.357 question

pwrtool45,

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.
Click to expand...

In the case I wrote of, best available is pretty darn good. Moreover, what's up with your wich doctor analogy? I think that you're vainly attempting to draft that which is reasonable and logical into that which is not in effort to attempt to discredit the former. This attempt to try to illogically infer extreme conditions is a classic arguing technique of...

And by the way, you know of witch doctors who have used leeches??? Where can I go to get the straight scoop on this?

Finally, before you get too deep into this, you might want to go here and do a search of testing media. If so, you'll find that in which you are of need. In short, data values that were obtained in experimentation using the best available test media was matched up with data obtained from the real world. Guess what? The data matched up nicely! Futher, the protocol was not in the cockeyed manner as you described.


Peace Out,

Leon Phelps
 
Can someone explain why the 110gr JHPs from both Winchester and Remington have ballistic properties that are more similar to 158gr loads than the 125gr loads from the same companies? Are the 125s specifically loaded hotter?

I wasn't able to get pressures, but I'm seeing spec'd muzzle velocity of 1235 fps for the 158gr vs. 1295 for the 110gr. vs 1450 for the 125gr. I would think the 125s would be right in the middle.

-- Sam
 
>In the case I wrote of, best available is pretty darn good.
Click to expand...

Disregarding the fact that Roberts would outright faint at the thought of someone calling any handgun ammo "pretty darn good" your claim is measured by today's standards. That's the point. By tomorrow's standards they will be inadequate. We haven't reached a panacea of ballistic science; even your citations will agree to that.

>Moreover, what's up with your wich doctor analogy?
Click to expand...

Witch doctors were once state-of-the-art. All "current testing methodology" used validated their claims. They sacrificed virgins and no dragons came to rain down fire on their village. Meanwhile, Ogg's village was burned to the ground by a dragon (we call them volcanoes today) so sacrificing virgins must be working. Later, we found out that not only was it not the sacrificing virgins that kept the village from being burned to the ground, "dragons" didn't even exist (as they understood them to). Nevertheless, they sacrificed virgins and didn't die a firey death. Their testing methodology supported their conclusions. That didn't make it correct.

>I think that you're vainly attempting to draft that which is reasonable
>and logical into that which is not
Click to expand...

Yes.

>in effort to attempt to discredit the former.
Click to expand...

It's called an analogy.

>This attempt to try to illogically infer extreme conditions is a classic
>arguing technique of...
Click to expand...

...of?

>And by the way, you know of witch doctors who have used leeches??? Where
>can I go to get the straight scoop on this?
Click to expand...

Attack the argument, not the analogy.

>Finally, before you get too deep into this, you might want to go here and
>do a search of testing media. If so, you'll find that in which you are of
>need. In short, data values that were obtained in experimentation using
>the best available test media was matched up with data obtained from the
>real world. Guess what? The data matched up nicely! Futher, the protocol
>was not in the cockeyed manner as you described.
Click to expand...

Linking to tacticalforums in a thread about the shortcomings of the Fackler/Roberts (among others) testing protocols? Of course they don't see anything wrong with it. As to data matching up with theory; yes, their data matches their theory. Quelle surprise. Reread my original post.

You linked to the front page of tacticalforums.com twice, as though I'm supposed to take all the data therein at face value and without question. Blind faith is the hallmark of religion, not science.

My argument, re-summarized:

Fackler made progress with the standardized ballistic gel testing protocols. It was progress because what came before was basically shooting chunks of ballistic clay and measuring the hole. Later, 4-layer denim was further progress. Now, my criticisms ("cockeyed" as they are) stand. Put our understanding of biology/ME/ISE/physics to good use. Refine as we learn more.

Since you have yet to acknowledge a single shortcoming in the Fackler/Roberts methodologies, I shall cede the point that they are in fact without flaw and bother you no more. Since more than half your response was a critique on my choice of analogy and style of argumentation rather than my point, I will infer that you're obviously more interested in arguing the superiority of your theory than discussion potential improvements.
 
There are many excellent loads for the .357 for so many applications but here are two; 158 grain Gold Dot hollowpoints, and the Fiocchi 142 grain FMJ truncated cone.

In the .38 special I like the old 148 grain lead wadcutter in snubbies, and the classic +P 158 grain LSWCHP in a 4" service revolver. Or the Speer "Lawman" +P 158 grain FMJ flatpoint. In the .38 I lean towards the heavier bullets all the time.
 
To search for the "power of .357 hot loads", one might start at:


http://www.again.net/~steve/page8f357magnum.html


http://www.again.net/~steve/page8f44magnum.html

one might continue with:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=82012

and proceed at ones own pace with others . . . but then again, what is the point ? Choice is surely more a personal, more subjective, rationalization than any actual quantitative determination, is it not ?

Good Luck in your quest, and ...

Happy Shooting !

Hook686
 
Found another lead today ... check the posted on another site:

"

Big Foot
Member

posted 22 May 2005 02:30 PM
LVSteve, ever since I read from a Handgun Shootout magazine article, Battle of the Mid-Bores between: .38 sp, .357 magnum and the 9mm shooting various loads, they quoted: "it is perfectly clear that the 125-grain .357 is in a league by itself, far outperforming ballistically even the hottest 9mm loads. It is no wonder that this load is widely accepted as the most effective combat round." I must admit that this particular article is about 13 years old, but I agreed with their assessment ever since...

I use Rem's Golden Sabre when I can find it, other than that, I use nothing but the 125 gr. in other mfgr's. Let us know how your shooting went. . .
Posts: 50 | Location: New Mexico | Registered: 22 February 2005

"

Good luck wityh your seach, and ...

Happy shooting !

Hook686
 
The *right* velocity for the right bullet design and weight for the anticipated target is what really counts, not the fastest velocity or hottest load.

I don't think choosing the "hottest" load in any given caliber, particularly in the MAGNUM calibers is the smart choice. In fact, I prefer somewhat downloaded ammo in the magnum calibers for a variety of reasons, foremost being controllability. Hitting well and repeatedly is key in self defense and doing so with the hottest magnum ammo available is not easy to do.

Be aware that full house 125 gr. .357 mag loads are known to be significantly harder on the gun's forcing cone than the somewhat slower velocity heavier bullets. If you decide to embark on a long term habit of shooting a lot of factory .357 ammo, your forcing cone will last longer if you choose heavier bullet weights than 125 gr.

In addition, heavier bullets generally give better penetration than light weight bullets - a very desireable quality in my opinion. These are the reasons why I prefer the Silvertip 145 gr. and Gold Dot 158 gr. bullet weights in the .357 caliber. I don't shoot 110 gr. or 125 gr. bullet weights in my .357's. My practice loads are 140 gr. Rainier Plated copper bullets generally moving at about 1000 fps from a 3" barrel. Powder choices are typically 7.0 gr. of Universal or 8.25 gr. of PowerPistol.

Carry loads are Win 145 gr. Silvertip, Speer 158 gr. Gold Dot, or handloaded 135 gr. Gold Dot bullet moving at 1000 fps. Speer's brand new .357 SB 135 gr. load may become my first choice. Which I choose depends on what gun I'm going to use and whether the weather is cold or hot. Snubbie 2.5" guns and 3" guns get the 135 gr. Gold Dot in warm weather (loaded to fly no faster than 1000 fps) and in cold weather, they're loaded with the 145 gr. Silvertip loads . 4" guns get the 145 gr. Silvertips in warm weather and the 158 gr. Gold Dots in cold weather.

The weather temperature difference relates to the amount and thickness of clothing likely to be worn by the "threat" which might need to be penetrated. There is a big difference in a bullet's performance when it has to penetrate a thick leather or wool coat, several layers of denim and t-shirt before beginning it's path through layers and layers of fat and muscle before getting deep to the vitals vs. only having to penetrate one thin shirt.

Penetration is also desireable because you never know when your bullet may have to travel through an arm or hand or two arms before it even gets to the torso (and all the torso clothing, then all the fat and muscle, etc.) And the "threat" may be a heavily built person with many layers of fat, fat, and fat, or perhaps muscle, muscle, and muscle. I trust heavier bullets with their tendency toward deeper penetration. If I can get expansion too, that's great, but I want the bullet to get deep into the vitals no matter what else.

I prefer the slightly downloaded ammo in my .44 magnums as well... ProLoad makes a "lite" .44 magnum which is a 200 gr Gold Dot travelling at about 1036 fps... a very controllable and comfortable .44 magnum load which expands very reliably at 1000 fps. Follow up shots are quick and accuracy is improved by the lighter than standard magnum recoil.

I should note that I live and work in a sparsely populated rural area.
 
To get back to the original question, I shoot .38 spl at 850 fps or above with RN copper plate 158 gr bullets. Why? I shoot competition and this ensures that my rounds chrono at or above the required match power level. I use the same for target practice (probably should back off to save money) for consistency and being lazy about constantly changing press settings.
 
Wow..

I've seen so many Marshal/Sanow/Ayoob roasting parties I'm pretty tired of it. Using TacticalForums.com as a source is laughable. They are (in my experience) nothing more or less than a group of closed-minded, self-aggrandizing, groupthink "small society" who bashes anyone with an opinion which differs. They do not "discuss" facts, or discuss anything in a reasonable manner. They "know it all" and are only too happy to tell you (and one another) repeatedly.

I've read three Sanow books, and while I understand the objections, what I see is two guys using whatever info is available in an honest attempt to benefit LEO's and civilian shooters. The fact they they are unable to disclose every one of their sources does not alter the fact that they did one hell of a lot of honest hard work (if you believe that they falsified these reports, then further discussion is pointless.)

That they examined evidence, arrived at certain conclusions, then tested those conclusions through the years in the face of additional evidence, speaks to their integrity. This is the scientific method. The fact that 160 pound goats reliably fell to the same rounds as human bodies fall to is interesting circumstantial evidence. That these rounds exhibit certain characteristics in ballistic gelatin is interesting circumstantial evidence as well. Given that the shortage of human volunteers continues, anecdotal evidence (when the anecdotes number in the thousands) is worthwhile.

As a side note, they did indeed update their info with additional available shooting data with each book, and added new ammo types as data became available.

That anyone could quote the FBI protocols as being authoritative is even more incredible. The FBI came up with arbitary values for penetration, picked out of thin air with NOTHING as supporting evidence, except for one instance (Miami shoot-out), yet these "absolutes" are quoted time and again in on-line forums.

Believe what you will, shoot what you like. I will read as much as I can find, shoot whenever I can and hope that:
a) I will never need to find out I chose the correct ammo, and
b) if the worst happens, I will have chosen correctly.

Best, Rich
 
orionengnr,

I think you have your mind pretty well made up, so there is no sense in tackling anything from that angle. Regardless, you have to use what is right for you.

I am not sure if M&S made up anything; however, a criminalist at San Diego PD apparently has made such allegation. And coming from who who testitfies regularly, he knows the importance of character.

M&S had drawn scrutiny to themselves by not disclosing their research methodolgy, and your being an engineer i preseume, know the importance of scientific validation. I think that if they conformed to scientific methodology and protocol, there would be less hesitancy to accept their work.

I am sorry that you were offended at www.TacticalForums.com. The most knowledgeable persons posting there work only with science; to be honest, I think they have grown tried of emotional rather than scientific support for cartridges. Regardless of how what is conveyed, it is the essence of the argument that is critical. And say what you will about the posters there, they will disclose their research methodology and data. Moreover, that which they found to be the product of scientific methodology has been validated in actual shootings.

So objectively, I can only assign entertainment value to M&S until they allow their research to be validated.



My best,

Leon Phelps
 
Last edited:
Leon Phelps posted, ". . . Moreover, that which they found to be the product of scientific methodology has been validated in actual shootings. . . ."

hmmmmm you mean actual humans were shot, and then peers replicated the test with identical results ? Geesh ! Unless this is the case, it strikes me that considerable rationalization, speculation and conjecture in involved in equating alleged "scientific methodology" with "actual shootings".

But then I guess you already know that.

Hook686
 
Hook686,

Leon Phelps posted, ". . . Moreover, that which they found to be the product of scientific methodology has been validated in actual shootings. . . ."

hmmmmm you mean actual humans were shot, and then peers replicated the test with identical results ? Geesh ! Unless this is the case, it strikes me that considerable rationalization, speculation and conjecture in involved in equating alleged "scientific methodology" with "actual shootings".

But then I guess you already know that.
Click to expand...

Now does it seem logical and reasonable to you that live humans were used in testing? I know you're not that stupid. However, during autopsy is it possible that projectiles were determined to have perform as predicted based on test results. I bet there's a light going on in your head, no?


Leon Phelps
 
"
Now does it seem logical and reasonable to you that live humans were used in testing? I know you're not that stupid. However, during autopsy is it possible that projectiles were determined to have perform as predicted based on test results. I bet there's a light going on in your head, no?


Leon Phelps

"

hmmmmm about as logical and reasonable as predicting that the results of bullets shot into ballistic gel would produce the same results in a human body.

G56 wrote; "My standard duty load was the 357 magnum 125 gr JHPs, considered to be one of the very best loads available in 357."

This strikes me as past tense. I offered evidence that yes indeed the 125 gr. JHP was considered at one time (maybe the 1970's) "Best".

By what sequence have you induced, as "logical and reasonable", the relationship between the results in ballistic gel and results predicted in human bodies ? Just curious why ballistic gel is better than goats.

Hook686
 
Hook686,

hmmmmm about as logical and reasonable as predicting that the results of bullets shot into ballistic gel would produce the same results in a human body.
Click to expand...

Y'know, m'man, I used to be skeptical as well, until I researched it. You are not going to believe this, but ballistic gellatin is extemely accurate in predicting projectile performance. However, somethig tells me that you have already made up your mind.


Good luck,

Leon Phelps
 
Hey Leon,

Since the FBI tests seem to be so at-odds with Marshall/Sanow - which is apparently where the round got its awesome rep (in the late '80s early '90s); do you know specifically how they (FBI) did rate the 125gr? Where does it fall comparatively with other popular rounds? Was it's low score(?) due to low penetration?

Thanks!


We used to carry the 125/.357 for its "rating" back then (circa '89) before changing over to semi's (9s, then .40s).
 
Last edited:
shield20,

I am sorry but I screwed up before. Reference the following, the greater the number the better the projectile. The actual wounding value of the vaunted Remington 125 grain .357 Mag load is 1.19. The heavier 158 grain grain was twice that! In contrast, the .380 scored very poor. Also, your Remington 147 grain 9MM load came in at 1.39. As reference, the highest was the 230 grain Golden Saber .45 ACP with a value of 4.34! Even .45 ACP ball scored much better than the loads than many have incorrectly assumed to be superior. The .40 S&W proved to be much better than the 9MM and .357 Mag.

BTW, the values I posted before were solely for penetration, while these values are comprehensive.

Also, you might want to check back issues of the FBI LE Bulletin for more info. I think you can access this journal from its Website.


Regards,

Leon Phelps
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top