Velocity of 357 in snubnose ?
- Thread starter Hammer1
- Start date
chris in va
New member
I'd like to know this too as I have the 3" SP.
Stephen Camp wrote a good article on the differences.
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/38vs357snub.htm
He also did a range test on the SP101 that has Chrono results.
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Ruger SP101 Report.htm
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/38vs357snub.htm
He also did a range test on the SP101 that has Chrono results.
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Ruger SP101 Report.htm
Sorry about the confusion
Thank you for trying to answer my question.
Sorry that I confused my question.
My interest is not in comparing 38 Special versus 357.
My interest is in comparing the same load in two different barrel lengths -- the 2-inch and the 3-inch.
Again, apologize for my poor writing skills.
Thank you for trying to answer my question.
Sorry that I confused my question.
My interest is not in comparing 38 Special versus 357.
My interest is in comparing the same load in two different barrel lengths -- the 2-inch and the 3-inch.
Again, apologize for my poor writing skills.
45reloader
New member
edit
Have a look at www.buffalobore.com
he actually tests stuff with real guns...
he actually tests stuff with real guns...
I think it's more like 200 fps, if you look closely. It's really huge, the difference between 2-3" barrels.
Look carefully at the bottom of the different loads. He tests them out of real guns, and, my conclusions are the 3" is really the minimum for making the bang and flash worth carrying a 357.
Look carefully at the bottom of the different loads. He tests them out of real guns, and, my conclusions are the 3" is really the minimum for making the bang and flash worth carrying a 357.
Just BTW, the SP101 comes apparently sighted for 158gr .357 Magnum loads, and mine (I have three) like Buffalo Bore 158gr JHC the best. What I mean is that this particular load shoots one-hole groups to point of aim. This is the full power .357 158gr, NOT the reduced power .357 load from Buffalo Bore.
Other (wimpier) 158gr loads shoot low, as do all the lighter 125gr loads, at least in my guns, in my hands.
If you're unused to shooting .357 Magnum is a 25 oz. revolver, I'd suggest renting one and trying it before buying. It's perfectly manageable, but follow up shots are slow.
Other (wimpier) 158gr loads shoot low, as do all the lighter 125gr loads, at least in my guns, in my hands.
If you're unused to shooting .357 Magnum is a 25 oz. revolver, I'd suggest renting one and trying it before buying. It's perfectly manageable, but follow up shots are slow.
This will help. I got this info from BuffaloBore.com. I am ordering some of this in 125gr.
S&W mod. 340PD 1-7/8 inch barrel—1,015 fps (361 ft. lbs.)
S&W mod. 66 2-½-inch barrel—1,097 fps (422 ft. lbs.)
S&W mod. 65 3-inch barrel—1,172 fps (481 ft. lbs.)
S&W Mt. Gun 4-inch barrel—1,232 fps (532 ft. lbs.)
Colt Python 6-inch barrel—1,198 fps (503 ft. lbs.)
S&W mod. 340PD 1-7/8 inch barrel—1,015 fps (361 ft. lbs.)
S&W mod. 66 2-½-inch barrel—1,097 fps (422 ft. lbs.)
S&W mod. 65 3-inch barrel—1,172 fps (481 ft. lbs.)
S&W Mt. Gun 4-inch barrel—1,232 fps (532 ft. lbs.)
Colt Python 6-inch barrel—1,198 fps (503 ft. lbs.)
Actually, you'r average velocity differences will vary quite a bit depending on whether you use the ligther 110-125grn bullets or the heavier 140-158grn bullets. In the June 2006 issue of Gunworld, Jeremy D. Clough has an article titled "Creating a Custom Combat Revolver" which deals with a 3" barrel S&W M65. In that article he has velocity comparisons between several different loads from three different S&W revolvers: a 4" M681, a 3" M65, and a 2" M649. Now, Mr. Clough does prefer the heavier bullet weights as is obvious that with the exeption of Winchester 110grn JHP, all the loads he tests are 140grn or heavier. Here are the Results
Federal 158grn JSP- 1126 fps S&W 649 2", 1156 fps S&W 65 3", 1224 fps S&W 681 4"
Winchester 145 grn Silvertip- 1153 fps S&W 649 2", 1178 fps S&W 65 3", 1283 fps S&W 681 4"
Winchester 110grn JHP- 1180 fps S&W 649 2", 1202 fps S&W 65 3", 1266 fps S&W 681 4"
Hornady 140grn XTP- 1064 fps S&W 649 2", 1090 fps S&W 65 3", 1174 fps S&W 681 4"
Hornady 158grn XTP- 1070fps S&W 649 2", 1095 fps S&W 65 3", 1140 fps S&W 681 4"
So, it would appear from this test that velocity differences are much greater between 3" and 4" barrels than they are between 2" and 3" barrels. When we compare that to the veolcity results from the 2 1/2" M19 in the following article, we find it seems that, among full house loads, heavy bullets are more efficient (only "losing" approximately 100 fps) than lighter ones (the 125grn load "lost" over 200 fps from factory published velocity). I believe Socrates did a Chrono test of 125grn Cor-Bons out of a 2" revolver a while back and, if memory serves, he was getting velocities around 1200 fps from his revolver (factory published velocity for this load was 1450). What does all this tell me? It tells me that if I prefer full power ammo (I do) and I'm not bothered by recoil (I'm not) that I should use 140grn bullets or heavier in my .357 snubby (which I do, Remington 158grn SJHP).
http://www.snubnose.info/docs/38-snub_vs_357-snub.htm
Federal 158grn JSP- 1126 fps S&W 649 2", 1156 fps S&W 65 3", 1224 fps S&W 681 4"
Winchester 145 grn Silvertip- 1153 fps S&W 649 2", 1178 fps S&W 65 3", 1283 fps S&W 681 4"
Winchester 110grn JHP- 1180 fps S&W 649 2", 1202 fps S&W 65 3", 1266 fps S&W 681 4"
Hornady 140grn XTP- 1064 fps S&W 649 2", 1090 fps S&W 65 3", 1174 fps S&W 681 4"
Hornady 158grn XTP- 1070fps S&W 649 2", 1095 fps S&W 65 3", 1140 fps S&W 681 4"
So, it would appear from this test that velocity differences are much greater between 3" and 4" barrels than they are between 2" and 3" barrels. When we compare that to the veolcity results from the 2 1/2" M19 in the following article, we find it seems that, among full house loads, heavy bullets are more efficient (only "losing" approximately 100 fps) than lighter ones (the 125grn load "lost" over 200 fps from factory published velocity). I believe Socrates did a Chrono test of 125grn Cor-Bons out of a 2" revolver a while back and, if memory serves, he was getting velocities around 1200 fps from his revolver (factory published velocity for this load was 1450). What does all this tell me? It tells me that if I prefer full power ammo (I do) and I'm not bothered by recoil (I'm not) that I should use 140grn bullets or heavier in my .357 snubby (which I do, Remington 158grn SJHP).
http://www.snubnose.info/docs/38-snub_vs_357-snub.htm
Interesting. Now for another wrinkle, around here approx elevation 500 ft above sea level, the speed of sound is around 1115 fps which means that many loads from the 2 1/4 and some from 3 inch barrels are subsonic (if barely) and the same loads are supersonic from a 4 inch barrel. That might, it seems, be something to consider for a weapon likely to be fired indoors.
HMMMM. The Socrates in me tells me that the powders used in the above loads do not work in short barrels, period, for whatever reason.
buffalobore.com results seem to be skewed considerably the other way, that you get a really big jump going from 2"
to 3". Now, it could be powder, or it could be the barrels in the guns used.
Oddly, it appears the full house loads are the ones that benefit the most from the extra inch of barrel:
And, yes, it was 1204 fps, and, corbon no longer sells that combination of bullet and powder. It also cut my finger on my first shot, with the standard boot grips.
Also, the tactical 357 short barrel stuff seems to get nearly 200 fps for that one inch of barrel:
For me the Holy Grail of 357 is a light bullet, 125 grains at 1350 fps. Lee Jurras says that works, when it is placed properly.
Since I can't get 1000 fps with a 250 grain bullet in 357, I'll go for the light fast. Currently, I'm using either the 125 Corbon: have ten rounds. 147 grain Fioochi, or 38 Special Plus P 158 grain lead gas checked hollow point, at 1040 fps.
If I can conceal them in thunderwear, I'm either going back to my roots, and go with 45 ACP/Detonics 451 Magnum velocities, with a Glock 30, 45 CCO, probably a Kimber, Glock 39 in 45 GAP. The model 60 is in the running, as well.
Unbreakable
New member
From what I understand about it... barrel length in a revolver isn't the only factor to consider. There is also the size of the gap between the barrel and cylinder. A 2" with a tight cylinder gap might perform just as good or maybe even out perform a 3" with a larger cylinder gap. Also I have heard some say (though I've never seen any numbers on this) that a weapon designed for 357 will see poorer performance out of 38spcl than a weapon actaully designed for 38spcl. Something about the extra room in the cylinder. So a 2" 38spcl might still out perform a 3" 357 shooting a 38spcl.
Yes, the loads above were not designed for short barrels. However, the comparison of several different brands of ammo does show us some trends. Of the 4 loads with bullets heavier than 140grn in the stats I posted none of them showed velocities more than 130 fps less from the 2" barrel than from the 4" barrel. In both the article I posted a link to and your own chrono tests, however, we see that the "full power" 125grn loads from two different manufacturers "lost" 200-250 fps as compared to the factory published velocities from 4" barrels. Now, this phenomenon doesn't seem to manifest itself so readily with the so-called "mid-range" loads such as Winchester's 110grn JHP or Remington's 125grn Golden Saber.
http://www.snubnose.info/docs/sp101.htm
As you can see from this article, the Golden Saber did quite well in a 3 1/16" SP101 only "losing" 31 fps compared to factory published ballistics. Also, in the stats I posted earlier, Winchester's 110grn JHP "lost" 86 fps from the 2" barrel and only 64 fps from the 3". Neither of these are full house loads and I suspect that the reason for their performance is due to the burn rate of the powder used, the amount of powder used, or a combination of both. If you prefer 125grn loads from your snubby, you may consider the Remington Golden Saber as opposed to your Cor-Bons as the velocity is not that much lower but the Golden Sabers may be substantially more controllable. As far as Buffalo Bore's loadings go, we really can't compare velocity differences between 2" and 3" barrels with their full power loads because the shortest barrel that they publish velocities from is 3" with these particular loadings. When we look at the "Tactical Short Barrel" loads the velocity difference does seem to be the greatest between 1 7/8" and 3". This is to be expected, however, as one would assume that being a short barrel load would necessitate a powder with a burn rate optimized for shorter barrels. My guess is that Buffalo Bore uses a faster burning powder in these loads and that the majority of the powder has burned up within the first 3" of barrel hence the lesser velocity gain from a 4" barrel.
I'm a bit confused here as if a 125grn bullet at 1350 is your goal then why are you using Cor-Bons that don't give you that? Buffalo Bore's full power 125grn load or Double Tap's excellent 125grn load (125grn Gold Dot @ 1425 from a 1 7/8" barrel) would seem to give you performance closer to what you desire. Also, Double Tap has a 200grn load that is rated at 1200 fps from a 4" GP100. If you can stand the recoil of such a heavy load in a small revolver (it would more than likely be quite snappy from your 360PD). It may give you something a little closer to the heavy bullet performance you specified.
http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_27&products_id=48
http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_27&products_id=152
Personally, I'll stay with my 158grn Remingtons. A 158grn bullet at 1100-1250 fps, while not the legendary Federal 357B or its Remington counterpart, also had a very good reputation for many years before the introduction of the hot 125's. I find this bullet weight to have less flash and noise than the 125's and it's easier on the forcing cone of the K-Frame Smith that I carry. Also, due to the fact that I use an all-steel, medium frame revolver, the added recoil over the 125's is not really an issue as it's still perfectly manageable.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/member.php?u=29414
Webleymkv
Hi
Thanks for an excellent response. I was going to give up on the snub using 357 loads. I've found, as you have, that 158 grain 1040 fps lead HP's from buffalobore recoil about the same as 147 grain .357 from Fioochi. I suspect the Fioochi is probably going near the same velocity, and, I have a bunch of it.
I stopped testing after my hand started really hurting, and, perhaps you have an excellent point. If I'd continued, I might get the ballistics I'm after with the buffalobore 125 heavy load, without much increase in recoil, but, I sort of doubt it. I'll give the longer grip one more try, and see how the full power stuff recoils. I was NOT aware Doubletap actually tested their ammo out of a snub, and, I thank you for a couple wonderful links, likewise to the snubnose files. Excellent website.
For the light Corbon 125:
Recoil Energy of 16 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 37 fps.
For buffalobores 158 grain .38 plus P 158 grain lswhp:
Recoil Energy of 17 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 38
fps.
For the 125 grain heavy buffalobore at 1425:
Recoil Energy of 22 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 43 fps.
Question is, is that increase in recoil noticeable?
Heres a data table, using rated velocities, except for the buffalobore, which I suspect is accurate:
400 grain XTP at 1350 fps, out of an FA 83:
This load was easier on the hand then the 357's:
Recoil Energy of 37 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 27 fps.
Webleymkv
Hi
Thanks for an excellent response. I was going to give up on the snub using 357 loads. I've found, as you have, that 158 grain 1040 fps lead HP's from buffalobore recoil about the same as 147 grain .357 from Fioochi. I suspect the Fioochi is probably going near the same velocity, and, I have a bunch of it.
I stopped testing after my hand started really hurting, and, perhaps you have an excellent point. If I'd continued, I might get the ballistics I'm after with the buffalobore 125 heavy load, without much increase in recoil, but, I sort of doubt it. I'll give the longer grip one more try, and see how the full power stuff recoils. I was NOT aware Doubletap actually tested their ammo out of a snub, and, I thank you for a couple wonderful links, likewise to the snubnose files. Excellent website.
For the light Corbon 125:
Recoil Energy of 16 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 37 fps.
For buffalobores 158 grain .38 plus P 158 grain lswhp:
Recoil Energy of 17 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 38
fps.
For the 125 grain heavy buffalobore at 1425:
Recoil Energy of 22 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 43 fps.
Question is, is that increase in recoil noticeable?
Heres a data table, using rated velocities, except for the buffalobore, which I suspect is accurate:
For perspective, the 475 Linebaugh load I was using:
400 grain XTP at 1350 fps, out of an FA 83:
This load was easier on the hand then the 357's:
Recoil Energy of 37 foot pounds, and Recoil Velocity of 27 fps.
I don't doubt that your hand began to hurt shooting full-bore .357's from such a light revolver. One of the reasons that I haven't gone with the hotter Buffalo Bore or Double Tap loads in my M66 is that I don't really see any reason to put up with the extra recoil involved. I'm perfectly confident with a 158grn bullet at 1100 fps+ so why subject myself to the pain? IMHO, the Fiocchi's that you already have are probably more than adequate as with a bullet that heavy you're probably not giving up all that much velocity in a snub barrel. Besides, that seems to be a load you're confident in your shooting ability with and as we all know placement is paramount anyway.
Problem is, I have about 4 more types of ammo, maybe 200 rounds, that are still in the shooting bag, and never made it to target.
I guess I'll give them a try, and use the Fioochi as a benchmark, since I have a bit of that.
I'd also like to do some actual chronograph stuff, but, that takes a day off, and, a sunny day...
I guess I'll give them a try, and use the Fioochi as a benchmark, since I have a bit of that.
I'd also like to do some actual chronograph stuff, but, that takes a day off, and, a sunny day...
I've foud the key with hard-kicking handguns is not to overdo it (my Ruger Redhawk is probably one of the more pleasant .44 Magnums to shoot and I rarely fire more than 50 rounds in one session). If I were you, I'd limit myself to one-type of ammo per shooting session so as not to make things any more unpleasant than they have to be. Qute honestly your predicament is a large part of the reason that I went with an all-steel, medium-frame revolver. Another good option if you're simply looking for chrono results would be to see if you can't get ahold of a machine rest.