Ever actually clock the difference in 38+P vs 357

there is massive differences. sw still considers 1.8 inches to be a snub nose. many companies like say ruger consider 3.25 inches to be a "snub nose". so as a result, your going to have big differences in velocity and energy from the get go, even if you used the same load in each gun.
 
I was going to start a new thread, but this one seems to be pretty much the topic I was wondering about.
How much of an advantage is there in .357mag over .38spl+p against 2-legged threats? It seems like anything over 12" of penetration is overkill. I'm by no means skinny, but I'm less than 12" deep - plus, if I remember my anatomy classes, all the vital bits are stored fairly close to the front.
And, out of a 2" barrel it seems the gains are pretty marginal unless I'm reading something wrong.
The reason I ask is that I had a SP101 for a few years, but really never loved it, and wound up giving it to my brother. It was a little big/heavy for pocket carry, and for IWB I have better options. However, I find that I miss having it around - there's something about a snubnose revolver that just feels right. I've been looking at replacing it with maybe a 637.
It seems like the big advantage to magnum loads are for addressing 4 legged threats, and for that I'd probably want more than a 2" barrel.
Or am I wrong? Is the SP101 even all that much bigger/heavier than the 637, and is being able to shoot magnum loads worth it if it is?
 
It seems like anything over 12" of penetration is overkill. I'm by no means skinny, but I'm less than 12" deep - plus, if I remember my anatomy classes, all the vital bits are stored fairly close to the front.
Click to expand...
You're assuming that you'll get a shot from the front. The reason for the 12"-14" penetration standard is to ensure the bullet can reach the vitals when the shot is to the side, particularly through an arm.

Picture a BG shooting at you one-handed, lunging at you with a knife, or swinging a club at you, and it's easy to envision how a shot could hit from this angle.
 
How much of an advantage is there in .357mag over .38spl+p against 2-legged threats? It seems like anything over 12" of penetration is overkill. I'm by no means skinny, but I'm less than 12" deep - plus, if I remember my anatomy classes, all the vital bits are stored fairly close to the front.
Click to expand...


That is the reason I carry standard loads in my 38 642. I don't see any real advantage to +Ps.

I use LSWCs and at standard velocities they give my all the penitration I need.

I do see the advantage in the standard loads when it comes to ease of shooting. All the velocity in the world doen't help if you can't shoot what your aiming at.

I really don't need all that muzzle blast and noise.
 
I've made good use of my chrono.

Out of the same 3" SP101 the most energy I was able to produce was a 125gr Gold Dot with 21.6gr of H110 (magnum load). It went 1367 fps and made 518ft/lbs. It hurt pretty bad, the laser on my revolver would dig into my finger pretty bad with those.

The most energy I could get out of a .38sp +P was a 158gr LSWC with 6.0gr of Power Pistol. It went 933fps and made 305ft/lbs.

So you get a 59% increase in energy using the .357 Magnum. That's nothing to sneeze at.
 
I wondered about the real difference in velocity between the two calibers out of a 2inch gun. When you look at some of the comparisons done (BB is a good one,) you can see some of the older revolvers with longer barrels are getting less velocity then some of the newer ones with short barrels. Probably boils down to individual firearms and loads used. The 12 inches of penetration is a result of the Miami shooting and rounds going through arms and then entering the chest cavity from the side. The older standard was 6-8 inches. Although you can probably get similar penetration between a .38spl 158 grain and a 357 mag 125 grain (some loads,) the 357mag with the added velocity would seem to hit harder and it may make a difference with a marginal shot.
 
According to Army studies, it takes 60 ft lbs of energy to produce a disabling wound.

Figuring a BC of .139 for a 38 LSWC bullet, leaving the muzzle at 760 fps you'll get more then that much at 200 yards.

That's the low average for a standard loading of a LSWC 158 grn bullet out of a 1 7/8s inch 642.

Taking into account you can shoot that mild load all day long without undo discomfort.............and since you can shoot it you're gonna be willing to practice more, which means HITS.

So explain to me again why I need to load my carry ammo to the point where the revolver cuts up my hand, giving me the flinches, to be able to use it for self defense to, lets say 25 yards.
 
I have shot full power 357mag ammo in a 3" SP101 I used to own, as well as my current Model 19 2.5"...it gives me no difficulty at all.
 
This reminds me of the 300 Win Mag vs 243 argument. The diminuitve 243 has taken everything from white tail to elk ( and probably more.) Some folks feel undergunned with anything less than a 300 mag for pronghorns. Since the arms and ammo manufacturers are producing all calibers, pick what you like and use it. The question is whether or not snubbies will produce significantly more velocity with 357 than with 38 special +p. Evidently they will. ;)
 
According to Army studies, it takes 60 ft lbs of energy to produce a disabling wound.
Click to expand...
I know that this is the figure that Hatcher used. Do you know of a source that explains how it was derived and under what conditions? I know I've seen reliable reports of fatalities produced by airguns with energy figures that are miniscule compared to 60 ftlbs.
 
I believe, but not sure its from Col. :a Garde's book "Gunshot Injuries" and/or the test he used in writing that book.

I kind of got that idea from Hatcher's "Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers" 1935.
 
If the market wants to move on to more
"expensive","bigger", and "better" guns.
They first have to denigrate what was tried
and true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top