Comparing 38 and 357

F

FITASC

New member
LuckyGunner.com did some ballistic gel tests (sorry if it has already been posted, I did not see it). The nice thing was that they used a 2" and a 4" barrel revolver to test each ammo type. Very compehensive tests and charts, photos, etc.

Can be found here:

http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/revolver-ballistics-test/8/

Amazing how some of the ammo performed better than I thought it would (and how some performed worse)
 
2

2damnold4this

New member
The Lucky Gunner test sure is interesting. I tried out a few loads the other day in my K6s and posted my results in the .357 personal defense thread but I think I'll post them again here:

Using my Kimber K6s, I shot some of my .38 Special 130 grain mild reloads, 110 grain Hornady Critical Defense in .38 Special, 110 grain +P Hornady Critical Defense in .38 Special, 135 grain +p Speer short barrel .38 Special and 135 grain Speer short barrel .357 Magnum.

At ten yards, my mild 130 grain loads shot a hair low in the K6s as did both Speer loads. The two Hornady loads shot about four inches lower. The .357 load made more noise and had a bit more recoil but seemed controllable. The Hornady +P also had a bit more bark than the other loads but the recoil didn't seem bad. All of the nickel plated cartridges extracted easily despite having fired many of the .38 loads before the .357s.

At this point, I was thinking that the Speer .357 load might be the best for carry. But then came the shot timer. From the low ready with the shot timer, I shot several strings with my .38 reloads, the Hornady 110 grain +P .38s and the Speer .357 short barrel rounds at five yards. The target was a ten inch plate. As expected, the time to the first shot was about the same for each round. What was revealing was the split times. It took only slightly longer to get the second hit with the Hornady +p as compared to the mild reloads but the split times with .357 were almost 50% slower. I could get about four good hits with the 38+P in the same time as I could get three good hits with the .357 in the Kimber.

For me, follow up shots were almost 50% slower with the .357 load compared to the +p load.
 
K

kraigwy

New member
Interesting report:

I see, (according to the data) that most bullets with the least penetration also have the greatest expansion.

The minimum penetration he presented seemed to be about 10 inches, but those bullets appeared to have the greatest expansion.

10 inches would appear to get into the vitals on just about any size human target. That seems pretty deep to me.

I would guess that penetration would create the most shock.

Baring the ability, funds and equipment, that looks to me to be a pretty good report for choosing one's carry ammo for revolvers.

I would think that 12 inches of penetration with .5+/- expansion would be a good conformise.

But that's just my opinion, maybe others would come up with a different opinion reading other reports.
 
S

SaxonPig

New member
I am appalled at the weakness of the ammo tested. A 110 +P+ only went 1110 FPS? Many 4" guns produced under 800 FPS. Wow. I would not trust my life to ANY of this lame ammo. My 38 carry load is a 125 JHP at a clocked 1150 FPS from a 4" barrel. Loses about 40 in a 2" gun.
 
J

Jim Watson

New member
I did a controllability study a number of years ago.
With several .38/.357 loads adjusted to the then IPSC power factor of 175, I had friends run through a simple drill with a S&W Highway Patrolman 4".

The highly touted 125 at 1400 fps had a loud report and sharp recoil. Times were mediocre and hits were well spread.

The standard 158 at 1108 fps was much more controllable, times were faster and hits were better. This is not much behind the tested .357 Gold Dot but is considerably less than the book standard 1250 fps and the Remington load. It is close to the old .38-44 High Velocity and much less powerful than the original 1510 fps... from an 8" barrel.

A 190 at 922 and a 200 at 875 were noticeably less hard kickers when shot at a moderate rate of fire, but at competition speed, were not noticeably better performers than the 158.

Most fixed sighted .38s and .357s are set for the 158 gr bullet, lighter shoots lower.
 
D

Dave T

New member
I would guess that penetration would create the most shock.
Click to expand...

Handgun bullets don't create shock. Rifle bullets at velocities over ~ 2500 fps create shock but handgun cartridges are just not in that business.

Handguns stop by either shutting down the central nervous system (brain or spinal cord hit) or by blood loss. Blood loss takes longer and the bigger the permanent wound cavity the faster that's going to happen.

When circumstances are at their worst (bad angle, barrier, heavy clothing, etc.) heavy bullets have a better chance of getting to the vitals and producing the above mentioned blood loss. Light bullets, with their high velocities and rapid expansion, may not make it there under the worst case scenario.

Dave
 
B

BlackLabsMatter

New member
I think it goes the other way, the bullets with the most expansion tended to have less penetration. It's well known that expansion impedes penetration.

10" may seem plenty for a frontal shot to the vitals, unobstructed by things like hard tissue(bone) and other obstacles. What if the opponent has his torso turned toward you, his gun trained on you in an improvised bullseye stance? What if he is in an isoscelese or weaver and has a gun or arms in front of his vitals? Suddenly you may start wondering if 10" in ballistic gelatin is enough.

Ballistic gelatin is a mere testing medium. No human body(no matter how rotund) is made of a consistent density, hardness, and shape, open and still so that you can take your time and get a straight shot into it.

It should never be used as an equivalent metric to real-world performance but as a relative metric, which is what it's actually used for.
[Handgun bullets don't create shock. Rifle bullets at velocities over ~ 2500 fps create shock but handgun cartridges are just not in that business.
Click to expand...
There are a host of rifle cartridges that contradict a theory of a 2500 fps threshold to be more effective than pistol rounds.
 
Last edited:
D

Doc Holliday 1950

New member
That was a great article that you gave us. Since I still own and shoot 4- 357 mag. wheels, i found your post really an eye opener.
Thanks for the good work.
 
D

dahermit

New member
Handguns stop by either shutting down the central nervous system (brain or spinal cord hit) or by blood loss. Blood loss takes longer and the bigger the permanent wound cavity the faster that's going to happen.
Click to expand...
Lee Harvey Oswald's knees buckled almost instantaneously when Jack Ruby shot him. His brain or spinal cord was not hit, he did not have time to bleed out before he fell (was "stopped"). So it would seem that there could be another factor beside those you posted. It could be intense pain and cramping from the organs that were struck can lead to "stopping" someone.
 
C

Creek Henry

New member
Pain is a huge component. I gave up MMA practice for aikijustsu last year. Pain can shut down your reflexive systems immediately.
 
C

Cheapshooter

New member
It's been discussed thoroughly in the past on TFL. I think there are studies, and and articles about "stopping" an attack. to paraphrase a bit it's something like three ways that an attacker is stoped almost instantly. 1. Central nervous system damage. Brain or spinal coed. 2. Physical shock from pain from a severe wound. 3. Psychological shock from realizing you have been shot. Basically fainting. The first is the surest. The other two can be iffy due to the attackers mental state, or the influence of drugs.
 
K

KyJim

New member
I focused on the .38 special out of the 2-inch barrel. The Speer 135 gr. +P short barrel under performed when compared with most other tests I've seen. See, for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khazbS9pWjE and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k890Rio2oBY, both of which used a 4-layer denim test rather than the mixed fabric test by Lucky Gunner.

Lucky Gunner's best results for a short-barreled .38 spl were the Remington Golden Saber 125 gr. +P and the Winchester 130 gr. +P Ranger bonded (with the 130 gr +P PDX-1 slightly behind). I did not see any YouTube results with the Ranger but looked at a couple with the PDX-1. Tnoutdoors9 reported two complete failures to expand and over-penetration. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VSb8_ClcVQ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od1LgsHdLmc. A test by ScubaOz showed good penetration and expansion with the PDX-1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Wcl0gcKP48.

As for the Golden Saber, both reported good penetration and good expansion. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRe6BzIqu6U and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnq8YVCn3Yk.

So now I'm thinking of switching what I carry in a snubby from the Speer 135 gr. +P for short barrels to the Remington Golden Saber 125 gr. +P. What do you all think?
 
B

BigJimP

New member
Thanks, its an interesting comparison.

I don't carry a revolver often, although I have carried a 2 5/8" model 627 ( 8 shot .357 mag a few days last month ) for the heck of it....and for me, a 158gr JHP seems like a good option. When I practice with it ...I shoot 158 gr JSP in it ( and in my other .357 mag handguns ),

I have some Buffalo Bore 158 gr .357 mag..JHP's.
 
C

Cheapshooter

New member
[QUOTEThe Speer 135 gr. +P short barrel under performed when compared with most other tests I've seen. See, for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khazbS9pWjE and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k890Rio2oBY, both of which used a 4-layer denim test rather than the mixed fabric test by Lucky Gunner][/QUOTE]
:confused::confused::confused:
What a useless round 12 1/4 to 13 1/2 inches of penetration with perfect expansion, and a large stretch cavity. I sure wouldn't use that for self defese in my LCR!:D
 
K

KyJim

New member
Those were the good test results. The Lucky Gunner results weren't so good. I'm not ready to throw away my Gold Dots but it does have me thinking.
 
S

ShootistPRS

New member
Well, reading or watching someone else testing bullets is a lot easier and more entertaining than doing it yourself. Back when I was testing the bullets I use to fire ten bullets minimum into my Fackler box to get a good average of the repeatability. It's darn messy and expensive to be sure. Each shot cost at least 15 one gallon freezer bags and I had to fill each one with water. The bags, when filled, are two inches thick. You multiply the number of inches traveled by .556 to get the penetration in 10% gelatin. I measured the expansion of each bullet and its retained weight. I have the records of my tests giving penetration in water and gel, the expansion average and spread, and the average retained weight with the spread of extremes. It is also saved on my old DOS software along with the velocity and ballistics. (yes, I still run old DOS programs)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top