Prograde .357 magnum 200gr hard cast "bear grade" in clear ballistics gel.

5

5pins

New member
TXiIN0Zl.jpg


Test Gun: Smith & Wesson Model 65
Barrel length: 3 Inches
Ammunition: Prograde .357 Magnum 200gr Hard Cast.
Test media: 10% Clear Ballistics Gel.
Distance: 10 feet.
Chronograph: Caldwell Ballistic Precision Chronograph G2.
Five shot velocity average: 1097fps
Gel Temperature: 71

https://general-cartridge.com/2020/03/19/prograde-357-magnum-200gr-hard-cast-bear-grade-in-clear-ballistics-gel/
 
I've seen similar tests done with comparable bullets. All with the same results. Buffalo Bore 147 gr 9mm did exactly the same thing, 60"+ of penetration. They had the same 16" long blocks and it went through all 4. They did not catch the bullet. Similar heavy for caliber hardcast in 40 S&W, 10mm, and 45 ACP also gave 50"+ penetration, but they did manage to catch those bullets.
 
I wonder with ammo like this if there's any reason to own a revolver in a larger caliber other than competition shooting.

I mean, I love my .45 wheelguns, but it wouldn't be much fun hauling them around in the woods when a .357 that weighs half as much is available.
 
If you are ever charged by four blocks of gel at 10 feet, this will do it!

Back in the old days, people would take a bullet and put it on an anvil and hit it with a big hammer.

Good hard cast will dent. Bad hard cast will shatter. Regular cast will flatten like a pancake.

Large heavy game animals need good hard cast bullets. The bigger the better.
 
I wonder with ammo like this if there's any reason to own a revolver in a larger caliber other than competition shooting.

I mean, I love my .45 wheelguns, but it wouldn't be much fun hauling them around in the woods when a .357 that weighs half as much is available.
Click to expand...

Gel is cute and, offers a test medium that is exactly the same for all projectiles.

In something that has muscle, sinew, bones and other hard stuff, a hard cast .41. .44 and other big bores will have the added weight to continue to push through and, make a bigger hole for the hydraulic fluid to leak out of.

Not to take anything away from that .357. That’s a very substantial bullet. And, I carry a .357 Magnum A lot. But, if I KNEW something big and furry were out to get me, I’d be carrying a .44 with those kind of bullets.
 
5pins, I love your gel tests, but don't overdo the heavy, hard cast big bore penetrating ammo because it all does the same thing: penetrates really deep. It's a forgone conclusion what they're going to do, the only one's that would interest me is small calibers (.32, .380, 9mm) because I'm legit curious how they perform in penetration compared to 200+ grain loads.
 
TruthTellers said:
I wonder with ammo like this if there's any reason to own a revolver in a larger caliber other than competition shooting.

I mean, I love my .45 wheelguns, but it wouldn't be much fun hauling them around in the woods when a .357 that weighs half as much is available.
Click to expand...
This is why I settled on 10mm as my ideal woods carry gun and 200 grains is the max that .357 can shoot, but 10mm can shoot a 10% heavier projectile and shoot 200 gr hollow points that will expand.

Anyway, I love my .45 Redhawk, but as a gun for carrying it's far from ideal, it's performance on a man tho is excellent and it can pretty much shoot about 6 different .45's (GAP, ACP, Super, Cowboy Special, S&W, Colt) plus the .45 Colt holds a fair amount of birdshot and two .454 round balls.

That's all a lot of fun to shoot at the range, I have no doubts about the .45 for self defense, I know it can do the job on a charging bear, but I'm not interested in carrying it. That doesn't mean a big revolver isn't worth owning, they are if you have a good reason for owning one.

The versatility of the .45 Redhawk as a large reason why I bought it, but a .44 Magnum... it doesn't have that versatility and is a reason I have never had an interest in owning one. I know the .44 fanboys will read this and say something like "it's great in a rifle!" and yeah, it's fine in a rifle, but it's not significantly better than Ruger only .45 Colt loads in a rifle, nor is it better than .45-70.
 
I mean, I love my .45 wheelguns, but it wouldn't be much fun hauling them around in the woods when a .357 that weighs half as much is available.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of what you are referring to. If you have two identical revolvers, one in 357 and one in 44 or 45 caliber, it's the one in 357 that will weigh more. The chambers in the cylinder are a smaller diameter for the 357 than for the 44 or 45 calibers. This means more metal in the cylinder and also the barrel and so more weight. Next time you are at a gun show or gun store check this out for yourself.

tipoc
 
tipoc said:
I'm not sure of what you are referring to. If you have two identical revolvers, one in 357 and one in 44 or 45 caliber, it's the one in 357 that will weigh more. The chambers in the cylinder are a smaller diameter for the 357 than for the 44 or 45 calibers. This means more metal in the cylinder and also the barrel and so more weight. Next time you are at a gun show or gun store check this out for yourself.

tipoc
Click to expand...
True, but he could be carrying a .357 LCRx that weighs 20oz.
 
True, but he could be carrying a .357 LCRx that weighs 20oz.
Click to expand...


True but he didn't say that. He could also be carting a Sig 229 in 357 Sig, which would also be lighter, but he didn't say that either.

So hows your comment help?

tipoc
 
tipoc said:
True but he didn't say that. He could also be carting a Sig 229 in 357 Sig, which would also be lighter, but he didn't say that either.

So hows your comment help?

tipoc
Click to expand...
Yeah, well what you said didn't make sense because he wasn't comparing to identical revolvers, he was saying there are .357's that weigh much less than .45 revolvers and those .357's a much easier to carry as a result.
 
Yeah, well what you said didn't make sense because he wasn't comparing to identical revolvers, he was saying there are .357's that weigh much less than .45 revolvers and those .357's a much easier to carry as a result.
Click to expand...

He said:

I mean, I love my .45 wheelguns, but it wouldn't be much fun hauling them around in the woods when a .357 that weighs half as much is available.
Click to expand...

The first thing I said was:

I'm not sure of what you are referring to. If you have two identical revolvers, one in 357 and one in 44 or 45 caliber, it's the one in 357 that will weigh more. The chambers in the cylinder are a smaller diameter for the 357 than for the 44 or 45 calibers. This means more metal in the cylinder and also the barrel and so more weight. Next time you are at a gun show or gun store check this out for yourself.
Click to expand...

So I was asking him to clarify, for me, just what he meant. Did he mean a smaller revolver in 357? Did he mean a semi in 357 Sig? Both of which might be lighter weight? Or was he just saying that while he had a wheelgun in 45 Colt it was too heavy for him to cart around so he preferred to carry a smaller gun in 357? Or was he trying to say that a gun in 357 was somehow lighter than a gun in 45 or 44?

I did not want to guess at what he meant so I asked. that's a useful thing now and then.

tipoc
 
tipoc said:
He said:



The first thing I said was:



So I was asking him to clarify, for me, just what he meant. Did he mean a smaller revolver in 357? Did he mean a semi in 357 Sig? Both of which might be lighter weight? Or was he just saying that while he had a wheelgun in 45 Colt it was too heavy for him to cart around so he preferred to carry a smaller gun in 357? Or was he trying to say that a gun in 357 was somehow lighter than a gun in 45 or 44?

I did not want to guess at what he meant so I asked. that's a useful thing now and then.

tipoc
Click to expand...
Apparently I quoted myself and didn't realize it, thus I no longer need to refer to myself in the third person.

So, the first sentence of my first post here was "I wonder with ammo like this if there's any reason to own a revolver in a larger caliber other than competition shooting."

Specifically said revolver, thus when I said .357's that weigh half as much it was meant as in revolvers.
 
WFN

It may be just the angle of the pic, but I see that slug more configured like a truncated cone, and not so much a wide flat nose. Regardless, it should drill through a lot of material.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top