User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
OH, USA
|
Posted: 5/14/2011 1:25:15 PM EDT
[#1]
Originally Posted By Zhukov:
There's Ayoob's nebulous slaughterhouse shootings, and there's Dr. Roberts saying that real-life OIS's don't show the .357SIG having an advantage. My money is on the latter.  i take it all in, valuable info from all!
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 5/15/2011 9:42:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: kevin44mag]
[#2]
I don't know about you guys but I have a hard time going by he said she said for shooting data. Im sure Dr Roberts shooting data is great. but im sure he has never seen a person shot with said 357 sig. He is relying on he said she said data (reports) and balistic performance like everyone else. There is no way to evaluate the data 100% and discredit the round, unless you were to line up several hundered inmates on death row and shoot large groups with each caliber to determin lethality. Am I sold on the 357 sig? No I carry a .45 ccw and a .40 for duty. Is the 357 sig leaps and bounds better than a 9mm? I don't think it is but it does offer some performance advantages. We will never know 100% how well a said caliber does agaisnt people unless we started executing death row inmates with gut shots etc. Officer involved shootings have way to many factors to start throwing calibers in the mix...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2011 10:04:44 PM EDT
[#3]
Originally Posted By kevin44mag: I don't know about you guys but I have a hard time going by he said she said for shooting data. Im sure Dr Roberts shooting data is great. but im sure he has never seen a person shot with said 357 sig. He is relying on he said she said data (reports) and balistic performance like everyone else. There is no way to evaluate the data 100% and discredit the round, unless you were to line up several hundered inmates on death row and shoot large groups with each caliber to determin lethality. Am I sold on the 357 sig? No I carry a .45 ccw and a .40 for duty. Is the 357 sig leaps and bounds better than a 9mm? I don't think it is but it does offer some performance advantages. We will never know 100% how well a said caliber does agaisnt people unless we started executing death row inmates with gut shots etc. Officer involved shootings have way to many factors to start throwing calibers in the mix... You know you more or less paraphrased Doc Roberts write up right? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 2:51:03 PM EDT
[#4]
Originally Posted By Madcap72:
Originally Posted By kevin44mag:
I don't know about you guys but I have a hard time going by he said she said for shooting data. Im sure Dr Roberts shooting data is great. but im sure he has never seen a person shot with said 357 sig. He is relying on he said she said data (reports) and balistic performance like everyone else. There is no way to evaluate the data 100% and discredit the round, unless you were to line up several hundered inmates on death row and shoot large groups with each caliber to determin lethality. Am I sold on the 357 sig? No I carry a .45 ccw and a .40 for duty. Is the 357 sig leaps and bounds better than a 9mm? I don't think it is but it does offer some performance advantages. We will never know 100% how well a said caliber does agaisnt people unless we started executing death row inmates with gut shots etc. Officer involved shootings have way to many factors to start throwing calibers in the mix... You know you more or less paraphrased Doc Roberts write up right? 
|
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 3:06:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: kevin44mag]
[#5]
Originally Posted By Madcap72:
Originally Posted By kevin44mag:
I don't know about you guys but I have a hard time going by he said she said for shooting data. Im sure Dr Roberts shooting data is great. but im sure he has never seen a person shot with said 357 sig. He is relying on he said she said data (reports) and balistic performance like everyone else. There is no way to evaluate the data 100% and discredit the round, unless you were to line up several hundered inmates on death row and shoot large groups with each caliber to determin lethality. Am I sold on the 357 sig? No I carry a .45 ccw and a .40 for duty. Is the 357 sig leaps and bounds better than a 9mm? I don't think it is but it does offer some performance advantages. We will never know 100% how well a said caliber does agaisnt people unless we started executing death row inmates with gut shots etc. Officer involved shootings have way to many factors to start throwing calibers in the mix... You know you more or less paraphrased Doc Roberts write up right? Yes and no. The fact that it is unknown about the performance increase sure... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 3:26:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Zhukov]
[#6]
Originally Posted By kevin44mag: I don't know about you guys but I have a hard time going by he said she said for shooting data. Im sure Dr Roberts shooting data is great. but im sure he has never seen a person shot with said 357 sig. He is relying on he said she said data (reports) and balistic performance like everyone else. There is no way to evaluate the data 100% and discredit the round, unless you were to line up several hundered inmates on death row and shoot large groups with each caliber to determin lethality. Am I sold on the 357 sig? No I carry a .45 ccw and a .40 for duty. Is the 357 sig leaps and bounds better than a 9mm? I don't think it is but it does offer some performance advantages. We will never know 100% how well a said caliber does agaisnt people unless we started executing death row inmates with gut shots etc. Officer involved shootings have way to many factors to start throwing calibers in the mix... Forensic reports from the medical examiner qualifies for a little more than "he said, she said". Just because you and I don't have access to that data doesn't mean that the right people don't. [ETA] He also didn't discredit the round; he merely said that it doesn't seem to offer any appreciable advantage over other calibers. |
|
|
|
AFG
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 3:27:14 PM EDT
[#7]
Originally Posted By kevin44mag:
Originally Posted By Madcap72:
Originally Posted By kevin44mag:
I don't know about you guys but I have a hard time going by he said she said for shooting data. Im sure Dr Roberts shooting data is great. but im sure he has never seen a person shot with said 357 sig. He is relying on he said she said data (reports) and balistic performance like everyone else. There is no way to evaluate the data 100% and discredit the round, unless you were to line up several hundered inmates on death row and shoot large groups with each caliber to determin lethality. Am I sold on the 357 sig? No I carry a .45 ccw and a .40 for duty. Is the 357 sig leaps and bounds better than a 9mm? I don't think it is but it does offer some performance advantages. We will never know 100% how well a said caliber does agaisnt people unless we started executing death row inmates with gut shots etc. Officer involved shootings have way to many factors to start throwing calibers in the mix... You know you more or less paraphrased Doc Roberts write up right? Yes and no. The fact that it is unknown about the performance increase sure... It's good to be skeptical, but the testing used dose correlate to what is seen on the street. |
|
|
LA, USA
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 4:13:36 PM EDT
[#8]
Originally Posted By Zhukov:
This just came up on another board, and I figured it would be interesting to share here. Originally posted by DocGKR:
I am grateful that the 357 Sig issuing agencies are satisfied with their weapon system performance. By the same token, every single agency that I am aware of that has acquired reliable pistols, diligently emphasizes frequent realistic lethal force training and tactics, and uses good quality service pistol ammunition in 9 mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP are also very happy with their shooting results. Good Training and Proper Psychological Preparedness coupled with Reliable Weapon Systems and followed by Frequent Practice is what will win the battles. Is the 357 Sig bad? NO! It is a very reliably performing 9mm bullet, but it is does not offer significantly better terminal performance compared with the best current 9mm ammunition. When firing through heavy clothing, automotive steel panels, automobile windshield glass, interior wall segments, exterior wall segments, and plywood, both the 357 Sig Speer 125 gr JHP Gold Dot and 9mm Speer 124 gr +P JHP Gold Dot exhibited nearly identical penetration and expansion results THROUGH ALL THE DIFFERENT BARRIERS, as demonstrated by both our testing and that of the FBI. Most 357 Sig loadings, unless the fail to expand, do not offer excessive penetration; in fact, the exact opposite, under-penetration, can be a problem. Several .40 S&W and .45 ACP loads offered superior terminal performance through barriers compared to the 9mm and 357 Sig loads. In addition to having tested virtually all the handgun ammo available in lab settings, we have also had the opportunity to analyze numerous OIS incident forensic results and have not observed any greater incapacitation in actual shootings with users of 357 Sig loads compared to those users of 9 mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP who are using equivalent modern, well engineered ammunition. The 357 Sig is not a bad cartridge, it just does not seem to offer anything that is not already available, at the price of less ammunition capacity than the similarly performing 9mm, as well as having greater recoil, muzzle flash, and wear on the weapon compared to other service pistol cartridges. On the other hand, since the 357 Sig is a modern cartridge benefiting from the latest engineering concepts, the bullets loaded with it have generally all been designed and tested using the latest FBI, IWBA, etc... testing protocols. This results in more robust terminal performance, less failures to expand, and thus greater tissue damage than will be found with older projectile designs. In addition, since according to data from Fackler and others, approximately 50% of shooting victims are incapacitated by psychological mechanisms, it is possible that the increased blast, flash, and noise of the 357 Sig enhances psychological perceptions of being shot. In discussing this issue with an experienced ammunition engineer at one of the major ammo companies, he stated that he didn't particularly like the 357 Sig from an engineering perspective and described their difficulties in designing and producing 357 Sig ammunition which consistently performs as well as their ammunition in other service calibers. In particular, he felt his company's 357 Sig loads offered no better performance than their top 9 mm loads and stated their .40 S&W loads were superior in every respect to their 357 Sig ammunition. He firmly believes their .40 S&W offerings are the best performing duty ammunition his company produces. We have found .40 S&W 180 gr to perform very well against barriers––better than the 9 mm and 357 Sig. The CHP used a variety of .357 Mag loads, depending upon what was available via the state contract. According to the published CHP test data, the .357 Magnum load used immediately prior to the CHP transition to .40 S&W was the Remington 125 gr JHP with an ave. MV of 1450 f/s from their duty revolvers––CHP has continued to report greater success with their .40 S&W 180 gr JHP than with the .357 Magnum 125 gr JHP they previously issued. For many agencies, adoption of a new weapon system frequently necessitates more intensive training and instruction than might typically occur, thus officer's shooting skills might be at a higher peak than normal and qualification scores and hopefully officer involved shooting hits might increase. Having confidence in your handgun is a GREAT reason to choose a particular caliber and weapon system; if a 357 Sig works for you, go for it. Neither myself nor any of my colleagues choose to carry 357 Sig––quite a few of us carry 9 mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP. However, if I was at an agency that gave me unlimited 357 Sig ammo, then I would happily carry it! The bottom line is that all of the common service pistol calibers have loads that work––pick something that is reliable and works well for you, then practice......................a lot. [ETA] Emphasis/highlighting is mine. Wonder how the Secret Service feel about this as they had to do some testing of their own? On a related note, I was considering a 1911 in 9x23 until I realized it matches .357 Sig velocities. Didn't even compare against a 9mm +P - have to go look. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 5:49:12 PM EDT
[#9]
USSS has different criteria for what they want in service ammo. Their criteria has always been to shy away from deep penetration. Look at the history of their service loads:
110gr +P+ in .38spec 115gr +P+ in 9mm 125gr in .357sig The problem is they havent been in many shootouts with those rounds. Most of their shootings involve friendly fire or NDs. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 2/11/2012 3:21:43 AM EDT
[#10]
Originally Posted By Madcap72:
Originally Posted By Zhukov:
Or the gun come apart after a few thousand rounds. I don't think most of them would like it. Maybe race guns.
Originally Posted By Madcap72:
If by your theory 9mm Para is equal to .357 Magnum, I'd like to see you load up some 125 grain bullets that can push 1600 fps.
The 1600fps will be good for penetrating hard barriers, but it won't really buy you that much in tissue. Just like the .357SIG, you might just see reduced penetration. race guns use loads just hot enough to make the grade consistently |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2012 3:28:12 AM EDT
[#11]
Originally Posted By hunter111: Originally Posted By Madcap72: Originally Posted By Zhukov: Or the gun come apart after a few thousand rounds. I don't think most of them would like it. Maybe race guns.Originally Posted By Madcap72: If by your theory 9mm Para is equal to .357 Magnum, I'd like to see you load up some 125 grain bullets that can push 1600 fps. The 1600fps will be good for penetrating hard barriers, but it won't really buy you that much in tissue. Just like the .357SIG, you might just see reduced penetration. race guns use loads just hot enough to make the grade consistently Which, with all the race guns I've seen, means high velocity, for high chamber pressure, for more gas through the compensator. But they are built for it. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 2/11/2012 5:16:32 PM EDT
[#12]
Originally Posted By WilsonCQB1911:
I would dismiss the 357 Sig except for Massad Ayoob's affinity for it as of late. On one of the podcasts he is a regular guest on he discussed that they had done testing at slaughterhouses with it and hadn't seen any other caliber put down animals as fast as the 357 Sig did. 
First off, an actual firearm is rarely used in a modern slaughterhouse. Typically a bolt gun is used that is operated with either a specially made blank cartridge or compressed air. Even when a gun is used (as was the case with the testing Mr. Ayoob did, the animal is put down with a well placed shot through either the front of the skull or the back of the head where the skull and spine meet. The brain stem is severed and the animal will immedietly drop whether you are using a .22, 9mm, .357, .40, or .45. They all work equally well, I have witnessed it first hand helping out on our neighbor's ranch. .22 is actually the most prefferable because it creates less mess. If the animal's skull is too thick for a .22 to be effective, a 9mm is used instead. Mr. Ayoob tries to give the impression that he went out and shot an animal through the chest and timed how long it took to die. I can almost certianly assure you that is not what took place. Slaughterhouses don't want to have to pick bullets out of the meat before they sell it. Besides, there are laws that require slaughterhouses to kill animals humanely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2012 6:14:33 PM EDT
[#13]
Originally Posted By Zhukov:
There's Ayoob's nebulous slaughterhouse shootings, and there's Dr. Roberts saying that real-life OIS's don't show the .357SIG having an advantage. My money is on the latter. But then...... Marshal/Sanow's discredited oppinions were supposedly based on "real world" OIS, no?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2012 6:24:12 PM EDT
[#14]
Originally Posted By SrBenelli: Originally Posted By Zhukov: There's Ayoob's nebulous slaughterhouse shootings, and there's Dr. Roberts saying that real-life OIS's don't show the .357SIG having an advantage. My money is on the latter. But then...... Marshal/Sanow's discredited oppinions were supposedly based on "real world" OIS, no? No. Blatant data misinterpretation and falsification. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2013 10:17:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AR15fan]
[#15]
I've disagreed with the good Dentist in the past but he is right on this issue. 357Sig has no significant advantage and brings some serious negatives against it (capacity, recoil, wear, muzzle blast, expense)
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2013 10:52:24 PM EDT
[#16]
Originally Posted By AR15fan: I've disagreed with the good Dentist in the past but he is right on this issue. 357Sig has no significant advantage and brings some serious negatives against it (capacity, recoil, wear, muzzle blast, expense) What are your qualifications to disagree with him? |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 1:12:25 PM EDT
[#17]
OK, so if I have this correct; The 357 SIG is maybe equal or a little better than the best 9mm +p and +p+ at the cost of capacity and increased recoil. And it is equal to the best 40SW in unobstructed terminal performance and a little worse than the best 40SW in barrier pen. So generally it's pretty darn good but not magical.
I like the 357 SIG and enjoy shooting it. It's very accurate and a little less snappy than the 40. If I had to hunt or to put down an animal with a handgun, I would chose the 357 SIG, preferably with the Horn. 147 HP. For day to day carry, I prefer the 9mm. I also respect both DOC Roberts and Mas Ayoub and believe they have good info. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 1:52:29 PM EDT
[#18]
Whats being said is .357sig is equal to the best 9mm loads, regardless of pressure rating.
It may be slightly better than 9mm when auto glass is concerned. It depends on the bullet. The .40, with good bullets is better than both 9mm and .40 when encountering barriers that include auto glass and auto bodies. If you arw gonna put an animal down you are going to use a .357sig round that uses a 9mm bullet? A bullet that is 80's tech? I guess I just find that bizarre, thats all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2020 5:55:55 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zhukov:
There's Ayoob's nebulous slaughterhouse shootings, and there's Dr. Roberts saying that real-life OIS's don't show the .357SIG having an advantage. My money is on the latter. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2020 5:57:31 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WilsonCQB1911:
The problem you are seeing with todays testing methods isnt there. There have been studies that correlate lab testing with real life shootings. We can easily draw the conclusion that if it works in a controlled lab test, it will work on the street. Can you be more specific as to why you wouldn't listen to him? While I think that the testing is useful, I don't think you can say that shooting at gel is the same as shooting at people. I think you can say that you can learn some useful information from the results and use that to predict how a load would do against people, but that's different than saying that lab testing is the same. As such, there will always be shortcomings from testing in media as it is not the same as on people. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WilsonCQB1911:
Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:
I wouldnt listen to Massad Ayoob on anything with regards to firearms. There's just way too many discrepancies and inconsistencies when it comes to terminal ballistics, and shooting in general. Massad Ayoob cant walk away from the light and fast fallacy, to do so he admits failure. Can you be more specific as to why you wouldn't listen to him? While I think that the testing is useful, I don't think you can say that shooting at gel is the same as shooting at people. I think you can say that you can learn some useful information from the results and use that to predict how a load would do against people, but that's different than saying that lab testing is the same. As such, there will always be shortcomings from testing in media as it is not the same as on people. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2020 6:03:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 03RN]
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mgunner9:
If we accept Dr. Roberts evidence then we must conclude that •The .357 Magnum is identical in both ballistics and projectile to the .357 Sig •That the .357 Sig is not superior (therefore equal or less) to the 9mm Parrabellum in performance •Therefore the .357 magnum is equal to the 9mmP I just don’t believe it! In other words. We do not need to come to that conclusion |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2020 6:08:16 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AR15fan:
I've disagreed with the good Dentist in the past but he is right on this issue. 357Sig has no significant advantage and brings some serious negatives against it (capacity, recoil, wear, muzzle blast, expense) Where was this written? I think the wear and muzzle blast with +p/+p+ is just about as bad as the sig and capacity is only 2 off. Not really serious negatives. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2020 6:10:48 PM EDT
[#23]
"Several .40 S&W and .45 ACP loads offered superior terminal performance through barriers compared to the 9mm and 357 Sig loads."
Thought this was an interesting point as well. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2020 6:19:45 PM EDT
[#24]
Lol, sorry about this necro post. It was linked to in GD
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/20/2020 7:16:20 PM EDT
[#25]
does not offer significantly better terminal performance compared with the best current 9mm ammunition. When firing through heavy clothing, automotive steel panels, automobile windshield glass, interior wall segments, exterior wall segments, and plywood, both the 357 Sig Speer 125 gr JHP Gold Dot and 9mm Speer 124 gr +P JHP Gold Dot exhibited nearly identical penetration and expansion results THROUGH ALL THE DIFFERENT BARRIERS, as demonstrated by both our testing and that of the FBI. Most 357 Sig loadings, unless the fail to expand, do not offer excessive penetration; in fact, the exact opposite, under-penetration, can be a problem. Several .40 S&W and .45 ACP loads offered superior terminal performance through barriers compared to the 9mm and 357 Sig loads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2020 8:40:13 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By t3rcermillennium:
bullshit. .357 SIG does penetrate better than any of those, and .45 does not penetrate better than 9mm. I don't believe anything else this nut case has to say. |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 1/21/2020 12:41:48 AM EDT
[#27]
Pretty interesting comparison of .357 SIG vs 9, 40, 45, and 7.62x25 against sheet metal:
https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/-/5-577709/ 9mm NATO FMJ makes it through 2x steel plates, dents the 3rd. 45 FMJ +P Doubletap makes it through 2x steel plates, partially penetrates the 3rd. .357 white box FMJ zips through all 3x plates. Wish the test could be redone with 4x plates. |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 1/21/2020 1:20:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: spydercomonkey]
[#28]
In my opinion, .357 SIG is a superb cartridge, but was poorly executed.
Within SAAMI pressure Specs, .357 SIG can hit 1500fps from a 4" barrel, and 1600fps from a G35. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ughIFOrIP_w Sadly, most manufacturers chose to underload the cartridge - loading to around 1350fps from a 4" barrel. And they also all used controlled expansion JHP's optimized for deeper (~18") penetration. The result was expansion comparable to 9x19, but just a few inches deeper. And the extra energy of the .357 SIG was watered down due to this extra penetration. 500 ft'lbs / 1.5 feet = 333 "foot pounds" in effective ballistic pressure curve in the temporary stretch cavity. Contrast this with the .357 Magnum it was intended to replicate. The Magnum launched 125gr @ 1450fps, and I think more importantly, employed a JHP projectile design that designed for explosive expansion and 12-14" penetration, creating a much sharper pressure curve in the temporary stretch cavity, and I suspect a more pronounced, OODA Loop resetting psychological reaction for the recipients. 584 ft'lbs / 1.16 feet = 503 "foot pounds" of ballistic pressure curve in temporary stretch cavity. Worse, the guns chosen to fire this powerful cartridge were typically short barreled; the most common, the SIG 229, had a 3.9" barrel, exacerbating both blast and snappiness. If we had a time machine, I would have had .357 SIG loaded to a full 1450fps from a 4" barrel. And designed it to fire the same exact 125gr SJHP used in the classic, street proven Remington .357 Magnum load. The result would have been achieving the actual goal - a true, autloading ballistic twin to the .357 revolver. And for guns, the ideal would have been a Glock "35.7." A solid top slide version of the Glock 35, chambered in .357 SIG. Or since it was a SIG, something like a 5" longslide version of the 226, such as the X5. The longer/heavier slide would help soften the recoil, and the longer barrel would boost velocity to 1550fps. Paired with a weapon light (which adds another 5oz toward the muzzle for recoil control) and it would have been an ideal duty sidearm. Alas, its too late now. 40 S&W is in sharp decline, and .357 sig is effectively in a coma. 20 years from now, I suspect it will be one of those obsolete cartridges we talk about with sad reverence for what could have been, like we do now with 9x23 Winchester. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2020 12:27:30 PM EDT
[#29]
1) Steel penetration isn't the be-all-end-all in bullet performance.
2) If the impact of the temporary stretch cavity for pistol cartridges were that advantageous, we'd see it in the performance of the 357 being much superior. Even more: The .44mag ought to be the penultimate cartridge. But they're not. Science has shown that velocity just isn't that important for pistols and even 1400-1600fps won't change that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2020 3:04:48 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DesertSkorpion:
Interesting read. I never figured the 357 sig any better than the other calibers except it is flatter shooting. That is one reason I own one. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2020 5:43:24 PM EDT
[#31]
I think it's a good SD round just going by the numbers. I also think it takes the drawbacks of 9mm and 40 S&W and combines them in one cartridge.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2020 6:00:59 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LV1976:
I think it's a good SD round just going by the numbers. I also think it takes the drawbacks of 9mm and 40 S&W and combines them in one cartridge. 
|
|
|
|
CT, USA
|
Posted: 1/22/2020 12:55:21 AM EDT
[#33]
www.marksmanshipmatters.com/the-357-sig-357-auto-pistol-cartridge/
This article is the best rebuttal as to why the .357 sig is a great cartridge and should be more popular. |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 1/22/2020 2:03:01 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zhukov:
2) If the impact of the temporary stretch cavity for pistol cartridges were that advantageous, we'd see it in the performance of the 357 being much superior. Even more: The .44mag ought to be the penultimate cartridge. But they're not. Science has shown that velocity just isn't that important for pistols and even 1400-1600fps won't change that. http://www.brassfetcher.com/Wounding%20Theories/Velocity%20of%20Radial%20Expansion.html Pistol cartridges including .22LR, .32ACP, .380ACP, 9x19mm, .40S&W, .45ACP, .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum JHPs as well as 22 K-Hornet, 223 Remington, 260 Remington, 308 Winchester and 30-06 Springfield rifles were evaluated in 20-percent ballistic gelatin and the results recorded on high speed video. From these videos, analysis was conducted of the velocity and instantaneous kinetic energy of the point of maximum temporary cavity diameter for each shot. It was found that the magnitude of kinetic energy present at any point during the expansion was directly attributable to the initial velocity of the projectile at impact. Expanded diameter appeared to play little, if any role in influencing temporary cavity diameter. Handguns such as 9x19mm and .40S&W appear to be the lower threshold for wounding through tissue expansion, with .357 Magnum a marked improvement over the two. Rifles of moderate recoil demonstrate impressive tissue expansion upon bullet impact. "With a peak radial kinetic energy of 7.85 ft-lbf, the radial movement of tissue away from a 357 Magnum 125gr Speer Gold Dot JHP (at 1405 ft/sec impact velocity) is capable of creating a wound similar to a 0.177” steel BB traveling at 850 ft/sec. At that velocity, a steel BB is capable of penetrating well over 4” of 10-percent ballistic gelatin." By comparison, 5.56 at the muzzle: With a peak radial kinetic energy of 21.8 ft-lbf, the radial movement of tissue away from a 223 Remington 55gr Barnes TSX (at 2976 ft/sec impact velocity) is capable of creating a wound similar to a 0.177” steel BB traveling at 1416 ft/sec. So, obviously a 550 ft'lb cartridge does not produce the wounding of a 1200 ftlb rifle. But the beginnings of additional wounding through TSC begin with .357 magnum per Brassfetcher. The whole article is worth reading. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2020 12:13:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Zhukov]
[#35]
I've talked to brassfetcher. He does some good stuff but he's not a ballistics experts. Doctor Roberts is.
"Dr. Gary K. Roberts (DocGKR) is currently on staff at Stanford University Medical Center; this is a large teaching hospital and Level I Trauma center were he performs hospital dentistry and surgery. After completing his residency at Navy Hospital Oakland in 1989 while on active military duty, he studied at the Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory at the Letterman Army Institute of Research and became one of the first members of the International Wound Ballistic Association. Since then, he has been tasked with performing military, law enforcement, and privately funded independent wound ballistic testing and analysis. As a U.S. Navy Reserve officer from 1986 to 2008, he served on the Joint Service Wound Ballistic IPT, as well as being a consultant to the Joint FBI-USMC munitions testing program and the TSWG MURG program. He is frequently asked to provide wound ballistic technical assistance to numerous U.S. and allied SOF units and organizations, such as the Canadian Armed Forces Weapons Effect and Protection SIPES TDP. " |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 1/22/2020 11:57:53 PM EDT
[#36]
I'd say Brassfetcher has comparable credentials:
Brass Fetcher Ballistic Testing has been in commercial operation since 2011. It was initially started by myself as a hobby website while I was studying Mechanical Engineering at Florida State University. That was 2004 and I began my interest in studying terminal ballistics, that is, what a bullet does after it strikes a target. Most of the time, ballistic gelatin blocks were the target and these results were posted to the Internet and enjoyed wide distribution to the online firearms community. Immediately upon graduating University, I went to work for the Unites States Army, Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey. There I was a Research and Development engineer in the Small Caliber Munitions group, where I worked on a variety of long-term terminal ballistics tests, weapon evaluations, redesigns, proprietary cartridge and projectile development. My service with ARDEC afforded me the opportunity to interact with countless dedicated people who are experts at their craft both at Picatinny Arsenal and at other Department of Defense Activities for a span of 4 years. After employment with the US Government, Brass Fetcher Ballistic Testing was incorporated in the state of Florida and began to function as a commercial for-profit company. Today we provide third-party terminal ballistics testing solutions to Ammunition Developers, slow motion video footage to Film Libraries, Firearms owners and Historical Researchers. I am available to provide Expert Witness testimony in matters concerning bullet impacts and effects on human beings and inanimate objects. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2020 12:15:19 PM EDT
[#37]
Brassfetcher is a good guy and I know him and Doctor Roberts have communicated. That being said: Brassfetcher certainly has a lot of knowledge on the mechanical engineering side and how ammunition is constructed. For the terminal performance portion, I still have to go with Doctor Roberts with the superior knowledge of medicine and having actually studied under Dr. Fackler.
FWIW: I had exchanged letters (like actual paper letters ) with Doctor Fackler back in the very early 1990's and he sent me some of his papers. Interesting career...
|
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 1/23/2020 3:50:33 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 03RN:
Lol, sorry about this necro post. It was linked to in GD
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/23/2020 5:08:11 PM EDT
[#39]
The comparisons between peak radial KE and the energy of BBs at varying velocities seems arbitrary as stretch trauma is different from penetrating trauma.
A better method IMO would have been to translate the temporary cavity velocity in gel into temporary cavity velocity in tissue, with further info provided regarding the temp cavity expansion velocity required to damage tissue at varying distances away from the point of origin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2020 11:45:26 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By t3rcermillennium:
I don't believe anything else this nut case has to say.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2020 2:07:52 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Taskmaster86:
http://www.marksmanshipmatters.com/the-357-sig-357-auto-pistol-cartridge/ This article is the best rebuttal as to why the .357 sig is a great cartridge and should be more popular. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2020 3:10:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Bigger_Hammer]
[#42]
I always liked the reliability of the .357 SIG.
The bottleneck design means small point goes into big hole for less jamming - (IMHO)... And that is is flat shooting and packs power (based on velocity) make it an "interesting" cartridge. But for Self Defense (based on gun sales & availability), it seems to be a more of a Fizzle who has lots it's sizzle... ... |
|
|
|
KY, USA
|
Posted: 1/28/2020 7:03:06 AM EDT
[#43]
The bottleneck design means small point goes into big hole for less jamming - (IMHO)... By which, I don't mean that the 357 SIG is unreliable, because my experience is that it is very reliable. However, every 357 SIG I have owned also had a .40 S&W barrel. Which was also very reliable. |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 2/17/2020 11:07:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Active]
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zhukov:
I've talked to brassfetcher. He does some good stuff but he's not a ballistics experts. Doctor Roberts is. "Dr. Gary K. Roberts (DocGKR) is currently on staff at Stanford University Medical Center; this is a large teaching hospital and Level I Trauma center were he performs hospital dentistry and surgery. After completing his residency at Navy Hospital Oakland in 1989 while on active military duty, he studied at the Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory at the Letterman Army Institute of Research and became one of the first members of the International Wound Ballistic Association. Since then, he has been tasked with performing military, law enforcement, and privately funded independent wound ballistic testing and analysis. As a U.S. Navy Reserve officer from 1986 to 2008, he served on the Joint Service Wound Ballistic IPT, as well as being a consultant to the Joint FBI-USMC munitions testing program and the TSWG MURG program. He is frequently asked to provide wound ballistic technical assistance to numerous U.S. and allied SOF units and organizations, such as the Canadian Armed Forces Weapons Effect and Protection SIPES TDP. " No offense but he is not a medical doctor and I don’t think he did a medical residency. He has somehow worked his way into this field and has a lot of knowledge, but there are a lot of officers who have a lot of knowledge on this stuff as well. Not trying rip on the guy and I appreciate his info, but I think the whole “doctor” part of his credibility is a little misleading. Again, never met the guy, and he’s achieved a lot, no bad feelings, I just think there are a lot of people who see a lot of GSWs working in the field and ED. When I read statements like the one posted, I’m always curious where he’s getting the info. Is he putting together into one paper a bunch of other reports? Like a PHD type study? Or does he actually see these wounds? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2020 11:58:06 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Active: Isnt he a dentist? What did he do a residency in? No offense but he is not a medical doctor and I don't think he did a medical residency. He has somehow worked his way into this field and has a lot of knowledge, but there are a lot of officers who have a lot of knowledge on this stuff as well. Not trying rip on the guy and I appreciate his info, but I think the whole "doctor" part of his credibility is a little misleading. Again, never met the guy, and he's achieved a lot, no bad feelings, I just think there are a lot of people who see a lot of GSWs working in the field and ED. When I read statements like the one posted, I'm always curious where he's getting the info. Is he putting together into one paper a bunch of other reports? Like a PHD type study? Or does he actually see these wounds? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2020 11:59:50 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zhukov: 1) Steel penetration isn't the be-all-end-all in bullet performance.
2) If the impact of the temporary stretch cavity for pistol cartridges were that advantageous, we'd see it in the performance of the 357 being much superior. Even more: The .44mag ought to be the penultimate cartridge. But they're not. Science has shown that velocity just isn't that important for pistols and even 1400-1600fps won't change that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2020 12:59:01 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By backbencher: Will 2100+ fps change that? 30 grn bullets from 5.7x28mm, .22 TCM, gared8787's .22 Mamba, 50 grn bullets from 9x19mm, .357 SIG, & 9x25mm Dillon? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2020 1:06:57 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcooper: Iirc, it takes 2600 FPS for good hydrostatic wounding time occur. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2020 12:11:36 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By backbencher: Interesting. I was tracking around 2100 fps. I know M855 had trouble below 2600 but that was b/c it was too stable - it sometimes wouldn't start to pitch until it was almost out of the opponent. Hence M855A1. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2020 12:53:34 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zhukov: 2600fps is a good rule of thumb for M193/M855. If you use a premium expanding bullet then you could go as low as 2100 for decent performance, but the effectiveness does drop off rather quickly. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
