damage than the same round at 38 velocities? I think anyone who says “no” would be missing the bigger picture of energy transfer. However, I don’t think it is as significant as we might think and again we get back to shot placement as a predominant factor in the elusive “stopping power” effect.

YMMV & IMHO…

Edmo

 

[scooot]

686

)thinking of buying a s&w 686 with 4or 6 inch barrel for target practice & home protection what do you think

 

[hotrod150]

Well....there is so much more of bullet velocity than with the 38, there HAS to be an advantage for the .357. 50-70% more energy has to result in more tissue disruption. If energy didn't matter, we'd still be hunting elk with lever action 44-40s and no one in their right mind would suggest that. Don

1) Most folks are not gonna shoot full-house magnum loads out of their lightweight j-frame 357 more than once. Their 357 is that in name only if it is gonna be used to shoot 38's.
2) Most folks probably won't do very well with follow-up shots if they do use full magnum loads. The lighter recoil of a 38 equals more & better hits.
3) At some point, enough is enough. That's why we hunt elk with a 30-06 or 7mm mag-- not a 378 458 or 577 NE.
To me, a snub 38 is about the perfect compromise between power, concealabilty, and shootability. That's why the 442/642 series os so popular. I don't like excessive recoil or muzzle blast, both of which you get plenty of when shooting 357 out of a 2" j-frame. if that doesn't bother you, go for it. I do think that a 4" K or L frame 357 is about the most versatile all-around handgun there is- but I don't wanna pack one around tucked inside my britches. That's where the little j-frame 38 shines.