American Rifleman .357 Mag Gel Tests

[Tokarev]

That Federal load went very close to 12". Remember this was out of a barrel less than 2". Even the Hydra-Shok that everybody loves to hate on went 11". I seriously doubt a 125 grain .38SP would have got that far in the same gun.

And there were two Gold Dots tested. One was the 158 and it failed miserably by today's standard. This tells us that the old saying that if you can only have one thing, pick penetration. Because it always works.

Here's the sister article from about six weeks ago. A Remington 38+P 125gr SJHP load was tested and was close in performance to the 125gr 357 Classic load.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/art...ial-cartridge/

[shadowrider]

Did you notice how the .38SP 125 Remington SJHP performed compared to the 125 Gold Dot? The results in bare and denim are crisscrossed. A touch less expansion and the Rem would have made 12" in both and it damn near did anyway. Interesting.

[WillBrink]

Maybe I missed something but he did not show the penetration of the 4-inch barrel roll, nor comparison relative to the shorter barrel.

Really found this not to be a very useful article.

What most people don't realize is the weight of the powder contributes to felt recoil as it's converted to gas that exits at muzzle velocity.

so a load that achieves the same muzzle velocity in a given barrel length with less powder way will recoil less.

Many 357 loadings shot in Stubbies have a very large amount of unburned powder when the bullet exits, so don't really out perform a better tuned 38 loading yet have higher recoil

This is very apparent in rifle caliber pistols for hunting and IHMSA shooting. And why 7br is so popular vs 7mm08, etc. Achieves similar velocities much more efficiently. And thus with less recoil. And some accuracy improvements.

Which seemed the point of the article. I kept looking for that info too.

[Tokarev]

Which seemed the point of the article. I kept looking for that info too.

Do people routinely EDC 4" revolvers nowadays? I'd guess the majority of revolvers sold for concealed carry are of the 2" variety.

[WillBrink]

Do people routinely EDC 4" revolvers nowadays? I'd guess the majority of revolvers sold for concealed carry are of the 2" variety.

Not the point, at least not to me. Why was the 4" there if they were not going to give side by side comparisons to show the differences between them? I was more interested in how much differences there were between them than I was by the results of the 2" per se and that seemed to be the set up of the article. We already know, from a 2" barrel, the .357 is only marginally better than a well designed .38 +p and the .38 terminal performance from a 2" barrel border line acceptable and inconsistent. Article didn't seem to add any utility to the topic, at least it didn't for me.

[Tokarev]

Not the point, at least not to me. Why was the 4" there if they were not going to give side by side comparisons to show the differences between them? I was more interested in how much differences there were between them than I was by the results of the 2" per se and that seemed to be the set up of the article. We already know, from a 2" barrel, the .357 is only marginally better than a well designed .38 +p and the .38 terminal performance from a 2" barrel border line acceptable and inconsistent. Article didn't seem to add any utility to the topic, at least it didn't for me.

The 4" test is to establish a baseline for accuracy and could have just as easily been done with a 6" barrel or even a Contender.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[WillBrink]

The 4" test is to establish a baseline for accuracy and could have just as easily been done with a 6" barrel or even a Contender.

Supplying us with utterly useless info of the accuracy of a 4" inch gun and no comparative info the 2" that was then tested. Why do we care about the accuracy from the 4" at 25 y when the article applies only to the 2" results? Again, I'm perplexed as to what value that article offered and I think the author missed an opportunity to compare them. Not trying to be obtuse, but I just not "getting" the value of that one. At best, it confirms what is well established, that I touched on before. A "look how different the terminal performance of these loads are between the 4" and the snub" would have been more interesting, at least for me.

[shadowrider]

Not the point, at least not to me. Why was the 4" there if they were not going to give side by side comparisons to show the differences between them? I was more interested in how much differences there were between them than I was by the results of the 2" per se and that seemed to be the set up of the article. We already know, from a 2" barrel, the .357 is only marginally better than a well designed .38 +p and the .38 terminal performance from a 2" barrel border line acceptable and inconsistent. Article didn't seem to add any utility to the topic, at least it didn't for me.

I agree, the charts in these articles were kind of hard to parse unless you were paying attention to the detail. It would be pretty easy to mistake one for the other from a cursory glance. Not well laid out but, on the other hand, I am kind of glad to see newer loads getting tested at least.

[WillBrink]

I agree, the charts in these articles were kind of hard to parse unless you were paying attention to the detail. It would be pretty easy to mistake one for the other from a cursory glance. Not well laid out but, on the other hand, I am kind of glad to see newer loads getting tested at least.

I think with a re work of the charts and the wording, could be a useful article if for no other reason per bolded. As is, how that got by an editor I have no idea.

[Tokarev]

I agree, the charts in these articles were kind of hard to parse unless you were paying attention to the detail. It would be pretty easy to mistake one for the other from a cursory glance. Not well laid out but, on the other hand, I am kind of glad to see newer loads getting tested at least.

The problem with these tests is there's never going to be any way to please everyone. The selection of barrel length, loads, bullet weights, and manufacturers is just too diverse. It would take hundreds of pounds of gel and weeks or months of work.

Focusing on the terminal performance of a handful of loads from a snub nose barrel makes sense since revolvers of this type are very common. More common than 4" guns? I don't know. But the 4" gun isn't likely the common choice in today's concealed carry market.

The accuracy portion could just have easily been left out entirely, or ignored, and the data point would remain the same.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk