357 vs 38spc+P
the ballistics chart i have shows the 158gr 357 having approximately 90% more(535 vs 280)energy at the muzzle than the 158gr 38+P when fired from 4in barrels.i am aware the energy would be less on both if fired from 2in barrels but does a 357 still have 90% more energy than the 38spc+P or does the percentage change?
0
-
So is the question, in a two inch barrel should I shoot 38 +P or 357? I would shoot the 38 +P 0 -
That is sort of a loaded question, that deserves to be looked at from different perspectives.
1. Yes, the 357 still has substantially more energy. Energy is not the only factor, as it uses velocity to bias it. The Taylor knockout factor uses velocity only once, not multiplied by itself as the energy figure. That said, the 357 still has a bigger Taylor factor, per given the same bullet weight.
2. More power does not mean squat, if it cannot be placed on target. Most average shooter's cannot hit well with a 2 inch full power 357. It might pay dividends to use a 38+P in this case, especialy in a life threatening situation.
3. If you don't already have the 2 inch revolver, then buy a 357. That way you can use both 38's or 357's, and decide for yourself, which one is for you.
Hope this helps.
Best0 -
quote:Originally posted by tone59
the ballistics chart i have shows the 158gr 357 having approximately 90% more(535 vs 280)energy at the muzzle than the 158gr 38+P when fired from 4in barrels.i am aware the energy would be less on both if fired from 2in barrels but does a 357 still have 90% more energy than the 38spc+P or does the percentage change?
I think you're probably shortchanging the .38+p a bit with that number you cite, but to the quick answer is "the percentage changes".
.357 magnum, which is already a very "inefficient" cartridge, becomes significantly more inefficient from really short (ie less than 3") barrels.
If you've ever actually fired a .357 from a 2" barrel, you'd know that the thing gives off an atom-bomb like fireball. That fireball consists of all the burning powder that in a longer barreled gun, would have been used to propel the bullet. From a 2" barreled gun, the bullet leaves the barrel before that powder gets burned, and instead the powder burns outside the gun, doing something like this:
According to this reference, a 2" test barrel .357 will give you 858 fps with a 158 grain bullet, and its well worth looking at for a wealth of real-world ballistic data:
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html
The famous "FBI load" 158 grain .38 semi-wadcutter yields about 830 fps from a 2" barrel snubnose, give or take a bit.
Some similar ballistics testing for .38 can be seen here, but unfortunately, not with 158 grain bullets:
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/38special.html
And here's a pretty good internet article on this topic, which actually comes up a lot:
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/38vs357snub.htm
The most important thing I'd add here is that efficiency is nice, but its probably not a good way to pick your cartridge! For example a Mazda Miata is undoubtedly more efficient than a Buick Century, but that doesn't necessarily make it a better car to drive to work in!
At EVERY barrel length, the .357 magnum is going to be more powerful than a .38 with the same bullet weight, just that with really short barrels, the difference isn't very much.
The question, to the extent there is one, is whether or not the small increase in velocity with 357 from a short snubnose is worth the increase in muzzle flash, gun and ammo cost (let alone recoil).
Edit, responding to above:
There is more to it than just buy a 2" 357 and load it with .38s because the 357 guns themselves are a lot more expensive and potentially a little heavier. If you really aren't going to use .357s in your gun, then there isn't much point in buying a .357 gun. IMO .357 snubnose guns make the most sense if you may want to share ammo with longer barreled .357 guns.
Personally, I carry .38s in my 2" bbl CCW, figuring that the lower flash, expense, and recoil more than make up for the slight reduction in power.
Yes, by itself kinetic energy is misleading because the emphasis on velocity tends to favor smaller lighter projectiles. For example standard 9mm luger and .45ACP rounds have similar kinetic energies (about 300 ft lbs each), yet I think most would agree that .45ACP is better. Round A with twice the kinetic energy may not be twice as effective as round B, and probably won't be, especially if lots of the kinetic energy of round A is wasted on exit from the target.
Taylor knockout factor was designed for measuring the effectiveness solid rifle slugs on large (ie African) game. Here the emphasis is on pure bullet mass, and although TKF is almost certainly a better measure of "stopping power" on humans than pure kinetic energy, its also imperfect, since humans aren't huge dense targets the way large game is, and since it doesn't at all take into account the effect of expanding ammo. TKF assumes fixed bullet diameter and 100% use of energy in the target.0 -
the question is:does the 357 lose the same percentage of potential energy as the 38spc+P when fired from a 2in barrel as opposed to being fired from a 4in.as an example with a 4in if the 357 has 535 vs 280 ft.lbs.from the 38spc+P,and the 38 has lets say a %25 loss(70 ft.lbs.)when fired from a 2in does the 357 also lose %25(in this case approx 134 ft. lbs.)allowing it to maintain the same %90 muzzle energy advantage as it had when fired from a 4in barrel or does the 357 suffer a higher percentage of energy loss than a 38spc+P when fired from the shorter barrel....i see by the time i posted this some of you had already sort of answered the question.i was hoping someone may have the numbers of test comparisons of these cal done with 2in barrels 0 -
quote:Originally posted by tone59
the question is:does the 357 lose the same percentage of potential energy as the 38spc+P when fired from a 2in barrel as opposed to being fired from a 4in.as an example with a 4in if the 357 has 535 vs 280 ft.lbs.from the 38spc+P,and the 38 has lets say a %25 loss(70 ft.lbs.)when fired from a 2in does the 357 also lose %25(in this case approx 134 ft. lbs.)allowing it to maintain the same %90 muzzle energy advantage as it had when fired from a 4in barrel or does the 357 suffer a higher percentage of energy loss than a 38spc+P when fired from the shorter barrel....i see by the time i posted this some of you had already sort of answered the question.i was hoping someone may have the numbers of test comparisons of these cal done with 2in barrels
I gave you the raw numbers.
2" .38 158 grain = 830 fps
2" .357 158 grain = 860 fps
Using those numbers the .38 is going 96% as fast as the .357, and therefore should yield 92% of the kinetic energy with a similar weight bullet.
Note that the exact numbers can vary quite a bit depending on which loads you're comparing and which guns you're shooting from. You can see other real-world examples in the link from "hi powers and handguns" above.
But it seems plain to me that from a 2" barrel gun the .357 isn't all that much more than the .38 in terms of power with typical loads.0 -
In the old "One Shot Stops" studies of police shootings that were done for several years the leader was often the 357 125 JHP, often the Federal load with the shot-glass size hollow point, from a 2 1/2" barrel. The 158 loads are/were optimized for use in longer barrels and beantown's figures for 2" use are probably pretty close to fact. The heavy bullet is going to generate more recoil and muzzle flash/blast for a small gain in kinetic energy, which may or may not result in more knockdown power. 0 -
beantownshootah...thank you.although the #s you gave show the minimal difference between the two cals when shot from a 2in barrel, the muzzle energy graph chart from the 1st site you suggested i view does not support it.one of the bullits they tested in both cals is a cor bon 125gr jhp.-fired from a 4in it has the 357 at 610 ft lbs and the 38 at 275.from 2in 300 vs 145 with both losing about half thier energy.unless i am reading the graph wrong it shows the 357 having roughly the same energy fired from 2in as the 38spc+P from a 4in.i am looking for max controllable power in a snubby which may have to be fired through two sets of heavy clothing...sorry.the stats ive been referring to may not be +P.either way it appears that the 357 starts with more power-loses more-yet still has more even with a 2in barrel.velocity-904vs723 with cor bon 125gr jhp.thank you for the info. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by tone59
beantownshootah...thank you.although the #s you gave show the minimal difference between the two cals when shot from a 2in barrel, the muzzle energy graph chart from the 1st site you suggested i view does not support it.one of the bullits they tested in both cals is a cor bon 125gr jhp.-fired from a 4in it has the 357 at 610 ft lbs and the 38 at 275.from 2in 300 vs 145 with both losing about half thier energy.unless i am reading the graph wrong it shows the 357 having roughly the same energy fired from 2in as the 38spc+P from a 4in.i am looking for max controllable power in a snubby which may have to be fired through two sets of heavy clothing...sorry.the stats ive been referring to may not be +P.either way it appears that the 357 starts with more power-loses more-yet still has more even with a 2in barrel.velocity-904vs723 with cor bon 125gr jhp.thank you for the info.
First of all, if you want your posts to be easily understood, I'd humbly suggest you use proper punctuation, capitalize appropriately, and most important, break up your thoughts into separate paragraphs.
Giant masses of words make posts hard to read and understand.
I gave several references above; you're right the one from "Ballistics by the inch" does NOT list a reference "FBI load" 158 grain from a .38+P. So although that reference doesn't make my point, it also doesn't refute it.
Ultimately, like everything else, the Devil is in the details. In this case, the difference between a .38 and .357 is going to depend on both the length of the barrel as well as exactly which load you're talking about. In general, the longer the barrel, the more the .357 will outperform the .38s with good loads.
If you look at the charts you referenced, you'll notice that the muzzle energy of BOTH the .357 and .38 loads drop off really steeply under 4" barrels, especially the .357. But the numbers in those graphs are taken from test barrels. The numbers using actual guns are a little different, and BBTI did not use any actual .357 guns with 2" bbls for comparison. Another issue is that the Smith .38s use 1-7/8" bbls, but the 357s use 2-1/8" bbls. Even though both are called "two inch" the 357 is a quarter of an inch longer, and when you're starting at only 2", even a quarter of an inch more barrel can literally add 70fps to a .357 slug!
If you want to compare potential power, I think what you realistically need to do is to compare the BEST available .38+P loads to the best available .357 ones, since the optimal loads for each are probably different.
Bottom line, as I think I mentioned above, it that its probably safe to say that from ANY barrel length with similar weight bullets a good 357 load should outperform a good .38+P load. Its pretty simple. . .the .357 is supposed to be loaded to twice the pressure so it can't do "worse" than a similar weight .38!
The ultimate question isn't whether the .357 is better, its whether or not you're willing to put up with a lot more muzzle flash, more recoil, higher ammo and gun costs for the marginal increase in performance.
Speaking as someone who owns both .357 and .38 snubnoses, I personally am not. My take is that given that I'm fairly practiced with my snubnose and can place the shots where I like, I'm willing to give up some power for increased convenience in carrying a lighter weight, alloy frame gun. .38 may not be much, but I think its "good enough" for my purposes.
If you want max power, then by all means, not only should you go for the .357, but you should seriously consider a 3" barrel. With a .357 that one extra inch going from 2 to 3 inches can literally add another 250fps to your muzzle velocity, increasing your momentum by 25% and your energy by over 50%.0 -
Instead of limting yourself to a 2in. barrel, take a look at what you'll get with a 3in. tube. As long as you stick with a round-butt grip there's actually very little difference in their concealability, but that extra inch of barrel gives significant advantages.
As for ballistics, a 3in. will give you velocity/energy much closer to a 4in. barrel than a 2in.
A big issue with 2in. barrel on a .357 is that it seriously limits the length of the ejector rod. Those long - and often sticky - .357 cases can be extracted nowhere near clearing their chambers. The result is that a quick, clean reload is near impossible with this barrel length.
Users of these guns will generally be seen picking out cases individually with the fingers of one hand while keeping the ejector depressed with the other - all the while having to look down at their gun. In a defensive situation - which is what a concealment gun is designed for - if you've already had to fire six that's not a position you want to be in to get your gun back in business.
On the other hand, a 4in. barrel allows for a full length rod, which will require much less time and effort to remove what's essentially just debris that you need to get out of your way as quickly as possible.0 -
beantownshootah and Txs...thank you both for taking the time to explain your points so clearly. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments