which breaks bone better in .357 mag?

[kpmtns]

I am evaluating two different .357 magnum woods carry loads for my 686-5. Do you all think there is any significant difference in hardcast flat nose bullet loads between the 180g @ 1300fps and the 200g @ 1200fps as far as ability to smash heavy bone? Thanks.

Kevin

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

depends .

 

[kci-mia]

I would go with the 200gr @1200fps

 

[DJINCO]

Physics is the answer.

 

[kpmtns]

...to a lot of questions...

 

[Nygma]

In analyzing the relative penetration potential of the two loads, I find that the 200 grainer at 1200 ft/s gives 10.64589 lb*s/in^2 as opposed to the 180 grain at 1300 ft/s's 10.37974 lb*s/in^2.

 

[Rule3]

In analyzing the relative penetration potential of the two loads, I find that the 200 grainer at 1200 ft/s gives 10.64589 lb*s/in^2 as opposed to the 180 grain at 1300 ft/s's 10.37974 lb*s/in^2.

I thought it was:

Kinetic energy of rigid bodies

In classical mechanics, the kinetic energy of a point object (an object so small that its mass can be assumed to exist at one point), or a non-rotating rigid body, is given by the equation

where

is the mass and

is the speed of the body. In SI units (used for most modern scientific work), mass is measured in kilograms, speed in metres per second, and the resulting kinetic energy is in joules.
For example, one would calculate the kinetic energy of an 80 kg mass traveling at 18 meters per second (40 mph) as

Note that the kinetic energy increases with the square of the speed. This means, for example, that an object traveling twice as fast will have four times as much kinetic energy. As a result of this, a car traveling twice as fast requires four times as much distance to stop (assuming a constant braking force. See mechanical work).
The kinetic energy of an object is related to its momentum by the equation:

where:

is momentum

is mass of the body For the translational kinetic energy, that is the kinetic energy associated with rectilinear motion, of a body with constant mass

, whose center of mass is moving in a straight line with speed

, as seen above is equal to

where:

is mass of the body

is speed of the center of mass of the body. The kinetic energy of any entity is unique to the reference frame in which it is measured. An isolated system is one for which energy can neither enter nor leave, and has a total energy which is unchanging over time as measured in any reference frame. Thus, the chemical energy converted to kinetic energy by a rocket engine will be divided differently between the rocket ship and its exhaust stream depending upon the chosen reference frame. This is called the Oberth effect. But the total energy of the system (including kinetic energy, fuel chemical energy, heat energy, etc) will be conserved over time, regardless of the choice of reference frame. However, different observers moving with different reference frames will disagree on the value of this conserved energy.
In addition, although the energy of such systems is dependent on the choice of reference frame, the minimal total energy which is seen in any frame will be the total energy seen by observers in the center of momentum frame; this minimal energy corresponds to the invariant mass of the aggregate. The calculated value of this invariant mass compensates for changing energy in different frames, and is thus the same for all frames and observers.

Or is that what you said??

 

[kci-mia]

I thought it was:

Kinetic energy of rigid bodies

In classical mechanics, the kinetic energy of a point object (an object so small that its mass can be assumed to exist at one point), or a non-rotating rigid body, is given by the equation

where

is the mass and

is the speed of the body. In SI units (used for most modern scientific work), mass is measured in kilograms, speed in metres per second, and the resulting kinetic energy is in joules.
For example, one would calculate the kinetic energy of an 80 kg mass traveling at 18 meters per second (40 mph) as

Note that the kinetic energy increases with the square of the speed. This means, for example, that an object traveling twice as fast will have four times as much kinetic energy. As a result of this, a car traveling twice as fast requires four times as much distance to stop (assuming a constant braking force. See mechanical work).
The kinetic energy of an object is related to its momentum by the equation:

where:

is momentum

is mass of the body For the translational kinetic energy, that is the kinetic energy associated with rectilinear motion, of a body with constant mass

, whose center of mass is moving in a straight line with speed

, as seen above is equal to

where:

is mass of the body

is speed of the center of mass of the body. The kinetic energy of any entity is unique to the reference frame in which it is measured. An isolated system is one for which energy can neither enter nor leave, and has a total energy which is unchanging over time as measured in any reference frame. Thus, the chemical energy converted to kinetic energy by a rocket engine will be divided differently between the rocket ship and its exhaust stream depending upon the chosen reference frame. This is called the Oberth effect. But the total energy of the system (including kinetic energy, fuel chemical energy, heat energy, etc) will be conserved over time, regardless of the choice of reference frame. However, different observers moving with different reference frames will disagree on the value of this conserved energy.
In addition, although the energy of such systems is dependent on the choice of reference frame, the minimal total energy which is seen in any frame will be the total energy seen by observers in the center of momentum frame; this minimal energy corresponds to the invariant mass of the aggregate. The calculated value of this invariant mass compensates for changing energy in different frames, and is thus the same for all frames and observers.

Or is that what you said??

Like I said before, 200gr @1200fps

 

[Treeman]

While we are on the subject...How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? ;^)

 

[Nygma]

C'mon folks, this is serious bidness...

I thought it was:

Kinetic energy of rigid bodies

Or is that what you said??

Close, but not quite:

"Linear momentum of a particle

The amount of momentum that an object has depends on two physical quantities: the mass and the velocity of the moving object in the frame of reference. In physics, the usual symbol for momentum is a uppercase bold P (bold because it is a vector, uppercase to avoid confusion with pressure); so this can be written

where P is the momentum, m is the mass and v is the velocity."



Divide P by the frontal area of the bullet and it is perfectly clear that the 200 grain load has a .26615 lb*s/in^2 superior BS (Bone Smash) Index.

 

[Rule3]

C'mon folks, this is serious bidness...




superior BS (Bone Smash) Index.

Make no Bones about it!

I feel for the OP, he will never post here again.

KPMTNS,

We are just messing with you. I will admit, I have no idea which is better. I think either or would be about the same.

If you look at the Remington factory ammo here, the 165 gr actually has more ft/lbs of energy than the 180. But then it's the whole small faster, heavier slower thing.

Remington.com - Products - Ammunition - Ballistics

 

[DJINCO]

However he did not say what he was going to shoot.

Probably cute cuddly kittens.

 

[Nygma]

Make no Bones about it!

I feel for the OP, he will never post here again.

You're right.
kpmtns, you have my apology.

The numbers I gave you are good numbers. The 200 grain load possesses slightly more momentum, and will penetrate further than the 180 grain load - all else being equal. However, there are a myriad of other factors involved, and the difference between the loads is trivial.

The tongue in cheek responses to your question were posters telling you (between the lines) that the two loads are so close, and there are so many other variables involved that comparing the two is almost futile.


I would use whatever load shoots best in my gun.

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

As posted above, they are close!


Depending on how large an animal you are expecting to have to shoot, I would mention that in a handgun round, 100 FPS is a noticable difference, percentage wise. Since both will penetrate about equally (all other things being equal (ie; design, alloy, etc), I would also consider the slight advantage the extra 100 FPS will give in hydrostatic shock from the flat nose. If both shot equally well in my gun, I would go with the 180 for that reason. Either will penetrate as good as can be expected from a .357.

If you are talking about defense against something really large, like a Grizzly, then I would go with maximum penetration (200 grain) since a handgun doesn't have anywhere near enough power to shock a grizzly.
Just my .02.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I personally choose a 180gr Hard Cast bullet because of the velocity advantage. I like the 180gr bullets sold by Cast Performance. They work very well, are accurate and don't cost too much even in today's market. Their 160gr bullets aren't bad either.

Those are the same bullets used in Grizzly Cartridge Ammo. (same company)

 

[Rule3]

I sent him a PM to forgive us and come back

 

[kpmtns]

Guys--I appreciate the apologies, but they are not necessary. I enjoyed the physics lesson--I've forgotten a lot since college--and the jokes. A good natured ribbing is always appropriate.

Anyway, I figured the loads are pretty close, and I really want to hurt those kittens. I mean cougars (and not the divorcee variety). Seriously though, black bear encounters are becoming more common here in Colorado, with news reports of about one a week. I know that a .454 or heavy .44 or bigger is better (and considered/am considering getting a 7.5" Bisley Hunter for woods carry), the reality of my situation is that I'd be much, much more likely to carry my 4" 686 in the mountains while fishing/hiking than anything heavier or longer barreled. Thus the question. Thanks, and I'll pick up the 200's and move on!

 

[Skip Sackett]

357Mag in 400gr wouldn't be enough for BEAR!

I have a friend that lives in Montana. When you go to visit him it puts you back into the reality that you are just one step away from something that will eat you or just kill you!

For me, and I know black bears aren't as stout as a griz but, I'm for a 44Mag or 45 Colt(loaded hot) in a double action revolver for carrying in the "real" woods.

Your thumb may not be usable. All you have to do with a double action is pull the trigger. You can do that with your hand stuck down the bear's throat if need be!

A mountain gun for self defense in the woods with a large caliber high powered rifle for back up!

If it ain't too much trouble, I'd have a shot gun too!

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

And one of those new bear proof suits

 

[kpmtns]

Smith Crazy--I hear what you are saying. They grow 'em bigger in Montana than down here, but you are right--the handgun is just something to give some comfort until you get you back to safety or your longarm, which inevitably is left in camp when you are out gathering wood, water, etc. Last time I was hiking with my little girls (in July), we ran across piece after piece of a deer as we got deeper into the forest, starting with a femur that was picked clean, and then seeing bones with more an more meat on them until we found a fully articulated leg from hip to hoof, complete with fur. Most likely a mountain lion kill, but it creeped me out. I only had a 45ACP on me (for coyotes/feral dogs that are around more and more, too) and was so happy to have had our dogs with us to delay any animal while I pick them up and make my way to the jeep. Maybe I should suck it up and just buy the 7.5" Ruger and wear it cross-draw.