357...JSP Vs FMJ

[defjon]

Hey all,

I know that many loads exist from buffalo bore and double tap, but I haven't been able to find those loads. Fairly repressive state, can't really order online.

For the purpose of this discussion, if you wanted to maximize the effect of the 357 against dangerous larger animals...

Would you recommend a 158 grain fmj or a 158 grain jsp? (jacketed soft point)

Also have various loads designed for self defense Vs humans but figure these loads likely wouldn't be ideal against larger animals (125 grain jhp gold dots, 110 grain jhp etc)

 

[44 AMP]

For the purpose of this discussion, if you wanted to maximize the effect of the 357 against dangerous larger animals...

Would you recommend a 158 grain fmj or a 158 grain jsp? (jacketed soft point)

Neither. I would recommend a hard cast SWC over either.

First off, while not I've seen as a mathematically quantifiable thing, as an observed effect, the SWC shape seems to transfer energy/shock better than "smoother" nose profiles. This is why I would choose the SWC over the FMJ as nearly all the FMJs have smooth tapered noses that seem to "slip through" tissue easier than the SWC. Since neither is going to expand, assuming equal penetration, I'd choose the blunt one.

JSP? Same as the FMJ for overall shape. Expansion?? So what? Literally...
Nice if the bullet expands, but NOT at the cost of something else, like sufficient penetration.

All JSPs are not created equal. Some will expand more than others, at identical speeds and in the same target material.

If I were going to trust a JSP against a dangerous larger animal, I would only choose one I had extensively tested to see what it actually DOES in various materials. And my criteria would always put sufficient penetration over any degree of expansion.

Simply put, even if it flattens out to the size of a silver dollar and dumps 100% of the energy, if it doesn't go in deep enough to reach the right spot, its almost useless.

the last thing you want to do is inflict a painful but essentially superficial wound on a dangerous large animal. They really don't like it.

 

[defjon]

Thanks for the reply

I should explain, both the fmj and jsp are both flat nose meplat designs

The flat top jsp is led, fmj coated probably lead core.

 

[ballardw]

But do either of these bullets have the shoulder typical of the SWC design?

The JSP I have tend to be a "round nose with a flat spot". And most of the FMJ pictures with flat noses I see have the same body profile, no shoulder.

 

[44 AMP]

Compare the flat spot on the nose of the JSP and FMJ to the SWC. Generally, it is smaller, and generally both designs lack the shoulder of the SWC bullet, which is one of the features credited with the SWC's success on game.

Be aware that a "FMJ" bullet that is plated is not the same as a FMJ with a copper jacket. Compared to plating, the copper jacket is much thicker, and "tougher".

 

[dahermit]

But do either of these bullets have the shoulder typical of the SWC design?

The JSP I have tend to be a "round nose with a flat spot". And most of the FMJ pictures with flat noses I see have the same body profile, no shoulder.

Why would a sharp shoulder make any difference...a sharp SWC shoulder is only effective at cutting target paper.

 

[SHR970]

For purposes of this conversation define

dangerous larger animals

It's basically Mountain Lion, Blackie, or Brownie. It matters. If the first two 158 gr SP will do IF you do your part. If Brownie.....HCSCW and / or bring a more powerful gun.

 

[44 AMP]

Why would a sharp shoulder make any difference...a sharp SWC shoulder is only effective at cutting target paper.

Is it, only effective at cutting target paper?

I can't say. There is no math formula I've seen to explain it, but observed effects show the SWC design is somehow more efficient in animal tissue than a RN profile bullet, and that includes RNs with flat points.

Theory says the shoulder of the SWC "cuts" tissue where the RN (including FMJ and JHP without expansion) simply "pushes it aside, and that transmits more shock than the RN shape.

I don't know what the truth actually is. What I've personally seen supports the theory, but that's not proof it is actually correct.

Personally if I can see that A works better than B, I don't need the math to explain why...but, that's just me

 

[dahermit]

Is it, only effective at cutting target paper?

I can't say. There is no math formula I've seen to explain it, but observed effects show the SWC design is somehow more efficient in animal tissue than a RN profile bullet, and that includes RNs with flat points.

Theory says the shoulder of the SWC "cuts" tissue where the RN (including FMJ and JHP without expansion) simply "pushes it aside, and that transmits more shock than the RN shape.

I don't know what the truth actually is. What I've personally seen supports the theory, but that's not proof it is actually correct.

Personally if I can see that A works better than B, I don't need the math to explain why...but, that's just me

I remember reading an article at one time where the author did some tests with semi wadcutter bullets fired into ballistic gel and other test mediums. He chalanged other shooters to replicate his tests to see for themselves.
The tests centered on smearing grease-type bullet lube on the juncture of a cast bullets ogive and its sharp semi wadcutter shoulder. He found that all the recovered bullets still had the bullet lube intact, indicating that the sharp shoulder did not contact the ballistic gel/test medium.
So, I would not bet or assume that a the sharp shoulder on a semi wadcutter contacts flesh either...until I actually shoot a deer or other animal with a semi wadcutter with grease lube so deposited...and recover the bullet to see for myself. Inasmuch as I have not done so, I will avoid concluding that it does.

 

[bamaranger]

phrasing

The phrase, "....a sharp SWC shoulder is only effective at cutting target paper. " sounds pretty conclusive to me.

I've not read the article concerning grease or lube on SWC shoulder. But obstructing the very surface (with lube or grease) that is supposed to be the determining factor in the wound channel seems counter productive. As an extreme comparison, you would not smear a thick grease like lubricant on any other cutting surface or implement, and expect it to perform at it's best, till the stuff was absent. I'll suggest that greasing the slug greased the rails of the test for failure of the "cookie cutter" effect, .........but again, I have not read the article and that is just my speculation.

I have read a good bit of material by several noted authors and authorities who have indeed shot a large amount of big game with SWC and WFN bullets from handguns, and their conclusion about those projectiles performance in real tissue is positive.

Whether or not there is truly a "cookie cutter" effect, I dunno. I believe I can see very defined and sharp edged, large, full caliber entrance wounds on deer shot with with .44 SWC and very blunt .50 cal muzzleloader projectiles like the Maxiball and Maxi hunter, more so than HP's or other conoidal type projectiles. What the rest of the wound channel looks like is difficult for me to say.

 

[stinkeypete]

First of all, this is a fantasy discussion.

Paul Harrel has an excellent video on EXACTLY THIS.
He finds that when shooting heavily boned targets made of leather, meat and oranges... .357 Magnum performance of FMJ and hard cast SWC are essentially the same within "Well, I dunno, it looks like sometimes these work better and sometimes those work better." Over all, he's nodding to the fmj but notes that the semiwadcutters do substantially the equivalent damage. I think that fact that Winchester White Box did about as well as boutique ammo made a difference in his decision while as a hand loader, I prefer the cast SWC.

Realistically-
You are more likely to be killed by a tick than a bear.
There is great likelihood that if you are attacked by a lion, you won't see it coming.
If you really want to play this game, .44 Magnum or .454 Casull for the win. If you insist the scenario is real, you should see the havoc that a .44 Magnum unleashes on deer compared to .357 magnum. It's a whole other category of damage and put-down power.

 

[silvermane_1]

For purposes of this conversation define

It's basically Mountain Lion, Blackie, or Brownie. It matters. If the first two 158 gr SP will do IF you do your part. If Brownie.....HCSCW and / or bring a more powerful gun.

I think you mean HCSWC(hardcast semi-wadcutter) there SHR970.

 

[dahermit]

The phrase, "....a sharp SWC shoulder is only effective at cutting target paper. " sounds pretty conclusive to me.

I've not read the article concerning grease or lube on SWC shoulder. But obstructing the very surface (with lube or grease) that is supposed to be the determining factor in the wound channel seems counter productive. As an extreme comparison, you would not smear a thick grease like lubricant on any other cutting surface or implement, and expect it to perform at it's best, till the stuff was absent. I'll suggest that greasing the slug greased the rails of the test for failure of the "cookie cutter" effect, .........but again, I have not read the article and that is just my speculation.

I have read a good bit of material by several noted authors and authorities who have indeed shot a large amount of big game with SWC and WFN bullets from handguns, and their conclusion about those projectiles performance in real tissue is positive.

Whether or not there is truly a "cookie cutter" effect, I dunno. I believe I can see very defined and sharp edged, large, full caliber entrance wounds on deer shot with with .44 SWC and very blunt .50 cal muzzleloader projectiles like the Maxiball and Maxi hunter, more so than HP's or other conoidal type projectiles. What the rest of the wound channel looks like is difficult for me to say.

The phrase, "....a sharp SWC shoulder is only effective at cutting target paper. " sounds pretty conclusive to me.

Yes it is, but my somewhat neferius purpose was to stimulate others into discussing that concept.

I have read a good bit of material by several noted authors and authorities who have indeed shot a large amount of big game with SWC and WFN bullets from handguns, and their conclusion about those projectiles performance in real tissue is positive.

The point I was raising was not that semi wadcutters are ineffective (do not have a positive result), only that perhaps the sharp shoulder does not make contact with the flesh...did any of the shooters state that they observed a sharp cut in the flesh of the animal from the sharp edge of the bullet, or that the bullet seemed to do a good amount of damage and produced faster killes than a more rounded profile bullet?

 

[Armorer 101]

Being a wild hog killer, as a farm owner, I try not to ever go out to find a wild hog, I have found that the 44 Mag with hard cast SWC bullets cuts nice round holes through the skin and as is typical of the 44 goes right out the other side, leaving a dead hog laying where the bullet impacted it. I do not consider chasing wounded hogs through the brush any kind of fun. A DRT hog is my idea of a real nice situation. If you can not stand absolutely still on the ground with a handgun, facing a boar or bear on charge, do not even think about going there. Oh, I also use my hard cast 240 SWCs in my 444.

Please recognize the difference between, I read about it and I do it. Also know the difference between hunting and killing, I do not hunt hogs, if I find them I kill them. They are destructive vermin.

 

[defjon]

In response to the comment about this being a "fantasy thread ", I assure you my original question and intent is clearly not.

For a person who only has access to traditional jhp rounds, jsp and fmj (meplat style) what would you load your 4 inch barrel 357 with?

 

[stinkeypete]

I will maintain that if you really want to know- go shoot some deer. I have shot more than 17 big whitetails and then lost count.. most of them with handguns. I found .357 unsatisfactory compared to .44 magnum. For deer, I found XTPs worked better for me than cast.

Armorer has shot a lot of hogs. He's telling you about real hogs he really comes across and they are really nasty and strong little **&&&^^ers and HCSWC is a widely accepted bullet for hogs and I would use a HCSWC if I was shooting hogs, too.

Go hunting and find out for yourself what works.

How many bears have you seen in the wild? For me, every time I visit my sister we kick at least one black bear up on our hikes in a week. They run away or ignore us as we keep our distance. How many lions have you seen? I have only seen two in the wild, but they are smaller bobcats. I feel blessed to have seen such amazing critters.

If I was elk hunting in the west, I would be thinking about bear protection as it's not an optimal strategy to be covered in blood and be hauling hundreds of pounds of meat on a pack horse. But that's why you have experienced guides as I have never actually done any elk hunting. Alaska is another story altogether.

 

[wild cat mccane]

Even the wad cutter has an unsubstantiated myth about it.

The meplat from a 357 isn't large enough to cause the effect spoken here.

It's not based on actual research. You need high velocity and a LARGE round for meplat to start doing what is mentioned. Regardless, there are only 3 loads of 9mm commercial with flat points in the NATO standard of 124gr. That should show you how unimportant metplat is on smaller rounds.

From what I've seen, no wad cutter is going fast 357 velocity regardless of size.

The copper around an FMJ will likely deform less than the likelihood of a hardcast shattering.

I would use XTP. It's designed to only expand to a point and then completely stops expanding while staying together. Before getting an uber hot XPT, I would compare it to a standard 357 XTP load. Some hot rod'ing of XTP has proven to slow the bullet down and kill penetration (Underwood XTP 380 for example doesn't go as far as regular XTP rounds)

 

[stinkeypete]

What do bear hunters use?

 

[44 AMP]

What do bear hunters use?

Rifles! (primarily)

First point, I never said, nor meant to imply that the SWC shape was an infallible Martian death ray. Perhaps I should have been more precise, so, here goes

From what I've seen, the SWC seems to work a little better, and that is why I would choose it, if it was an option. And, I'll add, choose one properly constructed for the worst case you can reasonably expect.

Next point, the OP has a 4" .357. Discussion of how the .44, 9mm or anything else works, or doesn't is not useful..

Dangerous large animals?? In North America, that means large cats, dogs, various assorted bears, crocodilians (in certain places), and livestock.
and, of course, people...

Cats like puma are not heavily built animals. They're FAST but not massive. Loads for self defense (like the 125 JHP) should do fine, they have adequate penetration. Like wise dogs, feral or wild, coyote or even wolf size, the danger is from packs, or rabid individuals, and again, are not massively boned animals.

Bears? Bears are "tricksy". Penetration is important, BUT shot placement is essential. Bear vital organs are under a shaggy loose fitting bear suit, and not quite where you might think they are. If you might need to shoot bear, study the bear. Livestock can be a threat, though usually easily avoidable. Wild hogs I would put in that group, as well.

The most dangerous thing you're likely to meet is your fellow man.

158gr FMJ or JSP? if those are the only choices, I'd go with the JSP, PROVIDED both have adequate penetration.

A bullet that goes where it needs to go, works. One that doesn't, usually doesn't, and that is entirely dependent on the person pulling the trigger.

 

[MaxP]

I’ve never been a big fan of semi-wadcutters when there are much better cast bullet designs like those from LBT. In fact, in Veral Smith’s testing he reported that the shoulder actually doesn’t contribute to the wound channel. Meplat size however does, and I like a large meplat for those reasons. A monolithic flat-nosed solid is a better choice for unfettered penetration. I’ve experienced a lot of cast bullet failures on heavy support bone.