Too short?

[Catfishman]

Is there much benefit from firing 2" barrel .357 over a 2" barrel .38+P? Put the recoil issue aside. I'm just curious about bullet performance.
How about the same question for a .44 Mag.

 

[pendennis]

When .357 Magnums and .38 Specials are tested, a 6" barrel is generally used. Since you have removed 4" of barrel, both rounds lose about 50 fps/inch of barrel. 50 fps is not a lock number, but it's generally close to the loss of speed.

You still get more muzzle velocity with the .357, and less economy of powder, since a lot of unburned powder exits the barrel.

Some compensation can be had with faster-burning powders, but that only overcomes so much.

 

[TEDDY]

38/357

my understanding is you lose much more on the 357 as the powder is slower burning,resulting in lose more thean the faster burning of the spec.

 

[BlueTrain]

Well, I think you should measure the efficiency of a given load, no matter what the barrel length, by the muzzle velocity, not by the amount of unburnt power exiting the barrel. The slower powder may give better performance. There is also the matter of bullet weight and perhaps even the bullet construction.

Some writers have claimed there is greater variation between different revolvers of the same barrel length (and caliber) than there is between different barrel lengths but that might be a stretch to believe. But I suppose you could try shooting those two cartridges in two different .357 revolvers with different barrel lengths. Given all the different commercial variations of these two rounds, it could be an endless test. It is probably also true that a .38 special would not give it's best performance in a .357 chambering but otherwise, it seems like it ought to still give valid results that just might answer the original question.

 

[Mike_Fontenot]

Here's a copy of an earlier posting I made on this subject:
__________________________________________

I chronographed my S&W360 .357 snubby at 1044 ft/s and 382 ft-lbs, versus 773 ft/s and 209 ft-lbs for my S&W337 .38+P snubby. That's 35% greater velocity, and 83% greater energy. (Both results were with 158 gr JHP's. The .357's were Federal JHP "Hi-Shoks" (NOT Hydra-Shoks). The .38+P's were CCI Lawman JHP's. )

[addentum]: The box for the .357 HiShoks says 1240 ft/s and 535 ft-lbs. It doesn't specify the barrel length, but I suspect it's for a 4" barrel. So my 1-7/8" barrel loses about 16% of the velocity.

I also got 9" penetration and 0.6" expansion, in wet newspaper, with the .357 158gr JHP Hi-Shoks.

Mike Fontenot

 

[Catfishman]

Thanks Mike. Looks like if I can handle the recoil and flash a 2" barreled .357 is much more effective than a .38.

 

[Mike_Fontenot]

Here's a copy of an earlier posting of mine that addresses the recoil issue:

I've got a SW360, and I'm able to shoot five 158gr .357 JHP's in it at the beginning of practice sessions. I wouldn't want to shoot a whole lot of them. I use a VERY relaxed grip, with forearms that aren't aligned with the barrel, and with both elbows bent and completely relaxed...that keeps the recoil from being transfered to my whole body (just the inertia of my arms seems to soak it all up). I've never had any tendency for the gun to fly out of my loose grip, or hit me in the face, etc., even when shooting weak-hand single-handed. It's not pleasant...kind of like catching a baseball with a glove without any padding on a cold day...but that's not a show-stopper for me.

Suppose that there was a big, mean bad-guy closing on you from about 5 feet away, with obvious intent to do you grave harm. You've got him in your sights, ready to fire. Suppose time were stopped at that instant, and someone asked you: "What ammo would you like to have loaded in your gun right now?" I doubt that your answer would be "Give me something that won't hurt my hand.". I suspect you'd say: "Give me the most potent ammo that won't quite blow up my gun".

Mike Fontenot

 

[Wolfeye]

I recently read an article by Stephen A. Camp about .38's vs. .357's out of a snub: http://http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/38vs357snub.htm

I'm not sure about .44 mag. The numbers I hear get tossed around are that you want at least 6" of barrel length to capture most of the power from a .44 magnum load, but 4" seems to be considered "enough" barrel for people who want something compact. I know that 4-inchers are a lot louder and have a bigger flash than a 6-inch barrel for a given ammo.

Some modern magnum factory loads are designed with snub barrels in mind. There's not much you can do for the sound, but they're usually optimized to expand reliably and don't have much flash.

I think caliber and barrel length should come down to what kind of power you need and how much barrel you can handle for a given method of carry. It also depends on purpose; hunters want a long barrel for ease of aiming and to have decent velocity. Defensive guns can have a short barrel because they're basically fired at point-blank range.

 

[Lost Sheep]

Asked often, rarely answered

Catfishman,

Google the phrase "Ballistics by the inch". Also do a search on this forum for that phrase. This question has appeard before.

I recall a test, years ago performed by a gun magazine. They took a long-barrelled Ruger Super Blackhawk 44 Magnum and test fired several different brands and loadings of ammunition over a chronograph. Then they cut off an inch of barrel and repeated the tests (being careful to use THE SAME LOT OF AMMO in each loading). Using the same gun. Because variations in the cylinder/barrel gap from gun to gun or chamber dimensions can make a bigger difference from gun to gun than barrel lengths. So it is important to use the same gun, and as much as possible, the same barrel (smoothness and regularity of bore dimensions are equally important.)

The limitation of each of these tests is that mostly over the counter retail ammunition was used and even among the handloads, no development work was done to optimize loadings for the barrel length.

The ideal experiment would be to pick several bullets (Glaser Safety Slugs), 200 grain hard cast lead, 125 grain hollowpoints, 158 grain semi-wadcutters, whatever. Then load each bullet and custom tailor power levels (charge weight and primer selection) to optimize the performance of that bullet. Then compare the results.

For example, take the 200 grain hard cast flat point whose forte is penetration in dangerous game. (for which ballistic gelatin or the forever popular wet newspaper is a satisfactory test medium). With the 6" barrel on the gun, use various powders and various loadings to find the best performance (penetration). Once the optimum performance is identified, change barrels to 4" (or cut off 2") and repeat the procedure, finding the optimin again. This will be the best performance you can get out of a 4" barrel.

Then cut off another 2" (or swap to the 2" barrel) and go through load development again.

In this way you will be comparing the best load, optimized for a 2" barrel directly against the best load for a 4" and the best load for a 6" firing a 200 grain hard cast flat point.

So, if you want to deliver a 200 gr hcfp and your delivery device is your 2" the best you can get is load X. If your delivery device is your 4", the best you can get is load Y. If you delivery device is your 6", load Z. That way you are comparing apples to apples.

Repeat for the 125 grain hollowpoint.

All that load development, I have never seen anybody do.

The guys at BallisticsbytheInch.com have committed a tremendous amount of time, money, lead, brass and steel to their project and readily admit the limitations of thier data, as every good experimenter does. But they have laid an admirable groundwork.

My point is that it is folly to compare a load out of a 4" barrel directly to the same load out of a 2" barrel if that load was optimized for an 8 3/8" barrel. Pick a job you want to do (say, stop a mugger at 5' to 10' range). Your choice of platform is 2" revolver or 4" revolver.

1) Find the best performance you can get from any bullet over any powder out of the 2" including all criteria, flash, recoil, report, terminal ballistics etc.

2) Find the best performance you can get from any bullet over any powder out of the 4" including all criteria, flash, recoil, report, terminal ballistics etc.

Compare the best performer from the 2" to the best performer from the 4". They will certainly not be the same loads, maybe not even the same bullet.

Have I complicated it enough?

No?

How about this: With the 38 Special casing you get about 1/8 inch more (effective) barrel length, but the barrel/cylinder gap is effectively moved 1/8 forward into a higher pressure region of the interior ballistics arena.

Then there's the spin rate. A hollowpoint will open up quicker and easier with a faster spin rate than a slower rate. Up to a point. It has been demonstrated in rifles that it is possible to get really high spin rates that will cause a bullet to expand and disintegrate while still in flight toward the target. I don't know of this happening with handgun velocities/spin rates, but surely expansion when a bullet hits flesh would be enhanced with a higher spin rate.

There is no end to the permutations.

Lost Sheep

 

[Lost Sheep]

Let me re-post

Shorter this time and more to the point.

Is there much benefit from firing 2" barrel .357 over a 2" barrel .38+P?

When .357 Magnums and .38 Specials are tested, a 6" barrel is generally used

So, don't fire ammunition optimized for a long barrel out of your 2".

Find (or load some of your own) .38 Special +p for low flash and maximum velocity in your 2" barrel. Then Find (or load your own) .357 Magnums optimized for low flash and max velocity in your gun.

I think you will find the performance is very similar, and I would not be surprized if the 38s outperform the 357s.

Here's my reasoning. The ratio of case volume to swept volume (talking about a 2" barrel here) is closer to optimal with the smaller case 38 Special than with the 357 mag. The pressure simply gets up higher faster and has 1/8" more length to work with. Break out your scales chronograph and lots of bullets and lets go to town!

Drawback: Your 38 Special brass is likely to have a shorter life as you will probably be running +p+ pressures if not a little more, so don't let anyone use this ammo in a 38 +p gun. Only 357 mag guns. This is analagous to the 45 ACP Super. Same exterior dimensions as 45 ACP, but only to be chambered in higher-strength specially made barrels.


More succinctly: With factory ammunition you will always get better terminal ballistics from the 357. Handloaded, you may get better terminal ballistics out of the smaller case, and with the additional benefit of less flash.

Lost Sheep

Remember, only believe half of what you see and one quarter of what you hear. That goes double for what you get from the internet. Even this post. Maybe especially this post.

Do your own independent, confirming research when ANYONE gives you new facts on the web.

Also remember, even the idiotic stuff might have a kernel of truth buried in there somewhere.

 

[Jim Downey]

As Lost Sheep noted, it is an amazingly complex question - the different variables mean that there is plenty of room for tweaking, argument, and further testing. Our tests were meant to provide some additional fodder for all of the above. And just recently we completed a new sequence of tests, including vastly expanding the "real world" guns we used, just to help confuse everyone a bit more.

 

[Keltyke]

For me, the .38 spel. +p wins hands down from a 2" barrel. You lose some energy and velocity from both, but I believe more from the .357 mag. The added recoil, bang, and flash just aren't worth it over a good .38 spcl. +p round. The difficulty of bringing a second shot quickly on target is a lot more with the .357, too.

A good short barrel round like the Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel or the Hornady Critical Defense are both great in snubbies.