1911Forum banner

Ballistic Results 357M from Lucky Gunner

2K views 46 replies 11 participants last post by  hardluk1 
#1 · (Edited)
For those interested in 357M, some ballistic tests, these guys do a great job...38 Special also included on top.
http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/rev...292904257&mc_cid=228d23db61&mc_eid=0d40107936

Some significant "over-penetration" in some of the loads (compared to FBI spec and in gel anyway). One load I shoot is the Hornady 158Gr which showed a 24" depth and and .53" expansion. The expansion is OK but "non-remarkable" but that is to be expected with that kind of penetration.

Interesting stuff, don't see much around on 357M tests, enjoy.

C.A.
 
#2 ·
Nice to see some wheelgun offerings evaluated...
 
#4 ·
Good points...To me, because all this ballistic stuff is "arguable", in pistol, most loads do not have enough energy to cause the proverbial hydrastatic-shock (general consensus on this). So "size" as measured by expanded bullet face surface area "matters". 45, and especially HST-45, really shines in this advantage...However, when one gets to top-end hot 357M and 10MM loads, the energy gets to the point where it starts to matter (and possibly H-shock). At top-end 357M loads the energy is some 65% more than 45-hst. So at the top-end, each round brings their "specialty" to the table. Good to have choices.
 
#5 ·
Not a big believer in energy dump at handgun velocities. I put more stock in momentum.

In that respect, 357 and 45acp are comparable.

If you want energy, you can get that as well in 45acp+P with light for caliber bullets. Underwood drives a 185 gn at 1200 fps for 592 fpe and PF of 222000. Or the 120 gn Xtreme defender bullet at 1420 fps for 532 fpe and PF of 170000. Certainly, both in the same class as 357.
 
#6 ·
Not a big believer in energy dump at handgun velocities. I put more stock in momentum.
I tend to agree. Of the 4 major metrics of bullet perfomance, momentum followed by expansion, followed by energy and penetration being weighted equally....
 
#7 · (Edited)
Top end 357M and 10mm are putting out~763 fpe, a material difference (always measure in "%" for a better comparison). But, I am not preaching anything is better than anything else, I shoot both 45 and Hot 357m for the reason's stipulated...Just like to keep the numbers straight.
 
#8 ·
And IF 100% of that energy stays in the target, it may "make up" for less than ideal penetration or momentum.

A while back, I came up with a rubric for evaluating potential handgun bullet perfomance... I'll see if I can find it. What I do recall is that Mo was weigted by 3.5x, expansion by 3x, Ke by 2x, and penetration by 1.5x. These values represent my opinion of what I believe to be important, as are the evaluation criteria and values for each metric.
 
#13 ·
#16 ·
It's the opinion of some that the .357 magnum has much of the reputation that it does because, during a time when hollowpoints often couldn't be relied upon to expand, the .357 was able to launch a bullet fast enough to get it to open up relatively consistently. This isn't quite as relevant nowadays, where the best hollowpoints across all service calibers can be counted on to expand most of the time.

I tend to agree with that, to some extent.

Most of the damage from handgun rounds is caused by the bullet directly crushing tissue. If you want a bigger wound cavity, you have to increase the frontal profile of the projectile. You can up the expansion by either increasing the amount of the bullet converted to frontal area, increasing the size of the bullet, or both.

Here's the thing, though: Eventually you're going to run out of mass to convert into frontal area. You could have a .22 that expands into a flat circle-essentially 100% efficiency-but it still wouldn't be very damaging, because there's just not enough metal there. At this point, your only recourse is to make the bullet bigger. The exception to that is if you can increase the velocity to the point where the bullet doesn't have to directly impact structures to damage them; at full size .357 magnum levels, the damage caused from the temporary cavity does start to become noticeable, but I doubt it makes much difference in a snubnose.

Now the thing about .357 is that it's probably better than most other handgun calibers at taking advantage of what mass it does have, due to its higher velocity. That doesn't change the fact that it's not a very big bullet. A larger .45 round will simply always have more potential for expansion than a smaller .357. Actually achieving this potential is not a certain thing, but the capacity is there.

This is the primary reason I favor momentum over energy for service caliber handguns. Not so much because the momentum itself helps the bullet do more damage (it plays a part, it's simply not the main reason why), but rather because velocity and mass are weighted equally. Mass, as I see it, is a measure of the bullet's potential, and velocity is what helps you achieve that potential.
 
#17 · (Edited)
Important to be specific when comparing loads...357 Buffalo Bore HP hurls a 158gr projectile at 1475, that surpasses 45 HST in (momentum) by some 15%. And even surpass 45 HST+p in momentum. 45 is the expansion king in hst, but these hot 357M loads (along with hot 10mm loads) far exceed 45 in energy levels. By some 65%. Although I am a big 45-fanboy, can't ignore what full power 357 brings to the table. If you haven't shot full-power 357, try it, it is quite a different feel/experience than shooting a 45. Watch the vid of Jerry M. I posted above, he is having some real-fun.

That is just the start at the top-end, the "woodsman" loads go way up there in momentum, 180Gr, 200gr. The energy starts to level off as the velocity comes down with the heavier grains, but MO keeps going up.

Granted there is a 45 super and all that, so it is important to be specific when making comparisons...I do get a kick when folks compare 357 sig and even 38s to 357M. Only compares at the very low end.
 
#18 ·
What's interesting is that the LG data does not bother to provide either energy or momentum numbers, but instead provides the effect each load had on the gel with penetration, expansion, etc.

In the final analysis, there isn't much if any difference between 357 and 45. Synthetic metrics be damned.
 
#19 ·
I think they're trying to simplify the information presented, as well as the format, to make an easy to read product. They've also tested scores, if not hundereds, of loads, took exqcting mesuements, and collated and published the data... adding Mo and Ke would be 2 additional calculations, and be time consuming.

If one is interested, all of the information needed (bullet weight and actual velocity) is provided to plug into a ballistics calculator.
 
#24 ·
Yes, that's basically correct; the intended purpose of my post was more to explain the possible reasons why .357 magnum didn't tend to attain results as good as .45. I think measures of external ballistics are usually quite poor for gauging terminal effectiveness regardless, but as far as most handgun rounds go, if I had to rely on a metric, I'd rather go with momentum.
 
#21 ·
Still use the wheel gun in 357 BUT got my new CC gun last Saturday and waiting for the ammo to get here and the ivory grips got here yesterday. First time for me--NH 10mm Commander! This ammo is only being carried for people to light for hogs lol.

https://underwoodammo.com/shop/10mm-auto-155-grain-xtp-jacketed-hollow-point/

774 ftlbs at 1500 should do the trick to anything with 2 legs lol...

If I need more power still can carry the 454 Gemini Customs Ruger! If the bullet does not get them the MB:bawling: will!:rock:
 
#22 ·
That will do it Dave...If I recall correctly, isn't this a change for you, I think you were carrying 9mm in some post last year? Quite a step-up! ;-)
 
#31 ·
There does come a time where the amounts of energy "start" to matter (not all loads are created equal in this regard either). It arguably might be at the full-power 357M loads (and 10 mm for that matter), which are quite higher by some 60% than 45 hst of hot 9mm. Wiki has a decent discussion of energy and hydrastatic-shock. No hard conclusions, and different "expert" views. One can only try to connect the dots based on what "data" and anecdotal evidence is available to them. But certainly, hot 357M and 10mm, although smaller than 45 are bringing something "else" to the table when it comes to "take-down" on 2 legged and 4 legged alike.

I don't know where the magic of hydrostatic shock happens.
I may have read ,"somewhere " it starts at around 1800fps

All the metrics used to attempt to quantify "stopping power" boil down to one simple fact, the slug that does the most tissue damage wins the contest..

Could it be 357m and 10 enjoy an "upper tier" stopping power reputation due to simple increased penetration??
In other words, more tissue damage

I think maybe

LTA
 
#32 · (Edited)
I don't know where the magic of hydrostatic shock happens.
I may have read ,"somewhere " it starts at around 1800fps

All the metrics used to attempt to quantify "stopping power" boil down to one simple fact, the slug that does the most tissue damage wins the contest..

Could it be 357m and 10 enjoy an "upper tier" stopping power reputation due to simple increased penetration??
In other words, more tissue damage


I think maybe

LTA
I don't know, but lets test this "hypotheses":

We can "model" the damage in the target as a cylinder's worth of tissue damage. So the question is, which cylinder is bigger (containing more volume of tissue damage).

It is impossible to get a perfectly apples to apples comparison because of the numerous different loads, and because we do not have data on all loads...What we do have is data from lucky gunner on 45 and 357 both out of a 4" - well almost the 45 is out of a 3.64" barrel.

I will use HST in 45-230, and Hornady 158 in 357M. Both of these are very respected in their space and I've shot both of them. Here is the data from Lucky-Gunner:

Horn.-357M 158: Depth (average 5 shot) 24.7"; Diameter .53".
HST-45 230: Depth 14"; Diameter .85.

Convert the diameters' to radius and stick them in an on-line "Volume of a cylinder" (representing the tissue damage) calculator, we get:

357M 158 at 5.45 cubic inches of tissue damage.
HST 45 230 7.95 cubic inches of tissue damage.

Conclusion, nope, it is not the penetration based on this choice of data. In this hypothetical example, HST in 45 is doing 45% more tissue damage....Thinking about this, the diameter of the expanded HST round far exceeds (in %) the 357M round and the radius (D/2) is "squared" in the volume equation (whereas the depth is not). A little extra diameter goes a long way. {Aside: This is indeed what makes 45 more effective than a 9mm (round for round, all other things equal, and where the muzzle energies are very similar)}....

So the 45 is hypothetically doing more tissue damage round for round (even if the 357M did "find a way" to spend all 24" within the target.)

Although this is more anecdotal than a one-for-one comparison, it does give us some view as to what is going on with each caliber, and I have to go back to saying it is the high-energy that the 357M brings to the table vs other typical pistol calibers (and the opportunity for Hydrostatic -shock to start to be meaningful) which is the differentiator. Open to other ideas, certainly.

Check my calculations, I can barley remember my address anymore:biglaugh: so certainly something could be off. And let me know what you think overall.
 
#34 ·
I have no science to stand on, but there is a point often overlooked here. I think we all agree that that shot placement is king. If we accept that... then a wide bullet gives you a better chance of hitting something important. And a wide bullet that penetrates deeply gives you even more. A full caliber hole from a .45 SWC is good. And expanded hollow points get up to damned near an inch. You simply give yourself more of an edge. I want that.
 
#36 · (Edited)
I have no science to stand on, but there is a point often overlooked here. I think we all agree that that shot placement is king. If we accept that... then a wide bullet gives you a better chance of hitting something important. And a wide bullet that penetrates deeply gives you even more. A full caliber hole from a .45 SWC is good. And expanded hollow points get up to damned near an inch. You simply give yourself more of an edge. I want that.
Well as I see it a 9mm bullet, when it works, expands to about a .45 in size. So a .45 that doesn't expand is still better than a 9mm that does expand. But if the .45 expands or has some other design that acts like it expands, then so much the better.
Yes, igli and earl, 45 has this distinct advantage vs the "30" calibers (and even 40). Many of us are 45-fan-boys (I certainly am :)) so no argument...We are having a little fun with understand how 357M, which is a "small" bullet (relatively) has distinguished itself in SD over all these years.


Interesting and creative way to look at it... and defiantly a valuable insight. I like the concept. One could dig even deeper into the available quantifiable data, as the wound channels illustrated in gel exceed the maximum expanded diameter in places, and are far narrower at the tail- the permanent wound channel is far less than bullet diameter. Of particular interest is the area and degree of larger than diameter permanent tissue damage. SOMETHING causes this... whether its a product of energy or momentum, or a proportion of both, I don't know...
Thanks WC....

Cappi, are you "on-board"? :)
 
#39 ·
Always remember that a projectile with a larger frontal load bearing area (bigger around) always transfers more energy faster % wise than a smaller diameter frontal area given the same velocity. Now if the smaller diameter or bearing area projectile impact velocity is much higher then more analysis is required.

Penetration on a potential 2 legged target is not at least for me as much of a concern as the expending of the energy of the projectile into the target GIVEN THE OUTSTANDING performance of the current selection of loaded ammunition for this purpose.
 
#41 ·
It's a shame that Federal's new .38 special HST offering was not yet out in the market for this test. Helpful nonetheless. I ended up with a couple boxes of gold sabers, as they were in my top 3 from the tested loads. None of the ranger loads were available and surprisingly the gold dots did not function from a 2". Interesting.
 
#43 ·
Hold- squat for a few.... LG has been pretty good at adding new offerings as they bacon available..
 
#42 ·
CA, in the interest of intellectual honesty, the tissue damage is not linear along the depth of penatration.... if you look at gel tests, (with good, high performing offerings) you see a short, narrow wound, leading to a rapidly growing (and often far greater than expanded diameter) mid depth wound, followed by a long, narrower than expansion, tail....

While I like the concept, and it may be a good average of wound channel , I'm not sure how to apply it as a quantifiable metric of predictive terminal performance...

Defiantly food for thought...
 
#44 ·
It is just a basic "model" all appropriate caveats apply...I am sure somewhere out there someone can include the variation in the wound channels in the calculations, but it is beyond my mathematical skills these days (although once upon a time I probably could - use it or lose it as they say ;-)).

Lets keep in mind the conversation basic question: what differentiates the 357M from other small calibers like 9mm, 38s, and 357sig? It is not the bullet size, it is likely the significant more energy. This energy is doing "something" on target.
 
#47 ·
As a guy thats shot and hunted with 357mag since '76 and loaded for it during these years I also know that for personal defense a 4" barrel 357mag is giving up some major energy and velocity and would rather carry any number of semi auto pistol in several other cartridge choices for personal defense .

When I can get a 40sw with 155gr in the low 1300fps range with a 200+ PF or right at 600ftlbs energy and depending on the bullet make and design the expansion and penetration will change . I also know I can fire more rounds quicker and keep them in the A zone of a uspsa target from a 25oz hot loaded 155gr 40sw pistol in the same time it takes to fire 6 rounds of 158gr 357mag in the same power energy range from a 42+ revolver .

Regardless , none of these cartidges are one shot gar-o-teed one shot man stoppers when driven at velocities you can achieved from a 4" barrel .

So debate the pros and cons of various 357mag loads for another week and all the comparison you can come up with . Bottom line is every one should own a good revolver or 3 but there nothing special as a carry gun today .

Even the 357mag vs 45 debate , there also the 45 P+ and 45 super loads for can throw into this debate since the handgun is the same with only a recoil spring change needed , maybe .

MY preferred 357mag hunting load fired from a 8" DW revolver pushes a speer 170gr sp at in the low to mid 1400fps range and as good as that may seem it is a nothing special woods cartridge .



Pick what your comfortable with and move along .
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top