Why Shrink the .357?

C

Chris W

New member
This fairly recent thread

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=124580

brought out a lot of opinions about the original 158 gr. bullet for the .357; mainly, that they are the most accurate, in most people's experience (including mine); and that they work--on animals with any number of legs.

I've pretty much settled, at least for now, where a few of those more experienced hands found themselves: I like the 158 gr. .357, and frankly, don't see why anyone felt the need to fool with it in the first place.

So my question, for those of you who've been shooting .357s since before they were invented (and you know I'm not exaggerating, some of you), is this: how did the 125 gr. .357 ever displace the 158 grainer as the preeminent self-defense load? What concerns led to this innovation? Was it worry about overpenetration? Concern that the heavier bullets weren't moving fast enough to expand? How fast do you think a modern 158 gr. JHP needs to move to expand reliably? And, whatever these concerns were, do you think they were well founded?

My suspicion is that the 125 gr. load was probably a very successful example of inventing a niche in the market; perhaps the fire and noise of these light loads contributed to the widespread opinion of its effectiveness. But I'd love to hear your thoughts, knowledge, and opinions.

Cw
 
Shooting off

Once again, I don't claim to be a ballistic expert, and I don't own a chronothingy to test this myself, but I believe that a 125gr bullet is able to get more velocity out of a 1 7/8" to 2 1/2" barrel than a 158gr. I know I think of the 158gr load as a 4" barrel load. I think you woill get more regular expansion out of a short barrel fom a 125 than a 158.

Please, someone prove me wrong with some actual numbers. I'm man enough to admit that I could be wrong. :D
 
priv8ter makes a good point. In a shorter barreled revolver, decreasing the bullet weight brings the velocity up closer to what you would get with a 158 out of a 4" barrel.
I also think another reason might be the eternal search for higher velocity.
For most calibers we have a vairety of bullet weights to consider. But is seems like one bullet weight seems to be best suited for the caliber. In this case we have 110 grain up to 180 grain bullets. In my opinion, the 158 is the best bullet for the caliber overall.
 
Well, BigG is right about kick, at least in loads of the same speed. Most mainstream commercial loads these days seem to load their 158 gr.s a couple hundred fps slower than their 125 gr.s. Anybody know if this kick factor had anything to do with the birth of the 125er?

priv8er raises another good possibility. I know a lot of snubby .357 carriers are packing 125 gr.s now; was THIS part of the reason for its birth, or just something some snubby carriers picked up on?

I'm hoping C.R. Sam or someone of that omniscient ilk will pitch in; I know someone out there remembers how and when it happened.
 
They found out that heavy non-expanding bullets were poor stoppers, and lighter , faster, expanding bullets were far better stoppers.

That's it....................................
 
158-180s are the best for deer, etc.
Lighter bullet weights were found to have less recoil.
The original loads available for .357 magnum were obsenely powerful, like 45,000-50,000 CUP.
158 was the original load for .38 special.
125s JHPs were found to inflict more trauma with less recoil.
(Less pressure, actually.) The first .357s were smith n-frames, and ruger blackhawks, both with longer barrels.
Later, they were introduced in K frames, and L frames, then snubbies.
The downsizing in frames and barrel lengths led to a search for a magic bullet in a smaller gun.
Now 158s are either hunting loads, or wimp loads.
Firing the original 158 grain, 45,000 CUP loads in a smith airweight snubby would not be my idea of entertainment.
They still work fine in a blackhawk. (Imagine that!)
 
I doubt it was a joke as the 125 gr loads are a direct result of the faster, lighter kinetic energy "dumping" crowd. These are the guys who believe a 125 gr 1400 FPS bullet is far superior to a 158 gr bullet doing 1250 FPS. The extra velocity supposedly allowed for "hydrostatic shock" effects. As we know now, there are no hydrostatic effects until the bullet reaches into rifle velocities. What you do get with the light and fast loads is a lot more muzzle blast. IMO, with .357, the 158JHP at 1250 FPS rules.

The light load I prefer is a 175 gr bullet doing 1250 from a .41 Mag (Win SilverTip). Much more pleasant than a 210 gr at 1350 FPS.
 
Yeah, that sounds like the most plausible scenario, caz223; today's 158 gr. loads are just not what they once were, according to reliable sources. So the 125 gr. 'full house' loads that make 1450 fps were, perhaps, a bit tamer than a full-on load back in the day; though, to be honest, I've shot the 'Deer Stopper' from Georgia Arms at 158 gr. and 1475 fps, and it just didn't seem that much more brutal than a fast 125 gr.

I have to admit that, like riverdog, I buy the heavy-bullet/crucial penetration school of thought, so my preference for the heavier 158 gr. includes an acceptance that it might be less likely to expand--but more likely, I trust, to get to where I actually want it to go. I'll sacrifice a couple hundred fps for those extra 33 grains in an equally shootable round; and the fact that it's more accurate just closes the deal.

cw
 
No, not a joke.

You can't argue with the record of reliability that the various 125-gr. rounds have put together in shootings over the last 30 or so years.

And the lighter recoil gives the added benefit of allowing faster multiple shots.
 
There are THREE different loads we're talking about here, not just two:

1) Original 158s were non-expanding, at 1,500+. Georgia Arms comes close with the deerstopper...Corbon's "hunting heavies" are a step below, but still strong.

2) Then there's 125s at anywhere from 1,250 on the light end to 1450ish.

3) Nowadays, most 158s are clocking 1250 or so.

Now go back 10, 15 years. Any round moving past 1,000fps is going to need a jacket, but jacketed hollowpoint designs were primitive by today's standards. You needed a real rocket to have something reliable. The classic Remington 125 full house is a primitive JHP, but it's going like hell (past 1,400) and it expands just fine.

The 158s on the other hand, once slowed to the 1,200ish range, weren't expanding so fine. Or at least, not so reliably.

I strongly suspect there are modern 158 JHP projectiles that resolve that issue. The Gold Dot as loaded by ProLoad is probably one such, with others around too. Such a round will give you one big ability that a lot of 125s lack: the ability to reliably smash the pelvic bone to drop a club/knife armed assailant in his tracks (probably without killing unless you hit a femoral artery towards the center). And if you should have to defend against a critter for some odd reason, the 158 has the edge.

When Cor-Bon loads the Pow'R'Ball in .357, that will be one to watch.
 
The superiority of the 125 grainer is not just theory, it's a proven result of data collected from actual police files by Evan Marshall and what's-his-name. Speed with adequate penetration produces knock down power, not bullet weight with it's attendant over penetration. Now if you WANT to penetrate a bull moose from end to end, go with the 158, or better yet, a 240gr 44 magnum.
 
Ahh, Marshal and Sanow. Those are the two guys that gave some .40 load (155grn, I think) a 90-something% one shot stop rating, whereas a 10mm load (using an IDENTICAL bullet at 200fps faster) got a LOWER rating.

M&S figures are not well liked around here. A LOT of their "research" is pure conjecture.

In reality, the only SCIENTIFIC way to measure how "powerful" a round is is to measure it's kinetic energy. There's a mathematical formula to this end. That's it.

Everything else is guesstimation. There are simply too many variables in a human body to give blanket figures and percentages. I think the most obnoxious thing M&S did was give percentages, in fact. As if you can really figure the percent probability that a given round will incapacitate a human being, given the extremely wide range of people in this world and almost unlimited number of variables involved. They didn't even take into account where the bullet entered, for crying out loud! Are they talking about center of mass hits? Hits above the nipple line? Gut shots? Who knows? Where you get hit is probably more important than what you get hit with. I think that the other extremely important factor is that the bullet penetrates deeply enough to hit something vital.
 
Ed Sanow also believes in "magic bullets."
Quoted from Ed Sanow (of Sanow and Marshall), Gun World, October 1999.

One of the largest misconceptions on the topic of stopping power is the rhetoric tht shot placement is the key."

"Shot placement is not the key to stopping power. Load selection is."
Click to expand...
 
I know the M&S figures get some bad raps from some. But I've looked in on the data they collect from time to time since they started collecting it (sometime in the 1980's I believe). What seems to be consistent as the number of shootings increase is the better performing .357's against people tend to remain the 125gr JHP rounds (followed by 110's). All kinds of guns (long & short). All kinds of people (large, small, drugged, sober). All kinds of clothing (heavy parka's to "wife beater" t-shirts).

All other factors aside, there has to be some credibility given to "actual" results as opposed to formulas, expansion in clay/jell, foot pounds of energy, etc.

Accume's Razor: When faced with a multitude of variables with which to solve a given problem, the simplest solution tends to be the correct one.
(Maybe not an exact quote - but you get the point)
 
Nightcrawler, that is the best post I have read on the subject. Probably because it completely agrees with my own theories.

I would love to know more about this "overpenetration". Where did this all come from ? Why do so many people buy into it ?
 
Speed with adequate penetration produces knock down power, not bullet weight with it's attendant over penetration.
Click to expand...

So what is adequate penetration vs 250lb pre-diet Jared, 250lb middle linebacker, 90lb Lorena Bobbit-type? Different amounts of fat - muscle - lack of mass?

I could shoot a guy with identical loadings of .357 from a snub or from a carbine and get vastly different results (as a result of an increase in speed and resulting greater penetration, NO change in bullet weight).

All other factors aside, there has to be some credibility given to "actual" results as opposed to formulas, expansion in clay/jell, foot pounds of energy, etc.
Click to expand...

Check my math, but:
110gr .357@ 1575fps = 609 FPE (Winchester reload manual)
158gr .357@1314fps = 609FPE (hotter than Win. recommended max)
200gr .357@1168fps = 609FPE (slower than Win. recommended max)

110gr JHP is "marginal" for self-defense; 200gr lead is "ideal" for hunting 4-legged critters and likely would be no worse than 110-158 FMJ for self-defense. Exposed "soft" lead, under 1200fps, is also far more likely to mushroom than a hard-lead bullet (>1400fps) where the jacket must open (if the HP is clogged, ex. clothing it acts as a FMJ anyway).
 
Last edited:
Math?!!??!!?

Okay, I'm no good at math, so here I go again.

Why are 125gr bullets catching on? Because people are willing to buy them. People have their own preference. And, most people are in love with speed.

I prefer heavy-for-caliber-bullets. I use 180gr Golden Sabre's in my .40(short and weak...I know, I could get 200gr if I wasn't a wuss...discussion for another time). :D

When I get my .357, I will use 158gr. Most likely, 158gr .38s! There's that wuss thing again.

As far as the math from Marshall and Sanow....

It's a good place to start I guess, but I have seen, heard and read of too many times where what the ballistic math says should happen, doesn't happen.
The fact is, given the overall quality of what is being produced now by the big ammo companies, I would feel confident that any off the shelf ammo .380 or bigger, is going to give me a one, two or three shot stop.

Bah...let's all be honest with one another here...if I need to pull the trigger once, I'm probably gonna pull it another few times. Rapidly. One shot stop, indeed. Sounds like an advert for a Convenience Store.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top