3 inch Barrel question
- Thread starter circa81
- Start date
Super Sneaky Steve
New member
.357 Magnum will make the most energy out of the three, as to what's best, that's up to you.
circa81 said:
But a 3" barrel isn't too short. I bet a standard 125gr .357 load will still be over 1200-fps from a 3" gun and will expand plenty reliably.
Of the 3 cartridges you list, the .357 is going to be the most impressive shooting, the .38 the most pleasant to shoot and .44 probably the most effective. But a .44-caliber revolver is quite a bit bigger than a .38/357 sized one.
Walklightly
Moderator
Why you ask?
Go to Ballistics by the Inch and compare similar offerings in .357 magnum and .38 spl in both test barrel and real guns. You can see the difference.
More about snubbies, but also take a look at http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/38vs357snub.htm
More about snubbies, but also take a look at http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/38vs357snub.htm
If you're asking about simple things that can be measured, like MV & FPE, those questions can be answered.
If you're asking about relative "effectiveness" as a dedicated defensive caliber in a small revolver? Well, that can become a bit less easily and clearly defined.
Once you get down in shorter barrel lengths, where velocity starts to drop off compared to the typical 4,5 & 6 inch "service length" barrels of yesteryear ... bullet design becomes an important consideration.
Some attention has been focused upon the .38 Spl & .357 Magnum cartridges in more recent years due to their (once-again) increasing popularity as off-duty/secondary weapons for LE and CCW weapons carried by private citizens.
Some of the newer bullet designs have been designed to offer better consistency of "performance" (some combination of penetration and expansion, depending on the maker's emphasis for whichever market niche is desired), especially in the shorter "2 inch" snubs.
A couple of the newer offerings are the Speer GDHP 135gr +P and the Winchester PDX1 (RA38B in the Ranger line) 130gr +P. Both seem to offer a nice balance of penetration and expansion when tested under some of the commonly used barrier/gel testing conditions.
The .357 Magnum has received some attention in this regard, too.
The .44 Spl? Not so much (by the major makers). I still have a couple of boxes of the early production Blazer 200gr GDHP .44 Spl in my ammo collection, though, from back when I was still carrying one of my .44 Magnums (for those instances when the 210gr STHP .44 Magnum loads might have been a bit on the "too powerful" end of things for my desires in urban carry roles).
Now, while the .357 Magnum is just about always able to produce additional velocity over and above that seen in .38 Spl (standard and +P loadings), the additional muzzle blast and felt recoil have to be taken into account for most folks, too. The perceived recoil factor can become even more of a consideration when discussing the ultra lightweight guns.
For example, while I can run Magnum loads in my pair of M&P 340's, and get fast and accurate hits on qual & training threat targets, the increased recoil takes its toll much more quickly than when I'm using +P in them. I much prefer to use the Magnum rounds in my heavier Ruger SP101 DAO, and use +P loads in my Airweight J-frames. I don't feel the better designed bullets available in some of the big name +P loadings are going to cause me to "suffer" a loss of potential effectiveness as far as my perceived needs and desires.
Now, if I were going to carry a 3" J-frame again, or even a 3" M10/13/64/65, and was going to restrict myself to 38 Spl +P in the M13/65's, I'd not feel under-equipped using the Remington version of the 158gr LHP +P (with its softer swaged bullet), or one of the newer hollowpoints.
I'd carry Magnum loads in the 3" M13/65's, though, given my druthers ... or a 3 1/16" SP101 or 3+" Magnum J-frame, for that matter ... since I'd prefer to err on the conservative side of a bit more "power" when using the heavier all-steel guns. Why not? (As long as shooter abilities and practical accuracy aren't adversely affected, of course.)
I really enjoy using a 2 1/2" M66. Shooting it from 3-80+ yards made me remember why I used to enjoy carrying and using medium-frame .357 Magnum revolvers many years ago a a younger cop.
BTW, when revolvers were still mainstream duty weapons, the magazine articles of the day often included chrono testing and discussions of barrel length, expansion, "effectiveness & power" & whatnot. It was a topical subject and helped sell magazines.
Back in those days, I remember often thumbing through the ammo articles and seeing how the 2 1/2" snubs did for different chrono testing done by different authors (meaning K-frames & Pythons, for the most part, although the DW, Ruger and other Colts would sometimes pop up).
It wasn't unusual to see the Remington and Federal 125gr loads running around 1250-1300+ FPS in the 2 1/2" snubs, down from 1400-1450FPS in the slightly longer 4" service guns (6" guns were still common enough among older revolver carriers in LE, and really optimized the potential of the .357 Magnum cartridge). That was when we had less well engineered bullet designs, though, and when higher velocity was somewhat of a more critical consideration.
FWIW, the introduction of the mid-range (weight and power) Winchester 145gr STHP attracted some users, though, even with the attention the 125gr JHP's were attracting toward the end of the revolver's LE heydays. A couple of the other 140gr Magnum loads were still to be found on store shelves, too.
Naturally, all this discussion of relative "power" is pretty much moot unless its combined with accurate shot placement. For that reason, the various revolver configurations (meaning size & weight) and the felt recoil & controllability issues might become more important than the perceived "attributes" of any of the particular 3 calibers mentioned.
Just my thoughts.
If you're asking about relative "effectiveness" as a dedicated defensive caliber in a small revolver? Well, that can become a bit less easily and clearly defined.
Once you get down in shorter barrel lengths, where velocity starts to drop off compared to the typical 4,5 & 6 inch "service length" barrels of yesteryear ... bullet design becomes an important consideration.
Some attention has been focused upon the .38 Spl & .357 Magnum cartridges in more recent years due to their (once-again) increasing popularity as off-duty/secondary weapons for LE and CCW weapons carried by private citizens.
Some of the newer bullet designs have been designed to offer better consistency of "performance" (some combination of penetration and expansion, depending on the maker's emphasis for whichever market niche is desired), especially in the shorter "2 inch" snubs.
A couple of the newer offerings are the Speer GDHP 135gr +P and the Winchester PDX1 (RA38B in the Ranger line) 130gr +P. Both seem to offer a nice balance of penetration and expansion when tested under some of the commonly used barrier/gel testing conditions.
The .357 Magnum has received some attention in this regard, too.
The .44 Spl? Not so much (by the major makers). I still have a couple of boxes of the early production Blazer 200gr GDHP .44 Spl in my ammo collection, though, from back when I was still carrying one of my .44 Magnums (for those instances when the 210gr STHP .44 Magnum loads might have been a bit on the "too powerful" end of things for my desires in urban carry roles).
Now, while the .357 Magnum is just about always able to produce additional velocity over and above that seen in .38 Spl (standard and +P loadings), the additional muzzle blast and felt recoil have to be taken into account for most folks, too. The perceived recoil factor can become even more of a consideration when discussing the ultra lightweight guns.
For example, while I can run Magnum loads in my pair of M&P 340's, and get fast and accurate hits on qual & training threat targets, the increased recoil takes its toll much more quickly than when I'm using +P in them. I much prefer to use the Magnum rounds in my heavier Ruger SP101 DAO, and use +P loads in my Airweight J-frames. I don't feel the better designed bullets available in some of the big name +P loadings are going to cause me to "suffer" a loss of potential effectiveness as far as my perceived needs and desires.
Now, if I were going to carry a 3" J-frame again, or even a 3" M10/13/64/65, and was going to restrict myself to 38 Spl +P in the M13/65's, I'd not feel under-equipped using the Remington version of the 158gr LHP +P (with its softer swaged bullet), or one of the newer hollowpoints.
I'd carry Magnum loads in the 3" M13/65's, though, given my druthers ... or a 3 1/16" SP101 or 3+" Magnum J-frame, for that matter ... since I'd prefer to err on the conservative side of a bit more "power" when using the heavier all-steel guns. Why not? (As long as shooter abilities and practical accuracy aren't adversely affected, of course.)
I really enjoy using a 2 1/2" M66. Shooting it from 3-80+ yards made me remember why I used to enjoy carrying and using medium-frame .357 Magnum revolvers many years ago a a younger cop.
BTW, when revolvers were still mainstream duty weapons, the magazine articles of the day often included chrono testing and discussions of barrel length, expansion, "effectiveness & power" & whatnot. It was a topical subject and helped sell magazines.
Back in those days, I remember often thumbing through the ammo articles and seeing how the 2 1/2" snubs did for different chrono testing done by different authors (meaning K-frames & Pythons, for the most part, although the DW, Ruger and other Colts would sometimes pop up).
It wasn't unusual to see the Remington and Federal 125gr loads running around 1250-1300+ FPS in the 2 1/2" snubs, down from 1400-1450FPS in the slightly longer 4" service guns (6" guns were still common enough among older revolver carriers in LE, and really optimized the potential of the .357 Magnum cartridge). That was when we had less well engineered bullet designs, though, and when higher velocity was somewhat of a more critical consideration.
FWIW, the introduction of the mid-range (weight and power) Winchester 145gr STHP attracted some users, though, even with the attention the 125gr JHP's were attracting toward the end of the revolver's LE heydays. A couple of the other 140gr Magnum loads were still to be found on store shelves, too.
Naturally, all this discussion of relative "power" is pretty much moot unless its combined with accurate shot placement. For that reason, the various revolver configurations (meaning size & weight) and the felt recoil & controllability issues might become more important than the perceived "attributes" of any of the particular 3 calibers mentioned.
Just my thoughts.
With regular factory ammunition from the mainstream makers (Winchester, Remington, Federal, Hornady, and Speer) the .357 Magnum will deliver the most impressive ballistics numbers of the three cartridges you mentioned unless one intentionally cherry-picks by comparing the mildest .357 loadings to the very hottest .38 Spl or .44 Spl loadings. .44 Spl can be handloaded to levels that approach low-end .44 Magnum ballistics in a suitably strong gun like a S&W N-Frame, but most ammo makers keep their .44 Spl ammo fairly mild out of deference to smaller revolvers like the Charter Arms Bulldog and older guns that may not be as strong as a modern one due to differences in materials and heat-treating (remember .44 Special is a 105 year old cartridge).
Often, velocity loss from short barrels with the .357 Mag is brought up. While the Magnum does indeed produce lower velocities with shorter barrels, .38 Spl and .44 Spl do as well. With a normal full-power .357 loading, 1200-1300fps can be expected with a 125gr bullet and 1050-1150fps can be expected with a 158gr bullet when fired from a 3" or shorter barrel. By comparison, a .38 Spl +P will usually produce 750-850fps with a 158gr bullet and 850-1000fps with a 125gr bullet from a short barrel while a .44 Spl will usually get you 750-900fps with a 200gr bullet from a short barrel (200gr is the most common weight for a .44 Spl self-defense loading).
Often, velocity loss from short barrels with the .357 Mag is brought up. While the Magnum does indeed produce lower velocities with shorter barrels, .38 Spl and .44 Spl do as well. With a normal full-power .357 loading, 1200-1300fps can be expected with a 125gr bullet and 1050-1150fps can be expected with a 158gr bullet when fired from a 3" or shorter barrel. By comparison, a .38 Spl +P will usually produce 750-850fps with a 158gr bullet and 850-1000fps with a 125gr bullet from a short barrel while a .44 Spl will usually get you 750-900fps with a 200gr bullet from a short barrel (200gr is the most common weight for a .44 Spl self-defense loading).
Ballistic performance depends mainly on velocity at target range. Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity. Beyond this, bullet construction affects expansion and penetration. Assuming the same bullet style in each of the calibers you mentioned, the .357 Magnum has the highest velocity and the highest energy.
I believe .38 Special +P, .44 Special or .357 Magnum would all be effective rounds for self defense. It comes down to the gun that fits your hand and your mode of carry.
You can easily check the manufacturer's online ballistic data for the ammo that you want to use. Keep in mind that the data might have been collected with a 6" or 4" barrel. The ballistic tables should state which barrel length was used to collect the data but sometimes this detail is hard to find although it is usually stated somewhere in the fine print. If you plan to use a 3 inch barrel, you should derate the ballistics tables accordingly.
Manufacturers should provide ballistics tables especially tailored to short barreled carry guns since that is what most people need. They would rather report the more impressive numbers resulting from "standard" barrels.
I believe .38 Special +P, .44 Special or .357 Magnum would all be effective rounds for self defense. It comes down to the gun that fits your hand and your mode of carry.
You can easily check the manufacturer's online ballistic data for the ammo that you want to use. Keep in mind that the data might have been collected with a 6" or 4" barrel. The ballistic tables should state which barrel length was used to collect the data but sometimes this detail is hard to find although it is usually stated somewhere in the fine print. If you plan to use a 3 inch barrel, you should derate the ballistics tables accordingly.
Manufacturers should provide ballistics tables especially tailored to short barreled carry guns since that is what most people need. They would rather report the more impressive numbers resulting from "standard" barrels.
Speer is also making a 357 Magnum 135gr Gold Dot hollow point (not just the 38+p if anyone is interested). That's what I have in my 3in SP101. Claims to allow for proper expansion at reduced velocities "without sacrificing tactical penetration". Also reduced recoil for better control. Don't know how these stack up to full-blown 357, but they aren't bad shooters.
'nuff said
Specials are special, but a magnum is a magnum.
If asking which will lose less of its potency relative to barrel length, the larger bore will suffer less from the shorter barrel length than the smaller bores but the differences from 3 to 5 or 6 inches in a revolver barrel are not worth arguing over IMO
If thinking personal defensse I would take the 44 special over either of smaller bores.
You are repeating a generalization, which may not be accurate for all .357 Magnum cartridge loadings.
Reliable expansion mostly depends upon the muzzle velocity; as well as, the design and construction of the bullet used to construct the cartridge fired in the three inch .357 Mag.
There are a plethora of hollow point bullet designs and weights; and those bullets are loaded over different powders to achieve different velocities and they are all called .357 magnum. Thus you have many different cartridge loadings from which to choose.
You might find the information at http://ballisticsbytheinch.com/ interesting reading.
warningshot
New member
Do you plan on actully training with your choice?
I can count, on one hand, the number of men who train with 1,000+ .357 Remington Magnum rounds fired annually. If I had to count the number or men who use either a .44 spl., a 41 Mag or a 45 acp, in a revolver...shooting +1,000 rounds per year...I'd need to count with both hands and all of my toes.
I can count, on one hand, the number of men who train with 1,000+ .357 Remington Magnum rounds fired annually. If I had to count the number or men who use either a .44 spl., a 41 Mag or a 45 acp, in a revolver...shooting +1,000 rounds per year...I'd need to count with both hands and all of my toes.
Just a minor point, but there is no such cartridge. Remington was neither the first company to produce .357 Magnum ammunition (Winchester was) nor the first company to produce .357 Magnum guns (S&W was). The proper full name for the cartridge is .357 S&W Magnum. There is, however, the .357 Remington Maximum cartridge
warningshot
New member
Woweee!
.357 Remington Mag-na-lum? Shame on me.
.357 Remington Mag-na-lum? Shame on me.
Walklightly
Moderator
Sense this thread is still being dragged on with no replye from the OP, I have for my bedside HD gun, it's a Ruger SP101 3" loaded with those cheap Remington 125s SJHP's. I sleep like a baby.
Those things have some pretty darn soft lead, one shot CM, small hole going in, big hole going out.
Good thing I wear earplugs to bed.
Those things have some pretty darn soft lead, one shot CM, small hole going in, big hole going out.
Good thing I wear earplugs to bed.