Short barrel .357s

As usual, Webleymkv sums up our data very well, and draws the exact same conclusions from it as I do. Which is why I load my short-barrel J-frames with 158 grain bullets. (Currently, this one.)

A reminder, be sure to take a look at the extra .38/.357 data in our series of Cylinder Gap Tests.

Jim
 
you are only getting 38 Special perfomance from those short barrels. A 9mm in a comparably sized gun will actually hit harder and not be such a distraction to the shooter.
Click to expand...

I wonder which one puts the biggest holes in a 1957 Chevy body?

That ought to dispel any comments about which hits hardest.
 
They should all put exactly the same sized holes in a car body, wouldn't you think?

To WebleyMkV, while what you say is correct in that a faster burning powder is more efficient in a shorter barrel, because it's more likely to all be burned within the barrel, I don't think that's necessarily the way to measure efficiency. It may or may not be true that the faster burning powder will produce a higher velocity, though it will probably produce less muzzle flash or blast. I would be more likely to believe that a heavier charge of slower burning powder may in fact produce a higher velocity even at the cost of less efficiency as far as burning powder is concerned. Even so, there's more to it than that.

If you have a variety of handguns, particularly of the same caliber, you may not want to customize the loads that much. In other words, there's no point in having the same caliber if you use different loads in different guns, though I still understand the object. One might want to use different loads even though you only had one gun. In addition to having a load suitable for shooting 1957 Chevrolets, which would be detestible, you might still have use for wadcutters in your pet .357 revolver.

Ultimately, you can only measure the efficiency of the load by measuring the velocity of the load--in your own gun. That's true for factory ammo, too, about which you may not know anything about the powder. Of course, muzzle flash and blast can still be a concern that you will still want to take into account no matter what the velocity comes out to be.
 
I wonder which one puts the biggest holes in a 1957 Chevy body?

That ought to dispel any comments about which hits hardest.
Click to expand...

Well let's see:
9mm bullet diameter is .355
.38 bullet diameter is .357

Maybe the '57 Chevy test media can tell the .002 of an inch difference in hole size?
 
Quote:
I wonder which one puts the biggest holes in a 1957 Chevy body?

That ought to dispel any comments about which hits hardest.
Well let's see:
9mm bullet diameter is .355
.38 bullet diameter is .357

Maybe the '57 Chevy test media can tell the .002 of an inch difference in hole size?
Click to expand...

I here 50 AE is the proper load for those! Or 600 Overkill if you have your rifle handy!
 
I used to carry a S&W 640 all the time. I (regrettably) since traded it for other firearms...

Weird as this sounds, I prefered the recoil of a 158gr .357mag round out of that snubbie over a full-size autoloader in .40 S&W. I have no idea why, but the .40 just annoys me.
 
Originally posted by Blue Train
To WebleyMkV, while what you say is correct in that a faster burning powder is more efficient in a shorter barrel, because it's more likely to all be burned within the barrel, I don't think that's necessarily the way to measure efficiency. It may or may not be true that the faster burning powder will produce a higher velocity, though it will probably produce less muzzle flash or blast. I would be more likely to believe that a heavier charge of slower burning powder may in fact produce a higher velocity even at the cost of less efficiency as far as burning powder is concerned. Even so, there's more to it than that.
Click to expand...

The key to getting the highest possible velocity is maintaining peak pressure for as long as possible. Whether a fast burning powder or slow burning powder is best for the task depends on both bullet weight and barrel length. Generally, for light bullets and/or short barrels, faster burning powder is preferable. This is because pressure is at or peak when the bullet leaves the case and the powder is mostly, if not completely, burned by the time the bullet leaves the barrel. Slower burning powders are not preferable for short barrels or light bullets because the bullet will likely be well down if not out of the barrel and a good percentage of the powder will burn after the bullet has already left the barrel.

Conversely, slower powders are better for longer barrels and/or heavier bullets. This is because a larger percentage of the powder will burn before the bullet exits the case, thus ensuring that peak pressure is not reached too soon, and because the powder will continue to burn until the bullet is out, or almost out, of the barrel. Slower burning powders are less preferable for light bullets and short barrels because peak pressure is likely to be reached well before the bullet leaves the case, thus reducing the length of time it can be maintained while the bullet travels down the barrel, and because the powder will likely we burnt up well before the bullet exits the barrel thus reducing pressure quickly and allowing the friction of the barrel to slow the bullet's velocity.

If you have a variety of handguns, particularly of the same caliber, you may not want to customize the loads that much. In other words, there's no point in having the same caliber if you use different loads in different guns, though I still understand the object. One might want to use different loads even though you only had one gun. In addition to having a load suitable for shooting 1957 Chevrolets, which would be detestible, you might still have use for wadcutters in your pet .357 revolver.
Click to expand...

Sticking to one loading for a given caliber is understandable enough as I do it myself. Both my 2 1/2" S&W M66 and my 4" M28 are loaded with Remington 158gr SJHP. This loading is among the most efficient in my snub and I do not feel that it is markedly inferior to lighter, faster .357 Magnum loadings even from a longer barrel. Of course, I've long thought that 158gr bullets were the best "all purpose" weight for a .357 Magnum.

Ultimately, you can only measure the efficiency of the load by measuring the velocity of the load--in your own gun. That's true for factory ammo, too, about which you may not know anything about the powder. Of course, muzzle flash and blast can still be a concern that you will still want to take into account no matter what the velocity comes out to be.
Click to expand...

Yet another reason that I prefer the heavier 140-158gr bullets in a .357 Magnum is that, with full power loadings, the blast and flash does not seem nearly as pronounced though they're still not what I'd describe as "kind and gentle".
 
Last edited:
Remember, that flash work both ways. You may be as/more blind than him come the next shot.
Click to expand...

That, Sir, is a lie.

After the first shot in a snub nose .357 Magnum, particularly one of those danged Airweight versions from S&W...your eyes will be shut everytime you pull the trigger anyway.

At least, mine are......


:D
 
A regular 357 Magnum load out of a short barrel is going to generate a higher velocity than a regular 38 Special or 38 Special +P load. See Stephen Camp's article on this topic.

Now, if you're getting 1150 FPS out of a 125 grain JHP, then you have just duplicated what a Glock 19 does with Speer Gold Dot 124 grain JHP. If you break 1200, now you're seeing some improvement.
 
Last edited:
I call bunk to SGT127's post.

There is plenty of footage of pedestrain as well as drive-by creeps blasting away with Uzis & AKs and all kinds of pistols at night time and the shooter(s) clearly have both eyes wide open before, during and after the 1st shot.

There has also been plenty of night fighting in WW1 thru Afghanistan with guns much bigger, and throwing just a wee bit bigger flash, than any Snub .357 does. Check a history book. The evening wartime combatants fired more than just once before they closed their eyes and called it quits until daybreak.

Now if SGT127 is giving use advice on how he invisions his own behavior after the fight starts, well that is another story.
 
Last edited:
I call bunk to SGT127's post.
There is plenty of footage of pedestrain as well as drive-by creeps blasting away with Uzis & AKs and all kinds of pistols at night time and the shooter(s) clearly have both eyes wide open before, during and after the 1st shot.

There has also been plenty of night fighting in WW1 thru Afghanistan with guns much bigger, and throwing just a wee bit bigger flash, than any Snub .357 does. Check a history book. The evening wartime combatants fired more than just once before they closed their eyes and called it quits until daybreak.

Now if SGT127 is giving use advice on how he invisions his own behavior after the fight starts, well that is another story.
Click to expand...

I really think he was trying to be funny. Did you see the emoticon? :D

Lighten up Francis.
 
Are you sure?

In the olden days, when police agencies had the, 'PAL', sports league for city youth, PAL used to teach boxing lessons. Yes, that kind of boxing. Anyway, the inexperieced fighers would start swinging with their eyes open but would have both eyes tightly closed for the 2nd-3rd-4th and 5th swings.

Not only do I think sgt127 carried this optical childhood fighting notion with him, but I also think sgt127 is predicting or recommening or linking his idea of.357 snub-nose work for you too. Naw, he wasn't joking.
 
The only way you're going to get a .38 Special or 9mm to meet or exceed the ballistics of a .357 Magnum are to either cherry pick the most powerful .38 Special and 9mm Boutique loadings against the mildest .357 Magnum loadings or to compare the 9mm and .38 from long barrels against the .357 Magnum from short barrels
Click to expand...
@ which point, I'm going to go back to my original post....

Which is after all what the OP had brought up - shooting a .357 out of a snub..


I fail to see any significant difference between a 124 gr 9mm out of a Browning Hi Power or any 125 gr . 357 out of a 3" or less snub.

I've also commented before on this.
BBTI does a wonderful job - kudos to Jim for that.
However..
W/out publishing hi - low - extreme spread and standard deviation figures, the data is simply too rough to make any meaningful determination out of.

.357 loads of any weight quite often have a swing of 200 fps from hi to low for 5 shot strings.
 
I for one liked Sgt127's post. It reminds me of Bill Jordan's description of the first time he fired a .357 magnum. He said he never found out where that shot went either, which was a mystery to him. He was so certain that the gun was on target when he closed his eyes and pulled the trigger.

However, back to Mr. WebleymkV, who kindly responded to my comments. Please don't take my comments as criticisms but just friendly conversation.

Are you sure about what you said in your response concerning slow burning powders. I think you made an error and contradicted yourself. But I'll let you read it again first.

In my case, for any cartridge, most but not quite all, of my shooting was done with handloads that were not full power. I always felt that factory ammunition was perfectly fine for just about anything, the handloads were used for economical reasons. In fact, I was always a little surprised at how much more powerful the factory loads appeared to be.

Now, on a slightly different subject, do some powders produce more muzzle flash than others? I have seen it stated that some ammuntion, such as GI .45 auto ammunition, had an anti-flash something added. I believe it was Chuck Taylor who said that. Does some ammunition produce more flash than others? I don't recall that 125 grain .357 produced all that much flash on a dimly lit indoor range but I suppose it might if it were fired in total darkness. We did night firing in the army with all sorts of small arms but unfortunately, that was nearly 50 years ago and my memory of some things is hazy.
 
Originally posted by Blue Train
However, back to Mr. WebleymkV, who kindly responded to my comments. Please don't take my comments as criticisms but just friendly conversation.
Click to expand...

No worries, I took your post in exactly the spirit it was intended:)

Are you sure about what you said in your response concerning slow burning powders. I think you made an error and contradicted yourself. But I'll let you read it again first.
Click to expand...

You're right, I made a typo and my post has been edited:o

In my case, for any cartridge, most but not quite all, of my shooting was done with handloads that were not full power. I always felt that factory ammunition was perfectly fine for just about anything, the handloads were used for economical reasons. In fact, I was always a little surprised at how much more powerful the factory loads appeared to be.
Click to expand...

I also handload practice ammo for economic reasons (.357 Magnum ammo just aint cheap:eek:). I've found that a 158gr LSWC over 14gr of 2400 with a Winchester Small Pistol Primer (non-magnum) duplicates the recoil and POI of a factory 158gr JHP fairly well.

Now, on a slightly different subject, do some powders produce more muzzle flash than others? I have seen it stated that some ammuntion, such as GI .45 auto ammunition, had an anti-flash something added. I believe it was Chuck Taylor who said that. Does some ammunition produce more flash than others? I don't recall that 125 grain .357 produced all that much flash on a dimly lit indoor range but I suppose it might if it were fired in total darkness. We did night firing in the army with all sorts of small arms but unfortunately, that was nearly 50 years ago and my memory of some things is hazy.
Click to expand...

There are flash suppressants that can be added to powder, but I really don't know all that much about them. I do know that the more powder which burns after the bullet has already left the barrel, the greater the flash and blast will be. If one wanted "fireworks," a light bullet over a large charge of slow burning powder in a short barrel would be a good way to get it.
 
Last edited:
Hal, if you go to the Raw Data page on BBTI, you can download the entire data sets for each test sequence, which show each and every individual chrono reading. Everything is there for anyone who wants to do a little deeper digging into the data - we just haven't done the work for you.

Cheers!
 
Jim,
Fabulous!
Thank you so much for that info.

I didn't want to come across as slamming you or BBTI for not making that info clearer.
On the contrary, I believe what your doing is exemplary - even if it didn't include the discussed figures - having that info is icing on the cake.

Keep up the good work!

Anything that helps make an informed decision and helps fit the ballistic pieces of the puzzle together is a good thing.
 
.357 loads of any weight quite often have a swing of 200 fps from hi to low for 5 shot strings.
Click to expand...

This has not been my experience; or perhaps I am not understanding your statement.

I am wondering if you can give a bit more detail on how you arrived at this thought; are you talking snub nosed only... or ...?
 
I call bunk to SGT127's post.
There is plenty of footage of pedestrain as well as drive-by creeps blasting away with Uzis & AKs and all kinds of pistols at night time and the shooter(s) clearly have both eyes wide open before, during and after the 1st shot.

There has also been plenty of night fighting in WW1 thru Afghanistan with guns much bigger, and throwing just a wee bit bigger flash, than any Snub .357 does. Check a history book. The evening wartime combatants fired more than just once before they closed their eyes and called it quits until daybreak.

Now if SGT127 is giving use advice on how he invisions his own behavior after the fight starts, well that is another story.
Click to expand...
Are you sure?

In the olden days, when police agencies had the, 'PAL', sports league for city youth, PAL used to teach boxing lessons. Yes, that kind of boxing. Anyway, the inexperieced fighers would start swinging with their eyes open but would have both eyes tightly closed for the 2nd-3rd-4th and 5th swings.

Not only do I think sgt127 carried this optical childhood fighting notion with him, but I also think sgt127 is predicting or recommening or linking his idea of.357 snub-nose work for you too. Naw, he wasn't joking.
Click to expand...


Really?

No. REALLY?

Perhaps your eyes were closed when I posted this: :D

Just so you don't miss it:
Big-rolleyes.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top