.357 question

Leon - When you have been a shooter for a million years you learn some things. Regrettably a lot of stuff gets buried in the mists of time. Let me just say that the .357 125gr Hollowpoint has been proven to my total satisfaction. It is only laziness that prevents me now from tracking down the exact data for you. Not wanting to be off-putting you understand. But for heavens sake do some research for yourself. Don't say 'you haven't proved it to me.' We have lives to live besides being here on TFL and this is so well known it doesn't stir any of us to go hunting in the archives.
Here's a challenge - prove it wrong, and cite all your references (preferably peer reviewed.)
 
Blue Heeler,

No one is suggesting that your satisfaction is in doubt. Self-defense is a very personal concept; therefore, one has to use that in which one has faith. In fact, I have no aversion to the .357 Mag as a self-defense weapon. However, that to which I have been exposed causes me to select another projectile weight. But I do know that others hold other opinions.


Sincerely,

Leon Phelps
 
Here's a challenge - prove it wrong
Click to expand...

Mr. Phelps,

With no disrespect to you, I must say I agree with Heeler. Try to do some of your own research on the subject (Google is a good start) and see what you can find out. Heck, why not try to get in touch with the departments mentioned above in my post?
 
Jelly,

With all due respect to you guys, I have done extensive research. Moreover, I have thoroughly examined relevant ammo scientific research.

From my knowledge, which is far more that rudimentary, I have yet to be exposed to any scientific data that supports the mythical 125 grain .357 Magnum round as being anything other than urban legend! This being nothing more than my conclusion, I do believe that self-defenders have to use that which makes them most secure. But if I were going to use Magnum rounds in a .357 Mag for bipedal vermin, I'd opt for 158 grain ammo, which is what the FBI ammo tests proved to be the most efficacious.

BTW, do not worry about hurting my feelings. If you know something I ought to, do not hesitate to enlighten me. I am not so concerned with how a concept is conveyed; it is knowledge itself that floats my boat.



Sincerely,

Leon Phelps
 
Bullrock,

It's really funny (to me, at least) how some of these threads can tun into P*ssing contests...
Click to expand...

How in God's name did you come up with this assumption? As Socrates taught us, reasoned debate is the road to knowledge.


Regards,

Leon Phelps
 
Sticking to the Question- I carry a Taurus 85 38 special with Winchester 125GR+P in it. Why? because it is the most accurate load this gun shoots out to 25 yards. Why at 25 instead of 7 yards? Shooting at the range is different from self defence. I try to shoot with some type of handicap because I can't reproduce tunnel vision or adrenalin surge there.It's all about hits and getting them in first. Practice with what you carry, Practice from unusual positions, But most of all PRACTICE!!! And I speak from experiance not research.
 
As I recall, the identification of the 125 grain JHP as the ne plus ultra self defense round stemmed from the various Ayoob/Sanow/Marshall studies. I have often wondered if the fact that they used POLICE shooting data didn't skew the results. It would be interesting to discover if there is a large enough (statistically significant) body of data from ENTHUSIAST involved shootings to compare it with. My (off the top of my head) guess is that .45 ACP would figure more prominently just due to the fact that more dedicated pistoleros tend to use it than any other round.

Personally, I use 125s (no preference) in my Model 27s (3.5") and 135 grn gold dots in my Model 66 (2.5").

Rick
 
From my knowledge, which is far more that rudimentary, I have yet to be exposed to any scientific data that supports the mythical 125 grain .357 Magnum round as being anything other than urban legend! This being nothing more than my conclusion, I do believe that self-defenders have to use that which makes them most secure. But if I were going to use Magnum rounds in a .357 Mag for bipedal vermin, I'd opt for 158 grain ammo, which is what the FBI ammo tests proved to be the most efficacious.
Click to expand...

Well I personally use 145gr Win Silver tips a happy medium of velocity, weight, and energy. I'm curious though for your listings of significant data, what have you found on the .357magnum in general?
 
Leon Phelps

How in God's name did you come up with this assumption? As Socrates taught us, reasoned debate is the road to knowledge.
Click to expand...

You jest, of course... :confused:

Maybe because I get a little tired of the ballistics BS over, and over again. These geniuses can, and do turn almost every thread into a ballistics contest...Q. What's more boring then finger print science? A. Ballistics! :cool:

Here's the original post.

.357 question
I have a questions for those that carry a .357 or a .38. What load do you use, and how id you come to choose that load? Thanks in advance for any feedback.
Click to expand...

Here's a great first answer...

I carried a S&W 357 for years as a duty weapon, law enforcement tends to go to autoloaders these days but a revolver has a lot going for it, simple easy to use!

My standard duty load was the 357 magnum 125 gr JHPs, considered to be one of the very best loads available in 357. The downside is those things are really hot, high velocity and tremendous muzzle flash, there are 2 ways to reduce this, the 158 gr JHPs are still very effective but not quite as intimidating as the 125 gr load, another good alternative is to get 38 Special +P loads in 125 or 158 gr JHPs, still a good load but less intimidating to the shooter.
__________________
John
Click to expand...

On 2nd thought, I guess I don't have to read them... :)
 
scientific
Click to expand...

Scientific *should* be:

1) Statistically significant number of rounds fired into 10% ballistic gel and mean projectile data recorded.

2) Statistically significant number of rounds fired into 20% ballistic gel and mean projectile data recorded.

3) Statistically significant number of rounds fired into 10% ballistic gel containing a bisecting 12" pillar of material similar in densities to human bone mass. Mean projectile data recorded.

4) Statistically significant number of rounds fired into 20% ballistic gel containing a bisecting 12" pillar of material similar in densities to human bone mass. Mean projectile data recorded.

5) Statistically significant number of rounds fired into a consistent matrix of 10% ballistic gel and 20% ballistic gel. Mean projectile data recorded.

6) Statistically significant number of rounds fired into a consistent matrix of 10% ballistic gel and 20% ballistic gel, containing a 12" bisecting pillar of material similar in density to human bone mass. Mean projectile data recorded.

7) Yield a performance quantification based on pass/fail method of evaluation for each of the above points. TODO: Draft a finer-grained method of evaluation for performance in the preceeding tests beyond simple pass/fail. Also, stay abreast of advances in neuroscience (since our current understanding of the field is exceedingly primitive) for the purpose of determining the effects of kinetic trauma on human beings.

What we have in place now (point #1) is about as scientific as a 7th grader dissecting a frog and claiming to "know biology." Until I see funded, sanctioned university testing under the umbrella of an Industrial/Systems Engineering PhD and a Physics PhD I'm not going to call shooting a couple bullets into "ballistic gel" scientific. The people wanting to call their results by such a name should spend less time shooting blocks of jello and more time devising more accurate testing media and protocols.

The Marhsall/Sanow/Fackler/Roberts viewpoints aren't exactly the "Galileo's discovery" of the ballistic community. What we have, while better than before (duxseal anyone?), it still quite primitive. It is not to be viewed as incontrovertible truth, no matter how loudly or how frequently some people want to repeat it.
 
Well, I use 158gr. jhp's for home defense the blazer brand...I use these because I am loading both a rifle and handgun. I don't believe that 125, 146, 158, 180 really mean much unless you hit what your shooting at...then if you place the shot correctly, the lowly .22 will get the job done!

Placement over caliber, power, and theory!
 
Your science and theories go out the window when you miss.If you can't hit with a 357 then get a 38. If you can't hit with 38 then 32. Power means nothing when you miss. And the only silver bullets are in the werewolf movies. DO NOT EXPECT ONE BULLET TO STOP THEM.
 
Shoot a lot of different stuff. I went to the range today with 8 different kinds of ammo, shot them all the same way, 5 sa, then 5 da, then went to the next target. All at the same distance, and made notes which ones worked best, and which didn't work well based on recoil, accuracy, smoke, etc. I finally found one that works best in MY gun. That's the big thing. ;)
 
pwrtool45,

Why would you assert that your proposed research model is superior to, oh, how 'bout the FBI test protocol, for instance??? I mean, what the hell is anyone gonna learn by plugging goats in Scandinavia? For all we know, those goats mighta made delicious cheese. ;)

Fact of the matter is that while I ain't too eager to extrapolate data from Jell-O, it is probably the best test medium available. Moreover, actual gunshot analysis (read: postmortem exams) have validated aforementioned methodology.


Regards,

Leon Phelps
 
I have two S&W .357 magnums, a 686 6" and model 66 2.5". I would have to agree that shooting 125 g magnums is pretty exciting or can be intimidating to some shooters especially out of snubs. I just read an old shooting times article written by sheriff Jim Wilson on his favorite defensive handguns. His personal choice for his model 66 3 " snub was .38 special +p 158-grain lead hollow point this is the one that used to be called the "FBI LOAD". If you want to compare ballistic numbers you can pick up a Winchester ammo brochure and check out the ratings on every round they make.
 
pwrtool45:

You are on the right path. Now, while you are at it, you also need to run those same tests with the ballistic gel covered with several layers of heavy cloth like denim, to take into account the retarding effect that heavy clothing has on JHP bullet expansion. Do this again with a 4" to 8" thick gel block that has the bone mass about 12" in front of the "main" gel block, to simulate what happens with an intervening arm -- both with and without the heavy clothing simulation.

And do these same tests with every SD round in production. This is going to end up being a non-trivial, expensive proposition. Look at all the ammo that's going to be required. Look at all the calibrated gel that's going to be required.

Now, who's going to pay for this?
 
You're correct, I shouldn't have left out simulated clothing.

As to cost, I didn't say it would be easy or inexpensive. I said it would be better. Realistically, I'd imagine it would take another highly public, catastrophic ammunition failure and a ranking LE official with a relavent interest or degree to get the ball rolling in that direction. "Pencil pusher" and "Desk Jockey" jokes aside, it will take someone in a position of authority with the aforementioned characteristics to made headway. Until then, I'd imagine those who've proffered the "leading" theories in the field as it stands are quite happy to tout their secret databases and shoot bullets into jello until the end of their days.

To answer your ultimate question: In this case, we (the taxpayers) will. It will also be worth every penny.
 
pwrtool45,

Why would you assert that your proposed research model is superior to, oh, how 'bout the FBI test protocol, for instance??? I mean, what the hell is anyone gonna learn by plugging goats in Scandinavia? For all we know, those goats mighta made delicious cheese.

Fact of the matter is that while I ain't too eager to extrapolate data from Jell-O, it is probably the best test medium available. Moreover, actual gunshot analysis (read: postmortem exams) have validated aforementioned methodology.


Regards,

Leon Phelps
Click to expand...

I just saw your post.

My suggested model as proposed is not "superior" to anything. It is nothing more than an example designed to illustrate how brain-numbingly primitive current testing methods are as compared to what five minutes worth of critical thinking shows they could be.

Also, the "best available" doesn't mean good. At one point in time, the "best available" medical treatment involved a witch doctor a leeches. If it isn't good, then it's just a stepping stone until we get to something that is. As to post facto validation, you mean that current after-the-fact methodology validates current before-the-fact methodology? Say it ain't so. See my comment about witch doctors and leeches.

I'm not here to argue. I'm not even really here to debate. I've raised a point. That point had nothing to do with "my method is better than yours." It had everything to do with "the current method being inadequate." They should fix it or stop calling their method "scientific." It was scientific when they originally drafted the protocols. It was progress. Now, it's just a bunch of people calling themselves "Doctor" shooting bullets into jello.
 
For what its worth, I've used R38S12 for over a decade and have seen first-hand what it does in more than one shooting. Note that this is a 38 +P load. I would not hesitate to use it in any of my 38/357 revolvers.

That being said, I have handloaded 357 brass with 158 LSWC-HP to about 1050-1100 fps out of my 3" M-66 with fabulous results. This is on par with the Buff-Bore stuff available. Makes for a great load without getting those cr-ppy chamber rings to clean out.

My magnum carry load is PMC Starfire 150-grain JHP. I've shot a few boxes into various mediums -- newspaper, various vegetables and melons, and some decent size slabs of meat that had freezer burn and were not usable. I was pleased with the results - both expansion and penetration. It shoots POA/POI with my M-65LS and and other fixed-sighted guns. The 125s don't do that for me. That and the forcing cone eroison are the reasons I prefer the heavier bullet. The other reason is the multiple layers of clothing and tendency toward obesity in the populus in my Northen NY climate.

As far as the rehashing of the ballistics stuff, I wouldn't want to be hit with either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top