Well I was finally able to get my hands on some .357 ammo since every place I went to was out of stock and picked up a couple boxes of federal personal defense in 125gr. Its raining cats and dogs so I haven't had a chance to get to the range but I was wondering if any of you have personal experience with this particular round? One of my buddies swears by it and says its some of the best .357 SD ammo you can buy. Thanks for any help.
.357 Federal Personal Defense 125gr
- Thread starter Cool_Hand
- Start date
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
I've shot it. Works just fine. The good thing about a light bullet is it goes really fast while delivering slightly less recoil to your hand than a heavy bullet.
Personally, I prefer light and fast to heavy and slow. Some people prefer heavy and slow. In a perfect world, we'd carry heavy and fast, but that's hard to do in .357 magnum.
Personally, I prefer light and fast to heavy and slow. Some people prefer heavy and slow. In a perfect world, we'd carry heavy and fast, but that's hard to do in .357 magnum.
FairWarning
New member
I've always got at least one box of those myself, great accuracy and unquestioned stopping power. A good 125 gr JHP is the standard by which all other .357 defense rounds are judged. I don't worry too much about the brand as long as it's one of the premium manus like Federal, Winchester or Hornady for example. The 125 JHP formula simply works.
In theory, I'm sure the 180 gr Win Black Talons are quite effective as well, but there is so much data regarding 125 JHPs, they simply can't be denied. And besides Black Talons are basically museum rounds now (current Win XTP tipped have the same basic construction).
In theory, I'm sure the 180 gr Win Black Talons are quite effective as well, but there is so much data regarding 125 JHPs, they simply can't be denied. And besides Black Talons are basically museum rounds now (current Win XTP tipped have the same basic construction).
Last edited:
I presume you're talking about the semi-jacketed hollowpoints rather than the fully-jacketed Hydra-Shoks. If so, the loading you're describing (along with it's equally effective Remington counterpart) is considered by many to be the gold standard in a personal defense handgun. Both these and the similar Remington loading rated as a 96% one-shot-stopper in the Marshall & Sanow study if one gives any credence to such things (I personally don't take those numbers too literally but I don't totally discount them either). One word of caution though, you might want to be conservative about how many of these you shoot through a K-Frame S&W (Models 13, 19, 65, and 66). Excessive use of this loading in those models has been known to cause issues such as frame-stretching, excessive topstrap erosion, and cracked forcing cones.
It will work, but they are marginally performing, old technology bullets. There are better choices now.
I myself prefer the 158 grain weights and up. Nevertheless, even in the 125 grain weight the more modern Speer Gold Dot out does the old Federal JHP bullet.
I realize you came here for validation of your SD ammo selection. So I will say that it is adequate. However lets get real, the .357 Magnum is slightly better than the 9 mm +P loadings. I doubt forensic pathologists can tell the difference between a 124 grain 9 mm(.355) wound and a 125 grain .357 wound. I also doubt you could tell much difference in effect given the same shot placement.
No matter how much we wish it was so, there is no magic defense ammunition. Every shooting is a unique event, how any given individual will react to being shot is unknown. Therefore I hold the ability of making rapid, accurate follow up shots in higher regard than the hope of one shot stops. The skill of making fast, accurate follow up shots with full power .357 rounds, takes a lot of practice to acquire.
I myself prefer the 158 grain weights and up. Nevertheless, even in the 125 grain weight the more modern Speer Gold Dot out does the old Federal JHP bullet.
I realize you came here for validation of your SD ammo selection. So I will say that it is adequate. However lets get real, the .357 Magnum is slightly better than the 9 mm +P loadings. I doubt forensic pathologists can tell the difference between a 124 grain 9 mm(.355) wound and a 125 grain .357 wound. I also doubt you could tell much difference in effect given the same shot placement.
No matter how much we wish it was so, there is no magic defense ammunition. Every shooting is a unique event, how any given individual will react to being shot is unknown. Therefore I hold the ability of making rapid, accurate follow up shots in higher regard than the hope of one shot stops. The skill of making fast, accurate follow up shots with full power .357 rounds, takes a lot of practice to acquire.
I am of the slow and heavy school myself but I have to admit that up to 50 yards the Federal 125 grain bullet shoots to point of aim for me and less than half the group size. I would and could use either but since my preferred load is 158 gr LSWC that is what I practice with and its what I would automatically adjust my aim for. You are good to go going by how it shoots in my Dan Wesson.
You mean outside of the 5-6" deeper wound?
http://www.brassfetcher.com/124gr%20+P%20Speer%20Gold%20Dot.html
http://www.brassfetcher.com/Speer%20125%20grain%20Gold%20Dot%20hollowpoint.html
Webleymkv said:
It is far more realistic to look at clothed gealitin tests, instead of bear.
In any case, if deep penetration on bare gelatin is the criteria you go by, then my personal choice of the 180 grain Win Partition Gold out does the rest every time.
I notice that you used the gel test data for the 125 grain Speer GD and not the Federal JHP. Lets see what that looks like.
FBI Ammunition Tests Data:
That is not very different from 9 mm. In fact the 124 grain Gold Dot +P shot through 4 layers of denim out penetrates the 125 grain Federal quite nicely. See the brassfetcher data below.
Cartridge : 9x19mm Luger Speer 124gr +P Gold Dot JHP (Part # 23617)
Firearm : Glock 26 (3.5" barrel length)
Block Calibration : All depths corrected (From 11.2cm @ 599 ft/sec)
Shot 1 - Impacted at 1215 ft/sec, penetrated to 14.3" and was recovered at 0.502" average diameter.
Shot 2 - Impacted at 1196 ft/sec, penetrated to 14.4" and was recovered at 0.509" average diameter.
Shot 3 - Impacted at 1218 ft/sec, penetrated to 14.3" and was recovered at 0.514" average diameter.
Shot 4 - Impacted at 1216 ft/sec, penetrated to 14.4" and was recovered at 0.494" average diameter.
Shot 5 - Impacted at 1216 ft/sec, penetrated to 14.4" and was recovered at 0.503" average diameter.
9x19mm Luger Speer 124gr +P Gold Dot JHP
So I stand by my statement that a forensic pathologist would have a lot of trouble distinguishing between the 124 grain +P 9 mm and 125 grain .357.
The 125 grain .357 is NOT a super duper magic, one shot stop bullet.
Rampant_Colt
New member
this thread is full of fail
Federal's .357 Magnum 'personal defense' load uses a 130gr bullet, not 125gr
Federal's 125gr SJHP [357B] is not a Hydra-Shok. I can post comparison photos if necessary
Hornady XTPs? Huh?
On the rare occasion my .357 revolver is used, i keep the cylinders stoked with W-W 145gr Silvertips or R-P 140gr SJHP, with Federal 140gr Vital-Shok loaded in speed-loaders. Federal's Vital-Shok loading uses the most excellent Barnes' XPB bullet with a sealed primer. I do not know why Federal chose to market this cartridge as a hunting round and not for self-defense along side with their questionable Hydra-Shok line-up.
Excellent .357 Magnum choices:
R-P 165gr Core-Lokt [Golden Saber design - discontinued]
R-P 125gr, 140gr & 158gr SJHP
W-W 180gr Partition Supreme [is also on the 'recommended list']
W-W 145gr Silvertip
W-W 125gr & 158gr SJHP
Speer 125 & 158gr Gold Dot
Hornady 125 & 140gr XTP
Federal 130gr Hydra-Shok "personal defense"
Federal 140gr Vital-Shok
Corbon 125gr DPX
Federal's .357 Magnum 'personal defense' load uses a 130gr bullet, not 125gr
Federal's 125gr SJHP [357B] is not a Hydra-Shok. I can post comparison photos if necessary
riiiiiight....GeauxTide said:
FairWarning said:
Hornady XTPs? Huh?On the rare occasion my .357 revolver is used, i keep the cylinders stoked with W-W 145gr Silvertips or R-P 140gr SJHP, with Federal 140gr Vital-Shok loaded in speed-loaders. Federal's Vital-Shok loading uses the most excellent Barnes' XPB bullet with a sealed primer. I do not know why Federal chose to market this cartridge as a hunting round and not for self-defense along side with their questionable Hydra-Shok line-up.
Excellent .357 Magnum choices:
R-P 165gr Core-Lokt [Golden Saber design - discontinued]
R-P 125gr, 140gr & 158gr SJHP
W-W 180gr Partition Supreme [is also on the 'recommended list']
W-W 145gr Silvertip
W-W 125gr & 158gr SJHP
Speer 125 & 158gr Gold Dot
Hornady 125 & 140gr XTP
Federal 130gr Hydra-Shok "personal defense"
Federal 140gr Vital-Shok
Corbon 125gr DPX
Last edited:
Really now. Im looking at the box right now and it reads quote on quote "Personal Defense .357 Magnum 125 Grain Jacketed Hollow Point C357B"
heres a link to them
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=125614
Last edited:
nefprotector
Moderator
I like any HP .357 mag load.
Rampant_Colt
New member
Cool_Hand said:
Note the part number - 357B
They're just Federal's repackaged classic JHP 357B ammo.
Looks like they're called "personal defense" now because of liability lawyers
I'll admit to being partially wrong, because Federal changed their packaging.. they're still the same thing as part number 357B
Nate45, I intentionally compared Speer Gold Dot loadings because I wanted to present a comparison between two loadings with the most similar amount of R&D in regards to their bullet construction. Comparing the most modern bullets in 9mm such as Speer Gold Dots to the 125grn Federals, which have remained essentially unchanged for about 30 years, isn't really all that fair a comparison. Yes, advances in bullet technology have allowed the 9mm to be much better than it was 20-30 years ago, but the same advances have improved the .357 Magnum as well. A more fair comparison to the Federal .357 load would be a more dated 9mm loading such as a Winchester Silvertip, Federal NyClad, or Federal Hi-Shok.
Also, I quoted bare gelatin tests because I was unable to find 4-layer denim tests for the 125grn .357 Gold Dot. Given the excellent reputation of Speer Gold Dots for performing under a wide variety of conditions, I see no reason not to expect a similar change in performance from a bare-gelatin to 4-layer denim test between the .357 and 9mm +P loadings.
One of the great things about Speer Gold Dots is that the bullet design is not the same for every caliber, but rather is optimized for the intended use and velocity of each specific caliber. Because of this, weight and velocity in and of themselves cannot be used to accurately predict the performance difference between one caliber and another. A simple visual examination of the bullets makes it obvious that the .357 Gold Dots are designed to expand much less aggressively than their 9mm counterparts in order to offset the higher velocity they are driven at. This is why we see similar expanded diameters but significantly deeper penetration with the .357 Gold Dots as opposed to the 9mm ones. I suspect that driving the 9mm Gold Dots at .357 Magnum velocities would be pushing the limit of that particular bullet's design and I wouldn't be surprised if issues with overly aggressive expansion and correspondingly shallow penetration were encountered. This phenomenon was illustrated with early .357 Sig loadings where 9mm bullets were used: overexpansion, underpenetration, and fragmentation plagued the Sig round until the ammo makers modified the bullet designs, reduced velocities, or both.
Also, one must give credit where it is due that such dated bullet designs such as the Federal 357B's performance compares so favorably against the most modern 9mm JHP's. Remember that 9mm JHP loadings of 30 years ago usually either didn't reliably expand, exhibited shallow penetration, and/or would not reliably feed in most 9mm handguns.
My point in all this is that when similar bullet designs are compared, there is still quite a difference between the performance of a 125grn .357 Magnum and a 124grn 9mm +P. All that being said, I too prefer the heavier 140-158grn JHP's in a .357 Magnum. However, I don't prefer them over the 125's because of terminal performance. I like the heavier bullets better because their flash and blast are less offensive than the lighter, faster bullets, they shoot closer to point-of-aim in fixed sighted revolvers and factory-zeroed adjustable sighted revolvers, and because they are more agreeable with the forcing cone of my S&W K-Frame.
Also, I quoted bare gelatin tests because I was unable to find 4-layer denim tests for the 125grn .357 Gold Dot. Given the excellent reputation of Speer Gold Dots for performing under a wide variety of conditions, I see no reason not to expect a similar change in performance from a bare-gelatin to 4-layer denim test between the .357 and 9mm +P loadings.
One of the great things about Speer Gold Dots is that the bullet design is not the same for every caliber, but rather is optimized for the intended use and velocity of each specific caliber. Because of this, weight and velocity in and of themselves cannot be used to accurately predict the performance difference between one caliber and another. A simple visual examination of the bullets makes it obvious that the .357 Gold Dots are designed to expand much less aggressively than their 9mm counterparts in order to offset the higher velocity they are driven at. This is why we see similar expanded diameters but significantly deeper penetration with the .357 Gold Dots as opposed to the 9mm ones. I suspect that driving the 9mm Gold Dots at .357 Magnum velocities would be pushing the limit of that particular bullet's design and I wouldn't be surprised if issues with overly aggressive expansion and correspondingly shallow penetration were encountered. This phenomenon was illustrated with early .357 Sig loadings where 9mm bullets were used: overexpansion, underpenetration, and fragmentation plagued the Sig round until the ammo makers modified the bullet designs, reduced velocities, or both.
Also, one must give credit where it is due that such dated bullet designs such as the Federal 357B's performance compares so favorably against the most modern 9mm JHP's. Remember that 9mm JHP loadings of 30 years ago usually either didn't reliably expand, exhibited shallow penetration, and/or would not reliably feed in most 9mm handguns.
My point in all this is that when similar bullet designs are compared, there is still quite a difference between the performance of a 125grn .357 Magnum and a 124grn 9mm +P. All that being said, I too prefer the heavier 140-158grn JHP's in a .357 Magnum. However, I don't prefer them over the 125's because of terminal performance. I like the heavier bullets better because their flash and blast are less offensive than the lighter, faster bullets, they shoot closer to point-of-aim in fixed sighted revolvers and factory-zeroed adjustable sighted revolvers, and because they are more agreeable with the forcing cone of my S&W K-Frame.
Webleymkv said:
Whoa, wait a minute. This thread is about the .357 125 grain Federal, not the .357 125 grain Gold Dot. More to the point which one is the vaunted 'King of the Street' that some like to speak of? The famous 'one shot stopper'.
Looks like to me that the 'King of the Street' of song and legend was the old technology .357 bullet.
So again lets look at the FBI test results for that load. The Federal 357B.
Now the brassfetcher test of the 9 mm 124 grain Gold Dot +P. Just one shot will suffice.
Shot 3 - Impacted at 1218 ft/sec, penetrated to 14.3" and was recovered at 0.514" average diameter.
So lets see the 'King of the Street' comes out of a 3" barreled Model 13 @ 1265 fps, the 124 +P impacted @ 1218. Hum, thats pretty close, I guess the 9 mm +P needs to be dubbed 'Prince of the Promenade' or some other such drivel. lol Seriously though, given the above evidence, I just don't see how a reasonable person can believe that the effect of the old Federal 357B would be dramatically different from a 9 mm 124 grain +P load.
Bottom line, in my opinion the whole one shot stop study is a load of... lead.
Instead of boring you with a long statistical analysis; I'll just ask a few questions. Based on the one shot to the thorax criteria of the one shot stop theory.
Where is the data for the people shot more than once? The ones who were hit two or more times and kept going.
What about the people who were double tapped with a .45 ACP, or 9 mm and went straight down?
How do we differentiate psychological stops from physiological stops in the given data?
In post #7, you stated the following:
emphasis added
This appears to be a rather broad blanket statement about one caliber versus another. If, instead, you're talking about one particular loading (Federal 357B) in one caliber versus another specific loading (Speer 124grn +P Gold Dot) then I agree with you and have basically stated as much. However, as a broad blanket statement about one caliber versus another, there are several pertinent details which are omitted.
Additionally, I take minor issue with this statement also from post #7:
While I agree that the .357's in question are rather dated and that modern .357 are most likely better, I don't think that I would classify a 30 year old loadings that performs favorably in comparison to one of the very best modern 9mm loadings "marginal".
table omitted
As I said in post #4, I don't take the Marshall/Sanow data literally or as gospel (though I don't think it is completely without merit as most of the guys over at firearmstactical.com do). I merely mentioned it as a point of interest about the particular loading that the OP was asking about.
Also, Speer JHP does not necessarily refer to Gold Dot bullets. While the Marshall/Sanow data is rather dated, they specifically refer to CCI ammunition rather than Speer (while they're both owned by ATK, they are actually separate brands). The only Speer bullets currently loaded by CCI in their .357 Magnum ammunition (specifically Blazer and Blazer Brass) are the older Speer Uni-Cor Semi-Jacket Hollowpoints and not Gold Dots.
Table omitted
While the two may seem similar in velocities from short-barreled handguns, when fired from full-sized duty-type platforms (the types of platforms that the manufacturers use to determine published velocities) their ballistics are quite different. When we compare the factory published velocities of both loadings from 4" barrels (a fairly standard length for a full-sized service type revolver or 9mm semi-automatic) we see that the the Speer Gold Dot is listed at 1220fps while the .357 Magnum is listed at 1450fps. The similarities in velocity that you note between the FBI's .357 Magnum tests and Brassfetcher's 9mm tests are due to the 125grn .357 Magnum's inefficiency in short barrels due to slow-buring powder. Since no one here has ever specified a barrel length, this phenomenon could easily be offset by the fact that the 125grn .357 Magnum gains much more velocity as barrel length increases due to slow-burning powders. If we look at Ballistics by the Inch's test results, we see that the Federal .357 Magnum loading achieved 1702fps from a 6" T/C Contender barrel while the 125grn +P Cor-Bon loading (the most similar ballistics to the +P Speer that was tested by BBTI) achieved only 1312fps. Also, even if the ballistics are the same, you fail to take into account the difference in bullet construction. Even with similar weights at similar velocities, two bullets with different expansion characteristics will perform differently from each other.
As I said before, I don't take the M/S statistics literally nor do I take the FBI/Fackler tests as gospel. However, I do think that we can draw some general conclusions from them. Even with dated JHP's, a .357 Magnum seems to be a very effective cartridge. Likewise, a 124-127grn 9mm at 1200-1300fps seems to also be a very effective loading. I don't believe that it is coincidence that so many of the same loadings that did well in the M/S study also performed adequately, if not admirably, in the FBI tests. What is odd, almost to the point of being comical, is that two separate studies can have so many similar results and come to such different conclusions. While Marshall and Sanow view kinetic energy transfer as the be-all end-all secondary only to shot placement, Fackler and the FBI decided that permanent crush cavity and penetration were the only important factors next to accuracy. The truth, as with so many things, probably lies somewhere in the middle.
Kinetic energy, I think, does play a role though not as large a one as Marshall and Sanow seem to think. While theories of Hydrostatic-Shock and the like seem to be scientifically unverifiable, it is known that the greater the amount of energy that is transferred into the target the larger the temporary stretch cavity will be. While Fackler and the FBI discounted temporary cavitation as a reliable wounding factor, even they admitted that it can have some effect on certain tissues (the human body is not homogeneous). So, while the effects of kinetic energy are much more localized than Marshall and Sanow believe, they can have significant effect on the human body if proper placement and adequate penetration are given.
What is often misunderstood, I think, about temporary cavitation is the great importance of not only where, but how it occurs. Aggressively expanding bullets which open very rapidly aren't really desirable because their temporary cavities, while usually very large in diameter, tend to narrow very quickly. Therefore, the temporary cavities of these bullets are causing most of their tissue damage near the outer surface of the body rather than deep into the vital organs where it is needed.
Likewise very deeply penetrating bullets that expand little or not at all aren't particularly preferable as while their temporary cavities narrow very gradually, they aren't particularly wide to begin with. Thusly, these bullets don't cause much tissue damage at all beyond their permanent crush cavities.
The most preferable type of bullet is one that expands well, but still penetrates deeply. The temporary cavity of this bullet, while not as wide as more aggressively expanding types, is still much larger in diameter than a non-expanding or poorly expanding bullet. Similarly, while the temporary cavity narrows more quickly than that of a bullet with little expansion, it does so more slowly than the extremely aggressive expander. In the end, you get a temporary cavity that has the most wounding potential deep in the internal organs where it will have the most effect.
So, the most preferable handgun bullet is one that expands well, penetrates deep, is placed accurately and has as much kinetic energy as possible without sacrificing any of the first three criteria. I don't think that it is coincidence that so many of the best loadings from both the Marshall/Sanow and FBI/Fackler studies fit the above mentioned template so well.
Webleymkv said:
I meant it to be a broad blanket statement. I don't believe it would be easy to tell the difference, between wound the channels, or the effects of them. Given the same shot placement.
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14256936&postcount=6JohnSka said:
Weblymkv said:
Alright, let me rephrase that. The new .357 projectiles, Gold Dot, Golden Saber, DPX, etc expand better and much more consistently than the old 357B.
The pic below gets posted a lot, it is various Winchester Ranger-T projectiles. Do you really believe there would be a vast difference in the effect, or wound channel of any of those loadings?
The .357 Sig is very close to a full power .357 Magnum. I don't believe if you added another 150-200 fps it would have a dramatic difference in effect. It takes rifle velocities of 2500+ fps to show a hydrostatic shock effect. A 125 grain .357 bullet @ 1450 or even 1500 fps is not going to do it.