38 Wadcutters Vs.357 JHPs

D

dan speakman

Retired Screen Name
I'm a newbie but I've been reading a bunch
for six months and now I'm confused...
Wouldn't a 38SPL 158grn.SWC @1000~1100 fps be more effective than a 357 125grn.JHP @1400 fps from a S&W 686 4inch in home defense? Follow-ups and lower BLAST
would also be a plus.Txs
 
Dan, NOTHING is more effective than a hit from a 125g JHP at 1400fps. Unless you run over them with a car.

Follow-up shots would be easier with a soft-recoil round, but frankly, you need to make the first shot count.

My walls are hardened...



------------------
"All my ammo is factory ammo"
 
Dan:

By education and profession -- at least in my early years -- I'm an engineer, so I try to respond to threads like this on TFL with physics-based information. A comparison of the two options you pose follows:
a) The .38 Special (presuming 1050 fps) provides 12442.5 ft/lbs of muzzle energy
b) The .357 magnum provides 17500 foot/pounds of muzzle energy

Since both rounds have essentially the same diameter -- about 9mm or .36 inch -- the "wound dynamics" related strictly to the diameter of the round will be basically equal. Therefore, presuming the same type/construction of rounds (i.e., FMJ versus FMJ, HydraShok versus HydraShok, etc.), the .357 magnum loads should be considerable more effective, about 41 percent if you believe "pure physics".

Of course, the problem is handgun/ammunition efficacy is a LOT more than "text book" physics. For example:
a) Shot placement is absolutely indispensable; will you fire one round more accurately than the other?
b) Your particular "mission" and "environment" are also key. Penetration of automobile glass and bodies, for example, demands a high velocity round and may fundamentally exclude the .38 Special. Similarly, home defense in an apartment building may make the .357 magnum less desirable, due to potential shot carry-through into adjoining homes.

This is a long way to articulate a simple message: All other conditions being equal, the .357 magnum is clearly the superior defensive round. However, your personal tendencies (like better accuracy with one of the two loads) and your likely "mission environment" (such as LEO versus civilian or apartment complex versus isolated rural home) are also very significant elements in your choice of defensive rounds -- and firearms, too, for that matter.

Hope this helps and happy holidays.


[This message has been edited by RWK (edited December 22, 1999).]
 
You have the right idea, there, but let me correct you on a math error. I fear that your math yields more foot-pounds of energy than some light anti-aircraft cannon!

158 grains at 1,000fps yields 350 foot-pounds of energy. (By the way, this would be majorly +P for a .38!)

125 grains at 1,400fps yields 544 foot-pounds of energy.

Still, it is easy to see that the .357 magnum load has nearly 50% more energy.
 
RWK,

The correct formula for Kinetic Energy is Velocity X Velocity / 450240 X bullet weight(in grains) so the wadcutter at 1050fps is generating 386 ft lbs ME. This round is nothing to sneeze at since the sharp edges of the wadcutter do more damage than a roundnose. Given the home defense application in the question, the downside of the 125 JHP is that it has 544 ft lbs ME and will very likely go through the walls and retain enough energy to hurt someone outside your house, if you miss the BG. The muzzle blast will blind you for any follow-up shots. If you do hit the BG with the 125 JHP, you will get some good expansion which will increase the stopping power. Nevertheless, I wouldn't feel handicapped with 158 gr SWCs at 1050 fps inside my house.


------------------
 
I have 158gr .357 in mine but thinking baout just using .38 SWC 158gr. -- the reason is that .357 will have MUCH louder report and more muzzle flash. Same reason why I keep 147gr JHPs int he Glock and not 115gr.

Personally, I am unconvinced that the difference in energy would mean much on an undefended target...not sure what the difference would be if the intruder has door or walls for cover...and hope all this is academic. The idea of touching off a supersonic round in my small bedroom is very unpalatable to my ears.

------------------
Oleg

http://dd-b.net/RKBA
 
Dual response:
To Oleg..... I like muzzle blast from .357 snub. Remember that no matter how unpleasant it is to you, it is even MORE so to your target. It is bright, disorienting, hot, confusing, painful, and scary. I fired my 640 SW at 7 feet and it blows the paper target completely back to horizontal. That HAS to be awfuller to be in front of than behind. And it is even worse if you catch the bullet.
To the .38 vs .357 I have carried plain WC .38's because they hit where they are aimed in my M36. Every other 95, 110, 115 gr load I try prints low. REAL low. Like 8-10" at 7 yds. And I practice shooting 3 rds fast and the WC's print close due to no recoil.
HOWEVER..... last week I shot a broken Sony
playstation with a WC and it did not go thru.
I am reevaluating what I have been carrying.
Whether tis better to hit what one aims at or to have what hits get HIT.......
Aaaaargh. So confusing.
Any other suggestions?
 
"Effectiveness" is determined by what organs the bullet damages as it penetrates. If the bullet passes through and efficiently damages organs that are critical to the bad guy's immediate survival, it will be effective.

All other bullet characteristics, such as velocity and kinetic energy are unreliable predictors of "effectiveness." Expanding centerfire rifle bullets with far more velocity and energy often fail to be "effective" on human sized mammals when shot by hunters.

Placement and penetration are the keys to certain and reliable "effectiveness." All other factors are a distraction.

------------------
/s/ Shawn Dodson
Firearms Tactical Institute
http://www.firearmstactical.com



[This message has been edited by Shawn Dodson (edited December 22, 1999).]
 
I'd like to gain informed opinion(s) on a slightly different perspective to the debate.

I remember reading an article some years ago on the effectiveness of British military handguns. One of the points I remember is that the .38 Webley was an especially effective round. This is essentially the old .38 S&M with a 200 grain soft lead bullet. If I remember correctly it left the barrel of the Webley with a velocity of roughly 600 fps. The article speculated that the effectiveness was the result of a heavy bullet of soft composition that began to key hole. Apparently great stopping power and terrible wound channels.

I too carry 148 full wad cutter rounds in an airweight J frame snubby. Partly because I can stand to practice with them and mostly because the impact craters I see when light rainfall makes the backstop where I shoot into a highly viscous, almost clay like mud. Also, I'm not too, too sure how much hydrolic shock effect one is going to get from almost any round from a two inch snubby.

I don't argue the physics of the issue - take the velocity, plug in the weight and the .357 clearly has more ft. pounds delivery payload. But the .22 long rifle is often considered a better defense/offense round than the .25 ACP precisely because of the soft bullet and the damage it can do internally.

Thoughts?

------------------
Jim Fox
 
Mikie and others:

I appreciate your correction of my math, but where did I go wrong?

General Formula: Kinetic Energy = .5 x mass x velocity x velocity.

Specifically in my earlier calculations, I used (.5) x (mass in grains/7000) x velocity squared, with the mass in grains/7000 to equate to pounds.

You guys indicate I miscalculated -- and I don't doubt I did so -- but please help me rectify my logic.

Thanks.
 
JimFox: I submit that those who believe .22 LR is superior than .25 ACP don't realize that a .22 LR cartridge, whenfired out of a .25 ACP sized handgun, performs almost exactly like .25 ACP. CCI Stinger LHP doesn't expand out of .25 ACP sized handguns, and I'm unaware of any LRN bullet that deforms at all. It's the barrel length of the gun that matters more than any perceived superiority of .22 LR over .25 ACP.

------------------
/s/ Shawn Dodson
Firearms Tactical Institute
http://www.firearmstactical.com
 
I agree with RWK...KE=1/2 mv^2. Of course I'm, relatively speaking, a youngster at 25 and educated in Canada so the units of energy I am accustomed to are in Joules or Kilojoules. However, SI units aside, the general formula should remain the same regardless of whether you use the old british system or metric. Perhaps the inflated energy calculations of a former reply were due to incorrect mass conversions to slugs (I gathered that you converted from grains to pounds. However, I believe you should have converted from grains to slugs, the BE unit for mass.

[This message has been edited by Piggy (edited December 23, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Piggy (edited December 23, 1999).]
 
38 wadcutters AND 410 slugs (which tend tobe adequate) perform poorly on hard cover (one reason I prefer jacketed ammo for defense). Why not pick up Speer 158gr semi-jacketed hollow points (or sm-th comparable)...they are hotter than target loads, will shoot to similar point of impact (bullet weight matters more than power at close range, methinks). I am actually tempted to use handloads (as reliable as factory in my experience) beacuse I know which gun they are for...won't have a big fireball of unsued powder with minimal velocity gains.
 
JimFox,

Not a bad thing to carry wads in your Airweight, but you might consider some custom 158g LSWC-HP's.

Wife carries M38 using same.

------------------
"All my ammo is factory ammo"
 
Shawn Dodson:I have a couple of small .22 autos - a Jennings and a Walther TPH. I don't know if a solid (I rarely use .22 hp) would deform or not when fired from those guns - I've never bothered to recover any rounds. I have taken a fair amount of small game with a 2 inch S&W Kit gun (mostly grouse and squirrels) and have occassionally recovered the bullet and in about 1/2 the dozen or so cases it was deformed by being bent to an angle and usually with some mushrooming. I doubt this occured in the game animal, more probably from the ground or tree that I dug them out of - but still, that is more deformation than I would expect with a FMJ .25ACP.
 
WESHOOT2: Thanks for the suggestion. Actually I've been pretty much out of the shooting and handloading arena for a decade or more and am just now trying to get back into my favorite hobby(ies). But I have given some thought to getting a mold for the old 200 grain .38 bullet - or perhaps finding (or having) one cut in a semi-wadcutter pattern. Cast of pure (or nearly pure) lead and chugging along at about 650 fps from a 3 inch barrel (I also have a S&W 36 with the 3 inch heavy barrel)or maybe 600 fps from my 2 inch Model 38 I believe it would be both a manageable load and effective at very close range. Maybe a shade faster - depending on recoil characteristics.

Years ago I had a S&W with a 3 inch barrel chambered in .38 S&W caliber. I shot it some with the 200 grain "police" load and it was managable. Really, Really regret selling that gun.

I don't know how heavy clothing would effect the performance - but parkas and multiple layers of clothing aren't too, too common in this part of Texas - for most of the year anyway.
 
RWK - I don't see where anyone showed where your formula led you astray. Your formula is correct, the problem lies in the mass conversion. You have to take the acceleration of gravity into account. This is where the 450250 factor comes in that Mikie used. It takes gravity into account and helps convert the bullet weight in grains to ft-lbs all at the same time.
 
JimFox,

you might consider cutting a minimum .310" meplat on your 200g bullets.

------------------
"All my ammo is factory ammo"
 
Mal H,

Thank you. You are absolutely right; my question was not answered until you did so. Also, I now understand the "450240 shortcut constant".

Again, thanks and Merry Christmas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top