American Rifleman .357 Mag Gel Tests

[shadowrider]

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

I have a 1.875", a 2", three 4", a 5" and three 6" barreled revolvers. All but the 2" and one of the 6" (both rare Colts) get carried at different times and scenarios.

ETA: I do see your point and wanted to add that I've seen some of your posts on gel testing and I think you do a pretty good job at them. Yes 2" revos are the vast majority, but the bigger guns aren't as rare as it may seem. S&W brought back the 66 for instance. Hopefully the trend will continue.

[WillBrink]

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

I get where you're going with that, but in this case, I can't agree. In this case, not asking for every possible combination, barrel lengths, etc, but simply doing the same tests with the 4" and 2" and showing the comparative differences in the charts, or, simply leave the FS .357 out of it totally, and just do a nice nice little article on the terminal performance of modern .357 and +.38 from a snub, and done with it. As is, you think you're gonna read an article that compares them, but does not.

For example:

"I recently tested several .38 Spl. and .38 Spl. +P loads for accuracy as well as for terminal performance by firing these loads in two different revolvers. Continuing in a similar manner, I have now tested nine .357 Mag. loads using the same two firearms and the same testing protocols."

OK, that's straight up telling us he compared them using the same protocol, then does not supply us with the results of his own testing!

Not the end of the world, and props for him doing it and posting it, I just think with minimal effort and some editing, could have been much more useful.

[Tokarev]

OK, that's straight up telling us he compared them using the same protocol, then does not supply us with the results of his own testing!

Not the end of the world, and props for him doing it and posting it, I just think with minimal effort and some editing, could have been much more useful.

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

Here's the 38 tests. Yes. I agree it should be linked in the 357 Mag article.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Ron3]

I think .357 really is superior to .38 from a snub and worthwhile but there is a point of diminishing returns.

Yes, the two articles need to be put together and reworked.

.38 special from a snub is like .380 from anything. It's not a good bet it will expand and penetrate well. We keep the LCR's loaded with .38 standard Hornady 125 gr XTP's because it has a decent profile to reduce deflection but it will not expand. At least it should penetrate decently.

When I carry an LCR I prefer a mild .357 load. This will at least bring the snub up to 4-inch .38 +p/9x19 ballistics. I like the 125 gr Golden Sabre and Hornady 135 gr Critical Duty. (about 1100 fps from these from a 2 inch) The GS has a little flash but it's not bad. The CD has almost no flash and is smokey.

The "standard" .357 mag loads may or not get beyond .38 +p/9x19 performance but there is a heavy price in recoil, speed, blast, and stress on guns.

[Tokarev]

The "standard" .357 mag loads may or not get beyond .38 +p/9x19 performance but there is a heavy price in recoil, speed, blast, and stress on guns.

Much of the poor performance is based on the old bullet technology.

Modern bullets like the Barnes TAC XP and the Critical Duty did quite well and gave the required penetration with 100% weight retention, etc. Everything we want from a defensive bullet and all from a 2" barrel. Velocities are such that the lightweight gun should be fairly easy to shoot. Maybe not pleasant but not wrist breaking either.

Older bullets like the 110gr Winchester and the 125gr Federal might compare in velocity or muzzle energy to 9mm but did quite poorly and are probably the same exact bullets these companies use to load 38 Special. Even from the 2" Mag these bullets are being driven above their ideal velocities and are underpenetrating and/or coming apart. These would most likely do even worse from a 4" gun with the resulting higher velocity. Same with the Hydra Shok and Gold Dot.

As written in the article, we would likely need the big three to spend a bit of R&D money but surely this isn't a tough nut to crack. But with 357 and 38 not being as popular as they once were and/or uneducated shooters not demanding better performance we will not likely see new loads coming to market.

Maybe with the "resurrection" of the snub nosed revolver we'll see some ammo development that will tailor some 357 loads for peak performance from the concealed carry revolver. As it is now, Hornady appears to lead the pack in both 38 and 357 with their Critical Defense and Critical Duty.





Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Tokarev]

How hard would it be for Federal to adopt the 9mm Hydra Shok Deep into a 357 Mag load?

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[jaholder]

I wish they would test actual .357 magnum level loads. Just because it says .357 on the box doesn't mean it's a magnum load, it only means it's in a magnum case. Most of those in the article are just a little hotter than .38. The one exception I saw was the Federal 125 JHP at 1435 and even that's a little bit on the light side. The .357 Magnum used to push a 158 grain bullet to 1500 FPS. They downloaded that slightly to make the guns last longer and proceeded to use it quite successfully in LE for about 60 years.

I have a handload that launches a 158 grain XTP from my 2.5" Model 66 at 1250 FPS and that's the starting powder charge right out of the VV manual. That same load runs 1389 out of my 6" 686 and I've never seen a reason to go higher since it's a 158 grain bullet and it shoots well.

It's getting to the point that if we wheel gunners want true magnum performance we are going to have to load our own or buy from Buffalo Bore or Underwood, because the factories aren't loading to the cartridge potential or design parameters in most cases. Instead they choose to load to whatever flavor the current penetration standard happens to be and call it a day.

.357 pushing a 158 grain bullet to 1500fps? B.S, no one has loaded factory ammo that hot for .357 in 60 years as Skeeter Skelton was writing about how the ammo makers had downloaded factory .357 back in the mid 60's. Even then they were only getting that velocity using lead bullets and 8 inch barrels at pressures that would wear out a heavy N frame with repeated use.

[Ron3]

How hard would it be for Federal to adopt the 9mm Hydra Shok Deep into a 357 Mag load?

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

IIRC the 158 gr .357 Hydrashok performs just fine from a 4 inch barrel. But it's a kicker.

[Tokarev]

https://youtu.be/16m0jVAhBZ8

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[shadowrider]

.357 pushing a 158 grain bullet to 1500fps? B.S, no one has loaded factory ammo that hot for .357 in 60 years as Skeeter Skelton was writing about how the ammo makers had downloaded factory .357 back in the mid 60's. Even then they were only getting that velocity using lead bullets and 8 inch barrels at pressures that would wear out a heavy N frame with repeated use.

Yes that's precisely what I was alluding to. And I'd bet a beer that Elmer Keith ran them harder than that, because that's just the sort of thing he did for fun.


I could probably pull about 12 more references but this'll have to do. From Wiki:

The original 357 load was a 158 grain bullet with an advertised muzzle velocity of 1510 fps. (Muzzle velocity was taken using a revolver with a fairly long barrel.) Most of today's loads are fairly mild when compared to the original load.